And Hostin revealed that she was initially the holdout juror who believed Rakowitz should be found not criminally responsible because of mental illness.
Hostin Reveals Her Connection to a Notorious Case
The disclosure came as “The View” discussed the Lindsay Clancy case in Massachusetts.
Clancy admitted killing her three young children in 2023, but her defense maintained that postpartum psychosis left her not criminally responsible for the killings.
Her trial ended September 4 in a mistrial after jurors failed to reach a unanimous verdict. Eleven jurors favored finding Clancy not criminally responsible, while one juror favored conviction.
That discussion prompted Hostin to reveal her own experience with a divided jury.
“I was a holdout juror in the Daniel Rakowitz case. I don’t know if people remember it, the ‘Butcher of Tompkins Square Park,’” Hostin said.
“It was before I went to law school.”
The revelation immediately caught the attention of her co-hosts.
Rakowitz was accused of killing 26-year-old Monika Beerle in 1989 before dismembering her body and boiling portions of her remains.
Prosecutors also alleged that Rakowitz served soup containing Beerle’s remains to homeless people around Tompkins Square Park.
The gruesome allegations made the case notorious throughout New York.
Yet when the trial concluded in 1991, Rakowitz was not convicted of murder.
Instead, jurors unanimously found him not criminally responsible because of mental illness.
Hostin Explains Why She Refused to Budge
Hostin made clear that she strongly believed Rakowitz was psychotic.
“It was because I saw clearly that he was psychotic. He was in psychosis. He did not mean to kill her and once he killed her, he panicked. He chopped up her body, yes, boiled her body parts, tried to commit the perfect crime and then fed her…” she said.
That explanation prompted Alyssa Farah Griffin to interrupt.
“And you got this guy off?!” Griffin asked.
Hostin pushed back.
“No, no. That’s how much I believe in the insanity defense. And he fed her body parts to the unhoused.”
Hostin said the jury deliberated for nine days and that tensions became so intense that another juror threw a chair at her.
She nevertheless continued making her case to the other jurors.
“I picked them off and said, ‘What about this? What about that?’” Hostin recalled.
Eventually, the other jurors agreed.
“We ended up, all 12 unanimously voting that he was not criminally responsible,” Hostin said.
Rakowitz was subsequently confined to a psychiatric institution rather than released into the public.
‘That’s How Much I Believe in the Insanity Defense’
Hostin’s larger point was unmistakable.
“That’s how much I believe in the insanity defense,” she said.
Her co-hosts appeared stunned by the story.
Guest host Star Jones even jokingly attempted to put more distance between herself and Hostin on the couch.
But the timing of Hostin’s revelation made the exchange especially striking.
She brought up Rakowitz while discussing a modern murder trial centered on the same fundamental legal question: when should severe mental illness eliminate criminal responsibility for a killing?
In the Clancy case, however, the jury split in the opposite direction from Hostin’s initial position decades ago.
Eleven jurors accepted the defense’s argument that Clancy was not criminally responsible. One juror disagreed and favored conviction.
That single dissent prevented a unanimous verdict and resulted in a mistrial.
Clancy Juror Now Faces Scrutiny
The controversy surrounding the Clancy trial did not end when the jury was dismissed.
Defense attorney Kevin Reddington has since asked Judge William Sullivan to investigate the lone holdout juror.
Reddington’s motion seeks information concerning the juror’s alleged cellphone use during deliberations and raises questions about his answers during jury selection.
The defense has also requested examination of phone records and other court materials connected to the deliberations.
The juror’s attorney, Edward Paltzik, has strongly rejected the accusations and argued that investigating a dissenting juror could threaten the independence of the jury system.
That dispute is now adding another extraordinary chapter to an already closely watched murder case.
Hostin’s Story Raises a Bigger Question
Whatever viewers think of the insanity defense, Hostin’s account offered a rare look at how dramatically one determined juror can influence deliberations.
In Rakowitz’s case, Hostin says she entered deliberations holding a position the others did not initially share.
Nine days later, the jury unanimously agreed that Rakowitz was not criminally responsible.
In the Clancy case, one juror refused to join the other eleven — and no unanimous verdict was reached.
The comparison is striking precisely because the outcomes were different.
Rakowitz was not simply “set free” after the verdict. He was committed to a secure psychiatric institution, where reporting indicates he remained for decades.
But Hostin’s revelation still surprised her colleagues because of the extraordinary brutality of the crime and her willingness to publicly identify herself as the juror who fought for the insanity finding.
Decades later, she remains equally clear about the principle behind that decision.
“That’s how much I believe in the insanity defense.”
And with the Clancy case now facing additional litigation over its lone dissenting juror, Hostin’s decades-old jury experience suddenly has new relevance.
The next battle may no longer center solely on Clancy’s mental state.
It may center on just how far a court can go in examining the juror who refused to change his mind.
