This Is the 'Weird Thing' About the Lindsay Clancy Trial, According to Former Prosecutor on Fox News

Lindsay Clancy’s case and subsequent mistrial seemingly present an issue that benefits the perpetrator, per former Manhattan prosecutor and district attorney Elliot Felig.

Felig joined Fox News’ Trey Gowdy for an interview for the channel’s Sunday Night in America segment. During the conversation, he stated, “That’s the weird thing about this case.”

“In a way, the defendant benefits from just how horrific the crime is,” he added.

The former DA elaborated on his point further, saying, "People look at it and say, 'A mother? Killing her own children? She can't possibly be in her right mind to do that.'"

He explained that although that is not how he sees it, he understands that others view the case through that lens.

Gowdy agreed with him, saying, "Oh, I hear it all the time. 'Something must be wrong with them; normal people don't do that.'"

The host continued that "unfortunately," both he and Felig have witnessed a lot of cases that have made them aware that "there's a difference between normal people don't do it and criminally irresponsible."

Felig seemed to agree with his point of view, nodding along.

Elsewhere in the interview, the host asked the legal expert whether it was a case of "jury nullification" in his judgment.

"It's hard to see three children strangled and also know the killer may spend next to no time incarcerated," he continued.

"Yeah, but the system contemplates," the former DA began.

"Mistrials are, as you alluded to earlier...it's part of the process," he stated.

He also claimed that the prosecution will have "just as difficult a time in a retrial because of the same moral and philosophical divides that we saw throughout the country were clearly present in that jury room."

"There's no reason to think they won't be present in a subsequent trial," he added.

The DA also mentioned that "this is an especially tough" trial because "with a typical mistrial you can look at the case and say, 'Oh, ok, maybe this piece of evidence which we relied on wasn't actually that powerful. So, we're gonna take a slightly different approach.'"

"But in this case, the facts aren't really in dispute at all. It's just this broad philosophical split. We see it in the country; we saw it in the jury and there's every reason to think the subsequent jury may be similarly divided," he continued.

Gowdy interjected, saying that he believes retrials benefit the prosecution because they now have an idea of what the defense is going to build it's case on. When he asked the guest's opinion on the matter, he replied, "Well, look, we saw a kind of shift in tone in the prosecution's case."

"In the beginning, they portrayed her as more of just the personification of evil. And then, as the trial went on, they seemed to acknowledge real mental health issues," he went on.

"They could see the evidence that she was presenting, you know, demonstrated serious psychological issues that made her different than maybe the typical cold-blooded killer that jurors envision from movies and TV shows," he added.

"So, maybe, in a retrial, you acknowledge at the beginning that yes, there were serious issues here. Yes, she was dealing with a lot of doctors and this isn't just a last-minute made-up defense," he explained.

"So, maybe acknowledging more at the beginning of the case that, 'Ok she's not exactly like you and me and yes, there are real psychological issues. But there are a lot of people in our society dealing with psychological issues and... the majority of them don't subsequently kill their children,'" Felig noted.