Kevin Reddington, veteran trial lawyer, shuru kiya apne client Lindsay Clancy ki defense summer mein, jo Massachusetts ki nurse hai jo apne teen chhote bachon ko ghoontne ki confession karti hai. "Yeh", Mr. Reddington ne 12 jurors ke samne apni shuruwaat mein kaha, "Yeh naayay ka prosecution nahin hai." Teen of those jurors ne Ms. Clancy, jo 36 saal ki hain, jo maare gaye samay product post-partum psychosis se piDit thi, vote karne se INkaar kiya. Ek holdout juror ke saath, judge ne mistrial ka announcement kiya, jo murder case ke baare mein global baat-cheet shuru karne wale mental health burdens of motherhood aur lamaan insaaniyata fairness of insanity defense par sawaal Chinha chhoda hai. Retrial possible hai. Lekin ab tak, mistrial ko Mr. Reddington ki jeet maanna chahiye, jo apne client ko, kam se kam ab tak, state-run psychiatric hospital le jaane ki izzat deta hai, balki prison cell ke bajaye. Lekin agar Mr. Reddington ki baaton par yakeen karein, to isse Ms. Clancy ke liye jeet nahi maana jayega. Trial ke dauran, usne usko ek suchak maatar as mother jo jaanti thi usne apne teenon ko kya kiya aur "apni khud ki hell jeevan rahi thi". Mr. Reddington ke such statements defense strategy ka part the jo Ms. Clancy ke dark actions ko maanta tha lekin uske mental health problems aur medical establishment ke mistakes ko emphasize kiya jo usne help maangte waqt kiya. Chhah dinon ke trial ke baad, kayay legal experts ne kaha ki Mr. Reddington, 75 saal ke, unhone bohot hi difficult courtroom assignment ko astonishingly difficult paristithitiyon mein masterfully complete kiya. Jurors ko marne, saath hi Ms. Clancy ke attempt suicide ke bhi details dekhne ko mile, details jo gruesome the ki Mr. Reddington unhone unhe apologize kiya. "Bhagwan aapko bless karein", unhone kaha. "Aap logon ko kuch sab se horrific cheezein sunnni hongi, kuch sab se horrific cheezein dekhni hongi". Is tarah ke circumstances mein jurors ko insanity defense par vichar karna bohot mushkil hai. "Insan insaanik nature mein kuch aisa hota hai jo logon ko blame dene ko kahta hai", kaha Shira M. Diner, jo Boston University Law School par padhati hain. Logon ko punishment dene ka ichha hai jo "logon ko feel nahi better karayega, balki logon ko jo horrors sune hain unke baare mein feel more at peace karega" unhone kaha. Is tarah, Mr. Reddington ke paas ek aisa factor tha jo uske kaam aaya. Massachusetts kanoon ke according, prosecutors ko beyond reasonable doubt prove karna hota hai ki jaise jaise Clancy jo mental illness ka claim karti hai, uski "criminal responsibility" thi -- matlab ki the defendant lacked "the substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law." R. Michael Cassidy, Boston College Law School ke professor ne kaha ki Massachusetts "ek limited states mein se ek hai, jaise jaise, once the defense of 'lack of criminal responsibility' uthaya jata hai, burden government par aa jata hai, usko beyond reasonable doubt disprove karna hai. That's not true in many states, and it's not true in federal court. The defendant must prove lack of criminal responsibility by a preponderance of the evidence in most states, and in federal court, they have to prove it by clear and convincing evidence.". Mr. Reddington seekhne ki koshish ki jurors mein doubt ka ehsaas instill karne ki. "The government says that this is a situation that's not a referendum on women's having babies and having postpartum psychosis, postpartum depression, but it sure as hell is", unhone jury ko kaha. Strong language jurors ko Mr. Reddington ke style se parichay karne ki good introduction thi. Usne trial ke pehle din dark suit pehna, situation ki gravity ka likely acknowledgment. Lekin uska language could be down-to-earth and occasionally salty -- unsurprising for a man who has tried high-profile cases for decades but rides a Harley in his spare time.

Key Entities...

FAQ Q: Why did the mistrial occur in the Lindsay Clancy case?

FAQ A: The mistrial occurred because one juror held out against conviction, preventing a unanimous verdict required for a guilty or not guilty verdict in the criminal trial.