00:03:29.440He knows that if you keep pressuring the jury, it's more likely than they would find something to compromise on, perhaps the guilty on involuntary manslaughter.
00:03:38.400So what I think is happening is that Reddington had wanted and anticipated a hung jury, a mistrial right now, and the judge seems to be prolonging it.
00:06:27.220The burden is on the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the charges made against her.
00:06:34.880What is proof beyond a reasonable doubt?
00:06:37.420Well, the term is often used and probably pretty well understood, though it's not easily defined.
00:06:43.220Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt.
00:06:47.440For everything in the lives of human beings is open to some possible or imaginary doubt.
00:06:53.240A charge is proved beyond a reasonable doubt if, after you've compared and considered all of the evidence,
00:06:59.800you have in your minds an abiding conviction to a moral certainty that the charge is true.
00:07:05.260When we refer to moral certainty, we mean the highest degree of certainty possible in matters relating to human affairs, based solely on the evidence that has been put before you in this case.
00:07:19.080I've told you that every person is presumed to be innocent until they are proved guilty, and that the burden of proof is on the prosecutor.
00:07:26.940If you evaluate all the evidence and you still have a reasonable doubt remaining, the defendant is entitled to the benefit of that doubt and must be acquitted.
00:07:37.940It's not enough for the Commonwealth to establish a probability, even a strong probability, that the defendant is more likely to be guilty than not guilty.
00:08:56.180Yes, well, I can see why Ashley had that guess because of what Court TV reported.
00:09:01.780But I think now we see that Phil and I had a right that this was simply just the judge
00:09:06.860going and telling the jury, go back in there and keep deliberating.
00:09:11.280And here's the definition, whereas you had the defense lawyer upset
00:09:15.760because he wanted the mistrial he was like stop coercing them stop pressuring them and that's
00:09:21.100what happened so i don't know what went on behind the closed doors but you give a lot of discretion
00:09:25.700to the jury the jury can yell and even almost threaten each other just can't get beyond a
00:09:30.840point where it's physical violence we let that go on so that's why the defense lawyer was like
00:09:35.600call the mistrial call the mistrial or get rid of the jury the juror who we think is is uh ruling
00:09:40.460for the state so yeah uh that's what i think happened the judge has said keep deliberating
00:09:44.680Well, there's one piece missing from this, Megan. We don't know what the note said. The note, you know, let's be careful. The note did not say we are deadlocked. And the judge, as far as I saw, did not read the note or let us know what it said. It could have been something very simple, such as like a juror is not wanting to participate in the deliberations.
00:10:03.500I've actually had that in a case where we had to bring the jurors out and had to ask them questions one by one, kick somebody off and bring in an alternate.
00:10:11.840So the defense may very well have said, judge, this is the same thing as a hung jury.
00:10:17.860But I'm going to wait until we know what the note said from that jury before I can decide whether the judge did the right thing.
00:10:25.240And if they were, in fact, deadlocked and he sent them back to deliberate again, that's a violation of the law in the state of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
00:10:34.760Yeah. Now we're on thin ice. That's a reversible error if he does that.
00:10:38.320I can't imagine this judge would have done that because he already gave them the charge, the so-called dynamite charge, to make them one last chance at reaching a verdict.
00:10:49.080And my understanding is you're not allowed to make them go back again.
00:10:52.580But that's depending on what the note says.
00:10:55.120If the if the note had said we're still hopelessly deadlocked and he just did what he did, I think he's in trouble.
00:10:59.840But it doesn't sound like that's what the note said.
00:11:01.780Again, Court TV reporting the note conveyed that there was something wrong in the jury room.
00:11:07.960And then all we heard from this judge, Ashley, was I want to remind you, you're required to follow my instructions on the law on the law.
00:11:17.220So they have a question about what the law is.
00:11:19.820I want to go over my instructions on reasonable doubt, reminding them the burden of proof is on the prosecutor and then defining reasonable doubt for the jury does not mean beyond all possible doubt.
00:11:34.560If after you've considered everything, you have a moral certainty that the charges are true, then that's that's good enough for a conviction.
00:11:44.440and then reminding them that she's entitled to the presumption of innocence.
00:14:55.300because they didn't ask for a whole lot of evidence
00:14:57.020or readbacks, which would make a legal problem, right?
00:14:59.900they're discussing legal issues. No, I think they're discussing moral issues. And maybe
00:15:04.120this one juror is not following the law that allows for an insanity defense or a not responsible
00:15:11.220defense. It is such a fascinating development, though, to see him so angry, because I think
00:15:19.700that what he's seeing is that this could be my mistrial. And at 11 to 1, I think I get a deal
00:15:26.000after this. Yeah. This is, I got to tell you, this is reminding me, by the way, we're now joined by
00:15:32.220Matt Murphy. The gang's all together. The best true crime people on the internet are all right
00:15:36.960here together. Great to see you, Matt. This is so reminding me on our podcast feed this summer,
00:15:43.960we've been doing an MK Confidential crime series. And this week we're doing Scott Peterson. And
00:15:49.000you are going to hear, audience, about tonight or tomorrow, I can't remember which night it is,
00:15:54.660I think it's tonight, about how in the Scott Peterson deliberations, the jury foreman was removed.
00:16:03.300He was removed and replaced because he went in and told the judge that he felt bullied by his fellow jurors and no longer believed he could come to a verdict based only on what was happening in that room.
00:16:15.880He thought he didn't feel safe anymore and he felt like he was going to be forced to come to a verdict based on something other than just the evidence.
00:16:25.540And here we are, I mean, 20 plus years later in this trial, zeroing in on one juror who the defense says is refusing to follow the law.
00:16:38.200And we now know, Matt, from the exchange we just heard, this is about one juror, which would suggest, though we don't know, that they've got an 11 to 1 split in that jury room.
00:19:50.940I think that Reddington might think that it's 11 to 1 in his favor.
00:19:55.220Otherwise, he wouldn't have agreed to maybe let one of the holdout jurors go.
00:20:00.980but I want to go back to the jury being questioned at Sidebar. We've talked about this before. It's
00:20:08.880unlawful and improper for the judge to send them back to continue to deliberate if they say that
00:20:15.720they are hung. However, the jury, if they wish to go back, they can be allowed to go back if they
00:20:23.000agree to. So the judge can send them back again if they all agree to go back and deliberate.
00:20:29.480So he could have been addressing that issue.
00:20:31.840I can envision a scenario, and this is something of speculation because we don't know what the verdict is or what the note says, I should say.
00:20:40.460It could have said, look, we're deadlocked because we got one juror who won't follow your instructions.
00:20:45.420So then he brings them out and he says, okay, if I talk to the jury about following my instructions, would you be willing to continue to deliberate?
00:20:53.740And if they all came up there, and they all did, it wasn't just one, and if they all said, yes, judge, we will go back.
00:20:59.180if you give some further instructions, that could explain what's going on. But in the absence of
00:21:04.900the contents of that note, we just have no idea. All we can do is speculate.
00:21:10.140I might be able to help here. I think I may be able to help. The reporting from inside the court
00:21:13.800at this point says that the note had an instruction from the foreperson saying there is one juror
00:21:18.820that refuses to listen to the law on reasonable doubt. And it was Kevin Reddington that wanted
00:21:24.920the juror removed so i actually do believe how he knows it but that he thinks that obviously if
00:21:31.500they're not following the letter of the law they think that that holdout juror is not following
00:21:36.200the letter of the law so that you can actually find them not guilty because of the responsibility
00:21:41.540factor so i think it is pretty interesting and actually to your point phil you're right if they
00:21:46.700come back with a deadlock twice that's it massachusetts law says it's over but i don't
00:21:50.160think that's what the note said i don't think they didn't i don't think the juror uh who's
00:21:54.460the foreperson said, we're deadlocked. The note actually just said, one juror refuses to listen
00:22:00.060to the law on reasonable doubt, which is different from we can't agree. Well, I've had this in court.
00:22:04.600This is crazy. So yes, this Christina Rex is reporting, she's with WBZ. She is reporting
00:22:10.460what you said. Reddington arguing in open court, the Clancy case says to the judge, the court has
00:22:14.080instruction from the foreperson saying there's one juror who refuses to listen to the law
00:22:19.000that you've given him or her on reasonable doubt. Prosecutor agrees with judge's approach,
00:22:23.380which is to read the general instruction on reasonable doubt to the jury.
00:22:27.120The judge says he doesn't feel it's proper to decide with one side or the other.
00:22:32.140I think she means side with one side or the other on deliberations.
00:22:35.540Quote, it's not appropriate for me to say I agree with one juror or 11,
00:22:40.360judge says, insinuating there is an 11 to one holdout issue here.
00:23:14.840What I said before was that I think Kevin Reddington is seeing with this note saying one juror cannot follow the law according to reasonable doubt.
00:23:24.080It may say to Kevin Reddington, aha, following the law and reasonable doubt would get me to a not guilty by reason of insanity or not responsible in Massachusetts.
00:23:33.780And Matt Murphy knows this. What do you make of it? Matt knows.
00:23:37.180I was just going to ask him to weigh in. Go ahead, Matt. Yeah, go ahead, Matt.
00:23:40.300No, look, he's been able to see them. Right, Megan? That's one thing that we haven't. And when you stand up to do a closing argument, especially in a murder case like this, you really do get a vibe from the jury. And even when they're stone faced, some of them are like, they're with you and you can tell.
00:23:57.300So he must feel that. Otherwise, it's like I'm watching this. He originally wanted the court to declare a mistrial. He could talk himself out of a really good verdict by doing that, potentially.
00:24:13.400If the court declares it and it's 11 to 1 and 11 were on his side, then a mistrial has been declared and he's got to theoretically go through this whole thing again.
00:24:24.160You know, they'll enter into negotiations, Megan, if this thing hangs.
00:24:28.060But I don't know. Then again, Phil, Dave, we all have had crazy experiences with juries where you think they're with you or against you and you think the holdout is this person.
00:24:40.320And we're so often wrong. It's, you know, yeah, I told the story with with Ashley last night about a case one of my colleagues did where there was an ex-con who had his constitutional rights restored and it was hanging 11 to one.
00:24:55.300And my my buddy was like, I got to get rid of this guy. I don't know how to know how. And I think he got he was later. He was sick or something.
00:25:01.240And he basically bagged out. He was the one holdout for guilty. And it was and he was a it was a former prisoner who's like, these guys are all full of crap.
00:25:08.280you never know and kevin reddington must have a vibe but he doesn't know either until you know
00:25:14.260until none of us don't think they told the lawyers which which juror you don't think they told the
00:25:20.200lawyers which juror no no yeah no way this is such a pickle this is such a pickle what do you what
00:25:28.120would you guess matt the judge is asking each juror or telling um can you can you follow the law can
00:25:35.020you follow the law as the court has instructed you, can you continue to deliberate with your
00:25:38.740fellow jurors and listen to what everybody says and keep an open mind? That's the generic question.
00:25:43.920Some version of that will be asked of each juror and most of them will nod. And he might be going
00:25:49.480as far as saying, is there somebody that's refusing to deliberate or participate in the
00:25:54.460process? But that basically requires them to sit in a corner with their arms crossed.
00:25:59.840If they're talking and they continue to engage, that's usually considered deliberation under
00:26:22.640Jury deliberations, Megan, are the wild west.
00:26:25.360And the stuff that goes back, the law takes a view that we almost don't want to know, okay?
00:26:32.480And, you know, who knows what's going on back there, and we won't know.
00:26:38.920But if it's 11 to 1, that bodes, I think, well for the defense in this one.
00:26:43.640But they could be hung between a murder and a voluntary manslaughter, remember that instruction.
00:26:48.560or they could be hung between a vol and and this not criminally responsible language in
00:26:53.980the state of Massachusetts for insanity. We just don't know. I mean, what how would you
00:26:59.880let me ask you this, Matt, how would you be playing it if you were in that court?
00:27:03.120First of all, OK, I got a cheap shot here, Megan. I would have first thing I would have
00:27:08.280done is I would have combined with Reddington and demanded to this court that we needed more
00:27:12.280time to argue the case. Megan, I had never done a murder closing where I haven't spent at least
00:27:16.520an hour explaining the law. The prosecutor was up there. She did a much better job in closing than
00:27:21.980at any other point, in my opinion, in the entire trial. But then to spend 40 minutes on a case with
00:27:27.380this complexity, with this many witnesses, with 13 different prescribed medications and everything
00:27:31.800else we saw, 40 frigging minutes, I was pulling my hair out watching this, Megan. So the first
00:27:37.340thing I would have done is I would have taken proper time explaining the law to the jury.
00:27:41.640If I was parachuted in, I would have objected to the court giving the reasonable doubt instruction, but we don't know the language of the note.
00:27:51.340The reasonable doubt language that we just listened to is very pro-defense in the state of Massachusetts.
00:27:58.420Part of the problem with Massachusetts, and Mark Yergos and I were talking about this, their law on insanity, Megan, they use what's called the McCool Rule.
00:28:05.120Under the McNaughton rule, which is almost every other state, if a person is suffering
00:28:09.320from mental illness, they can still be held criminally responsible as long as they understand
00:28:13.600the nature and quality of their actions.
00:28:15.660Massachusetts has a third prong that even if they're mentally ill, even if they know
00:28:21.960what they're doing but are unable to control their conduct, they can be found criminally
00:30:44.780And the odds of this jury wanting to stick around this courthouse on the Friday of Labor
00:30:51.880day weekend as opposed to put this thing to bed if it's at all possible in the next 10 minutes are
00:30:55.680very coming back. We continue to watch. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead. Fail your thoughts. Well,
00:31:00.700we don't, you know, reasonable doubt. I like to tell jurors that it's a doubt for which a reason
00:31:06.520can be attached and it's really can be just that simple. And in this case, you know, the burden is
00:31:12.280on the prosecutors to disprove the insanity defense beyond a reasonable doubt. And you're
00:31:18.480right, Megan, you can't just toss a juror because they have a difference of opinion. You could toss
00:31:24.160a juror if the court is satisfied that a juror is refusing to participate in deliberations. If they
00:31:30.020just sit back and cross their arms and say, I'm not participating in this anymore. I told y'all
00:31:34.840what I wanted to do, and I'm not going to participate. That would be enough probably to
00:31:38.580get a juror tossed from the case. But if they all say that they are willing to continue to listen to
00:31:44.380the judge's instructions, follow the instructions, a difference of opinion. See, the foreperson may
00:31:49.100be wrong about this. It may just be that one person has a genuinely held conviction on what
00:31:55.660they believe the outcome of the case should be. And that's not a failure to deliberate. That's
00:32:00.380just a hung jury. That's what that is. And so I really think that even though we aren't technically
00:32:06.220there yet, it looks like we are definitely sort of going down that path. I think we'll know
00:32:11.140something here shortly, whether or not this jury is going to continue to want to keep working. I
00:32:16.940think Reddington believes that the juror was probably not going his way. That's why he wanted
00:32:22.480the juror to be bounced. I think that he believes that he's got this 11 to 1. He would not otherwise
00:32:28.740be wanting that juror off. And to Matt's point, this is what I was going to say earlier, that we
00:32:33.060know, those of us who have tried these cases, we know from the time the jury is seated which ones
00:32:38.920we think we might be able to persuade and which ones are going to be a little harder. And then
00:32:43.160as you go through the trial, in this case, it lasted a month. Reddington has had a long time
00:32:47.500to spend in that courtroom with this particular juror, whoever he or she may be, and has a very
00:32:53.460good sense of whether or not that juror might be sort of leaning his way or not. So I think that
00:32:59.560that explains his frustration. He believes that he's got this 11 to 1. He believes that there is
00:33:04.800one juror that needs to be substituted with an alternate. And then he thinks he can get out of
00:33:09.620here with a clean not guilty or not guilty. It will be not guilty by reason of insanity. I don't
00:33:14.560think there's any chance that it's going to be a straight not guilty. The prosecutor has some
00:33:21.380interesting choices to make right now, Matt, because if the jury does come back hung, if they
00:33:28.660can't turn this one juror around and it really was 11 to 1 in favor of not guilty by reason of
00:33:37.620mental defect um does this prosecutor want to try this case again they do not with these charges no
00:33:45.020they don't and look the ashley and i again we were talking about this last night what needs to happen
00:33:49.500is there needs to be the elected da who's a friend of our friend dave erenberg dave says he's a great
00:33:54.920guy i don't know him he needs to sit down with these prosecutors probably in the room with
00:33:59.860reddington and see if they can reach a some sort of a compromise that everybody can live it the
00:34:04.720problem is if they're 11 to 1 for insanity you know to use the california term here um reddington's
00:34:11.480not going to be super motivated to uh to make a deal if he thinks that he can get her get her that
00:34:17.200you know that that after a second trial each side should be motivated to to resolve it we also don't
00:34:25.920know what happened behind the scenes leading up to this i don't know if these if these two
00:34:29.780prosecutors dug their heels in and refused to talk better if there was if there was any discussions
00:34:34.040about you know there's a lot of there's a lot of ways you could sort of bake this pie so to speak
00:34:39.780that you could find a middle ground like a voluntary manslaughter or maybe you do you you
00:34:44.640run the three deaths concurrent to one another. There's ways that you could structure it so that
00:34:50.420nobody would be happy, but there would be some middle ground. But they're going to be motivated
00:34:56.380to do that. But if it's the other way, if it's 11 to 1 the other way, the prosecution probably
00:35:01.920is going to say, screw it, we're just going to retry it. Right. Because even though we're all
00:35:06.520right now assuming Kevin Reddington has gleaned that there's one juror that's for the prosecution
00:35:12.180and 11 that are for him. We don't know that. We should make clear to the audience. We don't know
00:35:17.840anything. They didn't actually read the note to us. We just know that Kevin complained in court
00:35:23.080saying, I want the juror removed and was so angry about, we think, about the judge's refusal to do
00:35:30.500that, that he was throwing papers and kind of getting in the judge's face. And then the judge
00:35:34.240was raising his voice. And we believe because Kevin announced it to the court that that's what
00:35:39.440he was angry about that in fact that's what he was angry about so that's just and we don't know
00:35:44.980what the note said maybe the note said juror matt murphy is a prick who won't follow reasonable
00:35:50.560we have the exact wording i think we do i don't have the exact wording but this is the reporting
00:35:55.100from the courtroom the court has an instruction from the four persons saying there is one
00:35:59.100juror that refuses to listen to the law on reasonable doubt i think that's here
00:36:06.560well how do we why do we go from that to that juror is definitely good for the prosecution
00:36:17.400with the leap it's a leap like that i think matt's matt's uh suggestion there that kevin
00:36:22.680reddington might be thinking hey ho i'll go i'll go another round if it looks this good i i really
00:36:27.660i'm not sure that that would happen that is an enormous but like i just don't i don't get
00:36:33.460But if I hear that the juror is saying, wait a minute, is that is that happening right now, Debbie?
00:36:42.180Wait a minute. Oh, OK. They're they're lining up to go back into the courtroom.
00:36:48.180But this could just be the dismissal for the day. It doesn't necessarily mean the jury's doing anything.
00:36:53.200But dismissal for the day would be interesting, too. I mean, it would mean they're not close and they're not like, give us 10 more minutes.
00:36:58.000we're on the verge. But if the note is a juror's, can you read it again, Ashley? Sorry,
00:37:04.900I don't have it in front of me. Yeah, let me jump back to it. Okay, the court has an instruction
00:37:10.880from the foreperson saying there is one juror, and this is not verbatim of the note, this is a
00:37:15.020description of the happenings. Court has an instruction from the foreperson saying there
00:37:20.480is one juror that refuses to listen to the law on reasonable doubt. And then, of course, that was
00:37:27.920uh, followed by the judge reading an instruction on reasonable doubt. And the judge said,
00:37:33.360so why, why, why couldn't it be? I'm, I'm the holdout and I don't want to find her guilty of
00:37:42.040anything. I want to find her not guilty by reason of mental defect. And all the other jurors are
00:37:48.420saying to me, um, no, you shouldn't do that because she's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
00:37:55.900And I say, no, she isn't. I have a reasonable doubt. I don't see why we're leaping, starting
00:38:03.280with Kevin Reddington, to it's 11 to 1 in the defense's favor. I'm trying to listen. Am I just
00:38:08.940too dense to get it? I don't get it. No, I think we're doing that because we all watch the trial
00:38:12.360and we watch these prosecutors who are not ready for primetime, Megan, and then you get into
00:38:16.940Massachusetts law and it's so amorphous. It's so big. And I'm so glad that I never had to prosecute
00:38:22.760cases they're reading this stuff and i think that's why people are jumping to that because
00:38:26.820they were outclassed by the defense attorney from the opening statement on and he and i think that's
00:38:33.580why everybody is jumping to that but you're but you're right we never know in a situation like
00:38:37.700this and it could be again it could be between the vol and and something else but um yeah uh i i
00:38:44.780wasn't impressed with anybody's closing argument in this if that's not clear enough so i think this
00:38:48.880jury is kind of on their own. You and I spoke about this. We keep saying we spoke last night
00:38:54.520on my podcast. Let's be clear. Yes. Right. Well, it's fine to talk socially, too. I know.
00:39:01.620Just in case there's people out there that want to go conspiracy theory. But I think what critical
00:39:06.100is that and listen, I'm not a litigator, but I think you do get a pretty solid vibe after five,
00:39:11.680six weeks in a courtroom of what jurors are more sensitive to your position. Many of them will make
00:39:16.000eye contact with you, not make eye contact with your defendant, or yes, make eye contact with
00:39:20.460your defendant. And so perhaps that's the vibe that Kevin Reddington and the metric.
00:39:24.360Today, there's at least one report, I think it was from, was it Lauren Conlon? Somebody reported
00:39:29.000that not one juror, no, it was justice served, jury in, not one looked at Lindsey Clancy for
00:39:36.100today, whatever that means. Keep going. No, that's significant. But for whatever his reason,
00:39:41.000Kevin Reddington is no dummy, right? Whatever his reason is to want that juror bounced,
00:39:45.360He's got a solid vibe, which he has amassed over the last five, six weeks of who's who.
00:39:50.820And I think he probably feels like he's got multiple people on that jury in his pocket.
00:39:54.820And if there's only one, that person ain't.
00:40:14.420It could be. So she claims. Allegedly, reportedly. But you're in good company because the jury is also leaving.
00:40:25.440So we will have no verdict nor any declaration of a mistrial today.
00:40:29.860All the action is now over inside that courtroom for today, Thursday, September 3rd.
00:40:35.820It will resume tomorrow. The court is in session, even though we're going into Labor Day weekend.
00:40:40.100So Matt, goodbye, Ashley. You as well. We're going to be joined by Johnna Spilboer.
00:40:44.420And Dave Ehrenberg, who had dropped his back with us, too, in a second, I think.
00:40:48.120Jonna, your reaction to the drama going on in this court today?
00:40:52.100Well, at the risk of getting continually clobbered by your audience, Megan, because they don't like my position on this case.
00:41:00.060They love you. They don't like Mark Eiglert, but they love you.
00:41:03.460I don't. I have an opposite approach. Here's my theory why Kevin Reddington was acting all pissed off.
00:41:09.560He is putting on a dog and pony show. He wants the world to think this lone holdout is in his
00:41:16.520favor. So he slams his papers on the table. We have no idea whether this one holdout is
00:41:22.500prosecution. We have no clue. But but if we go by his face and his reaction, we're all going to
00:41:30.600think that it's in his favor. Yet we do not know. So this is part of his dog and pony show.
00:41:36.120And I'm going to wait and see. This could easily be pro prosecution. And the fact that the jurors, according to Ashley, who just left, didn't look at Lindsay Clancy today or I'm sorry, you were according to me, not me, but to somebody called Justice Served, who's been covering the court.
00:41:51.120That is very important. Having having done this a million times before, when the jury does not look at your client, you're in trouble. So there you have it.
00:42:00.360That's I like I'm trying not to be obtuse, but if the if the note from the foreman read to the effect of we haven't heard the exact one juror refuses to listen to the law on reasonable doubt.
00:42:15.020That does not tell us in which way it could be somebody sitting there saying, I have a reasonable doubt.
00:42:22.260That's all I'm going to I'm not voting to convict.
00:42:24.620I have a reasonable doubt. And all the 11 are saying, how could you possibly have a reasonable doubt, which would be acting by Kevin Reddington if that's what's actually happening? And he knows that. He doesn't know any more than we know. The judge wouldn't have told him. The jury hasn't told the judge or the courtroom more than what's in that note, because all communications from the jury, we get to know Dave Ehrenberg. I mean, I guess in that Q&A, that would have been on the record.
00:42:50.580But the judge right now doesn't know which juror, does he or or which way the juror is pushing?
00:42:56.920No, no. The judge and the parties would not. But why would Kevin Reddington lie about it?
00:43:02.540Like, why would he put on an act? Because eventually we will know the count.
00:43:06.960I know the judge is not allowed to ask, but jurors will talk.
00:43:10.900Well, wait. But let me just let me just quickly say, because he doesn't know he does.
00:43:16.540So you shouldn't walk away from his behavior saying he knows he doesn't know.
00:43:20.160He hasn't been told. So he's gleaning. So he had to make a decision in the moment.
00:43:27.920What to do? Do I what do I actually think? And it might be he actually thinks this that the 11 are for him and the holdout is for the prosecution and he wants that juror gone.
00:43:40.180Or it could be that's just the way he's going to play it. I don't know. I guess I don't think it's acting.
00:43:46.300I guess I don't know if it's acting because he argued that the juror should be bounced.
00:43:51.580So if he thought the juror was for him.
00:46:58.480It's not appropriate for me to say I agree with one juror, comma, or 11, says the judge, insinuating that there's an 11-1 holdout issue here.
00:47:10.120He didn't say in those words there's only one holdout, but he said it's not appropriate for me to say I agree with one juror or 11.
00:47:18.700So it certainly appears that there is a split on an issue between 11 versus 1, and we glean from the fact that the judge read the reasonable doubt instructions that it was over that issue.
00:47:33.320And indeed, there was also this reporting from, again, this Christina Rex, Reddington argued in open court that, quote, the court has an instruction from the foreperson saying there's one juror who refuses to listen to the law that you've given him or her on reasonable doubt, on reasonable doubt.
00:47:54.100So that's so it's pretty good, pretty good math that it's 11 to one right now and that that's the issue they're arguing over.
00:48:03.320Yeah, I agree. And that seems to be that's consistent with all the other posts and tweets that are coming out of the courtroom.
00:48:10.600And Reddington, let's just remember, he knows this case inside and out.
00:48:17.200He's lived this case for years. He's lived this case for the month long of this trial, but for years he has lived this case.
00:48:26.460And so his instincts are telling him that that juror, that one juror, is not following the law on reasonable doubt.
00:48:33.840I suspect that what we're seeing is Reddington is aware that he believes he has 11 people who have said, you know, there's reasonable doubt.
00:48:43.760And by the way, the law is skewed in the defense favor on this in the state of Massachusetts on the issue of insanity.
00:48:51.220So he thinks that the wind is at his back.
00:48:53.600He thinks that he's got those 11 jurors and that there's one back there who's just saying, look, I'm not going to vote under any circumstances to acquit her.
00:49:03.100I don't care what the judge says or something like that.
00:49:05.200That's what I envision going on back in the jury room, Megan.
00:49:08.380I think that we'll see more progress maybe tomorrow.
00:49:11.920If it truly is 11 to 1, they might be able to pull that juror on their side.
00:49:15.680But if they don't do it quickly and that juror is as stubborn as Reddington has said that they are, they may they may tell the judge tomorrow morning or very soon that they are, in fact, stuck 11 to 1.
00:49:27.500All right. Stand by. Let's take a look inside the courtroom.
00:49:29.840We're told that the jury was being dismissed, but there is action inside the courtroom.
00:49:32.920I think it could just be the goodbye. Let's let's watch.
00:49:37.180We have 12 deliberating jurors and six alternates in the matter.
00:49:42.200Our Commonwealth versus Lindsey Clancy.
00:54:47.480I want to point out our colleague, our MK True Crime colleague, Ashley Merchant, posted on Twitter, what if the Clancy jury holdout is the guilty vote?
00:54:55.460That would explain why the defense, Reddington, wants a verdict from the other jurors and doesn't want this jury forced back into deliberations again.
00:55:05.960I mean, yeah, we've been debating that.
00:55:07.860That seems to be what at least Kevin wants us to believe and what Kevin believes.
00:55:12.060I think Kevin does believe that because it would be really reckless to argue, bounce the juror, bounce the juror, if you thought secretly it was a jury for you, a juror for you.
00:55:22.000I mean, that would be incredibly stupid.
00:55:23.680After all that effort, he would like to win this case.
00:55:29.580But what we need the audience to understand is we don't think Kevin knows.
00:55:34.400We think Kevin is gleaning, just like we're gleaning from Kevin's behavior.
00:55:39.000But there's what we're gleaning and there's what we know. And all we know for sure is the judge called them in there. He instructed them, began with, you are required to follow my instructions on the law. I want to go over my instructions on reasonable doubt.
00:55:56.760and then did that and that we understand the note from the foreman read to the effect of
00:56:04.320one juror refuses to listen to the law on reasonable doubt does kevin know more did
00:56:09.560the judge expand does even the judge know more these are things we we have no idea about so
00:56:15.220yeah go ahead no i was going to say the note likely did not say hey judge 11 of us want to
00:56:23.000acquit and only one of us want to convict, what should we do? Right. I don't think the note said
00:56:28.300that it was much more nebulous than that, which is why to assume that we know the division is
00:56:35.760just something that we really can't hang our hats on because the instruction that he came back and
00:56:40.360gave them the reasonable doubt instruction could go either way, depending on what the content of
00:56:47.440this note is. And I think if the content of the note was, you know, vague, that's probably smart
00:56:54.340on the foreman's part. Right. But and it sounds like the note was vague. Why can't the juror be
00:57:00.360saying, Jonna, I have a reasonable doubt. I have a reasonable doubt. I don't believe she should be
00:57:07.280held responsible. I have a reasonable doubt and I'm not voting for any of those charges. Murder
00:57:12.400one murder two or manslaughter i'm not doing and what and why can't it be the other 11 are saying
00:57:18.100you have a doubt but it's not reasonable exactly the prosecution didn't have to prove this prove
00:57:23.600this case beyond all doubt just beyond all reasonable doubt and this juror is saying
00:57:29.260well they didn't and and why couldn't that be the scenario dave's well yeah it could be yeah but but
00:57:36.200i think it's more something like i don't care what the evidence says i just feel it in my gut that
00:57:41.460she's guilty and needs to go to prison i mean there could be something like that and the other
00:57:45.340jurors said no that's not a good enough reason let's go back to the judge i love the dramatic
00:57:50.980reenactment i do i we can't see inside the deliberation room so this is the best we're
00:57:57.200going to get is is that yeah this is how i feel um i don't know i get like let's just play it out
00:58:05.240the other way because i'm just trying to find the follow the reasoning to see if we can figure it
00:58:08.220out. If you are, if you've got 11 who want to find her not guilty by reason of mental defect,
00:58:14.960and you've got the one juror saying, I think she's guilty.
00:58:23.400Would that boil down to a debate over reasonable doubt? Like, I think this is why I'm stuck. And
00:58:30.380maybe John has stuck with me on the very real possibility that the 11 are pro-prosecution,
00:58:37.360Because if the holdout is holding out over the law, refusing to listen to the law on reasonable doubt, if the law on reasonable doubt is what's controlling in there, then haven't they moved beyond mental defect?
00:58:56.760Like the only reason you'd be, yes, don't shake your head.
00:59:01.540Listen, the only reason you'd be talking about reasonable doubt, I think, is if you are going through guilt or innocence on murder one, murder two or voluntary manslaughter.
00:59:17.440If you get in there and you say, raise your hand who thinks she's not guilty by reason of mental defect, is that a reasonable doubt issue?
00:59:31.540Aha! Aha! Now I've given you something to think about Phelps.
00:59:35.240No, I think it is a reasonable doubt issue, and here's why.
00:59:38.940The judge told the jury, and the lawyers kind of did, and Reddington kind of did in his clothes, although not very well.
00:59:46.740He told the jury that under the law in Massachusetts, once this issue of not guilty by reason, once this gets into the case, the prosecutor bears the burden of disproving it beyond a reasonable doubt.
01:00:00.440In other words, they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she did know right from wrong and that she was, you know, mentally competent at the time.
01:00:09.220OK, so that's what that's why I think this whole thing about reasonable doubt is that they are still on the insanity part.
01:00:17.160They are not able to unanimously decide if the prosecutor has carried their burden of disproving the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
01:00:26.960I don't, that's how I read it. I don't think they are at the, any other questions about any of the
01:00:31.700other charges yet, because I think 11 of them believe that the, the prosecution has not proven
01:00:38.600their case beyond a reasonable doubt. How many times have we seen cases, regular cases that did
01:00:42.800not involve insanity defenses where the jury says, you know what, I think your client did it,
01:00:48.080but the prosecutor just didn't prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. We think that there
01:00:53.360is a doubt for which a reason can be attached and that would explain because because the prosecution
01:00:58.300needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she's not suffering from a mental disease or defect
01:01:04.740that would have excused the conduct yeah i think that's where they are i think i think they are i
01:01:11.480think the jury we don't have the one of the reasons that we need to explain this is we don't
01:01:15.460have the the verdict form like that we looked we were not able to retrieve that from the court or
01:01:20.500So we are not able to see the logic tree that would be spelled out for the jurors in making their decision, which it will be a logic tree like, do you find this? Yes or no? Only if you click yes to this should you go on to the next question. So we're all still gleaning.
01:01:36.500But here's what the Boston Globe has responded as reported on what the jury must decide to determine criminal responsibility.
01:01:45.660First, whether Lindsay Clancy was suffering from a mental disease or defect at the time of the killings, if they say, yes, she was, then they must consider two additional points.
01:01:57.320Did that mental illness render her unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of her actions or unable to conform her conduct to the law?
01:02:06.500Right. The burdens on the prosecution to convince the jurors that neither of those scenarios applies.
01:02:13.900And then they have to let's say if they agree with the prosecution that she was that she was not suffering from a mental disease or defect to the point that she was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of her decisions, her actions, then they're going to have to choose her level of culpability.
01:02:35.300first degree, second degree, manslaughter, and all of those would have to be beyond a reasonable
01:02:39.800doubt. So I guess we don't know for sure. If they have to prove her not suffering from mental
01:02:48.000disease or defect beyond a reasonable doubt, then they could be stuck right there. Then the holdout
01:02:52.340could be still right there. I don't know. I don't know. We don't know anything. Have we determined
01:02:57.040we know nothing? Nothing. We know absolutely nothing. But we're good at speculating.
01:02:59.820You know, but can we also speculate, Megan, when the judge came back and read the reasonable doubt
01:03:04.860instruction just i don't know half hour ago 20 minutes ago whenever it was i thought i heard him
01:03:09.600i was listening i thought i heard him emphasize you know the word beyond all doubt like that's
01:03:14.920what you do when you're when you're a prosecutor you're trying to convince a jury that they don't
01:03:19.120have to find that it that it's beyond all doubt just has to be beyond reasonable doubt and when
01:03:24.960he when he puts the inflection on that uh word it tells me that it could be a pro prosecution
01:04:02.520and he normally isn't that's he normally is relegated to the same notes the lawyers are
01:04:08.280that's good because sometimes if the judge knows more they tip it off you know they can give it
01:04:13.940away by something they say uh some something to emphasize for example in the jury instruction so
01:04:19.280beyond all doubt right the emphasis on the other syllable we should i want to hear that again
01:04:24.400well do we have that cut did we cut anything but jonna if if the judge puts the emphasis
01:04:30.140on that syllable, isn't it also equally plausible that you have 11 of them back there saying, look,
01:04:36.480I think she may very well have known right from wrong, but there's reasonable doubt. I'm not 100%
01:04:42.480convinced that the prosecutor has carried their burden of disproving the affirmative defense.
01:04:47.440So therefore, the judge said, if I have a reasonable doubt, I shall vote not guilty by
01:04:52.760reason of insanity. That's also in the instructions. Isn't it also plausible that 11 of them are back
01:04:57.560there saying, look, I think she's, she's probably guilty, but we have this doubt and it hasn't been
01:05:04.040disproved by the prosecutor. Therefore they haven't, you know, we can't even get to the
01:05:08.100other accounts because we're, we're, we believe 11 or so to one that the affirmative defense has
01:05:14.760not been disproven by the prosecutor. I think that's equally plausible. Well, but we do believe
01:05:20.900that. Yeah, go ahead. Anything is equally plausible. And let's consider the amount of time
01:05:25.800this jury has been out and debating with zero questions, but for the second day of deliberations
01:05:32.060when they want to look at those two pieces of evidence. Other than that, you guys, it's been
01:05:35.940radio silence. So what are they doing back there? What is the debate? Is the debate on whether she
01:05:43.460was mentally ill? Because the prosecution conceded that. We all concede that she was mentally ill.
01:05:48.780So where are they stuck? Are they stuck on, you know, the first prong or the fourth prong? That's that's what we none of us knows.
01:05:58.460And they can speak to us after this is all said and done. I mean, at some point we'll we'll likely know it's up to them.
01:06:08.080I do want to play. Here's what we have. The first let's listening to the full Kevin Reddington, because we missed the top of it when we were watching this earlier.
01:06:15.400here's what he said to the court. Thank you, Your Honor. I appreciate that. I appreciate the
01:06:21.960fact, Your Honor, that you're allowing us to be heard in public rather than at the sidebar.
01:06:25.940The court has an instruction from the foreperson of that juror that's been working for a week now
01:06:32.520saying that there's one juror who refuses to listen to the law that you've given him or her
01:06:39.320on reasonable doubt, and I suggest respectfully that the soft instruction that you gave them
01:06:46.280saying at the sidebar, can you listen to the law as I instruct you, does not focus on the issue.
01:06:53.560It is the question is not sufficient enough. It does not allow any foundation for a motion to
01:07:00.580remove the juror who refuses to accept your instructions on the law, on reasonable doubt.
01:07:07.440and if we come back here in a half an hour with a mistrial because of a because of a juror that
01:07:13.380has just spurned the instructions of this court it's a shame it's a real shame and that's why
01:07:19.780i object to the court's ruling i request that we have further inquiry i request that we my motion
01:07:25.920is to remove this juror that refuses to listen to your instruction on reasonable doubt
01:07:30.480so there you have it his characterization of the note which tracks what we were reporting earlier
01:07:39.220and the soft instruction you gave to the jury does not focus on the issue enough suggesting
01:07:46.780it doesn't create a foundation from which to appeal if this thing goes forward um and now
01:07:52.000let's take a look do we have the judge um on the instructions let's listen to the judge here
01:07:56.900Good afternoon, everyone. I just wanted to go over a couple things this afternoon. First off, I want to remind you that you are required to follow my instructions on the law as I gave them to you.
01:08:11.640Alright? I also want to, at this point, go over the instruction that I gave you about reasonable doubt.
01:10:32.680So that gives both sides something to lean on right there.
01:10:37.040And the business of beyond a moral certainty.
01:10:39.680I mean, that's that's that's pretty good for the defense.
01:10:43.900That's definitely what you want to hear.
01:10:44.920Now here, um, lawyer online, Carol Erskine, uh, she, she's reporting retired judge, I should say. Uh, she's reporting some interesting facts about the law, uh, following post. What happens when jurors say another juror is refusing to follow the law? U.S. v. Thomas, second circuit, 1997, highly relevant. She says here, um, okay, Thomas draws a critical line.
01:11:09.540this case. A juror who refuses to follow the law is very different from a juror who follows the law
01:11:15.200but disagrees with the other 11 about what the evidence proves. The court set an extraordinarily
01:11:20.820high bar for removing a juror. There must be no doubt that the juror is refusing to apply the law
01:11:28.100rather than simply reaching a different conclusion about the evidence. It makes perfect sense,
01:11:34.080of course. She goes on to say that the Massachusetts case that addresses this issue
01:11:38.480in Thomas says the same, that when a jury reports a juror is refusing to deliberate,
01:11:47.560it requires a careful judicial inquiry, but it does not automatically justify removing the juror.
01:11:54.880A judge must be extremely cautious not to intrude into deliberations. A juror cannot be removed
01:12:00.080simply because the juror disagrees with the others or views the evidence differently or
01:12:04.940may be the loan holdout. As the previous court warned, removing a deliberating juror is a
01:12:12.380sensitive undertaking fraught with the potential for error. In short, refusing to deliberate and
01:12:17.920refusing to agree are not the same thing. So this is what the judge was dealing with today,
01:12:24.660trying to figure out whether he's got somebody who's not following his instructions on the law,
01:12:29.960who won't listen to them and come up with a verdict accordingly, or he's got somebody who
01:12:37.440is listening to his definition of the law, but just doesn't see it the same way, the conclusion,
01:12:44.600as the other 11. The latter scenario is entirely proper, appropriate, and that juror should not
01:12:49.820be touched. The former would be grounds to bounce the juror, and everything about this case lies in
01:12:57.780the ballots of which one that juror is doing so what what changed between hey judge we're dead
01:13:07.420locked number one and then hey judge we're dead locked number two and now oh well we're not going
01:13:14.420to say we're dead locked we're going to say that we have uh maybe one juror who's not following
01:13:20.460the law like what what is the difference between we're dead locked and now we have one juror who's
01:13:25.120not following the law well you know the difference is that in between those two things you had the
01:13:29.320two e rodriguez instruction and perhaps that instruction really did jar some people loose
01:13:33.760onto the majority side the so-called dynamite charge where um it's it's basically telling
01:13:41.260the jury no jury will ever be smarter than you or better informed than you or better qualified than
01:13:48.240you to decide this case so it's basically begging it's like you guys are great you're the best
01:13:53.740please don't leave this for another 12 people you can do this i don't know i think you know
01:13:59.780to quote jurassic park life finds a way um i think it's they they were like this person is annoying
01:14:07.600that we could have a verdict and go home if it weren't for bob or jane over there
01:14:14.100and maybe we can get rid of bob or jane by saying they won't follow the law we're all following the
01:14:20.680law. That's how we got to this conclusion that the 11 of us agree on and annoying Bob or Jane over
01:14:25.780there. Well, if they would just listen to what we're telling them about reasonable doubt in the
01:14:29.780standards, we'd be out of here. So they turned it, I think, into a complaint about that 12th juror,
01:14:35.780as opposed to just saying we disagree, which is where they've been all week. And the judge keeps
01:14:40.500telling them that's not good enough. Yeah, I think you're right. I think that's exactly what's going
01:14:44.420on. And look, these folks have all been working for over a month now on this. And so they don't
01:14:49.860want it to be for nothing either. They would like their collective body to reach a verdict.
01:14:57.560They don't want this case to have to be retried either, although it won't be them.
01:15:02.260I think you hit the nail on the head. I think that there are 11 people who maybe have a reasonable
01:15:09.060doubt about something, and that's what the judge's instruction was about, was reasonable doubt. So
01:15:14.660that's what they're hung up on. I think there's 11 that have a reasonable doubt, and I think
01:15:19.420there's one that doesn't and the 11 are tired of debating it in the jury room. So they're going to
01:15:24.800the judge to see if the judge can help them because they too realize that there are six other
01:15:30.220individuals that are standing by as alternates that the judge could put on there. They think
01:15:35.480that if they could just get one more person that thinks like them, they could reach a verdict and
01:15:39.520they'll go home. That's what I think is happening. Yeah. I mean, it is a good thing to remember that
01:15:45.940even though the judge said, it's not for me to take sides on the side of one juror versus the
01:15:53.60011. And the note, as reiterated by Kevin Reddington said, there's one juror who refuses to listen to
01:16:04.260the law on reasonable doubt. We don't have actual confirmation that it's 11 to one, but this is as
01:16:10.600close as we're going to get. To me, that's as close. And I think we're probably safe saying
01:16:15.220There's one holdout. Anyway, we'll see eventually how strong that person is, because at some point
01:16:20.960they're going to have to come back with either a we couldn't reach a verdict or and in this case
01:16:26.100is a mistrial or here's our verdict. And so last thing, if they declared a mistrial in this in this
01:16:32.300case, if the judge does it tomorrow. Is there any doubt that the prosecution can refile against her
01:16:41.300if it wants to, you know, the defense made a bunch of allegations in this case as it went on about
01:16:47.280improprieties by the prosecution, things that she said that they thought were beyond the pale
01:16:52.360and fairly prejudicial, this, that, the other. Can any of that, I'll ask you, Dave, as a former
01:16:56.780prosecutor, be used to stop the prosecution from refiling charges? Reddington can try and try to
01:17:04.080get a court to prohibit the state. That's really hard to do. The prosecutors have a lot of
01:17:08.660discretion. And if the case goes to a mistrial here on all the charges, then they could refile
01:17:15.840all of them. The biggest thing that would stop the state is not Reddington's threats. It's the
01:17:22.480count. If the jury count is indeed 11 to 1, then I don't think they are going to refile this case.
01:17:29.320Or if they do refile, they will seek a quick resolution. They're not going to want to try
01:17:34.540the case again if they don't but if but if they don't refile it what happens to lindsey clancy
01:17:40.100well i think what they would do when i say refile is that i think they would enter into an agreement
01:17:44.340with defense counsel because she doesn't want to go through this so before filing they'll say here
01:17:49.060let's cut a deal the other option is they file and then they cut a deal afterwards but i don't
01:17:54.160see it going to another trial if it's 10 to 2 or 11 to 1 against the prosecution they could do a
01:18:00.960stipulated bench trial. They could, they could have a stipulated bench trial where they file
01:18:05.340charges and then they stipulate that she's not guilty by reason of insanity. And off she goes
01:18:10.440to a mental institution for a very, very long time. Phil, question for you. Wasn't that,
01:18:16.200didn't Kevin Reddington argue that if they had just not charged first degree, they could have
01:18:20.940had a bench trial in this case? I feel like I'm remembering that. Yes, you guys remember this?
01:18:27.660Yes, he did say that. But I think what Phil is talking about is not a bench trial. It's a stupid just like pleading up to the court almost, right?
01:18:33.820Yeah, they can file the charge, and they want to guarantee that she just doesn't go back out on the street.
01:18:39.820So hypothetically, if it's 11 to 1 against the prosecution, so if 11 people think that she is not guilty by a reason of insanity, then they have a lot of incentive to cut a deal.
01:18:50.760So theoretically, the way it could work is they file some charge and they stipulate to the verdict and they just do a bench trial with a stipulated verdict.
01:18:59.700They stipulate that she's not guilty by reason of insanity, guaranteeing that she doesn't go free, that she goes into the state mental system for people who are found not guilty by reason of insanity.
01:19:12.520You know, I think that there's a chance, a small chance she could get out of that place in just a few years, but I don't think she likely would.
01:19:20.000I think she likely would be seeing long-term incarceration, if you will, in a mental facility like John Hinckley, for example.
01:19:28.520So I think she would be there for a very long time.
01:19:32.180Here is what Kevin Reddington said this morning before this latest round of drama on the possibility of a mistrial.
01:19:40.800Good morning, Mr. Reddington. How do you feel about the possibility of a mistrial?
01:26:13.260I think that's what was discussed at that long sidebar, but we didn't actually hear the note, and it would be very helpful if we had heard it.
01:26:20.800Or in that media scram right there where he had just told us what the note said, that would be very helpful.
01:26:28.020I agree with Dave, though, on the issue of identifying the juror.
01:26:32.760That's not going to be publicly done, but it sounds to me like the judge has to bring one juror in, and this could be done in camera without the public or whatever.
01:26:42.420They're going to need to bring one juror in and question this one juror about just what's going on in deliberations to answer the question, are you refusing to deliberate or do we have a situation where you are holding on to a firmly held conviction in accordance with the court's previous instruction?
01:27:01.200I think that's the issue the judge is going to need to drill down on.
01:27:06.540Is that for the purpose of bouncing the juror or is that for the purpose of declaring a mistrial?
01:27:10.840No, because if they're not deliberating, they can balance them.
01:27:13.500And I actually had that happen in a trial, and we did exactly what I just said.
01:27:18.180The judge brought in the single juror who was identified by the others or by the foreperson and said, hey, just tell us what's going on back there.
01:27:26.620And the judge was very neutral about it, and then the judge was satisfied that this person was holding on to a sincere belief and sent them back.
01:27:34.960And then shortly thereafter, the case was over.
01:27:37.060But I think that's what the judge has to decide is what is he dealing with?
01:27:40.860Is he dealing with somebody who's actually following his instructions and saying, look, I just have a disagreement with y'all?
01:27:47.660Or is it somebody who's just being stubborn and refusing to deliberate, even though maybe they have acknowledged that they agree with the other jurors?
01:27:56.540They might very well say, even though I agree with you, I'm not going to sign that verdict for them.
01:28:01.040And that would be grounds for removal.
01:28:02.720my team is saying that they heard the juror has been identified and there will be an inquiry by
01:28:12.640the judge i don't think it will be in a sidebar it will be an open court so you know i take it
01:28:20.780all with a grain of salt because everyone's feed was glitching no one had a better version of that
01:28:25.960than we did other than the reporters who were standing right there and actually heard him but
01:28:30.880we're not exactly sure. Something's happening tomorrow morning at 9 a.m. What will this judge
01:28:38.520do? I don't know either. I mean, like this could be, I maintain it could be 11 in favor of the
01:28:46.000prosecution and one for Kevin Reddington. He admitted there he doesn't know what's in the note
01:28:51.660and he doesn't know more than he said. He admitted that there. He's gleaning. And Matt Murphy was
01:28:58.040saying he thinks he's gleaning based on how the trial went, you know, that you have a sense as
01:29:01.380the lawyer who was in the courtroom on where the jury is. But we don't know. And the jury didn't
01:29:06.940look at Lindsey Clancy, at least according to Justice Served, who's been reporting on this
01:29:10.960day to day when they came in. So tomorrow morning, we'll know more. They're home and we should go
01:29:16.500home too. You guys, thank you. Thank you all so much. You can get these amazing, brilliant,
01:29:21.880fun, funny lawyers who have their sense of humor right along their legal sense available for the
01:29:27.400taking at MK True Crime. Go ahead and wherever you get your podcast, just type in MK True Crime
01:29:32.040and you will be able to find them. Jonna's show is on there too. It's called Positively Legal,
01:29:36.500but all these guys, you'll get it all if you just subscribe to that one podcast name.
01:29:40.520Thank you. And we'll talk more, I'm sure, probably within the next 12 hours or let's say 16.
01:29:45.820Thank you, Megan. Thank you. Always happy to be here.
01:29:49.300And thanks to all of you. Yeah. Thanks to all of you for listening. Wow. What a day. Okay. So we
01:29:54.860are saying goodbye for now. We'll pay back off tomorrow. Thanks for listening to The
01:30:01.840Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.