Lindsay Clancy Jury Deadlocked & California Slayer Law

0:00Some people treat ChatGPT like some kind of smart search engine, and some use it to get work done. ChatGPT Work is a new way of working in ChatGPT that can take action across your apps and files, stay with a project for hours if needed, and turn a goal into finished work. It's designed to help you move from a chaotic starting point to a reviewable first version. So all the source materials, briefs, and scattered information that you have to grind through to turn into something useful can just become something useful. Put ChatGPT to work on your most ambitious ideas and projects. Get started at ChatGPT.com by selecting Work Mode, available on Plus and Pro plans.

0:42Never bet against American grit or American energy. Through innovation, Venture Global is not only building some of the largest energy facilities in the world right here in the United States, but delivering American energy at a fraction of the cost and a fraction of the time. So while others are busy talking, we're busy building. That's Venture Global. That's unstoppable energy.

1:12As industries evolve faster than ever, companies need an environment that accelerates strategic growth, and Michigan delivers on that promise. From emerging startups to global enterprises, Michigan offers what executives value most, a resilient, innovative ecosystem, diverse communities that attract top talent, and a quality of life that supports work-life balance. With our unified Team Michigan approach, businesses scale faster and compete at the highest level. Michigan, pure opportunity. Seize your opportunity at michiganbusiness.org. This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.

1:51More drama in the Lindsay Clancy trial. After about 36 hours of deliberations over six days, the jury has been unable to reach a unanimous verdict as to whether Clancy is legally responsible for strangling her three children. The jury, which has sent out two notes since Tuesday saying they're deadlocked, sent out a note this afternoon saying one juror was refusing to listen to the law on reasonable doubt. Following a heated discussion with the prosecutor and defense attorney at the bench and questioning of each juror individually, Judge William Sullivan re-read the jury instruction on the definition of reasonable doubt and sent the jury back to deliberate.

2:36But the defense attorney asked the judge to remove that holdout juror. And if we come back here in a half an hour with a mistrial because of a juror that has just spurned the instructions of this court, it's a shame. It's a real shame. And that's why I object to the court's ruling. I request that we have further inquiry. I request that my motion is to remove this juror that refuses to listen to your instruction on reasonable doubt. The judge refused, saying the discharge of a deliberating juror is a sensitive undertaking. I don't feel that it is proper for me to side with one side or the other of the deliberations.

3:18I don't feel it's appropriate for me to say I agree with one juror or 11. The judge sent the deadlocked jury home at about 4 p.m. and told them to return tomorrow morning at 9. Joining me is former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz, a partner at McCarter & English. Bob, you had this unusual scene where the judge had both attorneys and Lindsey Clancy at the bench and called each juror up individually, swore them in, asked a question, and then allowed them to return to the jury. Why do you think he's calling them each to the bench and questioning them individually? Do you think he's trying to find out if they all agree with what was said in the note?

4:04Well, it is unusual for the judge to be questioning jurors individually. Typically, that will happen in a circumstance where there's some allegation that jurors may be, or at least one juror may be using information in trying to reach a verdict that was not presented during the trial. In other words, you have a situation where a juror may have access to outside information by reading newspapers or looking at their cell phone and in some way infecting the jury deliberations with evidence that was not presented at trial. Here, that's not what's going on. It's really a question, and I think the defense lawyer has been smart to try to really focus the issue on whether we have a juror who not simply disagrees with the other jurors based on the evidence, but is absolutely refusing to follow the judge's instructions.

4:59And if that's the case, then the defense lawyer is arguing that that's a basis to remove that juror. And I think he would like the judge to focus on that issue more closely and more carefully, and at least put that issue more squarely on the record. So, Bob, obviously the defense lawyer thinks that the holdout is a prosecution juror, a juror who wants to find her guilty. I mean, how can he take a chance like that? How does he know that that's the holdout? Well, you don't really know. That's the question. You don't know if somebody's focusing on reasonable doubt. It's because there's one juror who is refusing to acknowledge that there is reasonable doubt or that there's one juror who is refusing to accept that there is no reasonable doubt here.

5:48So it is a bit of a crapshoot. If you're on the defense side, typically you like the idea of jurors focusing on the issue of reasonable doubt. That's something defense lawyers raise all the time because, as you know, it's the prosecution's burden to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. And the defense doesn't ultimately have to convince jurors that their client is innocent. They simply have to show that the prosecution failed to meet that burden of proof in establishing that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So if that conversation seems to be focusing on the issue of reasonable doubt, most people would assume that it is a jury that is leaning towards an acquittal.

6:33But it also could be that they're fighting over one of the many different options that these jurors have in order to render a verdict here. So we just don't really know. Clearly, the defense lawyer believes that it is a leaning defense verdict. And what he's trying to do is get an acquittal for his client, either not guilty or not guilty by reason of insanity, rather than a hung jury, which, of course, would give the prosecution the opportunity to simply try the case all over again. If the 11 jurors are saying this one juror is not following the law on reasonable doubt, I mean, reasonable doubt is a fluid and difficult concept.

7:13It could be that that one juror just doesn't agree with their view of what reasonable doubt is. How do you knock a juror off in that circumstance? Well, you can't knock a juror off simply because they don't agree with the other jurors and have come to a different conclusion based upon the evidence. What the defense lawyer is trying to argue is that the juror who is the apparent holdout is simply refusing to follow the law as it's been explained by the judge. Now, we don't know whether that's the case or not, but I suspect that what the judge was doing by questioning the individual jurors was trying to make that determination.

7:54And if the holdout is simply a juror who has a strong conviction and is unwilling to be moved by the views of the other jurors, that's not something that will result in that juror being removed from the jury. It would simply end up as a hung jury if they ultimately couldn't be unanimous. The question here is, is this juror refusing to follow the legal instructions of the judge or simply has a difference of opinion and is unmoved by the opinion of his fellow jurors? So what's the standard to be used for removing a juror during deliberations? Yeah, it's really up to the discretion of the judge in large part.

8:40But obviously, at this very late stage of the trial, a judge is going to be very reluctant to do that. It sometimes happens earlier on in a case for various reasons. Sometimes a juror becomes ill and can no longer continue to serve. But in this case, at this stage where there are many days into jury deliberations in a trial that lasted over a month, where there were over 300 exhibits presented, multiple witnesses, a case like this to remove a juror at the very end is going to be a tough standard for the judge to meet. And again, it would have to be a circumstance where a juror was more or less telling the judge that they were refusing to follow the instructions of the court.

9:23And in that instance, it's possible the judge would remove them on that basis. And that's what the defense is arguing. But so far, the judge is not buying it and has not taken any steps to remove this juror. And if they did remove a juror and put a new juror in, the jury would have to start deliberating from the beginning again, right? Right. That's exactly right. It would delay the verdict because all of the deliberations that have occurred to date would have to start all over again with the new juror being placed in the jury room and being privy to all of the deliberations. You can't simply substitute a juror in at the end and say that we've already concluded various results and that juror has to simply accept them.

10:08So it would delay things, but I think the defense is banking on the possibility that a new juror would go along with what is apparently the majority view of the jurors if they can get this one holdout replaced. So this trial has divided people. I mean, people have strong opinions on both sides. Why do you think that's the case when you have a woman who admittedly killed her three children? Well, it is a case that has really transfixed the nation. The idea of a mother killing her three young children is both appalling and grimly fascinating to people. The question of what would ever drive someone to harm their own children is something that most people really have never had to grapple with and have a difficult time, I think, assimilating as to exactly what would drive somebody to commit that kind of act.

11:04And what we see in this case are two very different narratives, both compelling in their own right, where you've got the evidence of a woman, according to prosecution, committing this premeditated act where she had told her husband to go out to dinner, to go out to the CBS to pick something up. And according to evidence produced by prosecutors during the trial, she had looked at how long it would take for him to come back. She had been with her children during the day, taking them to doctor's appointments. And basically the prosecution has said that although she may have a mental illness, she certainly knew what was going on and that this was an act of premeditation.

11:46And she knew the wrongfulness of her conduct when she committed this crime. The defense, on the other hand, painting a very different picture. And really, I think, trying to put the medical system on trial in a certain sense by saying that their client visited a psychiatrist 14 times, tried 13 different medications. She called a suicide hotline. She went to the emergency room. She tried to enroll in an inpatient program. She confided in her husband that she had these thoughts of harming their children. And basically, they are trying to suggest that she did everything she could to try to prevent this from happening.

12:24But ultimately, this illness, this rare condition called postpartum psychosis, caused her to have these hallucinations where she allegedly heard this male voice telling her to kill her children. And jurors are really faced with a very daunting task here. It's very difficult to try to sift through these two competing narratives of what's happened here, to try to listen to the testimony, the medical testimony, the pharmaceutical testimony and the data, the heartbreaking reality of what actually happened here. a mother killing her own three young children, and figure out as to whether or not this was a premeditated act and that justice is served by sending this woman to prison for the rest of her life, or whether she really is suffering from a severe mental illness and she really committed a crime without knowing right from wrong, and that the right result is to send her to a psychiatric Institute rather than a prison.

13:24In Massachusetts, it's up to the prosecution, not the defense, to prove that the defendant, quote, retained substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness or criminality of their conduct and to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law. Is that a strict or lenient standard compared to other states? Massachusetts actually has one of the less restrictive definitions of insanity. The defense here is claiming postpartum psychosis, which in every state is treated like any other insanity defense. And in most cases, defendants must prove that they did not understand what they were doing or they did not know what they were doing was wrong.

14:11That's the most stringent standard. Other states have slightly less stringent standards. For example, certain states allow that defendants may have known what they were doing was wrong, but couldn't resist the impulse to do it. Another standard allows juries to consider, but for the defendant's mental defect, the crime would not have occurred. And the fourth and probably most lenient one is that the defendant must have been either unable to understand their action or unable to stay within the confines of the law. The interesting thing about the law in Massachusetts is that it never shifts the burden onto the defense.

14:45All the other standards in most states shift the burden onto the defense to prove they didn't know what they were doing or that they did not know what they were doing was wrong. But in Massachusetts, the burden remains with the prosecution at all times, which makes it more difficult for prosecutors to overcome this defense. And in Massachusetts, it requires prosecutors, not the defense, to prove that a mentally ill defendant retained the substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness or criminality of their conduct and to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law. So in this case, once that defense is raised by the defense, the burden shifts back to the prosecution to overcome that defense.

15:29And in this case, the prosecution has tried to do it, again, by proving that the conduct was premeditated and that Ms. Clancy knew what she was doing. She may have been mentally ill. That's conceded by prosecutors. But the question is not whether she was mentally ill. The standard here is whether or not she knew the wrongfulness and the criminality of her conduct and was unable to conform her conduct to the requirements of the law. Prosecutors here are saying that she did. And no matter what, I mean, even if they find her not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility, that doesn't mean she goes free.

16:08Under Massachusetts state law, when a person is found not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility, a court can commit them to a facility after holding a hearing and determining if they are mentally ill and if their release would create a likelihood of serious harm to themselves or to others. Now, what often happens in that circumstance is that they are committed to a state psychiatric hospital. The initial commitment lasts for six months and it's later renewed on a yearly basis. But there's no maximum number of recommitments. So there have been circumstances where an individual actually spends more time in a state psychiatric hospital by getting a result of not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility than they would have if they were actually found criminally responsible for the conduct.

16:57Bob, let's say a mistrial is declared and the prosecution finds out that it was 11 to 1 in favor of finding her not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility. Do you think the prosecutor then tries to make a deal with the defense or because of the high profile nature of this case, tries her again? Well, anytime there's a hung jury, there are usually discussions between the prosecution and the defense about a possible plea deal. Because if you try the case again, it could wind up in a hung jury again, or of course the prosecution could lose or the defense could lose. So it's always a crapshoot when you try the case a second time.

17:45And you have to also remember that the defense has a little bit of an advantage on a second trial because they've now had a chance to cross-examine all the prosecution's witnesses. And they know pretty much what prosecutors are going to present unless they change their theory of prosecution, which they really can't do in this case. And so there is an opportunity for the defense when they retry the case, if that would happen, to know what's kind of coming down the road. So there would be some discussions if prosecutors really believe that getting a guilty verdict is going to be difficult. But it really depends on what we learn if there is a hung jury and if those jurors speak publicly and we find out what's going on in the jury room, just how those jurors broke down.

18:28And if there was really one lone holdout for a conviction and everybody else was voted in favor of not guilty by reason of insanity, then I think the defense is going to view itself as having a pretty strong hand here and is going to try to push a pretty hard deal with prosecutors. But I think at the end of the day, the goal of the defense here is to have their client end up in a psychiatric hospital where they believe she will get the kind of mental health assistance that she really needs here. And the goal is to keep her from going to prison with the belief that she didn't commit a crime here because she really didn't know what she was doing when she killed her children.

19:11We'll see what happens tomorrow and perhaps they will come to a decision. Thanks so much, Bob. That's Robert Mintz of McCarter & English.

19:46From pricey sleep trackers, AI-powered scent therapy machines, to$3 ,000 body temperature-regulating Manosphere-endorsed mattress covers and couples outfitting totally separate bedrooms. As Bloomberg's Dina Shanker reports, it all adds up to a sleep support industry that's a$300 million business, with growth coming from functional beverages and sleep powders, even as some experts warn that these products may not be effective and can even be harmful. Despite the spend, 6 out of 10 American adults still don't get the 7 to 9 hours of sleep the credible science says we need. As for experts, they recommend making lifestyle changes, such as getting sunlight and limiting screen time to improve sleep.

20:28That's the Bloomberg Tech Minute brought to you by ChatGPT. Put ChatGPT to work on your most ambitious ideas and projects. Get started at ChatGPT.com today by selecting Work Mode, available on Plus and Pro Plans.

20:46Suzanne Monyak:With LPL Financial, we provide the services to help push you forward. When it comes to your finances, your business, your future, the only question should be, what if you could? Pit advertisement, Anna Kendrick, is not a client of LPL Financial LLC and receives compensation to promote LPL. Investing involves risk, including potential loss of principal LPL Financial LLC member FINRA, SIPC. You already know how AI is changing how everyday work gets done, how much ground you can cover, and how fast a team can scale. To stay ahead, you need the tools that give you a competitive advantage built for this new era.

21:13Welcome to Agentic Revenue. Adio is the CRM for this world. It meets you where you work, compounds every customer signal into context, then acts on it across your pipeline to let you move in on match speed and scale. With agents and automations for every job in revenue, Adio orchestrates your work around the clock. Built to handle the scale of your workloads, extensible with API and MCP, and with the infrastructure to keep up with your most ambitious agents. Loved by high-growth startups like Granola, Modal, and Etched, Adio runs the work behind every win. That's Adio, the agentic CRM, the intelligent system that never sleeps.

21:49Picks up leads at 2 a.m., catches renewals before they slip. Hands you the answer before you ask. Try Adio free at adio.com slash iHeart. That's adio.com slash iHeart.

22:05Nick Reiner has pleaded not guilty to murdering his parents. Hollywood director Rob Reiner and Michelle Singer Reiner. And he's trying to get access to the$1.6 million trust fund his parents set up for him so he can hire a private lawyer. However, a professional fiduciary with oversight of the fund has opposed his request, citing a California law known as the Slayer Statute. Joining me is trusts and estates litigator Robert Harper, a partner at Farrell Fritz. So Rob, tell us what's been happening with the Nick Reiner case. So Nick Reiner has obviously been accused of taking his parents' lives, his father being the Hollywood director, Rob Reiner, his mother, Michelle Reiner.

22:52And in the wake of their passing, he has sought to gain access to trust funds that his parents created for his benefit, arguing that he should be allowed to access those funds in order to pay for his criminal defense counsel to defend him in prosecutions concerning his parents' deaths. The trustee of the trust has denied NIC access to those funds on account of the fact that California has a slayer statute. Now, I'm a New York lawyer, of course, and we don't have a slayer statute here in New York, but we do have a slayer rule. And that Slayer Rule is a similar concept that dates back here in New York to at least 1889, when our highest court here in New York State, the Court of Appeals, rendered a decision called Riggs v.

23:42Palmer. And in that case, the Court of Appeals recognized that if you engage in wrongdoing, such as taking someone else's life, the courts here in New York will not permit you to benefit from that wrongdoing. The Slayer rule here in New York, which is similar to the California Slayer statute, if it were to apply to Nick Reiner's case, I think would justify the trustee's position not to distribute trust funds or assets to Nick, whether for the purpose of defending himself in a criminal prosecution or for any other purpose. The idea being that if he took his parents' lives, he should not benefit from monies that they set aside for his benefit in trust that they created.

24:27The California Slayer statute prevents a person who feloniously and intentionally kills a decedent from inheriting any property, interest or benefit under a will of the decedent or trust. Created by or for the benefit of the decedent. But in this case, he hasn't been convicted yet. So innocent until proven guilty. So why can't he get the funds now? Well, that's that's the question or the argument that Nick's lawyers have made, that he hasn't been convicted and thus he should have access to the funds. The problem is that the presumption of innocence that oftentimes applies in the criminal context is not necessarily equally applicable in the civil context when we're dealing with the state and trust issues.

25:11And so to the extent that the trustee were to distribute monies from the trust for Nick's benefit, such as paying his criminal defense counsel, even before he's convicted, if he's convicted, the fact of the matter is that it's likely that those funds would never be seen again. And the trustee has taken a protective position that even in the absence of a conviction, the funds should not be distributed to Nick until his criminal proceedings are resolved. So that if after those criminal proceedings are resolved and if he's convicted, the funds will still be available for his siblings, the people that would take in the event that the California Slayer statute were to apply.

25:52There's another wrinkle here in that he's 32. he could have been paid part of the trust when he was 30, and that amounts to about$558 ,000, according to the trustee. So that would have been due to him when he was 30. So before this incident, before he was accused. So might that part of the trust be awarded to him? I would submit not, right? Somebody is found to engage in conduct that triggers in California, the Slayer statute, or here in New York, for example, the Slayer rule, whether or not their interests vested before their wrongdoing, the public policy that underlies it, that prevents somebody from profiting from their wrongdoing, from benefiting from their wrongdoing, would apply either way.

26:42And so the timing question, while it's a good question of if he was entitled to the funds before he took, even a portion of the funds, before he took his parents' lives, if he did that. You know, it strikes me that from a public policy perspective, the Slayer rule, the Slayer statute being based on this notion that one cannot benefit from their wrongdoing would prevent Nick from receiving any of the funds, regardless of whether he was entitled to apportion at age 30 or some other age. Who's going to decide this? Is it a probate judge? Yes, it is. And my understanding is that there was a hearing on this issue that has occurred, but that the court has not yet rendered a decision on it.

27:23I believe the Menendez brothers were blocked from receiving any part of their parents' multimillion dollar estate because of the California slayer rule. Do you know of any cases in New York where it was applied? Of course. Of course. There's a really fascinating case, a sad case. And all of these slave rule cases are sad cases, but especially sad one matter of Demetrieu, which was a surrogates court, Nassau County case that dates back approximately 10 years. In that case, a mother, she took her children's lives, and after being found not responsible from a criminal perspective, not responsible for a crime due to mental disease or mental defect, she then sought an interest in the wrongful death compromise proceeds that arose from her children's deaths.