Lindsay Clancy could try to use the fact that jurors nearly found her not guilty of murder for strangling her kids to leverage a settlement — potentially millions of dollars — in her lawsuits against the doctors she claimed failed her, experts told The Post.
The gripping triple murder case against the 36-year-old Duxbury, Massachusetts mom ended with a deadlocked jury Friday but several jurors have since revealed that 11 out of the 12 panelists were prepared to find her not guilty by reason of insanity and didn’t buy the prosecutions’ case.
Clancy could use to bolster negotiations in the civil case, legal observers say.
“It’s like a leverage play when you’re negotiating or mediating,” said Seth Zuckerman, a New York lawyer who handles both criminal and civil cases.
“[It’s] a case to say, look jurors have already heard this evidence and thought that the hospital was wrong and misdiagnosed her. And 11 out of 12 were prepared to find her not guilty because of this defect, which means basically that they didn’t think that the medical providers did the right thing by her.”
Another expert suggested the settlement could reach seven figures.
At trial, Clancy’s criminal attorney, Kevin Reddington, asked jurors to find her not criminally responsible based on the claim she was suffering from severe postpartum psychosis made worse by several psychiatric medications her doctors gave her.
Clancy is suing hospitals, doctors and other providers who treated her in the four months before the murders when she mentally spiraled as she desperately battled insomnia, anxiety, depression and intrusive thoughts about suicide and harming her kids.
Her lawsuit claims her providers failed to properly diagnose her and put her on a revolving door of powerful medications, ultimately leading to her killing Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months, on Jan. 24, 2023 before she tried to take her own life.
Clancy’s then-husband Patrick Clancy also has a lawsuit pending against her providers.
“It’s persuasive if you’re talking to the defense attorney or insurance carrier as to why they should settle this because you already have some anecdotal knowledge from the from a juror as to what they thought of this,” Zuckerman said.
Three jurors revealed in an interview with NBC 10 Boston they felt the prosecution’s case was “harsh” and that they failed to put on any witnesses who said Clancy was a bad mom, leading the jurors to believe she “snapped.”
Another jury member told CBS News Boston the prosecution “didn’t have a figurative smoking gun” and the case had “too much gray area.”
Medical malpractice lawyer, Doug Burnetti, told The Post Clancy’s civil team probably “feels emboldened to some extent.”
Clancy could potentially settle with the medical providers for millions, Burnetti said.
Some other ways the criminal trial could impact the civil case include that Clancy can’t be forced to sit for a deposition by the lawyers representing the hospitals and doctors she is suing until her criminal case has fully concluded.
Until that point, Clancy could plead the Fifth Amendment in the civil case in order to ensure she doesn’t incriminate herself further in the criminal case.
“She still has a Fifth Amendment right to not say anything,” attorney John W. Day told The Post. “And so what happens sometimes is judges say, ‘All right, the lawsuit can proceed, but if you want to take her sworn deposition, that has to wait until there’s no chance of any criminal prosecution.’ That could be a long time.”
Also, testimony from the criminal trial could be used against witnesses that may also testify in the civil case.
Clancy is suing psychiatrist, Dr. Jennifer Tufts, who met with Clancy over a dozen times in the months before the tragedy, claiming she failed to diagnose her with bipolar disorder and the doctor even gave her an SSRI drug, which can worsen symptoms for someone with the disorder.
Tufts testified for two days at the criminal trial which included hours of blistering cross-examination by Reddington.
Tufts would presumably be deposed and testify in any civil case, as the lead defendant and her testimony from the criminal case could be used against her — like to catch out inconsistencies.
Burnetti said Reddington may have been cognizant about the fact that Tufts would likely also be called in the civil case and that could have been another reason for him to leave no stone unturned during her cross-examination.
Burnetti also said the enormous media and public frenzy surrounding the trial could make it difficult to get an unbiased jury in the civil case.
“There is going to be an impact because if you’ve heard of it, you’ve formed some opinion one way or the other,” he said. “Even if you stand up in front of the judge and say, ‘Well, I’ve heard about it, but I have no opinion.’ That’s hard to believe fully because everybody has their built-in biases.”
Burnetti said in general the type of medical malpractice case Clancy has brought is difficult to prove because the doctors only need to prove they provided Clancy with the “standard of care, which is not perfection.”
“If the defendants can prove by a preponderance of evidence that they met the standard of care, even though the outcome was horrible, the jury could find a way to rule in their favor,” Burnetti explained.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.