TWO CLANCY BOMBSHELLS IN ONE DAY — AND ONE OF THEM JUST CHANGED THE LEGAL LANDSCAPE

TWO CLANCY BOMBSHELLS IN ONE DAY — AND ONE OF THEM JUST CHANGED THE LEGAL LANDSCAPE.

The Lindsay Clancy case just got VERY interesting heading into September 29.

BOMBSHELL #1: THE HOLDOUT JUROR’S BROTHER IS SPEAKING.

The brother of the lone holdout juror says he does not believe religion influenced his brother’s decision. His explanation? His brother “looked at the case, and he made the call.” He also says the family had NO IDEA his brother was even sitting on the Clancy jury until after the mistrial.

That comes after other jurors publicly described a very different picture of deliberations — including allegations that the holdout acknowledged reasonable doubt but still would not join the other 11 jurors. The juror himself still has not publicly explained his reasoning.

BOMBSHELL #2: LOOK WHO JUST ENTERED THE CASE. 👀

Attorney Martin Weinberg has now joined Lindsay Clancy’s defense team for the fight over whether she can constitutionally be tried again.

Yes. THAT Martin Weinberg.

Weinberg represented Karen Read in the double-jeopardy litigation following her first mistrial — the fight over whether the jury had actually reached final decisions on certain charges before the mistrial was declared.

Now he is entering Clancy.

That is not a random addition to the defense table.

Clancy’s defense is preparing to argue that double-jeopardy principles should prevent another prosecution after what happened inside that jury room and before Judge Sullivan declared the mistrial. The reported 11-1 division, the jury notes, the statements from jurors after the mistrial, what the court knew before discharging the jury, and whether any verdict had effectively been reached are now potentially critical pieces of that fight.

A hung jury ordinarily permits the Commonwealth to retry a defendant. But that is the beginning of the double-jeopardy analysis here — not necessarily the end of it. The defense isn’t treating September 29 like another motion hearing. They are building a constitutional fight over whether there should ever be a second trial at all.

Reddington preserved the record. Now Weinberg is walking into it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *