Sep 1, 2026 · 1h 43m
Deadlocked jury tests insanity defense in Lindsay Clancy trial
Lindsay Clancy Jury DEADLOCKED, Sandusky Accuser Recants, and Fake NFL Player Fraud, with Mark Eiglarsh and Jonna Spilbor | Ep. 1389
The panel weighs how expert testimony, courtroom tactics, and a possible mistrial could reshape the case while examining other contested legal claims.
- 1The Lindsay Clancy jury’s deadlock exposes competing views of insanity, criminal responsibility, and the limits of expert testimony.
- 2A potential Sandusky evidentiary hearing would have to confront one alleged recantation against testimony from multiple victims.
- 3The panel examines how international custody rules, prolonged hearings, and identity fraud complicate high-profile legal disputes.
Don't miss
The panel sharply divides over whether cross-examining Dr. Tufts exposed weaknesses in the case or needlessly humiliated a witness before the jury.
The brief
The Lindsay Clancy jury’s difficulty reaching a unanimous verdict puts Massachusetts insanity rules and the defense’s courtroom strategy under intense scrutiny.
Jonna Spilbor and Mark Eiglarsh disagree over whether aggressive cross-examination strengthened the defense or alienated jurors, especially during questioning of Dr. Tufts.
The panel considers whether an alleged Jerry Sandusky accuser recantation merits an evidentiary hearing, given changing testimony, possible motives, and other victims’ accounts.
Reports about Harry and Meghan lead to a discussion of custody jurisdiction, while the Bryan Kohberger proceedings raise questions about judicial control of preliminary hearings.
The closing case involves Dejan Love, who allegedly posed as a San Francisco 49ers player while soliciting money from women through a fabricated identity.
What was said on this episode
32 statements · 7 positive · 19 negative · 1 mixed · 5 neutral
Jonna Spilbor predicted a hung jury in the Lindsay Clancy case.
“I predicted a hung jury in this case just because the issues are so weighty.”
Listen at 6:01
Mark Eiglarsh said Clancy would spend decades or her life institutionalized or imprisoned.
“She'll be there for decades, if not the rest of her life.”
Listen at 7:20
Mark Eiglarsh predicted Clancy jurors would remain entrenched in their positions.
“They're going to stay entrenched.”
Listen at 8:45
Mark Eiglarsh judged Kevin Reddington's closing argument as a failure.
“he failed her in closing argument.”
Listen at 9:30
Jonna Spilbor said a mistrial would benefit Clancy's defense by enabling negotiation.
“I think a mistrial is more of a win for the defense because, as they often do, it would open the door for some additional negotiation.”
Listen at 11:27
Mark Eiglarsh doubted prosecutors would negotiate a resolution after a hung jury.
“I don't see it.”
Listen at 12:58
Mark Eiglarsh recommended a more sympathetic prosecution while still seeking conviction.
“I would have been more sympathetic that she does suffer from mental illness. but that legally you must find her guilty”
Listen at 13:17
Mark Eiglarsh said aggressive cross-examination could backfire against Clancy's defense.
“that could absolutely backfire.”
Listen at 14:23
Megyn Kelly predicted a second Clancy trial would increase conviction odds.
“I actually think the odds of an outright conviction will go up if there's a second trial.”
Listen at 17:04
Jonna Spilbor rated the prosecution's closing argument nine out of ten.
“The closing, I think, was a... A nine out of 10 on the prosecution side.”
Listen at 17:43
Mark Eiglarsh said gentler cross-examination can obtain useful testimony more effectively.
“You get more flies with honey.”
Listen at 20:16
Megyn Kelly assessed Clancy as disturbed and depressed but not legally insane.
“I think there's a very, very strong case for ordered thinking, not insane, disturbed, off, and yes, depressed, but not psychotic and not legally insane.”
Listen at 27:02
Jonna Spilbor said the Clancy case would turn on competing psychiatric experts.
“This case was going to come down to a battle of the experts”
Listen at 28:38
Megyn Kelly recommended preventing unsupervised child access after threats of harm until medical clearance.
“any of us would be like, Hell no, I don't care how much I love my spouse. They're talking about having dreams of hurting the children. And that will be the end of the alone time with the children until we've had three medical professionals certify that this person is of zero danger to them.”
Listen at 34:10
Jonna Spilbor said patients must honestly report information to doctors.
“you have a responsibility as the patient to be honest, and she didn't want to be honest.”
Listen at 35:46
Megyn Kelly said some people believe SSRIs may contribute to violent incidents.
“there is a segment of the population that's like, I've kind of had it with ignoring the role that these drugs may have played.”
Listen at 41:23
Jonna Spilbor said prescription drugs probably contributed to Clancy's conduct.
“probably played into this”
Listen at 41:52
Jonna Spilbor said child-custody jurisdiction generally follows the children's location.
“jurisdiction follows the kids”
Listen at 48:23
Jonna Spilbor said custody jurisdiction generally requires six months in a location.
“it generally has to be for a period of six months”
Listen at 48:30
Jonna Spilbor predicted UK jurisdiction for a Harry-Meghan custody dispute.
“the jurisdiction is going to be in the UK”
Listen at 49:04
Megyn Kelly recommended Meghan Markle remain in California with the children.
“If they're separating, Meghan Markle needs to stay here with the children.”
Listen at 50:03
Mark Eiglarsh predicted one Sandusky recantation would not undermine the conviction.
“I don't think it's going to disturb the underlying case, the underlying conviction.”
Listen at 1:03:14
Jonna Spilbor predicted the Sandusky hearing would not alter the case outcome.
“the outcome isn't going to change anything.”
Listen at 1:07:38
Mark Eiglarsh opposed involving Sandusky's other victims without corroborating evidence.
“it would be grossly unfair to open up the evidentiary hearing to the other nine victims unless and until”
Listen at 1:16:08
Mark Eiglarsh predicted alleged prosecutorial errors would not change Sandusky's conviction.
“I think the appellate court would say that wouldn't have changed the outcome of this case.”
Listen at 1:19:50
Jonna Spilbor assessed the evidence against Tyler Robinson as overwhelming.
“if there's ever been a case where a defendant is dead to effing rights, it's Tyler Robinson.”
Listen at 1:29:36
Mark Eiglarsh predicted Kohlberger's evidentiary challenge would fail.
“this is going to go nowhere.”
Listen at 1:34:06
Mark Eiglarsh predicted Dejan Love would face a few years in prison.
“He's probably facing a couple of years.”
Listen at 1:40:35
Mark Eiglarsh predicted Dejan Love would plead guilty in federal court.
“He'll wind up pleading out.”
Listen at 1:40:38
Mark Eiglarsh predicted Dejan Love would serve time in a federal prison camp.
“He'll wind up in a camp.”
Listen at 1:40:44
Mark Eiglarsh predicted Love would receive early release, halfway-house placement, and probation.
“He'll be released early, most likely, and go to a halfway house, and then he'll be on probation.”
Listen at 1:40:53
Megyn Kelly warned that wealthy men requesting payments are scammers.
“everybody out there, some rich man who swoops into your life and asks you to start paying for things is a scammer.”
Listen at 1:42:12
Statements are attributed to the speaker as said on the episode and reflect their view at the time, not PodLume's. They are not advice.