The Lindsay Clancy murder trial ended in a mistrial after a single juror refused to join the other eleven in finding her not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility. In a court-martial, that same 11–1 split would have produced a final verdict, not a mistrial.

In this solo episode, Capovilla & Williams partner Dan Higgins breaks down the Clancy case: the competing expert testimony on postpartum psychosis, the defense’s focus on mental responsibility, and the jurors’ accounts of what happened in the deliberation room. He then connects it to military justice, explaining why the military doesn’t require unanimous verdicts, how Article 52 of the UCMJ sets the three-fourths threshold to convict, why courts have held that the Sixth Amendment jury right doesn’t apply to courts-martial, and why he, as a defense attorney, sees an unexpected advantage in the current system.