← Back to Podcast/Two Juries in One Afternoon: Lindsay Clancy Goes to Deliberations, the Bridegan Verdict Is Next, and a Hot Mic in the Tupac Trial
Episode Transcript

Two Juries in One Afternoon: Lindsay Clancy Goes to Deliberations, the Bridegan Verdict Is Next, and a Hot Mic in the Tupac Trial

Closing arguments are expected today in Lindsay Clancy's murder trial, after Judge William Sullivan denied a defense motion for a mistrial. Prosecution expert Dr. Kirk Heilbrun, testifying that Clancy told each child "go to God" as she killed them, described her Catholic upbringing and began asking whether suicide is a mortal sin before defense attorney Kevin Reddington objected — the second time the phrase has surfaced in the trial. Reddington called it "intentional misconduct." Sullivan refused the mistrial but told jurors the defendant's religion was "absolutely an inappropriate area of testimony… It is to be stricken." Heilbrun testified Clancy retained awareness that killing was illegal, and that she reported the voice only during the killings — never before or after. Clancy has pleaded not guilty to three counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months. Eighteen jurors will be narrowed to twelve for deliberations. Also: both sides have rested in Jacksonville in the Mario Fernandez Saldana murder-for-hire trial over the killing of Jared Bridegan; the defense called two witnesses and Fernandez Saldana did not testify. And in Las Vegas, jurors in the Duane Davis trial heard a recording made through a live studio microphone.

Join our new FB groups page here. Take the poll!

Join the Daily Crime & Justice community on social media! We're building a passionate group of true crime enthusiasts who love diving deep into the most shocking cases in America.
Follow us on Facebook and Instagram by searching "Daily Crime & Justice" on either platform. 


You'll get exclusive behind-the-scenes content, breaking news updates on cases we're covering, and early alerts when new episodes drop. Our social media is where Garret Fisher's hottest takes live, including reactions that don't make it into the show.

But more importantly, it's where YOU come in. Share your theories, debate the verdicts, and connect with fellow listeners who are just as obsessed with justice as you are. Did the jury get it right? What questions do you still have? Your comments and insights often shape future episodes.


We cover the trials that matter, but our community makes the conversation unforgettable. Come for Garret's signature cynical commentary, stay for the incredible discussions with thousands of true crime fans who get it.

Speaker 1: Good morning.

Speaker 2: This is Daily Crime and Justice from Calaroga Shark Media,

powered by AI.

Speaker 1: I'm Garrett Fisher. It's Wednesday, August 26, 2026. Two juries.

One day.

Speaker 2: In Plymouth, Massachusetts, after five weeks of testimony and more

than 40 witnesses, closing arguments in the Lindsay Clancy triple

murder trial are expected today. And then 12 people, chosen

at random out of the 18 who have been sitting

there since July, walk into a room to decide whether

a woman who killed her three children can be held

responsible for it. In Jacksonville, Florida, both sides have rested

in the trial of Mario Fernandez Saldana for the ambush

killing of Jared Breidgen. The defense called two witnesses and

took half a day. Fernandez Saldana did not take the stand.

The prosecution closed yesterday afternoon, the defense closes this morning,

and that jury is expected to begin deliberating this afternoon.

And in Las Vegas, a man who works in true

crime television told a jury he recorded Dwayne Davis through

a live microphone from an office down the hall, and

kept recording during the breaks. Davis apparently knew enough to

say the words hot mic out loud. He kept talking anyway.

Let's get into it. On the evening of January 24th, 2023,

Lindsay Clancy strangled her three children with exercise bands in

the basement of their house in Duxbury, Massachusetts. Cora was five.

Dawson was three. Callan was eight months old. Clancy then

attempted to take her own life, went out a second-story window,

and has been paralyzed ever since. She has pleaded not

guilty to three counts of first-degree murder. She does not

deny doing it. The only question is criminal responsibility. The

prosecution has now put three experts in front of this jury,

and they have each taken a different angle on the

same target. We covered Dr. Avram Mack yesterday. He was

the psychiatrist who said what she had was a major

depressive episode, not psychosis, and that she knew right from wrong.

Speaker 1: And I want to correct the record.

Speaker 2: On something, because Monday's cross was rougher on him than

I gave you. Kevin Reddington went at Mack's credentials directly

and got him to acknowledge that this was only about

the third time in his entire career that he had

testified in court on the question of criminal responsibility.

Speaker 1: Third time.

Speaker 2: Reddington also confronted him with prior cases in which he

said courts had questioned Mack's qualifications, which Mack largely said

he did not recall or disputed outright. Then Reddington went

after the framework. Mack's position is that in the United States,

clinicians use the diagnostic manual, and that manual defines postpartum

onset as four weeks after birth. Callan Clancy was eight

months old, so Reddington pushed and got Mack to concede

that the World Health Organization uses a different window, and

a proposed revision to the American manual would extend it

to six weeks. And then Reddington said the line that

I suspect ends up in the closing argument. Postpartum is

not a disease doctor. That is the whole defense theory

of the prosecution's case in six words. The state is

treating a calendar as biology. Reddington's position is that postpartum

depression and psychosis can develop a year out or longer,

and that a number in a manual is a billing convenience,

not a fact about a human brain. The second expert

was a forensic psychologist named Dr. Kirk Heilbrunn, and he

is the one who did the most damage. Heilbrunn interviewed

Clancy for about 10 hours across three days in April,

alongside Mack. He has testified in roughly 330 cases, and

he told the jury flatly that, in his opinion, Lindsay

Clancy was criminally responsible. He said she retained an awareness

of the illegality of killing others, including her own children.

Speaker 1: Then he went at the voice.

Speaker 2: Heilbrunn told the jury that Clancy's account of hearing a

male voice was inconsistent over time, and that what she

described was more consistent with an unwelcome intrusive thought, which

she had been having for months, than with a command hallucination.

And he gave the jury a specific, and it is

a hard one. After the suicide attempt, the first thing

Lindsay Clancy said to her husband was that she had

tried to kill herself. Heilbrunn's point was that if a

voice had genuinely commanded her, You might expect her to

say something like, I did what I had to do,

or I did what the voice said. She did not

say that. And then he used the word that is

going to follow this case around. He testified that on

about three points, her account more closely resembled exaggerated or

fabricated hallucinations.

Speaker 1: One looked more genuine. One was mixed.

Speaker 2: Now, I want to give you the other half of

Heilbrunn's testimony, because the coverage is not doing it and

it matters. The same witness told that jury that Lindsay

Clancy is still grieving, that she is still in mourning

for those children. He said she used language like, I

have lost everything and I don't want to be here.

And he said explicitly that he would not think of

her as somebody who is self-centered or oriented only to herself.

That is the prosecution's own expert. A man being paid

by the Commonwealth to say she is criminally responsible went

out of his way to tell 12 people she is

not a monster. I have watched a lot of expert

testimony and that is not nothing. And then Monday afternoon

fell apart. Heilbrun, explaining how he assessed whether Clancy understood

moral wrongfulness, started talking about her Catholic upbringing. He described

her saying her children had gone to God and offered

that as he understood Catholic teaching. That is not necessarily

what happens. Then he said he had asked Clancy whether

suicide was a mortal sin. Reddington moved for a mistrial.

He called it intentional misconduct by the Commonwealth. And his

anger was not coming from nowhere, because this was the

second time. Last week, prosecutors cross-examining Clancy's former mother-in-law, Susan Clancy,

asked whether she was aware the church considers murder a

mortal sin. The judge struck that one, too. Judge William

Sullivan denied the mistrial. But listen to how he denied it.

He called the testimony problematic. He asked out loud how

any of it was proper at this point. And when

he brought the jury back in, he told them the

religion the defendant was raised with was absolutely an inappropriate

area of testimony.

Speaker 1: Stricken.

Speaker 2: Not to be considered. He said he could not be

any clearer than that. Reporters in the room noted several

jurors nodding while he said it. Then he sent them

home early and called the lawyers back for a sidebar. Look,

I'm going to be honest with you about what I

think happened there. A witness who has testified 330 times

knows what he is allowed to say. Reddington used the

words intentional misconduct, and a judge does not call testimony

problematic and demand to know how it was proper if

he thinks it was an innocent slip. Sullivan also told

prosecutors to strongly instruct their own witness not to go

near it again.

Speaker 1: And here is.

Speaker 2: Why it is dangerous and why Reddington fought that hard.

You cannot ask a jury to weigh whether a woman

knew killing was morally wrong and then hand them her

church's doctrine on sin. That stops being psychiatry and becomes

a sermon. Twelve people who may have their own feelings

about mortal sin do not need help importing them into

a verdict. Whether an instruction fixes it is the oldest

unanswerable question in criminal law. Reddington told reporters he has

no doubt the jury will overlook it, which is the

only thing a lawyer can say out loud. It is

also now preserved in the record for appeal. Tuesday, prosecutors

put on their third and final rebuttal witness, Dr. Gregory Sathoff,

a forensic psychiatrist and professor of emergency medicine who has

worked with the FBI. And with that, the evidence in

this case is done. So step back and look at

what this jury actually has. On one side, a psychiatrist

who testified for the defense in both Andrea Yates' trials

who told them Clancy was in a dream state, a

puppet with someone else pulling the strings. On the other,

three prosecution experts saying depression, not psychosis, and that she knew.

Two of them interviewed her in the same room in

April and came out with the same answer. Somebody is

going to tell you that means the experts cancel each

other out. I do not think that is right, and

here is why. This jury is not being asked to

pick a diagnosis. They are being asked whether the Commonwealth

carried a burden, and when a case comes down to

competing experts, that burden gets harder, not easier.

Speaker 1: So today, both sides argue.

Speaker 2: Then Sullivan instructs the jury, the 18 get narrowed to

12 at random, and it goes to a room. The

standard is two-pronged and the defense only needs one. Either

Lindsay Clancy could not appreciate the wrongfulness of what she

was doing, or she could not conform her conduct to

the requirements of the law. could not know, or could

not stop. And the burden sits with the Commonwealth. Guilty

of first-degree murder means life with no parole. Not criminally

responsible means a state psychiatric facility under a commitment that

can last the rest of her life. Cora Clancy was

five years old. Dawson Clancy was three. Callan Clancy was

eight months old. They have been dead for three and

a half years while adults argued about diagnostic manuals. Everyone

in America knows their mother's name. Someone has to say theirs.

When we come back, both sides have rested in Jacksonville.

Mario Fernandez Saldana never took the stand, and a second

jury gets a murder case today. On the night of

February 16th, 2022, Jared Bridegan dropped his twins, Abby and Liam,

at their mother's house in Jacksonville Beach and started driving

home with his two-year-old daughter, Bexley, in the backseat. On

a dark one-way street, he found a tire lying in

the road, stopped, and got out to move it. He

was shot and killed. Bexley was strapped in her car

seat a few feet away. Jared Bridegan was 33, a

design manager at Microsoft, a father of four. Mario Fernandez

Saldana is the estranged husband of Breitigan's ex-wife. He is

charged with first-degree murder and solicitation to commit a capital felony.

He has pleaded not guilty and he is presumed innocent.

And one thing I should have told you yesterday. Back

in July, two of the charges he originally faced, child

abuse and conspiracy to commit murder, were dropped. He is

going to the jury on two counts, not four. The

state rested Monday. and they closed on money and a gun.

The financial testimony walked jurors through the three checks, roughly $ 10, 000

paid to Henry Tennant after the murder, one of them

carrying a memo line reading.

Speaker 1: Kickstarter, good luck.

Speaker 2: The state's theory is that this is what a murder

payment looks like when a man tries to make it

look like a business expense. Then they called the person

investigators believe supplied the weapon, and he denied it. That

is how the prosecution ended its case. because the murder

weapon in this case has never been found. Not in 2022,

not in the four and a half years since. The

state has implied Fernandez Saldana could have obtained the Glock,

and the man they think handed it over got on

a witness stand and said no. Then Tuesday morning, the

defense put on its entire case in about half a day.

Speaker 1: Two witnesses, both of them schoolteachers.

Speaker 2: Jesse Dreiser called a teacher and the head of school

from the private school in Jacksonville Beach that the twins attended.

Speaker 1: And what they said was this, that Shauna Gardner.

Speaker 2: And Mario Fernandez-Saldana were involved, friendly parents, that Fernandez-Saldana came

to events and picked the kids up, that everybody at

the school knew the couple was separating in 2022, and

that he was supposed to move out over spring break,

a plan that got delayed when Jared Breidigan was killed,

and that after the murder, he stopped being involved with

those children entirely. That is the defense case. Two teachers

describing a normal dad at pickup. And I want to

give that it's due because it is not nothing. The

state's story requires you to believe that a man was

orchestrating an ambush killing during the same months he was

showing up at school events and carrying kids to the car.

Juries do think about that. The teachers also confirmed something

that cuts the state's motive theory a little.

Speaker 1: Everyone knew that marriage was ending.

Speaker 2: In 2022 and he was already scheduled to move out.

If you're about to walk away from the marriage, the

argument goes, why murder your wife's ex-husband over her custody fight?

The state's answer is the trust fund. Prosecutors have told

this jury that Fernandez Saldana was the trustee on money

that came from Gardner's family, and that after Breitigan was killed,

he moved $ 50, 000 of it into his own account and

sold off what they had acquired together. Their version is

that he was not walking away empty-handed. He was cashing out.

And then Mario Fernandez Saldana did not testify. I want

to be very careful here because this is where people

get it wrong every single time. A defendant has an

absolute right not to testify. The jury will be instructed

they cannot hold it against him. And it is very

often the correct call. Putting your client on the stand

in a circumstantial case hands the prosecution a chance to

cross-examine the only person who can explain the checks. Most

defense lawyers would tell you not to do it. It

is not evidence of anything, and I am not going

to treat it like it is. But it does tell

you what the defense believes. They are not trying to

win by explaining. They are trying to win by pointing

at the hole in the middle.

Speaker 1: Of the state's case. And there is a hole.

Speaker 2: No murder weapon, no DNA belonging to Fernandez Saldana on

anything tested. No surveillance, no fingerprints, no hair putting him

in Tennant's truck or in Jacksonville Beach that night. The

lead detective conceded all of it on the stand. So

the prosecution closed yesterday afternoon on the only argument available

to them, and it is actually a coherent one. Their

pitch is totality. Take all of it together. Fernandez-Saldana is

the single connecting line between the alleged gunman and the victim.

Speaker 1: Tenon was his tenant.

Speaker 2: The tire matching the one in the road was found

at his rental property. The phone contacts, the practice run

down Breitigan's route, and then $ 10, 000 moving from him to

Tenon in the weeks after. And the prosecutor made an

argument that is going to matter a great deal in

that deliberation room. He told the jury they do not

need to hear the ask. Nobody has to produce a

recording of Mario Fernandez Saldana asking Henry Tenon to kill anyone,

because the killing itself is proof the ask happened. That

is a real legal argument, and it is also a

big swing. It asks 12 people to reason backward from

a dead man to a conversation nobody heard. An attorney

not involved in the case put it about as plainly

as anyone has. When it is all said and done,

what does the jury believe about those checks? Were they

written to commit a murder, or were they written for

tree work, roof work, and tile? Everything else in this

trial is arrangement around that one question. The defense closes

this morning. Judge London Kite instructs the jury, and that

case goes into a room this afternoon. One more thing,

and it is why this trial matters beyond itself. Shanna

Gardner has pleaded not guilty and is presumed innocent, and

jury selection in her trial begins Monday, August 31st. Whatever

this jury does today lands directly on top of that.

Jared Breidegen was 33 years old. He had four children.

The youngest one was two, and she was in the car.

His widow, Kirsten, has sat in that courtroom every day,

including the day they played video of an evidence technician

walking up to the scene in the dark. Four and

a half years to get one jury. Someone has to

say his name. When we come back, a hot microphone

in a recording studio and a judge who ruled that

what it caught was fair game. As we told you Monday,

we are running Las Vegas one day behind. Court Out

West runs on Pacific time and is often still in

session when we record. So what follows is where the

Dwayne Davis trial stood as of Monday.

Speaker 1: Quick reset.

Speaker 2: Tupac Shakur was shot on September 7th, 1996 at an

intersection off the Las Vegas Strip and died six days

later at 25. Dwayne Davis, known as Kefi D, is

63 and the only person ever charged. He has pleaded

not guilty. His defense is not that somebody else said

these things. It is that he said them and they

were fiction invented across two decades to sell books and

get on television. Which brings us to Monday and a

man named Michael Dorsey. Dorsey has worked in true crime

television for about 20 years. He got into the Tupac

and Biggie cases around 2012, helped make a documentary called

Murder Rap, and later worked as a contractor on a

BET docuseries about death row records. In July of 2017,

Davis sat down to be interviewed for that series. Dorsey

was not in the room. He was in an office

down the hall, listening to the live studio feed through headphones.

And he put his phone next to the speaker and

recorded the entire thing. Not the interview. The entire thing.

Including the breaks. Including conversations involving Davis and his own attorney.

Dorsey's explanation was that Davis had shown up unprepared the

first day. that he knew there would need to be

a second session, and that he wanted the material so

the production team could write better follow-up questions. He also

said he did not think he needed separate permission because

it was part of his job. And here is the

detail that made me sit up. Dorsey testified that at

one point during that session, Davis warned the room, this.

Speaker 1: Is a hot mic.

Speaker 2: He knew. He knew there was a live microphone in

that room. He said so out loud. And then he

kept talking for hours. The defense fought hard to keep

that recording out, and the fight was about attorney-client privilege,

because Davis' lawyer at the time was in that studio.

Judge Carly Kearney ruled against them. Her reasoning was that

there were third parties present, maybe half a dozen people,

that this was a recording studio, that there were microphones

in the room, and that Davis had signed a release.

Privilege protects a confidential conversation. Kearney's point is that nothing

about that room was confidential. So the jury heard about

40 minutes of it. In the recording, Davis talks about

Sean Combs. Interviewers push him repeatedly to say plainly that

money was offered, and Davis says at one point that

he guesses Combs wanted the big guy taken care of.

And I need to say clearly, as we have every

time this comes up, Sean Combs has denied any involvement

in Tupac Shakur's death, has never been charged in connection

with it, and has never been named a suspect. This

is a recording of a man's claim, not a finding.

Davis also said he never actually got any money, that

things were too hot afterward. He talked about his nephew,

Orlando Anderson, and called him his best friend.

Speaker 1: His everything.

Speaker 2: And that word matters, because the state's entire theory of

motive is that when Anderson got beaten at the MGM

Grand that night, Davis could not let it stand. Davis

described that part himself in the recording. He said that

after the beating, the group went to Club 662, looking

for the people responsible, waited around an hour, and nobody showed.

He also said he had known Suge Knight since he

was nine years old, and that he had helped him

get his record business going, which is why he wanted

to talk to him. Asked why he ever agreed to

tell his story to police in the first place, Davis'

answer was essentially that he did it to save his life.

He was looking at serious prison exposure on unrelated drug charges,

and cooperating was the way out. He also denied any

involvement in the killing of Christopher Wallace, Biggie Smalls, and

called Biggie a friend. The court has told this jury

directly that neither the Los Angeles police nor the court

has any indication Davis was involved in that murder, and

both sides agreed to a limiting instruction on it. And

then something genuinely strange happened. Interviewers pointed out that Anderson

was dead and could not face consequences, and asked directly

whether Anderson went after Tupac that night. And Davis said no.

He said no, he didn't. No, he didn't go after Tupac.

Which is the opposite of what he told Los Angeles

detectives in 2008, when he said Anderson was the one

who rolled down the window and fired. That contradiction is

either the state's problem or the defense's gift, depending on

how you look at it. Michael Sanft's whole case is

that Davis is a man who says whatever the moment

calls for. Tell it to detectives one.

Speaker 1: Way when you need a deal.

Speaker 2: Tell it another way on camera when a documentary is

paying you. Put a third version in a book. Samft

has told this jury that talk is not corroboration. And

the more versions the state plays, the more he gets

to make that point for free. And Samft spent the

afternoon proving it, though not about Davis, about Dorsey. He

established that Dorsey is not a detective. that he never

interviewed the Las Vegas police detectives actually responsible for the

case while doing his documentary research, and that much of

his material came from Greg Kading, the former LAPD detective

who wrote the book that put the Combs theory into circulation.

He walked Dorsey through claims in Davis' memoir, The Versace Suit,

The Rooms at Caesar's Palace, The Tyson Fight, and got

Dorsey to acknowledge he had not independently verified several of them.

And then Sanft finished with something I have to admire

as pure craft. He pointed the jury to the disclaimer

printed in Compton Street Legend, the one where the authors

and publishers assume no responsibility for errors, inaccuracies, or omissions.

The state's best evidence is a book that says on

its own copyright page that it might not be accurate.

That is a hell of a closing beat, and Sanft

knew it. But prosecutors had one thing left on redirect,

and it may be the most important thing that happened Monday.

There was a Chrysler Sebring at that intersection the night

Tupac was shot, with young women in it. And Dorsey

testified that as far as he knows, Davis was the

first person ever to identify that car as specifically a

Sebring in his 2008 statement before that detail was public.

That is what corroboration looks like in a case like this.

Not a fingerprint. A man knowing the make and model

of a car that was there. Because that is the

entire trial in one question. If Dwayne Davis was making

it all up to sell books, how did he know

about the Sebring? Tupac Shakur was 25 years old, 30 years,

one defendant, and a jury that has now spent two

weeks listening to a man's own voice on tape. Someone

has to say his name. That's the show for Wednesday,

August 26. If this was useful, send it to one person.

That is the entire engine on a show like this.

And if you're listening on Spotify, drop a comment because

today is a rare one. Two juries, two cases, both

going into deliberations on the same afternoon. Tell me which

verdict you think lands first and which way each one goes.

We will be here for both of them. I'm Garrett Fisher.

Speaker 1: Do better.

Speaker 2: A few notes on sourcing and timing. This episode was

recorded before court opened Wednesday morning. Closing arguments in the

Lindsay Clancy trial were expected Wednesday, and Judge Sullivan had

indicated deliberations would follow. But schedules in that courtroom have

moved more than once. As of recording, Sullivan had also

not announced whether involuntary manslaughter would be included as a

verdict option. In Jacksonville, the defense closing and jury instructions

were expected Wednesday morning with deliberations to follow Wednesday afternoon.

Nothing here should be taken as a report on what

actually happened in either courtroom today. On Las Vegas, this

segment covers Monday's proceedings. Court in Nevada runs on Pacific

time and is frequently still in session when we record,

so we run that case one day behind by design

rather than guess at partial reporting.

Speaker 1: Testimony continued Tuesday.

Speaker 2: Our accounts of courtroom exchanges, including the mistrial argument and

the jurors' reactions to the judge's instruction, come from reporters

present in the room rather than from transcripts.

Speaker 1: We have reviewed.

Speaker 2: Outlets differ on some details of the Clancy trial's length

and witness count. And at least one national outlet has

misstated the number of children Andrea Yates killed in 2001.

Speaker 1: That number is five.

Speaker 2: On the Jacksonville case, Mario Fernandez Saldana has pleaded not

guilty and is presumed innocent. So have Shanna Gardner and

Henry Tennant, who face separate trials. Henry Tennant pleaded guilty

in 2023 and later withdrew that plea, telling the court

his statements under it were false. So we do not

treat anything he said under that agreement as fact or

use it as.

Speaker 1: Evidence against anyone.

Speaker 2: A defendant's decision not to testify is a constitutional right

and cannot be considered evidence of guilt. Testimony from defense

witnesses characterizing members of the victim's family has been reported

elsewhere and is not included here because it does not

bear on the charges.

Speaker 1: On Las Vegas..

Speaker 2: Allegations Dwayne Davis has made in recorded interviews about living

people who have never been charged in this case, including

Sean Combs, are claims made by a man whose own

attorney has told the jury he cannot be corroborated and

who has said parts of his book were invented. Combs

has denied involvement, has never been charged in connection with

Tupac Shakur's death, and has never been named a suspect.

The jury has also been instructed that there is no

indication Davis had anything to do with the murder of

Christopher Wallace. This episode discusses child deaths, suicide, and postpartum

mental illness. If you are struggling, you can call or

text 988 in the United States to reach the Suicide

and Crisis Lifeline. For postpartum mental health specifically, the National

Maternal Mental Health Hotline is available by call or text

at 1-833-TLC-MAMA. Postpartum psychosis is rare, it is a medical emergency,

and it is treatable when it is caught. The overwhelming

majority of people who experience postpartum mental illness never harm anyone.

This transcript was automatically generated by the podcast creator and may contain errors. Aggregated via the PodcastIndex API.