Lindsay Clancy Case: Insanity Defense, Jury Nullification & Politics

Charles: when it comes to not guilty or reasons of insanity,

Jack Moore: Mm-hmm.

Charles: does premeditation automatically throw that out?

Jack Moore: No. I don't think it would, no.

Charles: So if you plan to go and kill people, how can you say, well, I was insane at the time.

Jack Moore: Welcome to Moore to consider, Jack and Charles. Charles, how are you?

Charles: I'm done, right? How about you?

Jack Moore: Well, I'm I'm pondering a lot of things and in the news, over the weekend I went to a wedding and I spoke to a young lady who's very well educated, blah, blah, blah, whole nine yards. And I mean I mean very well educated, comes from a family well well educated people. And sure enough, we get into the Clancy thing. You and I haven't just done a show on that, and I got some things to say about that first show we did. And kinda out of the clear blue, she's like, Well, you know she didn't do it and I'm like, Really? I was kind of like, you're one of those two. And she said, it was

Charles: Mm-hmm.

Jack Moore: clearly the husband. And it's just kind of going. Now I looked up some polling. We'll get into it. I've looked up some polling. I made the assertion in the last show. There's several assertions. I'm going to walk back a little bit or we're going to discuss, but I thought it was somewhat political, the views that people are taking. I've seen some polling support that. I've seen some say it's very neutral. Like Democrats are split. I do think, though, the demographic of male-female is pretty much those that are supportive of Lindsay Clancy are female. There's some males, no question. But the right-left paradigm, now the young lady I talked to, I wouldn't consider her right wing. She came from a pretty conservative household, whatever. But I'm saying more and more when I'm running into women, they do believe that either the husband did it or she didn't do it. So you know about this in the news. I'm just gonna read this really quickly. This was out today. Yeah, actually today, two o'clock, Eastern Standard Time. Lindsay Lindsay Clancy's lawyer now questions whether she killed the three children. Lindsey Clancy's lawyer argued Tuesday that there wasn't enough evidence to prove she killed her three children, a striking turn after a lengthy trial that focused more on her mental state than on whether she actually took the lie. This entire case is based on speculation. Kevin Reddington said during the first hearing since Clancy Clancy's trial ended September 4 with the hung jury, they were split 11 to 1 in favor of not guilty because of her lack of mental capacity. They're calling it that does not bear criminal responsibility. So they're not actually using the term insanity, which Got to be on my fault. And that last show, I thought we would discuss like what do all these terms mean. And this is what you and I discussed off the air going into this. I'm finding more and more that I'm taking an approach of I see things as let's discuss kind of the mechanics of something, and then we can go through the mechanics. People seem to be, you know, generally that I talk to are throwing the mechanics out, and they're more into. No damn it, she should burn in hell, or it's or she should be freed because she's a woman and the patriarchy is bringing her down. And

Charles: Mm-hmm.

Jack Moore: what I'm asking, and I I'll tell you, I had a f I had a conversation with a friend yesterday. Well, let me go ahead get to this. I'll get right to kind of based upon what. I promised myself I wasn't gonna look at comments, but I think these comments are very instructive, actually. But I, you know, I th

Charles: Okay.

Jack Moore: but but I'm looking at them and then I'm thinking, all right. First of all, folks that watch this show, he and I, Charles and I, were looking to do this six years ago. We started about the time of COVID. COVID hit and we kind of backed off. Then as the years pass, we talked about it, talked about it. I started a show. I'm doing this show. I've been bringing him in because that was always kind of our plan to partner on a show. We just named it more to consider, and I've been going from there. So the person says, the guest is so this is what the person said. I'm not gonna say who the person is, but in YouTube. In comments, the guest is so patient and articulate whenever he speaks and gives his points. Unfortunately, this comes across as a very one-sided discussion because the host, me, never seems to stop talking. Now, the next comment we got was classic definition of insanity is that Satan is in control of the person that has been sanitized out of the word. Frankly, that woman planned the murder. Murdering kids is a violation of the sacred power God shares with us, that being procreation. That's also why infidelity is so evil. It's also spitting in God's face. Another point these guys are missing, and I'm taking it on this one because I did say, and this statistically is true, across the country, many people, across the country, many people who are found not guilty by reason of insanity or ever however the state defines it. Will spend more time in some mental institution than they would have had they been incarcerated. But he's making this point. In Massachusetts, a murderer who is found to be insane goes through an assessment every year or so or two. And then any time after an assessment, the murderer is found competent, they are freed. Clancy's in Massachusetts, so if she's not in prison, she'll go free soon or too soon. That that may very well be true.

Charles: Wow.

Jack Moore: Yeah, and it it may very well be true. Now, another classic case, and we brought it up historically. John Hinckley is free today. And I mean, he actually his parents, I think towards I don't even know if the parents were around anymore, but Williamsburg was home, Williamsburg, Virginia. And he eventually reached a point. He's come out with a book. I saw him in an interview. I mean, you know, he he seemed to be sincere. He said, I had my mental issues, I served time in a mental institution. And he eventually was discharged. He was also in some level considered no longer a danger to society. So he's free. Now that was 1981. So you're talking 45 years ago, the shooting. And I think he was well into his late 20s, if not pushing 30. So I'm guessing he's 70-ish, late six. I even I don't I have to look up the the age, but he's not 27 anymore. But Hinckley, Hinckley is an example

Charles: All right.

Jack Moore: of someone found not guilty by reason of insanity. Now, I did bring up the Yates case from 2001 in Texas. To my knowledge, she is still institutionalized. Okay. So this this these two people are making valid points. But in making this discussion, we're going to go into today, and we're going to get into this attorney, but I do think I'm kind of fallen prey in doing this. like you know, I do a lot of Kennedy assassination, the Washington Redskins history. You know something about something, you can talk about it. When you're talking about current events, I do think that, and you and I have this, not so much, and and guys, it or everybody listen, I love this guy. He's my best friend. I I think we feel the same about each other. We're best friends.

Charles: Yes.

Jack Moore: And we fight, we get on the air and fight about things. Politically, I don't think there's a razor's hair between the two of us. We're both very libertarian,

Charles: Yeah.

Jack Moore: free market, all that. You know, that's kind of who we are. That's how we became friends, is basically agreeing on a lot. But he makes the point, and I think it's a valid point, and this is what I want to talk about. the the guy saying I won't shut up and charge, and I'm doing it right now, but and and Charles was right, he is articulate and bright, and I I get it. But I think where we differ is I'm saying one thing and hearing myself say something. And I think that I don't hear what the other person's actually saying in that sense because I wanted to open the show last time about the question of what are we even talking about? I don't want to seem like I'm given legal lessons all the time. I am an attorney. I was legally trained. But sometimes Charles' response is: well, it's not about the law. It's about how people feel about these particular situations or what their intake or their insight is. I get it. But the point I was trying to make is I don't know that a lot of people, and this was a whole setup of the last show. I don't know that a lot of people were aware that, unlike a con the Commonwealth of Virginia where we are, you don't go in there with an assumption or a presumption that you're sane. You go into Massachusetts and like any, and this is what I was trying to explain, like any other element of the crime, you have to prove well, you you do have to prove men's rail in in any case. So that is just two Latin terms. Actus reus and mens rea. So what do those mean? Actus reus is an act that you do, and it has to be criminal in nature for it to be a crime. And then it has to be coupled with a criminal mind. You can have actus reus and no mens rea. You could have really bad men's rea. You have a criminal mind and not follow through on an act. And so if the two don't coincide, you don't have a crime. So the point that I was making about Massachusetts, what they've done. With what they're not really calling criminal insanity. They're talking about whether someone is criminally responsible. One of the prongs or elements of the crime the state has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, is that the person so acted with mens rea, with a criminal mind. That's any charge. Any charge you have to prove that the person had the requisite criminal intent to do what they did. And that's fair.

Charles: you

Jack Moore: And this is another thing I tried to express in the first show. I don't have a dog in the fight. If she had been found

Charles: Bye.

Jack Moore: not guilty, not guilty by a reason of insanity, manslaughter reduced, or had gotten the chair, it I wasn't emotionally involved in it. But what I'm asking is so back to this friend, and I'm I I promise I'm gonna go to Charles here. But like I was talking to this friend, and they're Well, you have to understand how other people see it. I'm getting hold of I'm like, okay. And then I said, Well, let me ask you something. Do you think there's ever a set of circumstances where someone Does something, and I'm not talking about Lindsay Clancy. I'm not. I'm not talking about her or whatever anybody thinks happened. I ask, do you think it's possible that someone could do something? Horrendous crime, horrific crime, and that person have absolutely no idea what they were doing. The examples I've given before, the nature of, they think they're cutting bread and they're cutting someone's throat, or the quality of

Charles: Mm-hmm.

Jack Moore: the act. They think they're gonna chop off someone's head because they think it's funny to watch that person search for their head. Something like that. Like they literally don't know what they're doing. Okay. Do you think it's possible? She goes, absolutely. And I said, then what do we do with those people? She goes, Well, not in this case because it's murder. And then my point to her was, then there is no standard. If you're saying that there's a lane of criminal acts that are not excusable. But well, I guess to some degree it is. You're you are releasing the person without criminal penalty because of their lack of mensrea. But only as to but to murder, it doesn't apply. So what if you hit somebody in the head with a hammer? You meant to kill them, but you didn't. Or, you know, they acted in a way that could have killed. Well, I don't like that one either. So then it became a pick and choose about whether or not the person did some or whether the person did something that seemed too big ticket item. It's too big ticket, I don't like it. Don't apply. And then the last thing, and I'm gonna talk to Charles here. I would agree with this. I heard a commentator that I really respect a lawyer, and he's right. All this is batshit craziness because this is not an exact science. You can go to any trial and you can watch a battle of two doctor experts, and they're going back and forth, and one says the person's perfectly sane and knew everything they were doing, knew the difference between right and wrong, and the

Charles: Alright.

Jack Moore: other one says they didn't. and one other thing I do wanna clarify. Promised him coming to you, Charles. One other thing. One other thing I did say on the show, and I went back and looked. And the only reason I kind of backed up, when you're in law school, you learn from the federal rules of criminal procedure. Okay. That's what you learn. And one of the things that I talked about is you cannot show that a person has a particular character based upon past incidents, crimes, et cetera, and therefore acted within conformity. So if you say the person's been convicted of larceny 16 times, they're a thief. You can't go and say, hey, here's a history of now, if they even take the stand in the Commonwealth of Virginia, I can say, have you ever been convicted of a felony? Have you ever been convicted of a crime of moral turpitude? But I can't, if I'm the prosecutor, I can't go into the nature of those. I can only ask the number. And that is to protect the person from being labeled. Now, the one exception

Charles: Mm-hmm.

Jack Moore: that I remember was like the modus apparenti. If you rob three banks with a clown suit, like literally, you came in as Bozo the clown and robbed three banks. And then there was this bank robbery about bank robbery, and the guy was in a bozo the clown suit, that is fair. You could say this guy seems to use a bozo the suit clown and or clown suit, and now in this case it's that. If that's true, then one could argue that in court to seem to be. This guy has an MO. He has a modus apparandi for using the clown suit. But I brought that up because the one of the women on the jury made the comment. Well, they never brought anybody in to say that that Lindsay Clancy was a bad mother. All the evidence was these experts talking about her mental capacity, but nothing. Well, and I said they couldn't do it unless there's some state laws that relax that. I don't know of any state. That would allow you to establish character and or bad character and conformity of it to prove a crime. So they were barred from doing that anyway, which I don't know that they understood that. I don't understand with me saying that they'd understand it now. But they looked at the prosecution as being less than competent because it didn't prove that she was a bad mother. They couldn't do it. Even if they had evidence to do it, they couldn't do it. Based upon all that, Charles, what do you say?

Charles: think either way you look at this, there's going to be people that say that she's innocent. There's going to be people to say that she's guilty. And then there's going to be people to say, well, from the law's perspective, X, whatever their opinion is. This is very emotional. And I don't generally say this too often, but this has gotten people in their feelings,

Jack Moore: Mm-hmm.

Charles: but also the people who think that she didn't do it. I'm kind of, it's kind of weird to even hear people say that for the fact that Lindsay has never, never did not doing it. She said she did it. An attorney earlier during the trial said she did it. So how could someone say, I don't, I don't think she did it. I think the husband did it. I'm, what are they looking at? Where are they getting their information from?

Jack Moore: I think I I I think I got an idea. I think this is all because it's in the news. And as a and let me give you another example. And I heard a lawyer commentator make this point. I think it's true. You remember when Reddington came out and said, I think President Trump should pardon her?

Charles: Yeah, don't know what this.

Jack Moore: Did you all right? Well, a lot of people in the I'm saying he has to know that it's not a federal crime and he clearly and someone else said wink and nod. They were kinda like, Now I know what he's doing here. Trump might take debate and Trump may come out. And you know it's something famous. In the Manson trial, Nixon came out. Nixon, Richard Nixon, as president came out and said, Well, I think this guy did it and all this. And the defense used it. They held up a newspaper. In the Charlie Manson trial and said, look, he can't get a fair trial. He can't, even the president of the United States is condemned him. So Nixon made an editorial comment that reached the papers, and the Manson defense team actually used it. So this guy's argument was Reddington absolutely knows that Trump knows he can't pardon. But what he might do is say, Well, I think the bitch ought to be put underneath the jail or she ought to get the chair. Then he's gonna go up. See, there you go, right there. We can't get a fair trial. That's all he was trying

Charles: Right.

Jack Moore: to do was bait Trump into it. I think it's the same thing here. He's got a groundswell of people. And this is why I told you in the last show with an 11 to one that's public and what a circus this is, I don't think you're going to be able to find 12 people that are going to convict her. I think you're going to get repeated hung juries, if anything. Do you think I do I think you might get 12 in there? First of all, it's Massachusetts. Yeah, we know that. We are now fine, and I want to kind of back up from the last show and say this too. I'm with you. I gave the lane of both the 12th juror, I absolutely where he came from, saying I don't care what they when I'm not care what they said. The evidence to me proved premeditation her guilt. I get it. I respect the gentleman for that. But I think on the other side, you could have got this was all I was trying to say in the first show. You could have seen this and said, you know, I have a question as to her mental capacity, her substantial capacity to do this, and therefore I would say not guilty by reason of insanity. I could see that. However, what we're finding now is, I think pretty clearly, these women that now can't get out out of the spotlight and can't get off a TV, they went there with the purpose. They are advocates.

Charles: Yes.

Jack Moore: And they yeah, and they All right, so that being said, let me run this out to you too, because I think it's something that needs to be talked about. Since the beginning of our country, there has been the argument of jury nullification. All right, yeah, you go yeah, go ahead, go, go, go. Yeah,

Charles: Well, hold on, you go any further, I need to ask you this question.

Jack Moore: yeah.

Charles: So when it comes to not guilty or reasons of insanity,

Jack Moore: Mm-hmm.

Charles: does premeditation automatically throw that out?

Jack Moore: No. I don't I don't think it would, no.

Charles: So if you plan to go and kill people, how can you say, well, I was insane at the time.

Jack Moore: Well, this is another thing I wanted to kind of discuss that, like the other day you made the comment, and I get it. You were like, Well, I think everyone that commits murder is insane, right? Remember you you kind of said something along that line.

Charles: Yes.

Jack Moore: Well, not from a legal standpoint. If you're saying there's a touch of insanity, we're all insane in my book. I mean, hell, everybody's crazy. I mean, you know. But what we're looking at legally, and again, this is two different lenses. In Virginia, it would be, you say you're insane. Put on the evidence by a preponderance that you are insane. But again, we're not really looking at insanity here. We're looking at mental capacity. And it and the right and wrong aspect of the McNaughton is not even in here. It's just did the person have the requisite criminal intent to reach men's rea? Did they have the criminal mind? So if it's the voice, this is why I'm saying I'm just spitballing here. I'm just spitballing.

Charles: Mm-hmm, okay.

Jack Moore: But I think an argument could be made if we were to accept that someone heard voices and that those voices were enough to make a jury. And again, the jury is sitting in: do I have a reasonable doubt as to her sanity in the action she took or her criminal responsibility? They only have to have a reasonable doubt. They don't have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt she's nuts or anything else. They just have to say they have a doubt as to whether she could have formed the intent. Now, in forming the intent. The driving force of the premeditation could have been delusional thoughts. It doesn't preclude that the very thoughts she had were brought about by the dog told her to do it, or the mailman told her to do it, or voices in her head told her to do it. They, right. And I know you're shaking your head, and I agree with you. I agree with you. And this is what my friend was trying to point out. A lot of people you're talking to, Jack, are looking at it from she killed her kids. And that's another cleanup I want to do. We got into the whole thing about maybe some racial differences or cultural differences in in this other juror. And I got into the whole thing about, you know, high school students when asked a question and I thought about how that flew right in the face of when you think school shooter, who do you think racially?

Charles: Young white guy.

Jack Moore: Absolutely. You think male and you think white kid. I mean, absolutely. Now I said that when asked the white kids what was the all you know the all the ultimate unforgivable sin and they were kill others, kill yourself before you would. And the black kids was like, No, no, no, you don't kill yourself. Well then I thought about, well, that kind of flies in the face of all the school shooters, except that what did a lot of the school shooters do?

Charles: they try to kill themselves afterwards.

Jack Moore: They yeah, they usually kill themselves or attempt at least attempt to kill themselves. So I think what that is, is like taking a bunch of people with you. I think every one of these kids not everyone, I not not strike that. I think most kids that are on these go and let's see how many people we can kill in the school, they're gonna take themselves out. So what they wanna do is some kind of a ceremonial suicide where they try to do as much, you know, mental and and horrific damage as they can to the community on the way out. There have been some that survived the shooting. But a lot of them have ended up, you know, Columbine, you think about the kid at Virginia Tech, who was not white, was an Asian kid. But still,

Charles: Mm-hmm.

Jack Moore: I mean, most of these shooters have at some point taken themselves. Well, you know, when the cops show up and, you know, it looks like the gig is up, they take themselves out. And I think that's their plan all along. They seek to kill themselves and to do as much horrific, because they're just angry and they want to do as much damage as they can on the way out. But it again I do think there's cultural differences in how people see this. And I haven't heard enough from this twelfth juror to really know if it is based on what grandma told him growing up or some of those other things I said. But I do think he has a world view that you don't kill your children.

Charles: Right. But still, there's I got I got to go back to the other question I was asking.

Jack Moore: Mm-hmm.

Charles: So if I hop in my car and I decide, you know, I'm going to take my kid in the car with me.

Jack Moore: Mm-hmm.

Charles: But I'm going to go out street racing.

Jack Moore: Mm-hmm.

Charles: I get into an accident, I kill other people and my kid. Can I say, I don't know, I was some voices were telling me to go street racing.

Jack Moore: You can say that.

Charles: And no one in their right mind would believe that,

Jack Moore: I would think not. And you probably would.

Charles: I don't know why they believe her.

Jack Moore: I and Charles, that is outside of what I've been discussing all the time. You're going to the final decision. And I'm brother, I'm with you. I I actually agree with you. The more I hear about it, the more I think she did. It was premeditated. And I don't think she was suffering from the things that they're trying to say. However, however, there is a certain amount of history there that seems to show she had been battling mental conditions ever since childbirth. You know, a law in this series of having three children. I don't know. I wasn't in the courtroom. I didn't really hear the evidence, but I I do find it now when you when you go back and ask the question like, well, what's up with this attorney now kind of claiming because he did say he conceded the fact that she was the actual actor in the ending of these kids' lives. I agree.

Charles: Yeah. Yep.

Jack Moore: I think this is grandstanding. I think it's strategic. I think he's trying to stick it out in the news. I think he's going one up. I think the first time it was, we're going to take the chance that we're going to concede the murders or the deaths. And we're going to roll the dice that the people are going to say, postpartum, some women on the jury. I've been there myself. I know what that's like, you know, and that's going to win. And it was enough to get to eleven to one. And now they've made a big spectacle out of the hung jury. probably cross some lines as they have to identifying this 12th juror. But now that they have that and this thing is in the news wall to wall, why not go out there and throw something else out there? Like she didn't even do it. Now that I've had some more time to reflect, I don't even think she did it. So, so that's gonna lead into the but I

Charles: Wow.

Jack Moore: I don't I don't see a guilty verdict. Will they bring it back? I don't know. And there's been a lot of speculation that not even the prosecutor's office wants to convict her. I think they may be going stepping through a dog and pony show. I don't know. I don't know their motivations or anything else. But there's some people

Charles: I'll leave it.

Jack Moore: Yeah. but yeah, so for all the listeners and everything, I do think this comes up. I don't know that it necessarily, I it's just it's kind of how I think. I'll tell you another really bad story, but a frustration I've had. Years ago when I was teaching at a college, we had a policy. We had a policy at the college, okay? And it said that if a student we had a 14 week session, 14 weeks in a semester. If a student had cut the class more than 20% of the time, then you had to let the student go. So I had classes that meant once once a week in class. You know, they they'd come into class. So if my math's right, that means that what, 2.8 is 20% out of 14, right? So 2.8. So if they missed,

Charles: It's okay.

Jack Moore: if they missed a third class, right? If they missed a third class, they'd missed over 20% of the content of the class. So I had a student I'll never forget this. I had a student that came to class four times and missed four times. You wanna take a wild guess what their average was at that time?

Charles: I'm sure they had ace Okay

Jack Moore: Probably like a ninety-five, like a ninety-five, right? So we have a we have a dean of many departments. He's a higher up dean. And he's like, this is what he said, you better be careful. I'm letting everybody know here in August as we start the fall semester. If you ever get audited because you kept a kid in class with straight A's and it overcut the class, but you let a kid with a 60 average, which you know is the bottom of a D. If you let the D go and kept the A, and that D ever challenges getting kicked out of class, you're going to have to explain why they were different than the A. You follow. Because let me

Charles: Yes.

Jack Moore: tell you what the language said. The language said when the person has exceeded basically three absences, in my case, because of 14 meetings, it said, shall. You have any idea what shall means? It doesn't say you will. It says you will.

Charles: You will yeah, you're obligated to yeah

Jack Moore: Right. Now, I don't know this except in my first year. So, those of you listening, here's something else you may not have known. My first year, I had a few students do that. They would come to class sporadically. They'd come for the midterm, knock it out. They took all their weekly quizzes, knocked them out. Then, after a certain day, on or about November, closing in on Thanksgiving, I never saw them again. So I'm in the teacher's lounge one time, and there's a couple of secretaries in there too, the dean. And I said, you I have the strangest phenomenon. They all laughed, like, you so naive. You don't know what they're doing. I'm like, I have no idea what you're talking about. It was my first year teaching there. When it came to the Pell Grants however they were the federal grants that came in, you could qualify at our community college for up to like $5,800 a year, which means you got 23 and change or something like that in the first semester. And your books, tuition and all might have been 17. You got a remainder check. There were people that

Charles: Mm-hmm.

Jack Moore: came to school. stayed until the remainder check came and bolted. They just came to get the money.

Charles: Well.

Jack Moore: But they just ruined themselves academically. They they couldn't qualify for financial aid. And I'm like, you gotta be kidding. They come in there and carry an A for nine weeks and decide to bolt. Yep, they do it all the time. So we go into our smaller meeting. We've gone the big meeting. Now we go into our smaller meeting. And I raised to the dean, I said, you know, last year I had a student and she had a 95 average At that nine-week break. And I left her in there because I was kind of sad, you know, leave the kid. She never came back. So what do I do with that? This is where I'm going. We had a free-for-all discussion. Half the professors were like, well, absences are whatever you want them to be. Like, there's all kinds of way. And I'm like, no, no, no, no. Our handbook says, shell, and this is what I'm saying. And I'm an asshole. They're just like, well, why do you have to be so rigid? I'm like, the handbook says. And that's what that dean was just alluding to. If you cut loose 64, I literally asked the dean in the low lesser division, or you know, the one side, the one side we were on. I said, All right, I'm gonna give you a scenario, Dean. One person has a 60. you let that person go. The other person has a 95. you keep that. I'm like, then this is not an absence policy. Of course it is. I'm like, no, it's not. It's an academic performance policy.

Charles: Yeah. All right.

Jack Moore: Charles, you can understand. And they're like, well, you're being so legalistic and Hey, you're doing all that lawyers. I'm like, no, the language literally says cut them loose with a certain number of absences, and you're telling me the next layer is how well they're doing in the class. Then it's not about absences, it's absences plus. It's absences plus how are they doing? And they're like, Well, you're just being so technical. This is my vein. I'm my existence. I don't understand. Like, I'm like, how do you not see that? And I understood what the guy was saying in the first meeting. You're gonna get in trouble if somebody got cut loose with a 62, finds out you left the 95 in class, because you didn't treat them equally. And that's going to be an issue of are you treating all your students the same as to the policy? And I'm like, I get it.

Charles: Right.

Jack Moore: But then when I pushed it with the dean, and then all these professors in the class were like, Well, you don't have to be that rigid. And I'm like, I'm asking you, what the hell is the policy? I'm reading what it says in the manual, and you all seem to be saying it's squishy. I don't think it is, but So I run into this a lot. I guess I'm just saying that that that example popped in my mind too. I feel like I'm speaking sometimes different languages than other people. And it's not because I went to law school to have I was that way before I went to law school. And

Charles: Mm-hmm.

Jack Moore: so this whole Clancy thing to me has been fascinating because of the public, the way the public sees it. But it also raises to me the issue of do you or do we agree that some people can carry a mental disease or incapacity? That has to be addressed or not. And I opened earlier with I think there's a lot of lawyers that say it's all bullshit. It's just the battling experts, and you can go either way. So my maybe just get rid of the whole thing.

Charles: Alright.

Jack Moore: All that being said, I've run my mouth that 117% of the time we've been on here. But does this where where are you where let's just strictly go to that? Where are you with the whole idea of some kind of legal mechanism within the court system? to address that maybe some people are incapable of knowing what they're doing? What what would you say would be the answer?

Charles: Well, I think that the question that I posed to you a few minutes ago,

Jack Moore: Mm-hmm.

Charles: if I think everybody understands the crime of passion, you walk into the room.

Jack Moore: And that's addressed too. That's addressed too.

Charles: Yeah, and you snap and you go and shoot, you know, your wife and the dude she's banging at the time because you're out of your mind.

Jack Moore: Yeah. You better do it quick.

Charles: But if you call on the phone and she has you on FaceTime and you see the dude there and they're doing the do and you decide to go and kill them, you're going to prison, right?

Jack Moore: Maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe not. That's a great No well

Charles: Well, in most cases, are you going to prison?

Jack Moore: but I I literally taught a class that had all of these cases in it and and there was distinctions. They had a guy travel eight hours to get there and shot her. And it was like, well, he was still under the heat of pac i it's all it's all fact specific,

Charles: Okay.

Jack Moore: but but you're right. Generally, if you have time to quote unquote cool off, think about it, you're

Charles: Yes.

Jack Moore: not until I get it, you're right. But it doesn't mean there haven't been cases. And that's generally what's gonna be my dad as a sheriff used to get asked at little sheriff more. If I shoot a guy and he falls in the door or out of the door and he goes, it really comes down to how well you you're looked at in the community. Like what? He goes, you know, you're gonna get judged by 12 people. And if you're an asshole in the community, it probably isn't gonna go very well for you. And let's face it, there are people who could have a questionable shooting of a neighbor. And if they're liked enough, they'll probably be like, I think I knew what Jimmy was thinking. I know what Jimmy. It it that's what it really comes down to. So that whole thing about about did you have time to cool? It's it really comes down to who's deciding it.

Charles: But would you not say that it also depends on how much planning you had to do?

Jack Moore: Yeah.

Charles: That's taken into consideration, is how much planning

Jack Moore: absolutely.

Charles: you had to do versus the person who didn't know what's going on. They just happened to walk in room and, my gosh, this is what's going on. And they shoot both of them.

Jack Moore: You know what? Did you did you see Boogie Nights

Charles: Yes, I know what you're talking about. Yeah.

Jack Moore: Yeah, and I actually used that example in class. So I can't remember the guy's name. He was kind of the underling in the whole porn thing there, you know, when they put, you know, Jack, whatever, Burt Reynolds was playing. And his porn wife kept screwing everybody she walked into. And then that party when nineteen eighty came in, that that New Year's Eve party, he hears her in the other room. He goes to the party. Where's my wife? Nobody knows, nobody knows. And then he goes to that bedroom. And he finds her once again with another man. What does he do? Now he commits suicide. He ends up shooting himself, but what does he do?

Charles: We shoot both of them. Yes, I remember.

Jack Moore: But how? But I mean but but walk through it, think about it, because this is the example I used to use. He went out

Charles: I can't remember exactly.

Jack Moore: to the car, he dug through the glove compartment, got the gun, then he grabbed the box, loaded the pistol, walks back in and shoots him. Is that premeditated? Now had he survived

Charles: out

Jack Moore: it by not killing himself, could he have been charged with first degree murder?

Charles: most certainly possible. Okay.

Jack Moore: Yes. Because think about what he had to do. And that's really sometimes the difference. If the gun was laying on the nightstand and he walked in, saw wife once again with other man, bitch grabs the gun, shoots them both. Probably going to get away with that heat of passion, or you know, it's going to be reduced. But if he had to go to the car, get the weapon, load the weapon, and walk back in. I I use that because some people had seen the film. But that's really what you're coming down to. And somebody asked me, like, Well, what if Clancy's husband had come home and found her in the process and shot her? I'm like, it would probably be defense of others. What if the third child was

Charles: Wha- Right.

Jack Moore: dead and he said, my God, what have you done? Well, I decided to kill the kids and then shot her. Is it different? Yes. If he shoots her in the commission of, it's going to be different than if the thing is over. If yeah, go ahead.

Charles: Well, I'm using, I'm not really speaking on him, I'm speaking on her. Because one of the things we all know that she did was send him away so

Jack Moore: Yeah.

Charles: she could do it.

Jack Moore: That would be the argument.

Charles: Yeah, that's why I and most other people are saying that no, this is premeditated because she created the conditions to, she created a condition so she could actually do the deed. She didn't, she didn't just again, walk into a room, see her kids there and said, you know what, I'm to go ahead and strangle them. No, she's like, no, I can't do that now because my husband's here. I got to do something to get my husband out of here. This takes thought and planning. That's premeditation.

Jack Moore: It it i i it does. But I don't know I don't know that a medical expert and again, it's all chicken soup, you know, you can find experts to say two different things. But if you were to ask me, is it possible for an expert to say that all of this planning and premeditation, as you call it, you're correct, it's exactly what it is, could have still come from a delusional indoor d disease mind. Yeah, I think so. But if you're sitting in the jury and you hear one expert say, she was absolutely hearing voices, and that's what was telling her to tell the husband to go away. The voice was telling her to do that. And then the other expert's like, absolute hogwash. She totally had her faculty, she knew exactly what she was doing, and this was planned. And you said, Hey, I'm buying the guy that said she knew what she was doing. That's what the jury's for. That's what the jury's for, and that's how the thing would play out. But I do want to get to, because we're right at 40 minutes and we'll cut it off. But I do want to get to. There has been something that I think that also has to be considered. When we think about these women that might have been advocates, that they were in there for the purpose, for the purpose of Lindsay Clancy. They they went there, they wore pink the whole nine yards. Where is jury nullification in all this? Now the states will let me just say this. The states will tell you you are not to practice in jury nullification. For the for everybody listening, that's why

Charles: Of course.

Jack Moore: when you get the jury charge from the judge, it's like you must follow the law. Here are the elements. And if the state has proven the elements, you must follow through with the conviction. If you have a reasonable doubt as to any or all of the elements, you must find the person not guilty. So that's what the judge and that's another thing that has driven me crazy. Long before I went to law school, people are not found innocent. People are not found innocent. They're found not guilty. They may be innocent. If they are innocent, we would certainly hope that they are found not guilty. But the trial is not about guilt or innocence. You have a presumption of innocence. The state has a burden of proof, and the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt that the person's guilty. If you think they're guilty, but you have a reasonable doubt, you have to acquit them. You may say, yeah, you know, it's like I said before, I'm 5149. I'm pretty sure they did it, but I have a reasonable doubt. So that's really what the jury's charged to do is measure the reasonable doubt aspect of it. So here's the thing. I'll give you this example. I've been thinking about it today. Back during COVID, what if a jurisdiction had written a criminal law? You know, you and I go to the same barber. You know, we we both do the same thing.

Charles: Mm-hmm.

Jack Moore: That was funny, you know, but okay. But let's say you're my best friend, which you are, but barber best friend. And you call me one day and say, dude, I'm living out of my car. Now with this COVID shutdown, I I can't survive. I'm gonna open up my barber shop again. I'm just telling my closest friends to come in and get a haircut. I'm like, all right, brother, I back you all the way. Okay. Then in the Commonwealth Virginia, they they certainly did enough stupid stuff. They passed the law of protect us all, one and all, you know, bullshit law. And the law says, you know, but basically what happened, you couldn't have patrons and Nancy Pelosi could go to the hairdresser. We know all the how that went, no mask, et cetera. But you can't. Then I'm sitting on a jury. You ask for a jury trial. And they say, one, person has to be, you know, a barber, it's that kind of thing, working in the public, hands-on with people. coming into the shop that had been closed, deemed to be too dangerous and all that. And you did that. So what I'm getting at is they're going, you know, it happened in the venue, happened in our town, happened in the jurisdiction, the jurisdiction of the courts correct. Everything they show me is Charles is absolutely, when they read the elements, and that's another thing, anybody ever wants to know what to look at, look at the model jury instructions. I learned that as a young lawyer. If you ever wanted to know what a crime is, go to the model jury instructions. And in Virginia, there was an annotated section that told you all the case law that supported it. So when I mentioned robbery before, it would say the taking from another with the intent to permanently deprive, blah, blah, blah. It would be each one. So you would know exactly what a jury's told if you believe all the followings. So in this case, I'm on a jury sitting in judgment of you, and the prosecutor says, There's Charles. We have all this evidence. He did violate the COVID Save Us All Act, you know, whatever bullshit it was.

Charles: Mm-hmm.

Jack Moore: And he needs to get class one misdemeanor, 12 months in jail, $2,500 fine. And I say bullshit on that. And I vote to acquit you. Is that jury nullification?

Charles: Yes.

Jack Moore: And do we have a right to do that?

Charles: Yes.

Jack Moore: That's what Jefferson wrote about. There were some of the founding fathers who said the last stand that we have as citizens against a tyrannical government is jury nullification. Now, they're there, what does the state tell you? No, no, no, you can't do that. Right.

Charles: Of course, they're going to say that.

Jack Moore: And that's the but the problem is the question is, should you have a right as a jury member to say they have proven beyond a reasonable doubt this law? Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I'm the foreman, you're the foreman. We're sitting in there, we go, Charles and Jack say bullshit on this. And we try to persuade the rest of them. Even though we're all sitting in here, we absolutely know that the state's proven beyond a reasonable doubt this crime against our brother in the streets. Screw that. And if they all say yeah, is that right? Is that a right we should have? Well,

Charles: Yes. Yes.

Jack Moore: I heard a lawyer mention that the other day, and he goes, Yeah, but don't ever say it that way. Yeah, right, exactly. Yeah. You you can do

Charles: I know. I've heard that too. I've heard people say that. Yeah.

Jack Moore: it, you can persuade the people. And I don't know in that jury room, you might have to. You know, you might be in the jury room and you might have all of them saying, you know, as much as I hate it, I think they proved it. And you might have one that stands up and say, guys, we can do whatever we want to here. If we don't like the law. So you know, and that how much that applies to Clancy, the law was in place for them to have an acquittal. And that's what again, they were advocates for it. But do you have a problem with potential advocates for a position being on the jury?

Charles: No, I don't. I

Jack Moore: Okay.

Charles: don't because if I believe in jury nullification, then I think that

Jack Moore: Okay.

Charles: anybody who's qualified to be a juror should be on the jury so

Jack Moore: Okay.

Charles: long as they don't have a pre predisposition as to whether or the accused is guilty or innocent. They have to

Jack Moore: Yeah, but

Charles: be there unbiased.

Jack Moore: yeah, but let me okay, but let's get back. If you and I were on the jury and it's our friend Sam, Sammy's getting this on the COVID thing. You know you and I both

Charles: Mm-hmm.

Jack Moore: go in there like, I know damn well Sammy opened the shop up again. We went by to see him. You know, we know it, or you know, we got we have word of it. We are in fact going in with we we have a preconceived notion. They're gonna prove the evidence. We know Sammy got busted and he'd open the doors again. We don't agree with the law. So in that scenario We're not going in there. So I think these women in effect went in. I don't care what they say, Lindsay's gonna walk.

Charles: Well, but don't you think it's a little different between saying that our friend who decided to open his barbershop, that that law that was passed, the law itself was unjust versus

Jack Moore: Yeah.

Charles: murder?

Jack Moore: I agree. I don't disagree with that at all. I don't disagree with that at all. I don't disagree, but I think what I'm saying

Charles: Yes, there's a difference there.

Jack Moore: is you and I both know that we'd want to be on that jury because we want to nullify that act. That's exactly what we want to do. So we're we may but then that comes that comes the rub, though. What at the point like, ladies and gentlemen of the jury or potential jurors, raise your right hand. Will you swear to we're swearing to. We're swearing to, you know, we're gonna uphold the laws of the Commonwealth, blah, blah, blah, whatever. But we know damn well it's like now when it comes time and then we might say, in our mind, we have a little thing saying, Yeah, all those that are just and righteous and this law isn't, you know, so but you

Charles: Well, is jury nullification illegal?

Jack Moore: I don't know what the ramifications are. It is not supposed to be done in Virginia. Cause I remember during the OJ Simpson trial, I was on the radio with our friend right in the middle of the trial, and we had former AG in the state, I think. I think he was former attorney general in, and he was all up in arms because Johnny Cochrane did in large part argue jury nullification in California. And I just remember him saying that would be. a non starter in Virginia. You're not supposed to but remember, he made a thing about you, ladies and gentlemen, the jury, you have a chance to send a statement out here. Well that kind of statement language is jury nullification.

Charles: Well, but isn't that I could understand him saying that because the attorney was arguing for jury notification, but a juror, I don't see why they wouldn't have the right to do that.

Jack Moore: Well, is that and that's what I heard a lawyer say the other day in response to everything we're talking about. He goes, Can you do jury nullification? Absolutely. Keep your mouth shut. Persuade the jury, but don't say, by the way, we're gonna disregard the law. But I think at some point, though, like maybe with our COVID example, we might have to kind of tell everybody else, hey, this is an unjust law. I don't care what they proved, and they proved the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, we're going the other way because Simi Jimmy or Sammy or whatever. shouldn't suffer because of some stupid law. And in effect, you're saying we all know what the law was stated to us to be, and we're not going through with this. And and I to me

Charles: Yeah, that would be it.

Jack Moore: that's that's perfectly legit to me. Yeah,

Charles: Yeah, that's how I would handle it.

Jack Moore: I I think the jury should have that.

Charles: Yeah.

Jack Moore: Okay. Any other closing comments, Charles?

Charles: No, I have a strange feeling we're not finished with this Lindsey Clancy thing. Yeah.

Jack Moore: No, I don't think so either. I I don't think so either. And the the one other elephant in the room I kind of started to talk about is I'm looking at polling and folks when we're gonna probably do another show. My gut tells me I I did see that in one poll it was 4949, two didn't give a shit or something like that. And it I wasn't surprised at the country split. What are they not split on, right? another one that they said, I know Matt Walsh had made some comments. Then another one on like Court TV was overwhelmingly acquit Clancy, like 69%. Now, well, that that's that's that's exactly right. I mean, you

Charles: Yeah. But you look at the people who watch who are watching court TV. Yeah.

Jack Moore: you could say, and that is something else that I want to discuss about where we got turned around, I think a little bit, or I got turned around the last show. I was actually, you know, in discussing this with another friend, I said, you know, we kind of went roundabout about it, whether all this was political. And I th and you know you're like, well, the th you know the the trial's not political, but it's being politicized. And I think that's kind of what I meant. I think we're in agreement on that. I think all things now are political. And the friend said it gets down to what the law is. And I'm like, yeah, and who passes the laws? The legislature.

Charles: Mm-hmm.

Jack Moore: It is political. Like it this person was saying, Well, I don't like this insanity defense being available. And I'm like, then you'd have to change the law. Where would you go to? Now, the d the the judiciary could strike something down possibly. But let's face it, at some point, you know, the old argument all politics are local, but at some point things are political. I do think, and I'll stick by this, and I you may not agree, but I do think there's a certain degree of people aligning left or right align on this case a certain way.

Charles: Okay.

Jack Moore: And you don't so as much because you said you've seen some s some examples. Right. Yeah. Well, no, and and what I just saw with the Democrat

Charles: No. Yeah, I've talked to people who are on the left that are like, no, she needs to go to prison.

Jack Moore: Party, they said the Democrat Party split. The Democrat Party split. Yeah. So

Charles: I can believe that. Yeah, makes sense.

Jack Moore: so maybe it's just I've seen a number of women that I really like and I respect a lot of what they think or say or whatever that are thinking she didn't even do it. There is something going on with that dynamic.

Charles: Yeah, it's delusional.

Jack Moore: You may call it delusional, but I do think there's a degree, because and for the listeners, maybe from the first show, maybe you'll remember this, maybe you won't. I made a point. I was listening to a couple of women that were clearly identified as Trump, MAGA, right wingers, Christian females. And both of them were talking about this case. And one of them said the other, I gotta be honest with you, when I had my first child, I went some dark times. I told my husband, get the kids away. And the other one's like, my gosh, me too. And I'm like, These women weren't like super in support of Clancy, or I don't think it in support of her at all. And they thought, you know, it's a failing or the country's in a downfall. But at the same time, both of them admitted, I don't know if a lot of people really understand what a lot of women go through. So I think it has brought this to the forefront. People can poo-poo

Charles: Hmm.

Jack Moore: it, not like it, think it doesn't apply. I get all that. But I, you know, it was the same thing to my memory that came up with the Yates case. She had all kinds of bouts with a lot of mental delusions and things like that, or for psychosis or something. I don't know exactly how she was diagnosed. But, you know, I made that point too. Maybe it's as simple as maybe it's as simple as what that person wrote, and it's all demons, you know. But I don't know how you're gonna prove that in a court of law. You know, okay, it's one's

Charles: Alright.

Jack Moore: it's a political, I mean, it's more of a theological view. And I don't, you know, hey, I don't poo-poo that at all. But at the same time, That's where it gets kind of sticky. We got to draw a line somewhere. And that line drawing about law is what really bothers people. And I'll close on this about lines being drawn. When I was a prosecutor in a particular city in our state in the Commonwealth of Virginia, at that time, I'm sure the law is still the same. If you were to have cocaine, not for distribution, for personal use. And you got busted. You could have a 12 months of you, you could have a 12 month period of probation, be clean, pee in a bottle, all that. And at the end of that one year, if you had no prior drug charges, no cocaine, you could have it dismissed for purposes of that conviction. You would have no conviction, but it would stay on your record so you didn't get a second chance at a first offense. Follow? It's dismissed.

Charles: Yes.

Jack Moore: It's dismissed upon conditions met, right? We had a young lady one time in court. She was a military veteran. She jumped out of helicopters and she did massive amount of damage when something didn't quite go right. She's down a slide rope or something and something doesn't go right. And she is jacked up for the rest of her life. So she and she's in this city, she's military, she was army, and she was jumping out of stuff. She gets injured, and they give her pain meds. And Whatever the VA hospitals are doing, good, bad, or otherwise, she takes a she takes script prescription and she turn turns a 70 into 700. She wrote a zero behind the 70. That is a felony, right? She follows everything

Charles: Mm-hmm.

Jack Moore: she's supposed to do. She does massive amounts of rehab to get off of her addiction to this painkiller. She's got painkiller addiction the whole nine yards. And we're at the trial. Or we're, I'm sorry, we're at the return. I'm sitting there waiting on another case. So it's two attorneys, the prosecutor and the defense attorney. And the defense attorney said, Your Honor, if this woman who served her country had been can had been charged with cocaine, she'd be walking out of here without this. With this one, the felony got reduced to a misdemeanor by statute. By statute, if she met conditions and was clean for a year, it was reduced to a misdemeanor conviction. And she said, I don't think it's right. Madam prosecutor, anything you want to add? She goes, I absolutely agree, Your Honor. I am all for this being dismissed. This woman served her country. She was injured. She was, she was put in this physical condition based upon that. And the judge said, take it up with the legislature. Bang, next case. And he was right. He said, I don't have

Charles: Wow. Yeah.

Jack Moore: any wiggle room here. He goes, I respect what both of you is. And I'm sitting there thinking, son of a bitch, this is bad. This woman had been on, this woman had been charged with cocaine. She would have walked out with a dismissed charge. And because it was a prescription drug, and she she wrote a zero behind this. Now she went from 70 to

Charles: Damn.

Jack Moore: 700 and she had it filled. She got caught. Somebody at the pharmacy like, that doesn't sound right. 700 pills or whatever. And they busted her. And when they busted her, she got charged with the felony, got it reduced to a misdemeanor. And that's the very, I mean, and again, the judge was like, I have empathy. I hear what both of you are saying. Madam prosecutor, I respect your response. take it over the legislature. I have no wiggle room. And he didn't. Yeah. And that's but that's one of those things

Charles: Yeah, I understand, unfortunately.

Jack Moore: that happens in the law. And you would think, like, man, somebody missed that. Like, how can you let people go off with a dismissal for cocaine, but not for prescription when they serve their country

Charles: Alright.

Jack Moore: and but that's that's not what the law nobody had reached that, and maybe nobody had contemplated that. But the judge had to follow where his lines were drawn. And he said, I'm sorry, that is not an option for me to reduce it to dismissed. Can't do it. Anything else you want to say closing?

Charles: That's it, I'm good bro.

Jack Moore: All right. Thank you, Charles. This has been more to consider. Jack and Charles, please like and subscribe. Please comment again. We got something out of the comments tonight, I think. And maybe we're clarifying. I'm trying to clarify where I'm coming from more and more on the argument side. And listen to us on Spotify, on Apple Podcasts, any of the

Charles: Yes.

Jack Moore: platforms you can find us. Thank you very much, and we'll see you again on the next show. Bye.