Manosphere's Favorite Juror Had Active Restraining Order During Clancy Trial

Time to talk about the Lindsey Clancy trial.

Uh, we have talked about some of the law here.

We, we went into it on, uh, Friday's show a couple weeks ago, but I wanna make sure that I refresh it before we get into these articles so that we are all starting from the same page, and that we're working from the same law.

Now, Massachusetts law, as we've talked about, is a little unusual in a few ways.

Uh, we like to stick with a lot of old-fashioned things.

There's a lot of 19th century stuff going on.

But I thought the best way to do it would be just to pull up the video of the court giving jury instructions about mental health and criminal responsibility, because that's what these things come down to.

There are so many people who are just casually saying things that are just so completely wrong, and I don't mean just, like, technically wrong.

I just mean that they don't make any sense under the law In this video here, we have the judge instructing, and this is pretty straightforward, pretty much hewing to the jury instructions as I understand it for criminal responsibility.

So let's hear him explain this part as to...

Because remember, okay, just to set this up, just for those not... who haven't kept up with this, Lindsay Clancy, of course, has acknowledged at the point, at this point in the trial, now she...

The mistrial's already been declared at the time we're recording this, but we are talking about the aftermath.

Uh, Lindsay Clancy physically ended the lives of her children, right? So the question is about criminal responsibility.

There's no question that she is the person who caused their deaths, but the question at that point becomes, is she criminally responsible, or is she not guilty by reason of insanity, which is the Massachusetts phrase for what people call the insanity defense or mental health defense.

And so these are the instructions the jury received, and th- this is a pretty, it's a very s- accurate summary of the law that controls all of this.

So let's start there.

A person is not criminally responsible for her conduct if she has a mental disease or defect, and as a result of that mental disease or defect, she lacks the substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness of her conduct or to conform her conduct to the requirements of the law.

Let's stop for one sec.

The phrase mental-

Sure.

Uh, just wanna make sure that we, uh, completely understand this.

This is from the McCul charge from 1967 and pretty much model penal code.

Uh, so there's an either/or here.

That at the time of such conduct, so it has to be at the time that it happens, that as a result of mental disease or defects, there's... she lacks the substantial capacity either, this is very important, there's an either here, to appreciate the criminality, which is the wrongfulness of conduct, or conform conduct to the requirements of law.

So that...