Could Patrick Clancy’s ’60 Minutes’ Interview Impact Future Murder Trial?

Attorneys are divided over Patrick Clancy‘s decision to speak about his ex-wife Lindsay Clancy’s murder trial on 60 Minutes, with concerns that the interview could affect a potential retrial.

Patrick spoke publicly for the first time since a mistrial was declared in the case of Lindsay, who faced three first-degree murder counts for the deaths of her children, Cora (5), Dawson (3), and Callan (8 months). During the interview, Patrick hit out at the conspiracy theories that he was the one who killed the kids.

Some have questioned Patrick’s decision to speak publicly, claiming what he said could be used against him in a future retrial.

“There might be a retrial for this very serious homicide case,” attorney Eric Faddis told NewsNation Prime on Sunday (September 20). “He was witness number one in the last one. He would be central to the second one. So certainly anything he said in this interview could be used in a subsequent trial. Both sides are going to be examining that very closely.”

Attorney Darryl Cohen offered a counter view, telling the outlet that nothing Patrick said in the 60 Minutes interview could be held against him. “He was an innocent victim. Unfortunately, the kids died, and he has to live with that. Nothing he did was anything wrong. He never did anything wrong,” Cohen said.

Lindsay’s triple-murder trial ended in a mistrial on September 4 after the jury remained deadlocked after approximately 38 hours of deliberation across seven days. She stood accused of strangling her three young children to death in January 2023. Her defense argued that she was legally insane at the time due to postpartum psychosis.

The case has drawn widespread public attention, leading to online speculation and conspiracy theories that allege Patrick was involved in his children’s deaths.

Cohen told NewsNation’s Hena Doba that it was smart for Patrick to address these conspiracies directly. “I think if you have nothing to say, then say nothing,” Cohen said. “On the other hand, if you have everything to say, you need to put a stop to it as quickly as possible because these conspiracy theories will continue forever. And it doesn’t matter what he says or doesn’t say, they’re going to be here.”

Faddis agreed on that point, stating, “I think it’s important to get out in front of that. In our modern social media environment, you have these kinds of armchair journalists and citizen journalists, and sometimes they get it right. Sometimes they get it abysmally wrong. So, it makes sense for him to come forward.”

“It’s deeply harmful to the legacy of my children,” Patrick said when asked about the conspiracies. “It is a huge distraction from what really matters here, which is perinatal mental health. And it’s done real harm to real people — myself included, but also others.”

He added, “It’s painful to see, and it makes it difficult to be in public. And it’s possible that some of those people, after seeing lie after lie after lie, start to believe it. And that’s what we’re left with.”

As for the chances of a retrial, Faddis said he believes it’s almost a certainty that prosecutors will seek one. However, he noted that they’ll need to change their strategy following the previous 11-1 jury split in favor of an acquittal.

“Look, the facts aren’t changing. There’s not going to be any new bombshell investigation or anything,” Faddis stated. “So, the prosecution is going to have to make a very serious pivot if they want any chance of prevailing in a second trial.”