The Megyn Kelly Show - September 04, 2026


The Judge DEMANDS Lindsay Clancy Jury Keep Deliberating and Refuses to Dismiss One Holdout


Episode Stats


Length

56 minutes

Words per minute

172.72

Word count

9,739

Sentence count

495


Transcript

Transcript generated with Whisper (turbo).
00:00:00.220 Sonnet Insurance wants to know, what would you do with an extra hour in your day and more money in your pocket?
00:00:05.680 With Sonnet, you can quote and buy home and auto insurance online or over the phone.
00:00:09.780 Your choice, on your time, whatever works best for you.
00:00:12.740 And Canadian university and college alumni could save over $2,000 a year.
00:00:17.000 That's real money back where it belongs.
00:00:18.800 Save time, save money, save yourself from the way insurance used to be.
00:00:22.140 Get your quote at sonnet.ca.
00:00:24.120 Switch. Save. Simple. Sonnet.
00:00:26.420 so your decaf oat milk extra but not piping hot four pumps of caramel no sugar small latte in a
00:00:31.680 large cup that'll be 10 minutes no worries i'm having fun on play ojo and i keep it fun with
00:00:37.500 all the latest slot and live casino games plus i get instant payouts with no minimum withdrawals
00:00:41.340 oh and no wagering requirements ever here's your decaf oat milk extra but piping hot ah thanks
00:00:45.820 playtime's over mmm lovely 19 plus ontario only please play responsibly concerned about your
00:00:52.740 gambling or that of someone close to you, call 1-866-531-2600 or visit connexontario.ca.
00:00:57.680 Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at New East.
00:01:09.380 Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show. We are coming to you
00:01:13.260 live to cover the dramatic developments in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial this morning,
00:01:17.660 where a verdict may now hinge on a single holdout juror and what's going to happen to that juror
00:01:22.720 we do not know. Reporting to you from the beach where I was planning on a more casual day.
00:01:30.200 Okay, the jury is about to be brought into the courtroom, which we will take live. You won't
00:01:34.380 miss it. But first, let's get you up to speed on yesterday's dramatic developments. It started
00:01:39.360 around 3 p.m. The jury foreperson sending a note to the court indicating that one juror
00:01:44.360 is refusing, allegedly, to follow the judge's instructions on the legal standard for reasonable
00:01:50.100 doubt. It's important to point out, we do not know for sure which way the jury is leaning.
00:01:56.000 Neither does the judge, the prosecution, or defense. We believe. We haven't seen the actual
00:02:01.360 note, but nothing communicated in court yesterday would suggest the jury has in any way tipped its
00:02:06.880 hand as to which way any number of them might be leaning. Judge William Sullivan immediately
00:02:13.880 calling a sidebar, which was not shown in the live court feed. Per courtroom reporters inside
00:02:19.240 the courtroom, Lindsay Clancy's attorney, Kevin Reddington, was seen slamming down paperwork and
00:02:25.060 reacting with physical anger. At times, Judge Sullivan was heard raising his voice. At one
00:02:31.660 point, Reddington was said to have put his head in his hands out of frustration, and there was
00:02:36.960 another moment where Lindsay Clancy herself was wheeled over to the sidebar, up to the judge's
00:02:41.700 bench, to participate in the discussion. In the end, Judge Sullivan individually questioned the
00:02:47.360 jurors. We believe that the questions were, can you be fair? Can you follow the law? Very generic
00:02:53.320 stuff. And then he reread to them in open court, this part we heard, his instructions on reasonable
00:03:00.680 doubt, the ones he'd already read prior to their deliberation, and he sent the jurors back to resume
00:03:06.300 deliberations. After the jury left the courtroom, Kevin Reddington stood up again and asked the
00:03:12.520 judge to remove the juror, who's allegedly refusing to follow the instructions on reasonable
00:03:18.700 doubt, arguing that the person was not properly applying the law, and even taking shots at
00:03:24.460 the judge himself.
00:03:26.820 Thank you, I appreciate that.
00:03:29.180 I appreciate the fact that you're allowing us to be heard in public rather than at the
00:03:33.540 sidebar.
00:03:34.620 The court has an instruction from the foreperson of that juror that's been working for a week
00:03:40.700 now, saying that there's one juror who refuses to listen to the law that you've given him
00:03:47.020 or her on reasonable doubt, and I suggest respectfully that the soft instruction that
00:03:53.960 you gave them saying at the sidebar, can you listen to the law as I instruct you, does
00:03:59.560 not focus on the issue, the question is not sufficient enough, it does not allow any foundation
00:04:08.140 for a motion to remove the juror who refuses to accept your instructions on the law on
00:04:15.060 reasonable doubt.
00:04:16.680 And if we come back here in a half an hour with a mistrial because of a juror that has
00:04:22.820 just spurned the instructions of this court, it's a shame.
00:04:26.280 It's a real shame.
00:04:27.800 And that's why I object to the court's ruling.
00:04:30.240 I request that we have further inquiry.
00:04:32.900 I request that my motion is to remove this juror that refuses to listen to your instruction
00:04:38.100 a reasonable doubt. It's such a mystery because he wants that juror gone, but we do not know
00:04:47.720 that this juror is for the prosecution. We don't know whether he's against Lindsey Clancy. How is
00:04:57.000 Kevin Reddington so sure that this juror needs to go? What if that juror is the lone holdout
00:05:04.860 for his side. This dominated much of our discussion yesterday when this news broke,
00:05:10.060 and I have to tell you, I'm no more clear on it this morning than I was yesterday.
00:05:16.340 Judge Sullivan refused to bounce the juror, calling this a sensitive undertaking, and it is
00:05:21.940 indeed, and noting that the jurors had individually affirmed to him that they could follow his
00:05:26.820 instructions. Kevin Reddington later telling lawyers that this morning, this is after court
00:05:32.300 in a scrum yesterday saying that this morning at 9 a.m. any minute now, Judge Sullivan will
00:05:37.540 conduct an inquiry into this holdout juror. How's that going to go? Is this juror going to be
00:05:43.580 questioned in open court? Reddington said it is expected to happen in open court, not at a sidebar.
00:05:49.960 I mean, that seems impossible. But in fact, Reddington this morning filing motion asking
00:05:55.000 the court to end all sidebars for the remainder of the trial. I mean, that would be high. You can
00:06:01.660 bring it to me. Thank you. I'm getting my, getting my, uh, my getting my file folder from yesterday
00:06:08.740 that I brought with me down here. Thank you. Um, so let's talk about it as we await the court
00:06:15.780 happenings. Can we see the feed please? Uh, as we're awaiting what's happening in court,
00:06:19.640 as soon as something happens there, we're going to, oh, there's no feed. Okay. So they haven't
00:06:23.420 even put up the feed. So when we get the feed, we'll put it on the board, make sure you see it
00:06:28.260 as we see it and then we'll analyze it together.
00:06:30.360 Joining me now for all of that, Phil Holloway.
00:06:32.400 He is host of the MK True Crime Show.
00:06:35.440 We have an MK True Crime podcast channel.
00:06:38.600 And basically the way that works is you go out on your phone,
00:06:40.960 you hit podcasts and you type in MK True Crime
00:06:43.620 and we have a few different shows on that channel
00:06:46.160 all about true crime, all about the day's legal cases
00:06:48.980 and we have the best in the business hosting those shows.
00:06:52.980 Phil is one of the co-hosts of the signature show
00:06:56.080 which is called MK True Crime.
00:06:58.260 having had a day now to reflect or a night matt murphy i'll start with you
00:07:01.940 any further thoughts on what's actually happening well we've got we've got somebody who's dug their
00:07:08.020 heels in apparently um but you're right megan uh it's a bit of a gamble by kevin reddington
00:07:13.620 he doesn't know he thinks that they're going his way i think he's probably right but we can't see
00:07:18.740 the jurors um so we we're really kind of operating in a vacuum and it's always reading tea leaves
00:07:25.460 trying to figure out what a jury is thinking. I don't think the judge is going to do any of those
00:07:29.180 things that he's asking. I don't think the judge should do any of the things that he's asking.
00:07:33.420 The jurors, if you deliberate and you're talking about it, it's kind of tough to say when somebody
00:07:39.400 is or is not subjectively applying a particular instruction or law. So there must be something
00:07:45.820 behind that. But the judge did exactly what he should have done. And that is you voir dire each
00:07:50.400 individual juror and you and you ask if if if they'll go back. Right. And one thing that is
00:07:57.200 interesting, Megan, is Massachusetts has a law that you can only a judge can only send a jury
00:08:01.200 back twice. And then if the jury wants to hang, the court cannot order them to continue to
00:08:06.780 deliberate. So if this person holds out for the rest of the day, I think that we're in a situation
00:08:11.700 that we're probably going to see a mistrial declared. But it's a lot of pressure. And by the
00:08:15.620 way, that weak instruction that Kevin Reddington is talking about isn't weak at all. Excuse me,
00:08:19.600 Matt. They're going live in the court. Let's listen. We put over to today to address it.
00:08:26.500 Come up. You had the opportunity to review that note. Yes, Your Honor. All right. A defendant,
00:08:30.660 you had the opportunity. Yes, Your Honor. All right. And so I will hear from the parties as to
00:08:39.520 how each party suggests or requests I deal with that note.
00:08:49.700 So I want to hear from the Commonwealth first.
00:08:55.600 Thank you, Your Honor, I apologize for my voice.
00:08:59.040 So, Commonwealth's suggestion is that the jurors
00:09:02.700 be instructed to return to the deliberations
00:09:05.680 without any further instruction or order.
00:09:08.080 The basis for that request is Commonwealth v. Ronchi,
00:09:11.220 R-O-N-C-H-I, 491 Mass 284 from 2023.
00:09:16.980 In that case, it's a similar situation
00:09:20.860 where it's reported one juror is having issues
00:09:24.940 with the other jurors, and it says in that case
00:09:27.460 where reliable information comes to a judge
00:09:29.700 suggesting a lack of impartiality, bias,
00:09:32.840 extraneous influence, or inability to deliberate
00:09:35.980 that there should be an individual voir d'air hearing
00:09:38.800 regarding that.
00:09:39.820 We don't have any of those circumstances here.
00:09:42.840 There's no indication of a lack of impartiality
00:09:45.380 or bias or extraneous influence
00:09:47.680 and no indication of inability to deliberate.
00:09:50.080 In fact, they've deliberated for a very long time
00:09:52.300 in this case and very conscientiously.
00:09:54.840 So what we have here is a note that indicates
00:09:57.760 a disagreement about how to weigh the evidence
00:10:00.020 and that's deliberation.
00:10:01.820 So it's the Commonwealth's position,
00:10:03.620 especially considering the fact that
00:10:05.400 Your Honor voirdered each of the jurors yesterday
00:10:07.440 and they all said that they could follow your instructions.
00:10:10.000 So when you couple that with the requirements of Ronke,
00:10:12.880 I don't think an individual voirder is necessary.
00:10:15.440 If Your Honor does determine to do one,
00:10:18.040 we would just ask along the lines of all the case law
00:10:21.340 in this area, Ronke, Williams, Torres,
00:10:24.880 the whole string of cases,
00:10:27.520 that the juror be instructed not to comment
00:10:30.560 on the deliberations and that the juror be told
00:10:33.700 that he or she cannot be discharged
00:10:36.360 unless a personal problem
00:10:38.080 unrelated to their relationship with the jurors
00:10:40.360 or their views on the case.
00:10:41.820 And that any attempt or any comments by the juror
00:10:46.820 that tend to get into deliberations
00:10:48.280 that Your Honor interrupt and remind the juror
00:10:50.860 that we're not to get into that
00:10:52.960 and that questioning be ceased of the juror
00:10:55.780 unless he or she indicates that there is a personal problem
00:10:59.760 unrelated to the case or the relationships.
00:11:01.660 All right, thank you.
00:11:03.660 Defendant?
00:11:07.660 Thank you very much, Your Honor.
00:11:09.660 Appreciate the opportunity to argue this to you.
00:11:12.660 A couple of points that occur to me.
00:11:16.660 First of all, as Your Honor is well aware, a defendant, any defendant in this courtroom
00:11:21.660 or any courtroom in our country is entitled to have a juror who is true to their oath,
00:11:29.660 who will agree that they will apply the facts as they determine them to be
00:11:34.060 proven beyond a reasonable doubt to the law or as given to them by you as a judge or any other judge.
00:11:41.020 If a jury consists of people and there's one person who is refusing to actually apply the law
00:11:51.480 to the facts as determined for reasons that are not arising out of the case
00:11:58.500 but are personal to the juror's position regarding their review of their oath
00:12:05.200 and how they should apply their oath.
00:12:07.100 In other words, if it's personal to this individual, which I believe it is,
00:12:12.560 based on the first question that you had.
00:12:15.940 And I have never seen a situation like this where a foreperson on the jury
00:12:23.480 is so courageous as to speak on behalf of 11 jurors and indicate the juror number, which
00:12:32.320 I will not mention, and I quote, has made statements acknowledging doubt but refuses
00:12:42.080 to apply it to the verdict as the law states.
00:12:48.160 Clearly, Judge, we have a person who, under their oath, stood in front of you yesterday
00:12:55.800 when you did the individual voir dire, and according to this information, under oath,
00:13:02.400 looked you in the eye and lied.
00:13:05.620 That juror told you that he would be able to apply the law to the facts as you asked
00:13:11.500 And based on this note from this juror, it clearly and unequivocally indicates that it clearly 11 to 1, and this person will not apply reasonable doubt to the evidence to return a not guilty verdict.
00:13:29.500 I would ask that the court
00:13:32.360 would, and I know it's awkward.
00:13:34.400 I'm familiar with the law. I know that
00:13:36.160 we try to protect and preserve
00:13:38.040 the sanctity, if you will, of the
00:13:40.220 jury. We don't want
00:13:42.180 to invade their deliberations. We want to
00:13:44.180 keep that private. Obviously, that's a good
00:13:46.240 thing to do. But when you have
00:13:48.260 a situation where you have not one
00:13:50.320 but two notes, that clearly
00:13:52.480 indicates that this individual
00:13:54.180 has acknowledged
00:13:56.020 doubt,
00:13:56.660 but refuses to apply it to the verdict he is as the law states he is not being honest with you
00:14:06.900 at the sidebar i would go so far as to reluctantly say that the individual has made a false statement
00:14:13.240 under oath to this court there has to be an issue that is not arising out of deliberations in the
00:14:21.860 facts of this case but the individual is refusing to apply your instructions on
00:14:26.960 proof beyond a reasonable doubt to allow that jury to return a verdict of not
00:14:32.300 guilty I just wanted to put on the record that the note does not indicate
00:14:40.040 that this juror lied to your honor when responding the note indicates that the
00:14:44.120 parties disagree on what is reasonable doubt or what doubt is and how it should
00:14:48.800 applied and we are in no position to judge if the 11 are right or the one is right but there's no
00:14:54.800 indication that the juror is intentionally trying to mislead the court or lie to the court all right
00:15:00.480 thank you well as all three counsel are aware the case law spells out kind of the concerns that
00:15:09.440 everybody has in a situation like this where it says the discharge of a deliberating juror is
00:15:14.320 a sensitive undertaking, fraught with potential error.
00:15:17.860 It's to be done only in special circumstances,
00:15:20.540 with special precautions.
00:15:22.340 A judge must take the utmost caution
00:15:25.040 to avoid invading the province of the jury.
00:15:27.760 That's what I'm concerned with at this point.
00:15:31.980 And as even under the statute, during deliberations,
00:15:34.800 a juror properly may be discharged
00:15:36.560 only for reasons personal to that juror,
00:15:38.860 having nothing whatsoever to do, nothing whatever,
00:15:41.220 I'm sorry, to do with the issues of the case,
00:15:43.640 or with the jurors' relationship with their fellow jurors.
00:15:47.580 In this case here, I see no showing of the need
00:15:51.300 for an inquiry of this particular juror.
00:15:54.120 The note that we were referring to,
00:15:57.300 the one from late yesterday afternoon,
00:16:00.220 indicates that the juror says acknowledge doubt
00:16:05.800 but refuses to apply it to the verdict.
00:16:08.140 Well, the instruction that the SJC has suggested
00:16:14.580 we give in regards to reasonable doubt
00:16:16.740 and that both parties agreed to says
00:16:20.120 that reasonable doubt does not mean proof
00:16:22.120 beyond all possible doubt.
00:16:24.540 And so in reading that note carefully and strictly
00:16:30.340 in the way that I have to before I possibly invade
00:16:33.800 the province of the jury, that note does not indicate
00:16:38.020 that this is a person who has refused to follow the law.
00:16:42.900 And in addition, as the parties recognized yesterday,
00:16:47.320 we brought all the jurors in, including the juror
00:16:49.500 who is at issue here, and we asked, I asked,
00:16:53.900 whether or not those jurors could follow the instructions,
00:16:58.140 including the instruction I just referred to.
00:17:01.180 And all the jurors indicated that they could.
00:17:05.180 This is not a case that there's any indication
00:17:09.120 that the juror has refused to deliberate
00:17:14.520 or has any reason, has indicated
00:17:19.320 that they would not follow the law
00:17:21.360 or that they're physically suffering
00:17:23.020 or there's no note from the juror
00:17:24.680 that indicates that the juror cannot
00:17:29.200 or will not be able to continue deliberating
00:17:31.400 as some of the other cases talk about.
00:17:34.060 So for reasons for that, I'm not going to do
00:17:40.660 a further inquiry of this juror over the defendant's
00:17:43.780 objection, and at that point, my inclination would be
00:17:47.840 to bring the jury back.
00:17:51.400 My thought would be though to remind them
00:17:56.140 that it's their duty to accept the law as I give it to them,
00:18:00.720 and that they have to follow that law.
00:18:02.980 and I think this is what I told them a week ago,
00:18:06.580 they have to follow whether they like it or not.
00:18:10.080 So I'm going to give them that instruction
00:18:13.700 and remind them of that.
00:18:15.700 So with that...
00:18:16.920 Go ahead.
00:18:18.760 I was just going to ask that the court
00:18:20.300 also instruct the jurors or remind them
00:18:22.700 that any future notes should not contain
00:18:24.400 any information about deliberation.
00:18:26.200 Well, here's what I was gonna say.
00:18:27.480 If there's any notes, or any future notes,
00:18:29.700 if there are any, you should refrain from detailing
00:18:32.200 any of the actual deliberations and do not indicate where they stand numerically.
00:18:36.680 A couple of things. First of all, Your Honor acknowledges that I have an objection,
00:18:41.400 which I appreciate, and I do have an objection, and I am again citing Article 12,
00:18:46.200 Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This goes beyond Massachusetts law. This is
00:18:50.600 constitutional. It's a structural, I suggest respectfully, defect in the procedure that we're
00:18:56.680 engaged in. We're elevating form over substance, and that's Your Honor's ruling. I understand of
00:19:01.960 objected but i would ask that you not instruct the jury that they cannot indicate anything and
00:19:10.200 i understand why traditionally we tell jurors don't let us know what your division is or what
00:19:15.960 your split is but in this case i i'm concerned that if you do that that four person is going
00:19:21.880 to feel that that is some type of that she violated something and might feel that your
00:19:25.880 honor is kind of coming down on her and not to do that and i think it's too delicate right now a
00:19:31.000 situation and in addition and finally i would ask that you not just give them as i described it
00:19:37.000 yesterday a soft inquiry where you listen to my instructions i would ask that you specifically
00:19:44.120 direct their attention to proof beyond a reasonable doubt and re-instruct them on that forcefully
00:19:50.680 today yesterday didn't i yes you did it yesterday you did it soft you didn't do it forcefully and
00:19:56.520 What do you want me to do?
00:19:58.880 Get a brass band?
00:20:00.680 I read the instruction as written by the SJC.
00:20:05.420 The fact that I perhaps didn't give it my full inflection, I'm sorry about that.
00:20:10.980 I'm not an actor.
00:20:12.080 I'm just giving the instructions.
00:20:13.300 Well, my point, Judge, simply is that you're kind of glossing over the issue.
00:20:20.160 The issue is this juror will not, according to that note, apply the law of reasonable doubt.
00:20:28.960 And that's why I've requested, you know what I've requested, so I know my objection.
00:20:32.800 But just in case the record is clear, I am specifically not glossing over this issue.
00:20:39.780 I have thought about this issue long and hard.
00:20:42.640 I know the defendant objects, but the characterization
00:20:45.780 that I'm glossing over it, trust me,
00:20:49.420 that's not the situation.
00:20:50.980 I've been thinking about this for quite a while.
00:20:54.060 So that's what I'm going to do.
00:20:56.880 I'm going to just give that instruction,
00:20:59.860 as I said, that they have to follow my instructions.
00:21:03.120 I'm not going to reiterate the reasonable doubt
00:21:07.860 at this point, it may come to that again
00:21:11.360 as we go through it. Uh, and I'll try and give this with, with, uh, more pizzazz than I gave
00:21:16.680 yesterday, I suppose. Um, but, uh, so with that, we'll bring the jury back in and, uh,
00:21:24.540 I'll ask the questions. I'll give those kind of that instruction and we'll send it back out.
00:21:31.480 All right. Bringing the jury in, we'll get a break.
00:21:36.060 Wow. Wow. As he brings the jury back in, let's talk and then we can go back if there's action
00:21:41.000 in the courtroom. But there you have it. The answer to our mystery right there. The note from
00:21:46.540 the jurors from the foreperson said that there is a juror who has acknowledged doubt but refuses to
00:21:54.580 apply it to the verdict. That's why Kevin Reddington was so sure that the one holdout was
00:22:01.420 against him and why the prosecution is arguing that that juror should not be bounced. And overall,
00:22:08.520 what we heard today is Kevin Reddington also accusing the juror of lying to the court when he,
00:22:15.880 they use the pronoun he, was questioned yesterday. But Kevin Reddington lost for now. His push to
00:22:24.260 have the judge bounce the juror, do additional questioning of the juror in court and so on,
00:22:28.880 was rejected. And he pushed it to the point where the judge got pissed, you heard there at the end.
00:22:34.180 you you didn't give the reasonable doubt instruction forcefully enough he said what
00:22:38.600 what would you like me do to do call in a brass band um he didn't appreciate that and you always
00:22:44.000 know as counsel when you're out on a thin reed and you've gone out too far the judge will slap
00:22:48.980 you and you got to back up a little so it doesn't look like this judge is going to do jonna what
00:22:54.840 what kevin reddington wants him to do he's gotten all he's going to get the judge is doing the right
00:23:01.720 thing, though, Megan, because it is it is a major I don't know, it takes almost an act of God,
00:23:08.260 I think, to remove a juror under this situation. And the judge doesn't think it requires that level
00:23:15.200 of, you know, judicial scrutiny under the circumstances. And at the risk of being odd
00:23:21.620 woman out and I'm OK with that, God knows I've done that for my entire career. I am still not
00:23:27.320 convinced, you can beat me up if you want to, that the fact that a juror has expressed doubt
00:23:32.480 means that that juror is wholeheartedly on Kevin Reddington's side. Maybe this juror is having
00:23:39.440 doubt, but doesn't know how to define reasonable. He's not on Kevin Reddington's side. The theory
00:23:47.000 is he's on the prosecution's side, that the other jurors are complaining he, and they do know,
00:23:53.360 which they also revealed that the note the jury sent revealed which juror it is. They used his
00:23:59.300 juror number and also revealed the split. So there was a lot that no, we did not know about.
00:24:04.360 They said who it was, the juror number. It's a man. And what the split was, 11-1. But that doesn't
00:24:10.680 and said he has acknowledged doubt that this juror has acknowledged doubt, but refuses to apply it
00:24:16.800 to the verdict. So, Phil, it is somebody who is refusing to go along with 11 others who appear
00:24:25.500 to be ready to side with Lindsey Clancy. That's what we just learned. Yeah, and if I can take
00:24:30.260 just a quick minute to gloat. I said this yesterday. I said when they went to the sidebar
00:24:35.180 before we had any argument in the courtroom, they all went to sidebar, and they spent several
00:24:40.880 minutes there before they brought the jurors in for a little questioning at the judge's bench.
00:24:47.800 And my prediction, my sense yesterday was there's a lot more in that note.
00:24:52.020 There's something in that note that tells Reddington that, you know, this juror needs to go because it is, you know, it's so close to him getting the verdict that he wants, which is going to be not guilty by reason of insanity.
00:25:06.560 And so it now makes perfectly good sense to that we can understand why he wanted an alternate juror.
00:25:13.220 But the thing about an alternate juror, you know, we don't know how that person might go because the deliberations would have to start all over again.
00:25:20.980 And you add another person in there, does that person then try to, you know, does that person want to vote guilty and bring some of the others over to his or her side?
00:25:30.020 So it's, you know, it might be a situation where Reddington needs to stick with the devil you know, so to speak, versus the devil you don't know and rely on this judge's instructions.
00:25:41.660 He's about to remind them again that they must acquit a defendant if they have reasonable doubt.
00:25:47.380 And so I think that given these two sets of instructions now, that might just be enough to budge that juror off of his position, because now we do know it's a he.
00:26:00.080 So I think we're getting very close.
00:26:03.000 Here's one of the things that concerns me, Matt.
00:26:05.880 I'll stand by the judge's back. Stand by.
00:26:07.740 from any source about this case that would affect your ability to be fair and impartial
00:26:15.720 juror. The last of these questions is, is there any other serious matter or concern bearing on
00:26:22.020 your service as a juror in this case that anybody needs to bring to my attention at this time?
00:26:26.720 Thank you. All right. So I did get the note yesterday. And one thing I would say,
00:26:32.260 if there are any notes in the future, and I'm not saying there are, but if there are,
00:26:36.820 just don't make sure we don't put down where everybody is numerically okay but what I wanted
00:26:43.460 to do was give you go over one thing I wanted to remind you as I instructed you earlier it's your
00:26:50.240 duty as jurors to accept the law as I stated to you you should consider all of my instructions
00:26:56.360 as a whole you may not ignore any instruction or give special attention to any one instruction
00:27:02.440 You must follow the law as I give it to you, whether you agree with it or not.
00:27:08.240 The law that I'm instructing you on is the law that's been established by our legislature and our appellate courts.
00:27:14.780 And it applies to everyone.
00:27:16.720 And you must apply the law as I have instructed you.
00:27:19.980 And you have a copy of the instructions that I gave you.
00:27:23.400 You should still have them back there with the jury room.
00:27:26.380 And with that, you may now resume your deliberations.
00:27:29.220 Court, all right.
00:27:30.540 Matt, is he? Yeah. Okay. So the jury's going back to deliberate. So the judge saying you
00:27:42.560 must follow the law, whether you agree with it or not, and making sure the jurors had no
00:27:47.240 personal issues that would prevent that. And they, you heard the jury say, you know, we're good.
00:27:52.960 Here's one thing that jumped out at me, Matt. You had defense counsel stand up in open court
00:27:57.960 and accuse a juror of lying under oath to the court, which, I mean, correct me if I'm wrong,
00:28:04.460 but would be a crime in and of itself to lie under oath. And is this juror now potentially
00:28:10.840 exposed in a way someone needs to tell him about? I think that's juror intimidation by Kevin
00:28:19.060 Reddington, but this juror doesn't know. So it's like it's intimidation outside the presence of
00:28:24.700 that juror. If I were his lawyer just watching this whole thing, I'd be very angry that my client
00:28:30.380 is trying to do his civic duty, almost guaranteed he'd rather be doing something else these past
00:28:35.880 two months, and just got accused in open court of lying under oath, which is a crime.
00:28:41.220 Yeah, I'm not his lawyer, and that makes me angry, to be honest with you. I saw John's reaction.
00:28:45.340 That's an outrageous thing to say. And look, Kevin Reddington has done a very good job
00:28:49.800 defending his client. But over and over in this trial, Megan, he just pushes a little too far
00:28:54.000 for me. I'm sick of listening to the guy, to be honest with you. And one of the things that's
00:28:56.900 frustrating to me right now, and I'm sorry, it's early morning, I'm jet lagging, but these
00:29:01.700 prosecutors need to counterpunch that stuff. They need to be on their feet. That's an outrageous
00:29:06.800 thing to say. This guy, he's done his jury duty. Reasonable doubt, just for the viewer, a lot of
00:29:11.780 people think that that's any doubt or prove to 100% certainty. The language of the law in
00:29:16.140 Massachusetts is the same as California. That's anything relating to human affairs is open to
00:29:20.360 some possible or imaginary doubt that's been the law only for about the last 500 years you can't
00:29:26.600 know anything with 100 certainty unless you witness it yourself in which case you're in
00:29:31.160 the witness box not not a juror so it is perfectly okay to have to have doubt and not be violating
00:29:39.640 the law but saying that the doubt is not reasonable or it doesn't rise to the level that you're going
00:29:44.440 going to acquit that is that that's 500 years of precedent that's perfectly okay and for a defense
00:29:50.280 lawyer an officer of the court to stand up for somebody that's given his time sworn to and worked
00:29:55.560 very hard with his fellow jurors to accuse him of committing perjury in open court when the entire
00:30:01.300 world is watching i think it's irresponsible i think especially when you've got that lunatic
00:30:05.460 out there with her camera the other day taking pictures of all these people that's um i'd be
00:30:10.340 I'm pissed right now, Megan, listening to that. It's not okay to do that. And he needs to
00:30:16.120 shift down. He is zealously advocating for his client, but to accuse a juror of a crime under
00:30:22.920 these circumstances, I believe is vastly improper. And look, I wish we had, honestly, I wish we had
00:30:30.040 stronger prosecutors who were counterpunching that nonsense, because you shouldn't be doing
00:30:33.760 that on this case. It's not right. It's not fair. And frankly, Jonna, we should also not know that
00:30:40.260 it's a male juror we shouldn't know anything about kevin reddington is the one revealing all
00:30:44.440 these details and they notice the judge didn't reveal that the prosecution didn't reveal that
00:30:48.780 kevin reddington is the one who got up there and said it was a he and threatened him with uh i mean
00:30:54.940 as of committing a felony yep um and is jumping up and down about getting this guy bounced
00:31:00.380 for what where is he getting kevin reddington i believe he made a false statement to you under
00:31:06.860 oath. He won't apply your instructions. And then the prosecutor got up and said that note did not
00:31:13.920 indicate that this juror is lying to the court. The foreperson suggested he's not following the
00:31:21.500 law on reasonable doubt, which is why the judge then re-read the law on reasonable doubt. But what
00:31:27.860 we clearly have here is just a disagreement between the 11 and the 1. And it seems to me
00:31:34.800 that Kevin Reddington and arguably the other 11 or at least the four person are trying to strong
00:31:39.820 arm the one into just going along with it so they can get out of there by saying, oh, he's violating
00:31:44.120 the law. That's true. And think about this. Also, there are only three men on the jury,
00:31:49.940 so it's not going to be hard to figure out, you know, eeny, meeny, miny, moe, which one
00:31:54.240 Kevin Reddington. Oh, and Jonna. Let me just add to that. There's a John Petro show. He's been in
00:32:01.660 the court for this trial. He tweeted out pretty sure we know which juror it is. He has his head
00:32:06.380 up. He seems confident. He's not going to be coerced by the defense. That's this guy's take.
00:32:11.480 Excuse me. And also, let me clarify what I meant earlier, because I'm not convinced that the 11,
00:32:17.100 that this jury is on Kevin Reddington's side only because when they talk about the context of the
00:32:21.620 note, like Matt said, this person indicated they have doubt, but they didn't say what level of
00:32:27.560 doubt? Is they have beyond all doubt? Are they trying to use that standard, which is not the
00:32:32.860 standard? Or do they have reasonable doubt, but they're not going to apply it? So there's still
00:32:37.280 some things that are unclear about the nature of this very terse note. So I'm not 100% convinced
00:32:45.700 that this jury is going to come back with a defense verdict if they are able to, quote unquote,
00:32:51.420 strong arm this one holdout. I get that, you know, the tea leaves kind of indicate that,
00:32:57.420 but I'm not a hundred percent in my gut on that. And that's all I meant to say earlier.
00:33:02.840 I got it. That makes sense. The, the, um, what they said in court, Reddington said,
00:33:07.760 this juror has made statements acknowledge, he was quoting the note or paraphrasing.
00:33:13.200 This juror has made statements acknowledging doubt, but will not apply it to the facts or
00:33:19.540 to the verdict. I can't remember how that went. And then he went out to say this juror lied to
00:33:23.580 you, judge. He said he would be able to apply the law to the facts. He won't apply the reasonable
00:33:29.640 doubt standard to these facts. Then he revealed there were two notes. That's also something we
00:33:36.540 didn't know. In two notes, they say he's acknowledged doubt, but refuses to apply it
00:33:43.080 to the verdict. I believe he's made a false statement under oath to you. He won't apply
00:33:47.080 your instructions. And then the judge said this juror in a note yesterday has acknowledged doubt
00:33:54.560 but refuses to apply it to the verdict. So that's about as much as we know. Here just for the
00:34:00.860 audience just tuning in is the contentious exchange between Kevin Reddington and Judge
00:34:05.420 Sullivan on this holdout juror. I would ask that you not just give them as I described it yesterday
00:34:11.960 a soft inquiry where you listen to my instructions.
00:34:16.580 I would ask that you specifically direct their attention to proof beyond a reasonable doubt
00:34:21.740 and re-instruct them on that forcefully.
00:34:25.080 I think I did that yesterday, didn't I?
00:34:26.500 Yes.
00:34:27.600 You did it yesterday.
00:34:28.980 You did it soft.
00:34:29.800 You didn't do it forcefully.
00:34:31.020 And I'm asking that you do it forcefully.
00:34:32.340 What do you want me to do?
00:34:33.300 Get a brass band?
00:34:34.860 I read the instruction as written by the SJC.
00:34:39.560 The fact that I perhaps didn't give it my full inflection, I'm sorry about that.
00:34:45.460 I'm not an actor.
00:34:46.540 I've just given the instructions.
00:34:48.080 Well, my point, Judge, simply is that you're kind of glossing over the issue.
00:34:54.780 The issue is this juror will not, according to that note, apply the law of reasonable doubt.
00:35:03.420 And that's why I've requested, you know what I've requested, so I know my objection.
00:35:07.200 But just in case the record is clear, I am specifically not glossing over this issue.
00:35:14.200 I have thought about this issue long and hard.
00:35:17.120 I know the defendant objects, but the characterization that I'm glossing over it, trust me, that's not the situation.
00:35:26.840 He said he'd give the jury the instructions again or not.
00:35:30.500 He wasn't going to reread the reasonable doubt instruction, but just remind them to follow the instructions with more pizzazz, Phil.
00:35:36.040 This judge is trying to avoid reversible, committing reversible error. But the biggest danger zone for him in reversible error is to bounce the juror. The judge is not going to bounce the jury. He's made that clear this morning without more.
00:35:51.660 Like if another note comes back suggesting he's he's gotten more egregious in his alleged refusal to follow the reasonable doubt standard.
00:36:01.400 OK, maybe we'll have to go there. But what what it seems to me is this jury is sick and tired of this guy holding out, saying he doesn't have reasonable doubt.
00:36:12.840 or maybe to John's point, maybe he's holding out saying he does have reasonable doubt,
00:36:16.960 but this juror is holding on to his own version of what a reasonable doubt is,
00:36:23.100 having heard the standard, and he's allowed to do that.
00:36:27.220 Yeah, he's allowed to have his own personal convictions,
00:36:31.460 and if he's not certain that his doubts rise to the level of reasonable doubt,
00:36:37.760 pardon me then he's absolutely um you know deliberating the way we would want them to
00:36:43.240 but a couple of points here to something jonna just said she's not sure that the jury is leaning
00:36:50.400 towards not guilty y'all can please correct me if i'm wrong but i think i heard um whether it
00:36:56.600 was reddington or the judge or maybe both you know they didn't exactly read verbatim the the note or
00:37:03.380 notes, but they did read from them apparently. And I thought I heard one of them say that the
00:37:09.140 juror was refusing to acquit or something along those lines. And the other point that I want to
00:37:16.240 make is when the jurors were brought in yesterday to the sidebar and the judge questioned them
00:37:23.100 individually, we don't know what they were asked and we certainly don't know how this one particular
00:37:29.120 juror answered. So Reddington has accused him of making a false statement, but I'm going to reserve
00:37:35.960 judgment on Reddington's claim because I don't know what the juror said to the judge when they
00:37:42.820 were at the bench. So it's kind of hard for me to evaluate whether or not the juror made a false
00:37:46.760 statement if I don't know what the statement was. So Reddington was there. He was privy to it. I
00:37:51.500 wasn't. So I would have to reserve judgment on whether or not he went too far in accusing someone
00:37:57.760 of lying. I do acknowledge that it's a, you know, it's a, it's a big claim and to make it an open
00:38:02.460 court is not something that should be done lightly for sure. But I just don't know what was said. So
00:38:08.600 I don't think we can, we can comment on whether or not it was a lie. I didn't hear the judge or
00:38:14.740 Reddington say anything about acquittal. We can go back and listen to it. I'm looking at all my
00:38:20.960 notes of what he said. So first, first we had the prosecutor say the instruction to the jurors to
00:38:27.460 return to deliberation is what's needed we don't need further questioning of the jurors and then
00:38:31.780 you had um then she said there's no inability to deliberate there's only disagreement the defense
00:38:38.420 stood up and said any defendant is entitled to uh jurors who are true to their oath if one juror is
00:38:46.000 refusing to follow instructions for personal reasons um which i believe is what's happening
00:38:52.100 then we have a problem. I've never seen a situation like this, he said, where a juror has
00:38:59.580 made statements acknowledging doubt, but will not apply it to the facts. That's when we first
00:39:05.320 had the light bulb moment of, okay, the note was more specific than we knew. Then he said,
00:39:11.500 this juror lied to you. He said he would be able to apply the law to the facts. He won't apply the
00:39:17.320 reasonable doubt standard to these facts. There were two notes. He's acknowledged doubt, but
00:39:22.820 refuses to apply it to the verdict. I believe he made a false statement under oath to you. He won't
00:39:27.700 apply your instructions. The prosecutor, the note did not indicate that he was lying to the court.
00:39:32.480 The foreperson said he's not following the law. The judge, special circumstances only come
00:39:38.200 when, oh, you can only discharge a juror for special circumstances, only for reasons personal
00:39:47.260 to this juror can he be discharged. I see no reason for additional questioning and then
00:39:54.660 acknowledge that the note yesterday reflected the juror has acknowledged doubt but refuses to apply
00:39:59.900 it to the verdict. The note did not indicate that he refuses to follow the law. I asked each juror,
00:40:06.560 can you follow the instructions? And they all said yes. And then they had their little fight
00:40:10.800 over what he should say when the jury came back in. That's where I think we are. But I wonder if
00:40:17.020 you have any thoughts on, Jonna, the threat that was made by Kevin Reddington to the juror,
00:40:23.400 the one holdout juror, openly accusing him of committing a crime.
00:40:28.860 You know, the fact that the juror wasn't privy to the threat and that Kevin Reddington didn't
00:40:35.160 go so far as to I think he actually said I'm not going to say the number somebody I could be
00:40:39.880 imagining that at this point might save Kevin Reddington from some other civil liability down
00:40:46.900 the road for basically outing a juror that he obviously believes is the reason why he's not
00:40:53.860 getting a defense verdict or hasn't gotten one thus far when we actually do not know we do not
00:41:00.380 know we do not know what is going on in that jury room and the note I don't think was indicative of
00:41:05.760 it either if it were this judge would not have just made the decision that he made and that was
00:41:11.020 thank you very much Mr. Reddington but I'm going to leave the jury alone I'm going to let them
00:41:14.920 continue to do their job I think the judge who individually questioned all 12 would know better
00:41:20.960 than any of us and anybody watching this trial whether or not this jurors conduct rises to the
00:41:27.880 level of we need to do something so severe as to discharge him. So once again, I'll go back on what
00:41:34.420 I was alluding to yesterday, not alluding to, I was flat out saying it. Kevin Reddington knows
00:41:38.980 how to play for the camera. He knows how to put on the show. This is part of it. That's not bad
00:41:44.540 lawyering. That's good lawyering, but it's not going to change what's happening in that jury room.
00:41:49.220 the the truth is though matt if if the jury is split 11-1 and they come back in an hour and say
00:41:57.940 we're hopelessly deadlocked and the judge declares a mistrial we will know within an hour what the
00:42:05.280 split was i mean we we will have confirmation that it was 11 for lindsey clancy and one for
00:42:11.040 the prosecution we think one of those jurors is probably going to talk and and when that happens
00:42:17.560 If it really is 11 for Clancy and one for the prosecution, she and Kevin Reddington are in a much better position than they were before this trial started.
00:42:30.160 I mean, this prosecutor who is fighting, we should know because this prosecutor has the same interpretation that Kevin Reddington does, that this juror is good for the prosecution and bad for the defense.
00:42:40.360 but the prosecution is going to have a serious decision to make knowing that they fought their
00:42:46.080 hardest. And at best, we think they've persuaded one juror, like one. So what, what does that tell
00:42:55.560 us? What, where did we go from there? Well, hopefully they negotiate a settlement here
00:43:01.380 and we don't go through another trial. And I say hopefully for everybody, for, for the defendant
00:43:05.720 in this case, and also for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I don't know. I don't know what
00:43:10.880 happens. I don't know what happened behind the scenes. That's what they should do, Megan. If
00:43:13.940 it's 11 to 1, the court also has the option of exercising discretion, although they rarely do
00:43:21.440 that after our jury hangs once, even if it's 11 to 1. And we all have stories over the course of
00:43:26.800 our career of juries coming back 11 to 1 one way, and then they either acquit or convict the next
00:43:32.140 trial around. It's just, you know, it's tough to say. I've been advocating if that happens for the
00:43:40.040 elected DA to sit down with Reddington and see if they can find some middle ground and put this
00:43:45.780 whole thing behind Lindsey Clancy and all the rest of us. I, for one, I won't mind not having
00:43:51.080 the list. How, Phil, will the enormous media scrutiny on the case affect the DA's willingness
00:43:57.900 to do that? Well, I think he's getting it on two different sides, right? He's got people who see
00:44:02.640 this as the murder of three children, and there's very good reason for him to think that. And then
00:44:07.480 you've got people that believe that this woman was suffering from postpartum to the point that
00:44:12.180 it was actual psychosis, not just depression, and that under Massachusetts law, she shouldn't
00:44:17.460 be criminally responsible. And that's one of the reasons why it's not a surprise this jury's
00:44:21.460 hanging, because there's good arguments and good facts in support of both positions on this.
00:44:26.940 So I think that he'll get it from both sides, no matter what he does.
00:44:30.520 And that's why you get paid the big bucks as an elected DA.
00:44:33.600 Yeah, now's the time for the DA to call into that courtroom or go in there and talk to his prosecutors and say, look, if it's 11 to 1 against us, we have no reason to think that it's going to be better next time if we try the case.
00:44:49.920 My friend Doug Weinstein posts on Twitter.
00:44:52.460 He's a lawyer, I know.
00:44:53.440 He said it would be smart for them to go ahead and tell the judge that they will accept an 11-person verdict, which would be presumably not guilty by reason of insanity, and send her on off to the mental health system.
00:45:09.980 That would be something that they could do.
00:45:11.720 Wait, what? That's a thing?
00:45:12.640 Oh, yeah, they could agree to it.
00:45:13.760 The prosecution would say that?
00:45:15.740 The prosecution, look, if it's 11 to 1, there's no reason to think they're going to get a more favorable outcome next time.
00:45:23.860 It's just going to cost them a lot more time and a lot more money.
00:45:27.180 It might make sense for them to just go ahead and agree to take a verdict with the 11 that they've got
00:45:32.060 and have the judge send her on her way to the mental health system.
00:45:36.400 And there's no reason to think, I can see it in the comments now,
00:45:40.040 people are going to tell me, well, she could be out next week.
00:45:42.020 But there's no reason to think that she would not be held for a significant period of time.
00:45:47.820 My experience with these things is that when people have committed crimes, particularly serious and high-profile crimes, and they are mentally ill and they maybe get acquitted based on that, they aren't released from the hospital anytime soon.
00:46:01.200 And the people who make the decision on when to release someone from these this psychiatric system, so to speak, they they look at it more like prosecutors and they want to err on the side of safety and caution.
00:46:15.900 And so she probably would be there for a long time.
00:46:19.480 I keep thinking about John Hinckley, who shot President Reagan, and arguably he had recovered
00:46:27.060 and he had been basically brought to a place in terms of his mental health where he could
00:46:32.680 function well on the outside.
00:46:34.480 But they kept him and they kept him and they kept on keeping him for a long time, probably
00:46:38.600 longer than was medically necessary.
00:46:40.760 And I think she would be kept for a long time as well.
00:46:42.880 i mean john hinckley was just on our show i interviewed him about a month and a half ago
00:46:50.440 he's he is out he's back out he's got his freedom again which is you know what concerns a lot of
00:46:56.500 people we talked about the case of constance fisher on this program last week who killed her
00:47:04.580 three kids up in maine she drowned all three of them they were almost exactly the same ages as
00:47:10.980 these kids. She went to the mental institution. She was deemed well enough to leave the mental
00:47:18.120 institution. Not that long after. I don't know how long it was, but it was a relatively short
00:47:22.080 period of time. She went back to her same husband, Carl, who she'd been married to and had the three
00:47:26.920 kids with. They had three more children and she drowned them too. She did it again. So there are
00:47:36.960 some disturbing precedents of these mental institutions let's face it looking at a young
00:47:45.100 mother in a wheelchair very differently than they would look at phil holloway if he strangled three
00:47:52.500 children and you know seriously and like going soft on her she's 36 years old i had a child when
00:48:02.080 was 42 just saying like this is we are playing with fire here you know jonna this is like this
00:48:08.980 is no joke where she winds up and this is one of the reasons why i very much think it should be a
00:48:14.580 jail cell i wholeheartedly agree i'm wondering what her mental state is now because she's been
00:48:21.560 in some sort of psychiatric care since uh since she was arrested basically so is she quote unquote
00:48:29.100 sane now. I mean, she doesn't open her mouth in the trial. She doesn't have to open her mouth
00:48:33.020 in trial, you know, but for crying some tears, I get it. So we don't even know, we don't know
00:48:37.940 how close she is to quote unquote being well and how soon she would be released if she is not
00:48:46.080 guilty by reason of insanity, the Massachusetts equivalent of that. And that is scary because
00:48:50.760 Megan, here's one of the reasons why I am all for a conviction in this case is I don't want
00:48:57.000 lindsey clancy's verdict to be the reason why women all across the country mistakenly believe
00:49:03.440 that a case of post-partum depression gives you license to kill your kids or anybody else and i'm
00:49:09.820 afraid by the pink shirts that that is a real possibility they don't understand the law and
00:49:16.320 that scares the hell out of me i totally agree with you this is my concern too i mean it is no
00:49:23.880 accident that right after that woman killed the 32-year-old Bank of America executive who also
00:49:30.840 was a new mom, the nutcase who killed her by stabbing in Times Square days ago, what happened
00:49:38.700 when the press got to that nutcase's brother? He said, oh, she was suffering from postpartum
00:49:43.740 and bipolar. Meanwhile, her kids are in their 20s, okay? But I don't think it's any accident
00:49:50.060 he threw those two terms out to be like, and now I do not want to see a rash of women who hurt or
00:49:57.780 kill their children throwing out the Lindsay Clancy postpartum. Matt, you know better than
00:50:04.480 anybody here on this panel or in America that crazy people kill others all the time and are
00:50:13.700 not able to afford themselves of an insanity defense, because what we all understand colloquially
00:50:20.460 as he's nuts or she's nuts doesn't necessarily mean legally they will be excused for the conduct.
00:50:28.260 That's what this whole case is about. Pretty much everybody who commits serial murder
00:50:32.580 is nuts. But that's not the end of the inquiry.
00:50:37.420 We have people in their minds tend not to kill each other. Right. And that goes back 200,000
00:50:41.440 years. And you can make that argument. Absolutely, Megan. You can make that argument for
00:50:46.180 anybody, virtually any murder case. There's some DSM diagnosis you could give them
00:50:52.040 that you could say they're nuts. They're not playing with full deck, whatever clever
00:50:57.240 euphemism we want to use. Question here is, was she so psychotic at the time that either she
00:51:05.060 didn't understand right from wrong when she killed her kids, or she knew right from wrong,
00:51:09.060 but could not conform her own actions to what is required under the law. That's Massachusetts law,
00:51:15.540 right? But you're right. Look, I agree with both you and John on this. It's like, what kind of
00:51:20.820 precedent does this set, not legally as much as just in the minds of every loony person out there
00:51:28.580 who may have some homicidal ideation and want to kill people, does this become the next big excuse?
00:51:34.020 And I'm with you guys.
00:51:35.680 I worry about that on a case like this.
00:51:38.460 And the shocking pink shirts and all that stuff.
00:51:41.580 And, you know, yeah, it's I don't know.
00:51:44.660 I think I think the world gets a little crazier every day.
00:51:47.020 But this case is I don't know.
00:51:50.580 I I just wish we had better lawyers on the prosecution side, to be honest.
00:51:54.780 And I don't want to be unfair.
00:51:55.900 I just I keep they should be punching Kevin Reddington.
00:51:58.900 And they should be counterpunching in these arguments far more effectively than they are.
00:52:04.260 And I wish we had. Yes. So I know.
00:52:07.900 No, I would. We can't have Matt Murphy everywhere. Unfortunately, he can only be in one place at one time.
00:52:13.260 But I mean, you know what? I took the Massachusetts bar and passed it when I took the New York bar.
00:52:17.940 Maybe maybe I will hang out a shingle and go volunteer to step into the D.A.'s office.
00:52:23.740 If I ever were to go back to the practice of law, it definitely would be on the prosecution side.
00:52:28.340 All right.
00:52:28.880 So listen, nothing's happening right now.
00:52:31.340 I think you tell me, Phil, but I think the real question we're dealing with at the moment
00:52:34.840 is how long until they give up?
00:52:38.220 And it doesn't seem like this juror is going to give in.
00:52:41.280 I could be wrong.
00:52:42.120 So either he gives in and we get a probably not guilty by reason of mental defect and
00:52:48.760 she goes to the mental institution or he doesn't give in.
00:52:52.960 We have a hung jury and they come back into the court and announce that within some period
00:52:56.960 of time.
00:52:57.260 What would you guess?
00:52:58.580 Well, it's 10 a.m., and they've been back now about 30 minutes, and so their free lunch
00:53:05.020 that they get every day is coming up soon, so the traditional wisdom amongst lawyers
00:53:09.900 is like the jury on the day they reach a verdict, they're going to get their lunch first, and
00:53:14.460 then they'll give you their verdict.
00:53:15.700 So I do think it's going to be after the noon hour.
00:53:20.700 I think sometime later today we're going to get a verdict.
00:53:23.020 I think that the instructions the judge gave yesterday, combined with what he said today, gives the 11 people that are, I guess, apparently voting not guilty by reason of insanity, it will give them some leverage to use to remind this other individual what reasonable doubt is and perhaps convince him to come over to their side.
00:53:46.280 Now, I could very well be wrong, but one way or another, it's going to be over today.
00:53:50.360 I think if they give it a few more hours and the person does not budge, they're likely to send the judge a note that says, look, now we are definitely hopelessly deadlocked.
00:53:58.140 And then the judge is stuck.
00:53:59.600 He cannot send them back, at least not against their will, to deliberate a third time and would have no choice but to declare a mistrial.
00:54:07.920 all right don't go far because i think we're going to be back together shortly uh as soon
00:54:16.220 as we hear from this jury again there's zero chance this jury wants this thing to go into
00:54:20.100 labor day weekend i mean zero so our only real question is is that guy sitting there like this
00:54:26.340 i've made up my mind i'm good or does he go through the motions of i i had a doubt it doesn't
00:54:33.920 rise to the level of reasonable. I'm listening. Does he do the show trial of I've listened to
00:54:39.900 the judge's instructions? I heard what he said on reasonable doubt. I do have a moral certainty
00:54:44.760 that she committed this crime and that she knew what she was. We have no idea. I hope we find out
00:54:49.300 all the deets later. But in the meantime, we remain on verdict watch. Guys, thank you all so
00:54:55.220 much for coming on. Love you. You guys check out MK True Crime, our channel. You go on the podcast
00:55:00.280 button, you type in MK True Crime, and you can get all of my panelist shows, MK True Crime,
00:55:06.380 Positively Legal, and In the Well, where Matt and Mark Garagos partner on a great show talking
00:55:11.240 about all these issues. For now, we sign off, and we will see you again later when there's news.
00:55:15.960 Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.
00:55:30.280 and more money in your pocket with sonnet you can quote and buy home and auto insurance online or
00:55:35.480 over the phone your choice on your time whatever works best for you and canadian university and
00:55:40.540 college alumni could save over two thousand dollars a year that's real money back where
00:55:44.460 it belongs save time save money save yourself from the way insurance used to be get your quote
00:55:49.160 at sonnet.ca switch save simple sonnet so your decaf oat milk extra but not piping hot four
00:55:56.200 Pumps of caramel, no sugar, small latte in a large cup.
00:55:58.820 That'll be 10 minutes.
00:55:59.840 No worries.
00:56:00.380 I'm having fun on PlayOjo.
00:56:02.840 And I keep it fun with all the latest slot and live casino games.
00:56:05.560 Plus, I get instant payouts with no minimum withdrawals.
00:56:07.880 Oh, and no wagering requirements ever.
00:56:09.780 Here's your decaf oat milk extra, but piping hot.
00:56:11.640 Ah, thanks.
00:56:12.440 Playtime's over.
00:56:13.760 Mmm, lovely.
00:56:14.660 Feel the fun.
00:56:15.860 PlayOjo.
00:56:17.160 19 plus Ontario only.
00:56:18.060 Please play responsibly.
00:56:18.640 Concerned about your gambling or that of someone close to you?
00:56:20.220 Call 1-866-531-2600 or visit connectontario.ca.