Matt Walsh criticizes lengthy jury deliberations in Lindsay Clancy trial

Matt Walsh has reacted strongly to the jury taking hours to reach a verdict in the Lindsay Clancy trial, calling the delay a “total travesty.” The jury had spent about 17 hours deliberating by Monday, August 31, without reaching a decision in the Massachusetts case. Clancy is accused of killing her three children, Cora, Dawson and Callan, in January 2023. She has admitted strangling the children but pleaded not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility. Her defense says she was suffering from postpartum psychosis, while prosecutors say she planned the killings.

Matt Walsh reacts to Lindsay Clancy jury deliberations

Walsh, a host at The Daily Wire and a YouTuber, has repeatedly rejected the insanity defense during the trial. On August 31, after reports said the jury had spent nearly 17 hours deliberating, he wrote on X: “Total travesty. It’s the simplest case imaginable. She murdered three children. The end. The verdict shouldn’t even take 17 minutes, let alone 17 hours.” He had made a similar argument days earlier, questioning why the jury had not reached a decision. On August 28, Walsh wrote: “Seems like not a good sign that there’s no verdict yet. This is a very simple case. Did Lindsay Clancy intentionally murder her children? Yes. Did she plan it out ahead of time? Yes. That’s really all you need to know. First degree murder. Should take a jury of sane people about 10 minutes to reach a conclusion. ” Walsh has also focused on the prosecution’s claim that Clancy made choices before the killings that showed planning. He has argued that sending her husband away and then killing the children does not fit his view of an insanity defense. On August 21, he wrote: “Lindsay Clancy had a ‘psychotic break.’ Which is why she planned the murder, researched her plan on Google, sent her husband away from the house, and then methodically executed her children over the course of several minutes. I never knew that you could plan your psychotic break like that.” His comments have been much harsher than the language used by the court. On August 27, he also wrote: “The ‘insanity’ argument for Lindsay Clancy is just this: 1) She had the thought and desire to strangle her children to death. 2) Only an insane person would have those thoughts and desires. Therefore, 3) she was insane. … If the jury is stupid enough to buy this line of logic, it will set a precedent that if applied consistently would exonerate literally every murderer, past or future. … This is a very important verdict. The implications of ‘not guilty’ in this case are dire.

Lindsay Clancy trial: What the jury is deciding

The jury in Plymouth Superior Court includes nine women and three men. It began deliberations on August 27 after more than four weeks of testimony. By Monday, the jurors had spent about 17 hours discussing the case over three days, but no verdict had been reached. They are expected to return Tuesday morning. The central question is whether Clancy was legally responsible for the deaths of her children. Her defense says severe postpartum psychosis, along with the effects of several prescribed medications, left her unable to understand right from wrong. Prosecutors have argued that she knew what she was doing and made deliberate choices before the killings. The jury has also asked to see evidence including prescription pill bottles and the knife connected to Clancy’s suicide attempt. The request came during deliberations and shows that jurors are still examining important evidence from the trial. For now, the jury has not decided whether Clancy should be convicted of first-degree murder, a lesser offense, or found not criminally responsible because of her mental state. The deliberations will continue Tuesday.