Lindsay Clancy Trial Ends in MISTRIAL as Jury Remains Deadlocked with One Single Holdout Juror

Welcome to the Megan Kelley show live on Sirius XM channel 111 every week day at NEAST. Good afternoon everyone. I'm Megan Kelley. Well I guess it's still morning. Welcome to our live feed. Apologies for the disheveled appearance. I actually tried to get some exercise in which was a mistake because of course the jury came back in the Lindsay Clancy case and now I am fresh off of the exercise. Any who as predicted the jury is officially hung and the judge has declared a mistrile. However right now the declaration is stayed as Kevin Reddington has asked to apply for an immediate appeal to the higher appellate court and the judge has given him one hour to do that and then he will come back into the court and we will see what this judge does. So they're in recess for one hour while Kevin Reddington goes up to a higher court and tries to get them to reverse this judge's decision declaring a mistrile. I want to bring in our legal panel. Dave Aaronburg is back with us. Ashley Banfield and Mark Garagos. Guys you have a very sweaty host. So I'm going to let you take it over and you'll be the sweaty ones rhetorically speaking and react to this news. It's very interesting because I wondered why he didn't do this. They have this court in Massachusetts. I personally as a defense lawyer love it where you can press pause basically call a time out and go to the appellate court and one justice can weigh in and the reason I love it is you don't have to wait for a full scale appeals so to speak or do them. It's essentially an inner mockatory meaning a writ action. I think in the next hour you may see something because one of the one of the things that frustrates judges about mistriles is judicial efficiency having to redo something and that's why they generally try to break the law jam either through a dynamite instruction or anything else. So I wouldn't get back on your exercise bike or you're elliptical just yet because I think something in the next hour. So and by the way I was outside. There's no mistrile outside. That's the problem. There's no mistrile declared what he did. He jumped in and said before you declare mistrile I want to raise this, you know, this issue, this appeal issue on a number of issues that have transpired not just on the 11 to 1 or during the juror whether the two we agree this has been read twice. He wants to actually open the whole bread basket of issues. But the judge said I'm going to declare a mistrile at this point and Kevin Reddington asked if he could not do that. Well, he filed this emergency appeal. Kevin asked if he could have until tomorrow to get the appeal filed and the judge told him that you've got one hour. So he's going up and I mean. So I go ahead. So Megan Ashley's point is important if the and I think David's the same in Florida. If he had declared the mistrile, excuse the jurors. That's it. You can't reconstitute it by delaying pressing pause right then. He now will be able to go my guesses. I haven't seen if he's applied. I don't think he's made the application yet. I think he's going to zero in on a hearing on he previewed it yesterday. He's going to zero in that this judge needs to do a hearing based on the note that this juror is not complying with the law. That is the little niche where the Massachusetts law is that if you're not following the law and that's what the note says that this juror has it out, but will not apply reasonable doubt. Then there has to be further questioning. If there is further questioning and they remove the juror, then they restart the deliberations. So what's going to happen now? Go ahead, Dave. Yeah, that answers my question because Megan I was about to say, what's the remedy here? Right? You go up to the pelvic court and to get what? To force a judge to do what? To force an acquittal? No. But that would be I guess the only potential remedy is to force a hearing where you really put this juror, this loan hold out juror through the ringer as if the juror hasn't been through enough. I'm sort of thinking, this is coercive to me. I think you've got the one juror respect that juror's opinion. Do the mistrial move on? That's why I'd be surprised if the appellate court gave in to the defense lawyers request. So there's two. Imagine if this were reversed for a second. If the 11 wanted to convict and the one was like, no, I don't want to convict and we were doing this level of coercion on the last guy, the defense. I mean, Gary goes, you would be losing your mind. You've read my mind as you do because it's not very expansive. But I said 99 times out of 100, this situation presents completely the opposite. You see this, at least I anecdotally see it all the time where it's 11 to 1 for guilt. And I'm screaming from the rooftops that you're co-worsing this juror. Now, I believe, and Dave, I wish I had the Massachusetts judge here, if they'd excused the alternates, then you cannot replace and you would have to then navigate whether 11 could return the verdict. You know, federally, that would be a different analysis than it is state wide. But if there are no alternates available, then you jump to the next hurdle because a lot of times in a lot of jurisdictions, federally, especially they will excuse the alternates once the jurors go back to deliberate. But no, they didn't excuse the alternates here. The alternates are still there. We're told. That's right. So I think they're still available and not ready to pinch it. Yeah, thank God, because can you imagine? And I'm sure the jury is probably stunned right now because they finally went back and said, hopelessly deadlocked thinking, okay, we're going to go home. And instead, they see this. And little does the the loan hold out? No, he was called a felon by Kevin Reddington in open court two hours ago. No, no, Ashley, no, not, not just a liar. He said, he said, he lied under oath, which is a felony. He accused him of purging himself in court. He called him a felon. He did not use the word felon. But that's make no mistake about it. What he was accusing that jurors, which is, which is your intimidation. If he does that in front of this jury now that they're in the courthouse, he's in a whole lot of trouble. What I think is so important about what Kevin Reddington is doing right now and forgive me just for getting all kind of wonky here is that the language that was used according to Kevin Reddington in open court this morning was that this hold out juror has expressed that he and it is the one of three males has doubt to other jurors but does not want to apply it according to the law to his decision and so it's more than yesterday, right? This this four person has said this guy has said to us that he has doubt but he's refusing to actually apply it to his decision making. So I do think that's kind of interesting. It's not just well, we're we're all differing in opinion. I think there is this legal issue of whether this juror is actually operating in good faith under the law. So actually if you want to get wonky here the fact that the four person is talking about the deliberative process. I know that that is what's what the prosecution should be arguing but they're not before she was told they did ask him they asked the judge to try to correct that and Kevin Reddington objected to that too saying well you can't bully the four person and the judge overrule turn said I will be reminding the jury not to reveal because what we learned this morning was they revealed the count. They revealed the juror by identity. They all know who the juror is. We know that it's a male and the judge did overrule Kevin Reddington when the jury came back and said don't reveal anything about the deliberative process or the specific counts etc to the jury. But the question now is so they're going to come back in like I mean I don't know what this appellate court is going to say Dave but my money is on no get out because appellate judges don't like to make quick decisions on something this weighty they will generally defer to the trial judge unless they see something blatantly egregious. And there's nothing blatantly egregious here. >> There's nothing blatantly egregious here. Even if the juror says yeah I have doubts but I'm still a vote to convict that's okay because it's about having reasonable doubts. You can have doubts just not reasonable doubts so he seems to be following the law and remember you give a lot of discretion to these jurors unless they're blatantly violating the law which we haven't seen. And remember just Sullivan isn't just blowing off the concerns. He questioned the jurors individually to ensure that they could follow his instructions. He confirmed that the juror swore that that juror he was able to and willing to follow the law and then he reread the instruction on reasonable doubt an open court to the entire panel. So I can't imagine that this appellate court is going to say nope, not good enough, have a hearing and let's really put this guy through the ringer. I mean enough, right? It seems coercive to me. >> Right because what's happened here is a mistrial. So basically we're going to have a do over it. So I don't think the appellate court is going to be incredibly moved. There's enormous prejudice to the defendant. You know, it's not like they they found her guilty over the objections of one holdout who really wanted to find her not guilty. would be enormous prejudice that the Court of Appeals would be like, oh shit, I mean, but we got to take a hard look at this, they're looking at a possible mistrial, which happens all the time. I think we're going to have another time. It's expensive and so on. Yeah. After all this? Well, yeah. Not necessarily really is a lot into it. 11 to 1, with all of this coverage and the pink ladies out front, there is no way in holy hell that any prosecutor worth his or her weight in salt would decide it's a good bet to do that. Instead, I think the only thing, if me for talking to the, some of the best lawyers on the planet in the planet right here, I think the only shot here is that Kevin Reddington can say, man slaughter maybe six years or nothing. I'm not so sure that I agree, but we'll find out in the next hour. I think that you think the prosecutor is going to have a new head of steam, like I'm going to redo it. I'm going to do it better the next time. I think there's two things that I disagree with. I think number one, the Appellate Court may step in because they don't want to just let this be a mistrial. Now this has taken over Massachusetts and another trial. I don't think that there, that anybody wants to see that number one and number two, from all accounts. And I don't know and Dave does this prosecutor, the elected prosecutor here, he seems like a, what I would affectionately call a rabid dog when it comes to these little things. I don't think this guy, this is bleeding hearts we have to deal with here Dave. Unbelievable. I know this, this prosecutor, the day he does. So his name is Tim Cruz has a big thick boss in accent and he was a very likeable guy. He was the president of the National District Attorney's Association. So he was the leader and he is not known for just being a crazy rabid dog. I think he's fair and we'll see. I mean, clearly, I'm sure he doesn't like that Reddington is attacking him, but you can see that he's fair in that he is not doing press conferences himself, right? There are some DAs who would fight back and use a lot of rhetoric. He has stayed quiet and I think that says a lot about who he is. And I think that if this is an 11 to one, he's going to call it a day and reach a deal, not to let her free, but just reach a plea deal and not put the community through another trial. Dave, are you taking, well, can you, but can you spend a minute thinking what, what do you think Kevin Reddington's mind set is on this because even if the DA goes to him and says, okay, let's cut a deal, a Kevin Reddington has got to be the one with the head of steam right now. Go ahead. Kevin Reddington right now is has all good defense lawyers thinking to himself, I'm one vote away from being done with this case. I am one vote away from not reliving this case that I will never admit this, but he is going to go to the wall like you've never seen right now in the next order to get this thing done done and over with them. By the way, I was going to say Dave, I think that your last comment was a little shot at our DA here, Nathan Hockman, who does a press conference every time somebody trips inside the courtroom. So I agree with you, Tim Cruz has not, but all accounts are of everybody who practices and Massachusetts that this guy is not going to let this go. But I tend to agree that the idea of retrying this in 11 to one, speaking of Nate Hockman, the last case I saw that was our former sheriff in LA County, Lee Baca, federally was 11 to one for not guilty. The judge refused to block it. They retried him. He got convicted and sentenced to federal prison. Wow. That's the thing. So actually one of the things that we've been seeing as this case goes on is a lot of criticism of the prosecutors and in particular, Sprig, who is the lead. But she's learned, she's not dumb. She's paid attention. And if given another chance, most prosecutors think that they can do it, you know what I mean? It's the rare lawyer who looks at a do-over and says, I'll fail again. You know, I think there's something in the lawyer mindset that's like, oh no, no, no. Like I got screwed in one way, shape, perform. Just give me another shot. But it's Massachusetts. Right. It's not Texas. You know, like you have a very different jury pool. Well, do you ever, and I was saying over and over, and anybody would listen all week. Look, if it's six, six, even, you know, slightly one way or the other, I get it. Maybe they would take another shot and spend millions more in another year, just like Karen Reed. They'd be at it again. But I just don't see that being a smart financial bet or political bet in the state of Massachusetts after everything we've been through. If all of these things hadn't happened outside the courthouse, if this case hadn't gathered the momentum and the media steam that it did, I could see maybe, but not a chance in hell now. Honest to God. And not only that, I don't even see them getting any further prison time than like I said, I'm guessing around six years because I just think Kevin Reddington's got the wind in his sails. Hmm. I mean, right from the beginning, a lot of our brilliant lawyers have been saying, she'll probably spend more time locked up if she goes to a mental institution than she will if she goes to a jail because these institutions aren't exactly known for having a revolving door where you're out lickety split. But I do have my doubts, you know, she, I was saying earlier to fill Holloway, if she looked like fill Holloway, I'd have a higher belief that she'd be locked up for a long time, you know, like the white guy from the South is probably going away for a lot longer than the kind of attractive wheelchair bound mom, who was a good mom up until, you know, the six months or four months before killing her three children, can I say just one other thing? I also think you can't say I also think they'd be going a lot harder on Lindsey Clancy if she had killed someone else's kids. I think there is a weird, there's a weird like desire to treat her in a softer gentler way because she killed her own kids. Right. That seems basakward to me. No, no, that's why this, this is so unbelievable when a mom kills her own babies. That's why everybody thinks, oh, there's got to be something else going on. If she kills someone else's babies, it's kind of like a lot of other murder cases, not exactly, but, but more like more other murder cases. When you kill your own babies like Andrea Yates, there is something else going on that people are willing to consider more often than not. It seems now. Well, I think you got it. I don't know. I mean, look how many cases of child abuse we have every day. There's just one in the news today where this couple with their autistic daughter who took off her tracker and she drowned, and it's just like parents, unfortunately, some segment of them hurt their children, whether it's abuse or child sexual abuse or murder. It does happen. They're, they're bad, bad parents. I just think we should be looking at the devastation of the victims. Like we should be looking at who died three children, three, three babies from this woman who had ordered thinking all the way up to the moment that she killed the third and took a phone call from the husband and between not sounding psychotic at all, sounding completely measured and like a woman who was covering up what she was doing. Go ahead, Mark. I was just going to say that you kind of hit on the point of building on Ashley when you've got the grandmother and you've got the father up there basically saying I forgive and I understand that I don't want anything bad. That puts the prosecution behind the eight ball and I think Dave will tell you one of the reasons prosecutors kind of wrap themselves up in victims' rights and the victimology is because they're advocating for the victims who want justice. Here in this case, you have the unusual situation where there is no victim screaming for her head on a stick, so to speak. Because they're dead. Yeah. Well, because the kids protectors, the kids protectors are the grandparents and the father. And they don't want what the prosecution is. If I were the prosecutor in that courtroom, I would say I don't care what Patrick Clancy wants. Patrick Clancy is the one who left her alone with the children after she said she was thinking about hurting them. Same for that mother. We're not listening to them anymore, members of the jury. Two-twelf are here to answer for the victims and the actual victims. Not Lindsay in the wheelchair, not the father's already remarried, not the mother who left the daughter alone the day before this happened, knowing that she was unstable, but the three actual victims and eight month old who couldn't do anything when she strangled him to death with an exercise court. And if you made that argument, we would never have a home jury. They would have found her not guilty within 12. I know. She sucked. Yeah. I mean, Dave Ehrenberg, you tell me because to me what this is analogous to is a case in which a man abuses a woman and the woman's like, oh, never mind, I don't want to press the charges. You know, I love him. He loves me. Yeah. I actually think that this case was headed towards a not guilty verdict until the closing statements. And I think the closing arguments were able to at least convince one juror here to hold out. And I think that may be the difference here. I think everything you said is right that because it's, you have not just a woman who killed her own children, not someone else's children, not just that she was in the throes of serif. She had mental issues and she had a lot of medication and insomnia, all that combined. But she's sitting in front of the jury in a wheelchair, paralyzed for life and weeping. So you've got a lot of sympathy there. And quite frankly, I'm a little surprised that the holdout juror is a male and not a female because I thought women are tougher on other women. It looks like it's a male here. And yeah, so I'm with you. I do think that this was someone else, that this was Phil Holloway, it would be a very different verdict. It looks a lot better. Be good devil. He's here. He's not, he's not in any jeopardy. Oh, he's almost here. We're getting out of one second. They could as well as alive and well and facing no legal jeopardy. While we wait for him, let's go back to the moment where the judge talked about declaring a mistrial and sees some of the drama as it unfolded. - It is with a heavy heart that we report we are unable to come to a unanimous decision and we'll not be able to. My, well, let me ask what is the party's position in regards to the debt question. - Your Honor, from the comments perspective, since the two of you instruction has already been given and then there was less than deliberation after that, I think that it would require a mistrial at this point. - Tony Raiden, you're under my understanding is that this court has the discretion to have the jury sent back for the second time. The first time that there was a report, we did not treat it as a report of deadlock, we did not instruct them under Tui, we did not give them soft Tui, we didn't give them anything, we just sent them back to deliberate. So technically we have one report of deadlock that Your Honor gave the Tui Rodriguez charge to, I believe, under the statute as well as the case law, this court has the ability to send the jury back. The fact that that jury for a person wrote very unusually it was a heavy heart that we are unable to come to a decision. Based on the earlier questions that we have, I think that it would be a sound and a wise decision for this court to send it back under the law. - Well, I would find it under case, Massachusetts case line statutory law, the jury did not ask to be sent back, which would be a possibility if they had requested it to be sent back to them, but under the statute in the case law, I don't feel like I've always but to declare this trial. - Yeah, it's one thing of the jury after the judge tells them, you're the only ones who can do this, there'll be no 12 who are more informed or more fair or more able, please give it another shot. If after that, he can't send them back again and so that was Reddington trying to argue that he hadn't quite taken this big of bite of the apple as he could have and maybe there's one more shot, but Massachusetts law seems pretty clear. The judge is definitely playing with fire if he sends them back in there again. And again, this is typically, you can understand these laws perfectly if you can think of it as the lone holdout is trying to say not guilty and the others are saying guilty. You can't, in that circumstance, it seems so clear. You cannot pressure this jurd to within an inch of his life to change his verdict or else. I mean, that any defendant would get an appeal granted and a verdict overturned. They came to a guilty under those circumstances, but the exact same rules apply when it would be a not guilty by reason of mental absence or defect, which is what they're looking at. - There's a case in New York. Paul Callan, who's a commentary work with for years, was actually litigated in this murder case in New York, in which there was one holdout for not guilty. And apparently, the deliberations got so pitched that he locked himself, it was a sequester jury. He locked himself in the hotel bathroom because he feared the physical intimidation from other jurors. It went into the courtroom, this issue, and the judge, according to Paul Callan, the judge ordered the court to break down the bathroom door and put him back into deliberations at which point he changed to guilty. And Paul said there was nothing that could be done on appeal after that. I've never heard of something so insane in my life, but that happened. And so it sort of gave me a bar for, you know, what happens in a jury room. I'm not gonna keep it. - Well, this poor guy. - Honestly, can you imagine this guy was like, just do it, nobody wants to do jury service. And then he gets sucked in for two months. Now, you're finally wrapping it up and like, you've been called a felon, you're potentially dragged back in there. But wait, Gary goes, I've been talking about you with these past couple of days because you're my star of my Scott Peterson MK Confidential Series this week. And to, wait, in last night's episode, we feature you talking all about the four person of the Scott Peterson jury. And why don't you take it from there? - As always, you read my mind. And we got into our little usual Scott Peterson tip on episode four, but I was very fair to you though. Very fair to you. - So day seven of Scott's deliberations, the judge had already removed several jurors because the jury was hung. Our four person and I specifically wanted this guy in the jury because he was both an MD and a JD. And I wanted somebody with that kind of a brain watching the evidence. He came in on day seven and they had sequestered the jury during deliberations because he was so crazy. The atmosphere was so crazy. And he said on the record, Dr. Lawyer, as we call them, he said, I cannot deliver the verdict that the community wants and I feel threatened in the jury room. I wanted, I missed trial then, I wanted him to bring in the judge to bring in the people who were threatening him or he felt threatened by, judge didn't do that. The judge excused Dr. Lawyer. The four person and substituted in a new juror. And after seven days, they have to restart the deliberations. They immediately came to a guilty within hours. - But I should correct myself. That's in tonight's episode, they're blending. But the difference there, Mark, I think, was that the juror was saying, I can't be fair and impartial anymore. I feel too threatened. I don't know what kind of, if I came to a verdict, I don't know what would be motivating it anymore. The pressure from outside, the pressure from inside. Like he was saying he can't be fair now. So that gave the judge the perfect excuse to bounce him, which is why this didn't become a good appellate issue for you, I imagine. - Correct, and on that note, I have to leave as the old white guy on the west. And so the southern white guy can take my place, who's here, who, by the way, - Mark, I could never, I could never fill your shoes, my friend. - Phil, I want you to fill my shoes because Megan was convicting you already if you were good with that. - I have to seek an emergency, I'm going to make me to seek an emergency appeal to get a bond. - Yes, I'll say if she looked like Phil Holloway. Thank you, Garagos. Phil, welcome to the party. Yeah, so we haven't gotten your reaction yet, too. What's happened here with the judge, wanting to declare a mistrial and getting an hour, giving an hour reprieve while Reddington tries to appeal him? - Well, my first thought I was surprised at the jury, didn't wait until after they got their free lunch for the day before trying to throw in the towel, which is kind of what we normally see. But I think that Reddington's obviously zealously advocating for his client. And I understand that. However, what he wants is, I think he wants essentially to get the appeals court to tell the trial judge to do this hearing designed to potentially. Problem with that is, as you guys just were talking about, that would mean then sending this jury back a third time after they have twice told the judge they were deadlocked. And that would violate Massachusetts law. So I think it's. - Wait, would it, if the jury's different, you know, if it's not the same 12 members? - I think that in this, certainly in the spirit of the law, I obviously don't. I don't have an access to the, all the appeals cases and the rulings in Massachusetts right at my fingertips, but I would be willing to bet my last dollar that that would be a violation of the rule, sending them back a third time after they have twice said that they were deadlocked. The judge would be on some very shaky legal ground if he tried to do that. - All right, we actually had to jump, but John is billboard is back with us. Before we start with you, John, I want to play the other sound bite that we have caught, which is the judge granting Reddington one hour to file an appeal on the judge's decision to file to grant a mistrial. Here it is. - What I'm asking for is time to file a single justice appeal for this travesty. That's what I'm asking for. So you were asking for emergency stay at this point? - Yes. - The jurors don't have to come back tomorrow, they can even have to come back if I lose the motion, but if I win the motion, then obviously, they would have to come back Tuesday. - If you want to go up and petition to the SGC for a stay, I'll give you an hour before we bring the jury back down. I think it's just a request for the state of the declaration of the mistrial. So I'll hold off for an hour, and then we'll come back in regards to that. - Okay. - All right. - But can I ask you, I actually still don't understand. If he's just gonna stay the effectiveness of the mistrial for one hour, that's what you basically said, I won't, my order declaring a mistrial won't take effect for another hour while you go up and ask for a stay of the order. If the appellate court grants a stay of the order declaring a mistrial, what happens with the jury, that they'd be sent home until the appellate argument played out. And then they'd be brought back in days from now after having been home and media coverage and all that. They'd reconstitute and try to have another go at it, John. Yeah. So I think this procedure isn't going to be a protracted procedure. Most likely what's going to happen is the appellate, like we call it the appellate division here, whatever they call it, the Massachusetts, is either going to rubber stamp this yes or no. I suppose if they granted the stay of the mistrial, then this particular judge is going to have to make another decision and maybe send the jury back immediately to continue deliberating or most likely replace the juror that Kevin Reddington has wanted to boot off of this jury for the last two days and they start a new, so he wouldn't do that. I mean, but he wouldn't do that because what the judge, what the appellate court would be doing is just staying the mistrial. Like don't declare it. Right. So limbo shall continue while Kevin Reddington files a substantive appeal of the decision. But they can't keep it. I don't know what that means for the jury. They can't let the jury linger. So either there's going to have to be some sort of resolution. I mean, if the mistrial is not declared, then we still have active jurors, right? We're not done. There has been no declaration if it's stayed. So once that happens, then this judge, the trial judge is going to have to do something to remedy the situation, absent letting these jurors just go home for a couple of weeks until the appellate division decides what they're going to do. I can't imagine that being one of the options. I can't hear that. I think the procedure that he's seeking, it's not a full appeal. It involves only one judge or justice off the Supreme Judicial Court. And it was my understanding this is a sort of an emergency process. It's decided by one judge, and it's designed to get a quick answer. Now, I wouldn't be surprised if Reddington is not asking for not only a stay when he's on the phone or doing whatever he's doing to contact this, whichever justice is on call today to hear this request. I wouldn't be surprised if he's not asking, not only for a stay, but an order directing the trial court to conduct the hearing, which is the he's wants, which is to bring in the juror and sort of drill down on, are you deliberating or are you just being, you know, just digging your heels in and refusing to participate in the process, and because he's refusing to participate in the process, just being stubborn, then the judge would be on more solid ground to replace him with an alternate. Right. So this appellate judge could force the trial judge Sullivan to conduct the hearing that Reddington wanted, where we cross examine this juror, whoever he is, and dig into like his deliberative process, which feels so wrong and like reversible error the other way, Dave. Exactly. That's why if playing with fire here, I mean, you give a lot of discretion to the jury. The judge has repeatedly given instructions, questioned people one at a time. I mean, how much more coercion do you want here? And I think you're right, Megan. If this were the other way around, we'd be outraged if it was one vote from convicting. And we really put the screws to this person and made this person feel like they're doing something wrong or illegal and the other jurors are out to get them. We would be so upset about that. So why are we not upset here when you have a juror who just says, I have doubts, but not enough to overcome my belief. She's guilty. And so that's what's wrong with that, right? It's supposed to be reasonable down here, not just any doubt. So this is headed towards a mistrial. I think the appellate court or the single judge on appeals going to reject this. I think the judge realizes this too. That's why he said, I'll give you an hour. You're going to lose. Come back an hour, then we'll declare the mistrial. Yes. And this judge Sullivan would know the appellate court judges much better than the rest of us. So yeah, he did not seem threatened by Reddington taking him up for this one hour and asking for. Because this, what Reddington is seeking is extraordinary relief. This is not an average, like this isn't something that happens all the time that the appellate court is likely to indulge. Oh, yeah, sure. We'll get this day. That's, that's harmless. So I think if they just follow this, treat this like a normal case, not like the case that's being covered wall to wall by all these news organizations, including us, then they should do, they should do what Dave said, John. They should say, this is an easy one. The answer is no. Yeah. For that reason and others and think of the other wrinkle though, Megan, because Reddington basically accused this one juror of committing a felony by lying under oath to this judge. If I were this person that jurors attorney, I'd be like, no, no, no, no, no, now he's not going to say anything. You can't interview him, judge Sullivan because now you're going to, you're, he's in, in jeopardy. Right. Yeah, he's going to exercise for the amendment right because of what the defense attorney said. So it's so, I was thinking about that, John, like if this, if, if, if Megan Kelly were on that jury, I got Brian Friedman on retainer, okay, and he's a bit bold litigator. And he's watching this and somebody gets up there and says, the, the blonde juror who's the holdout is committed a felony, your honor. I'm telling you, I believe she lied under oath to this court, he'd be there so fast saying they'll be absolutely no more questioning of juror number seven. Yeah. It's over. So like Kevin Reddington has actually created a difficult situation for this court and for this juror. And I'm sure the juror, when they find out that this has happened, it's going to be none too happy with Kevin Reddington of it's already on between the two of them, even the juror. Sullivan didn't seem to be all that concerned with the allegation that the witness had misled or was untruthful with him, you know, Reddington raised the issue and the judge is kind of glossed over it. We don't know what the questioning was about. We didn't hear it. This all happened at Sidebar. Reddington characterized it as well. But they know what they suggested they did. They did repeat what he said that he asked them, can you follow the law? Can you be fair? Yeah. And so, well, you know, the judge, nevertheless, did not seem offended. He, in other words, if I were the judge and I felt somebody lied to me, I'd be. Because Matt Murphy said earlier that it was up to the prosecutor to get up and say, how dare he? Your honor, Mr. Reddington has gone beyond zealous advocacy to now accusing one of our good faith jurors who is sat here for two months doing his civic duty of a felony because he's a holdout on the issue of reasonable doubt. This is grossly inappropriate. He knows the TV cameras have taken this. He's besmirched him. He's defamed him. I would ask the court to reign in defense counsel. Yeah, they certainly could have done it that way, but the prosecutors have kind of seemed to sleep at the switch to a lot of these proceedings. But right now, I think that they are just, they're probably shell shocked because, you know, when I was on last hour, I said that I thought I remembered hearing Reddington or the judge, eating from the note and telling us that the note said that they were complaining that this holdout would not return a verdict of not guilty and nobody remembered it. I went back and looked and I found where he said it. He said, based on this note from this juror, it clearly says this person will not apply reasonable doubt to the evidence to return a not guilty verdict. So that's why Reddington is basically leaving no stone unturned, trying to get some relief to get this juror off and get another one seated because he can just feel that he's that close to winning this case. And who knows if they try it again, you're going to get a different jury and the prosecutors are going to know what to do different next time. They're going to probably get a different team of prosecutors, I would say as well. They'll use different witnesses. They'll see what went wrong in this case. And so the next time around, we might actually get a very different situation out of a second jury. I mean, we might, but like this prosecutor does not instill confidence, even if she has learned based on the first trial, I think the first lesson for Mr. Cruz is, don't put Ms. Bragg back in. Yeah, it will be her. Different, different talent to take this over and I don't know, like the Massachusetts jury, John, it's probably Massachusetts doesn't have one elected Republican in the US Congress. It's all Democrats. It's like California. It's as blue as the blue states come. So the jury pool is going to be reflective of that. And for whatever reason, the politics, politics are tracking in this trial, like in Lindsey, in Lindsey Clancy's favor. Yeah, they are and look, maybe in a jurisdiction like that, the prosecution doesn't handle too many trials. I mean, look, most cases do resolve by a plea bargain. So they're not too used to doing it. One of the things I thought with this prosecutor because she is a little lackluster and I know she could be the smartest tool in the shed, I was sharpest tool in the shed. That's all good. Maybe though the dynamic, which is so opposite of Kevin Reddington, maybe this prosecution team who has dealt with him probably now for a couple of years, right, that these trials don't just happen overnight. It's so exhausted by his bombastic energy that they just, you know, I'm going to do my job. I'm going to ask my direct questions. I don't get the fun part of asking a lot of cross. And they just sort of led me. him go. And this man is going down, swinging. I got to hand it to him for that, but I will also hand it to the prosecution that at closing argument, they redeem themselves somewhat in the closing argument for sure. Meghan, can I add something to that? Although there are no Republican members of Congress in Massachusetts, there are 11 district attorneys elected in Massachusetts. 10 of them are Democrats. There's only one Republican district attorney elected in Massachusetts. And you know who that is? Tim Cruz. Tim Cruz. Tim Cruz. Tim Cruz. Tim Cruz, the only one. That makes a lot of sense. You have a Republican friend. So maybe that's why we have this case to begin with. Republicans tend to be more law in order. We don't tend to be big on like letting the mother who kills three children walk away scot-free because she threw herself out the window afterward. Sorry. That doesn't save you. That's, that's not going to spare you a lifetime behind bars with most, I think, Republican DAs. I would have charged this just to see did. I don't think he overcharged it at all. And I think I would have voted to convict her too. So realistically though, what, what do you think? Like now, if you've got an emboldened Kevin Reddington, and if the judge does declare the mistrial, as we all think he's probably going to at the in 18 minutes, he has now 17 minutes on the clock until we're at one hour. And I don't think this judge is going to mess around because the jury is still sitting there. I don't think this is going to turn into one hour suddenly four hours. They've been sitting there and they're, they want to leave. And so does the judge probably. What, what is reasonable? Because Dave, they can't, they cannot come up with a sentence in the mental institution, right? It's the only option is sender. Do we agree she's going to the mental institution or we don't have an agreement on that. And you are going to retry her criminally. If, oh, okay, if this is 11 to one, what's going to happen next? Is that what you, where you're frankly, if the judge says no, it's a mistrial. Okay. It's a mistrial. Goodbye. Get out. She'll, she'll be kept where she is now. And then there will be a decision by the prosecutor and only by the prosecutor as to what to do next. And I suspect if it is indeed 11 one, that the D8, Tim Cruz will go to Reddington and they'll work this out where they'll find some way to avoid a second trial. I hear my co-host that maybe with a new jury, but now this is Massachusetts. And this is maybe the most conservative county that you'll get because it's the only one that elected a Republican district attorney. And if it's 11 one there, I don't think you're getting a better result. Even if you have a better prosecutor who's trying the case. And if Tim Cruz thought he had some star prosecutor that he could insert instead of the one spray who did it here, he would have done so already. Just a high profile matter. I think this case will be tough to pry it from her cold hands. So I think that if it is a mistrial and it will be that they'll reach a deal where she'll go to mental hospital. I don't know if they'll ever include incarceration, but it'll be a guarantee mental hospital so that there's no chance that she goes free. I don't know how you can get her to a mental hospital where she's guaranteed never to get out. Oh, no, I didn't say that if it's not guilty by reason of insanity, at some point they could release her. Yeah, no, no, there'll always be a chance she could be released. But that's currently if there is an acquittal, it would be the same thing. She would go to mental hospital. I think what Tim Cruz wants to ensure is that she just doesn't get released out into the public. You go to the mental hospital and then it's up to the doctors and the judge eventually to make the decision, whether to release her. And in a high profile case like this, there's a lot of pressure not to let her out in a year. John Hinckley was probably okay after, you know, years after he attempted assassinate president Reagan, but he was kept there nearly until he died in prison because it's a high profile case like this one. Yeah, I asked. Is there any way to guarantee the number of years she would spend in the mental hospital? No, no, no, no. It's completely up to the doctors. But you know what they could do, Dave and John, they could they could they could get to have an agreement and they could say, all right, what we are going to do is we're going to take a verdict with 11 jurors. We're going to take the NGRI and move on. That's one thing they could do because that would make sure that she goes on to the mental, I guess, I don't know what the correct word is for that, but to see that the mental health sort of pathway that she, rather than prison, so they could do that. And as Dave pointed out, I don't think I don't think they're going to let her out any time soon, but of course, there's no guarantees. The other thing they could do is they could decide to bring lesser charges, maybe second degree or something along the side. Stand by the judges back in court. Let's listen. My welcome, yes, what is the party's position in regards to that question? Your Honor, from the Commonwealth perspective, since the 2E instruction has already been given and then there was less deliberation after that, I think that it would require Ms. Trial at this point. To you, Rayton, you're under my understanding is that this court has the discretion to have the jury sent back for the second time, the first time that the only report we've already seen. We did not treat it as a report of deadlock. We did not instruct them under 2E. We did not give them. So off 2E, we didn't give anything. We just sent them back to deliberate. All right, it's fine. This is court TV replaying. They're just waiting until the bottom of the hour. Sorry, they're pool. So we go with their shot because they're getting the feed inside the courtroom for all of us. In any event, soon enough, 13 minutes, we think the hour will be up and the judge will probably be calling them back in there. What is generally the protocol with jury members once they're released? My memory from back when I was practicing that is a different state to state. Like in some states, you're not allowed to talk to them. And in some states, you are. But isn't it generally up to them? Like if they want to come out and come to the microphone and even point to, it's that guy. They can. Can't they, Johnna? Yeah, I believe they can. It's completely up to the individual jurors if they want to or not. And I don't think there's anything. There's no gag order. And there certainly wouldn't be stopping them from pointing out who the whole that was. And in a case like this, you guys, I can't imagine that there won't be probably half the jury who's going to want to get on camera and talk about this. This is their time to shine. This will be their 15 minutes of fame. This is a, you know, a national case that's garnered a polarizing attention. They're going to want to talk and maybe even the whole doubt might want to talk if he's not fearful of some sort of like actual repercussion because it is so polarizing that there are people on both sides. He might be a little fearful of letting his identity be known. There were people on X after this morning saying Kevin Reddington put a bounty on that guy's head. He specifically said he perjured himself into the world. He knows the cameras are taking this in. And we will eventually know that guy's identity. There's only three male jurors. So we know it's one of them. It's not going to take a lot to figure out which one it was, even if they don't throw them under the bus because probably one or both of the others will come out and say, it wasn't me. So we're going to find out. And this crazy crowd that's been supporting Lindsey outside of the trial. I don't mean everybody who supports her is crazy. They're not. There's a lot of good-hearted listeners to this show who support her. But there's a rabid crowd that's been showing up at the courthouse every day. How about that one lunatic who was filming the jurors and put it in her deleted file. She's already under arrest. Like this, that moment of Kevin Reddington do this is going to have repercussions, Phil. You know, it's really a shame that someone can't go to do their civic duty without worrying about being, you know, outed for some decision that they make that's not popular to the mob. And, you know, so he's going to be doxxed. All that information is going to be out there any time now. And it's just going to discourage. Like those of us who are practicing the law, you know, when we go to try cases, we try to find jurors who don't mind being there. And so if we happen to have a case that gathers any media attention or anything like that, it's going to be in the back of these jurors minds and it's going to make them a very reluctant to even, you know, we can force them to settle the jury. But they're not going to necessarily be happy about it. And if they're not happy about it, they're not paying attention to the case. And we want them to pay attention to the case. So I think that this was really unfortunate and it's going to sort of spoil the milk, so to speak, for all future juries, you know, anybody's certainly who's watched this case, but I didn't want to point out something that I see Brian Enten, Megan has posted, he posted this an hour ago and actually says, Lindsay Clancy's attorney Kevin Reddington just told me in the hallway, he does not plan to file emergency intervention with the Supreme Judicial Court regarding this issue. Quote, it's a waste of time. He says, what? That's old. According to my team. So I don't, I don't know that that's current. We have every reason to believe that's exactly what Kevin Reddington has been spending the past 42 minutes doing. But maybe he'll surprise us once again, as the one of the court TV reporters tweeted out their Kathy Rousseau and wrote a unicorn could walk into the courtroom and I would not be shocked at this point. I mean, it really is crazy it's, it's, there's a new one from Enten, Steve. Oh, yeah. Okay. Enten, let's say he just tweeted out, stand by 18 minutes ago, we are all in the hallway, waiting to see what is going to happen next with Lindsey Clancy, if Kevin Reddington filed the stay with the Supreme Judicial Court, but does not get a response, this could turn into a longer delay, even though the judge gave him an hour. So that's his latest. Yeah, it could, I mean, it could turn longer, but I just can't imagine that the court, the appellate court is going to do that, Dave. I mean, they, they know what's going on. They know that these jurors are sitting there limbo, their, their prisoners right now. Yeah. It's, it's unusual that there's this kind of attention to this appellate court, these justices or judges, they pretty much toil and obscurity and anonymity. And now the world is watching them and waiting for them to decide. So they know the import of this moment. And they're going to decide, they're not going to just, so I didn't know this was a big case. You're all waiting on us to decide. No, they know there's a lot of pressure on them. They will decide judge Reddington, excuse me, Judge Reddington got for a bit there. The judge, the judge in this case is going to get his answer. And then it'll be a mistrile today. That's my prediction. I'm sticking with it. Don't you, is it just me or I feel like as, well, I don't know, this doesn't look like a young judge. And so I'm just assuming he's been on the bench a while, but I could be wrong. I just feel like most judges would have denied that request out of hand, Johnna and said, the answer is no, Mr. Reddington, I'm declaring a mistrile deal with it. You can take up whatever issues you want on appeal. Like the fact that he even indulged this is pretty extraordinary. Maybe at this point, the judge doesn't want to be doxed. Maybe at this point, the judge doesn't want stones thrown at his front door. He's letting, you know, he's giving, giving Reddington enough rope. He's letting him, you know, have his dog and pony show. He's letting him indulge as long as it doesn't take more than an hour because he knows to, let's look at the practicality of this, you guys. It's Friday on a holiday weekend with a case that has endured for what, six weeks at this point with deliberations that have come back twice with, with a hung jury hanging in the balance. No pun intended on that. We all see the forest through the trees half of the appellate division in that courthouse is probably already on the golf course. They don't want to be making these kind of heavy decisions when it's not going to result in Lindsey Clancy going, uh, being put behind bars. It's going to be we're back to square one. So in terms of the ramifications of it, if they rubber stamp and it's a nice trike having Reddington, the answers know, get back in the trial department, the judge Sullivan declares and mistrial, everybody gets to go to their barbecues this weekend and we decide what we're going to do on Tuesday, Ms. Prosecutor. And by the way, just side bar, if they do try this again, you guys, I don't know how many female prosecutors they have in that office, but this case has to be retried by a female prosecutor. I don't think a male prosecutor can, can do what needs to be done. John, John, John, I could go there and do it. No, you know what? You guys walk eyed large and you didn't, you know, Mark, my partner, I'm positively legal. Yeah, you're going to do it. He emailed Kevin Reddington and said, you're closing argument sucked. If there's a ray trial in this case, I want to be on your team. Mark eyed large did that. So I may lose him to the retrial. You guys are going to have to stand it. There will be no retrial. That would be so, but that would be so amazing. I mean, that would be great for M, for M K true crime. Yeah. Yeah. You know, hold on a second. All right. This is what I'm just reading this. This is what Reddington said, listen to this. I would ask before you formally declare a mistrial that the court afford us the opportunity to take a 213 appeal direct to the Supreme Judicial Court, single justice on this issue because of any number of issues that are of concern, others that have been addressed in the motions and the objections. But I further raise the issue. Did he say this of the Americans with Disabilities Act? Yeah. Did he actually say this? He said he heard this. I believe that this is a situation where there is a clear and present danger that this individual, for some reason, what it is we don't know is taking a position that's intractable regardless of proof, oh my God, he played the ableist card against the juror. I further raise the issue of the Americans with Disabilities Act. I believe this is a situation where there's a clear and present danger that this individual for some reason, what it is we don't know is taking a position that's intractable regardless of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That is unbelievable. That I've that completely escaped my notice the first time around the Americans with Disabilities Act. So this juror is a felon and ableist bigot. That's where we are, John, that I don't even know. I remember him saying that an hour ago, I don't know, I can't make the connection. If he's thinking that this juror is holding out because he's, because he's an ableist, that is nowhere anywhere in the right, I mean, I don't understand how he's making that connection and that that is really a bridge too far, but then again, Kevin Wright, Reddington loves to take that bridge too far. I've seen him do it a couple of other times in the course of this, the dumbest objection I've ever heard in my life. What is that? What? I got money now that the whole doubt juror is a Republican, I'm putting money on it right now. He picked that guy, said something or checked some box that told Kevin Reddington he's a Republican, and so Kevin Reddington has decided to play one of the disability cards because in Massachusetts, if you're a Republican, you're automatically a racist, bigot, ableist, transphobic, all the folks. Like, what else? This is so outrageous, Dave. I'm shocked because it just shows you in this sense, the desperation perhaps. I mean, that's a desperate person when they're, they're invoking the ableist card. I didn't even know what it meant. I'm in Florida. We don't talk like that down here, so I don't know, but in Massachusetts, I guess that's the thing at this judge though, it doesn't seem like one who's going to entertain this. And the reason why the judge has even allowed the one-hour appeal and has not been offended by some of the things that Reddington has said, remember Reddington said, your weak judge, that instruction was weak. I think the judge and Reddington know each other. They both seem like they've been around a long time, right? And so he's going to indulge him, but he's not going to indulge him on a ridiculous claim of being an ableist. That's ridiculous. And if he did, he'd get overturned on appeal. And then the judge, again, like, the judge is kind of weak instead of being like, fuck off, Kevin. I gave the instructions the way I give instructions. He was like, I'll try to do it with more pizzazz, I was, I'm humiliated for him. Like, I'll dance for you, Kevin. Let me dance for you because he doesn't want to be appealed, is really why he's doing. Well, he's going to be appealed, but he doesn't want to be overturned. So he's trying to create a record so that the appellate court, when they eventually look at this, say that judge did everything he possibly could to indulge the defendant's rights. But I mean, the able it, like good luck with that, based on what, and you know what, beyond predicting that the holdout is a Republican, I think it's clear Kevin Reddington is a lib, because generally Republicans don't run around looking for ADA claims in the jurors that are against them. Phil, come on. This is ridiculous. I can tell you, I'm sure that next week on the MK True Crime Show, Dave and I, and Ashley will be talking all about this whole fiasco that we've been seeing throughout the day today. And maybe that's something that I can ask Dave to thoroughly research so he can basically go ahead. I'll get right on it. But speaking of which, if I can take just a minute, I want to ask your audience, Megan, your YouTube audience and your podcast audience too. If you haven't followed us or subscribed to us, wherever you get your podcast, MK True Crime, but we're also on YouTube, and we use a lot of video elements and sound elements. And so it really makes sense, in my opinion, to subscribe both ways, podcast and YouTube. But I want to mention YouTube specifically, Megan, because you may not know that. No, we are, we launched the channel. I think it was Labor Day or just after Labor Day last year. And we are just on the cusp of getting our, to get in 100,000 subscribers. So if your audience could, could help us get to that milestone, I promise you, we would really appreciate it. And that would be a nice thing to, to, to, to ring in our second year. Yes. I totally agree with you. We love MK True Crime. It is a hit. It's been a hit across all platforms. So, and these guys are the reasons why because we have the best in the business. They're fun. They're easy to understand. They have good humor, which is, you know, that's not present in every lawyer. I don't think, I don't think ever. I'm not sure. I'm not going to give a job offer to Kevin Reddington overheard MK True Crime, although he's kind of entertaining. I love his accent. I will say that. The bar. The juror. I love it. In any event, this, he's playing cards that are really ridiculous. Per court TV, they're letting people back into the court room. It's now been an hour while we wait for that. Listen to that Disabilities Act claim on tape from Kevin Reddington. Further raise the issue of the American with Disabilities Act. I believe that this is a situation where there is a clear and present danger that this individual, for some reason, what it is, we don't know. but is taking a position that's intractable, regardless of proof beyond a reason. So I want an opportunity to take an appeal to the single justice, if the court wants that opportunity. - It's amazing, so there's someone on the jury who is a bigoted ableist and felon. According to Kevin Reddington, the only criminal in that courtroom is the juror, not the woman sitting beside him who strangled her three children to death. That's Kevin Reddington's worldview. This is why I never became a criminal defense attorney, guys. Like I couldn't do it. I couldn't make these arguments. - Well, not all of us do. - Yeah, I don't, yeah. Well, yes, I mean, some would stay within the bounds of decency and the law and just argue, what do you, I mean, a zealous advocacy, great. I'm all for it, the, you know, give me the appeal, fight to the end, try to preserve this verdict. If you can, 'cause it's good for you, great. I love it, but this is crazy, fell. - Yeah, I've never heard of the America's Disabilities Act being invoked in a criminal case. This may be the first time, I don't know, but I certainly can't think of any reason how it might apply in the context of jury deliberations in a criminal case, even if the defendant is paralyzed in a wheelchair. I just, you know, I mean, I just don't, I don't have no idea how it's going to apply. And, you know, sometimes lawyers just make stuff up and they just pull it out of their rear end, just because they feel like they need something to say, whether it applies or not. And that's kind of what I sense going on here. I don't think that Reddington really believes he's got a claim under the ADA. He's just throwing things out to try to get the judge to bite on something. - What's the clear and present danger? Like, what, like, is he-- - That was a movie, 'cause the juror arm, like, I don't understand. - He was a great movie with Harrison Ford. - Harrison Ford. - Yeah. - Yeah. - Clearly, you know, it's like, he pluribus, um, like, he just started spinning crap out. - He's just yeah, yeah. - No, it's like a few good men. I strenuously object. - Is that how it works? - They do you, and anyway, I don't know what he was doing there, but-- - Yeah. - And he popped into beauty probably calling the trial judge right now saying, what's going on? And Judge Sullivan's probably like, yeah, don't worry about it. Just bring, we'll bring him back in an hour. Is there any opportunity here for a partial verdict? Is there, is this, or is that a non-sequitor? Because we're at a ruling for all, for all the charges, which is, we're hung. I mean, that's, that's, that's a ruling too. Like, is there any chance he could say, go back, and deliberate on just one charge or-- - I think they're hung on-- - Any other option? - I think they're hung on whether or not she's not guilty by a reason of insanity. They gotta get past that before they can start considering any of the charges. That's, that's my read on it. - Yeah, I get a sense that they're hung on, on everything, that that one juror has decided, no, she's guilty, and this is not gonna be a compromise. This is not just about a voluntary manslaughter, and they've already acquitted on the first charge. Although that's a possibility, that they could have just said, not guilty on murder, but this is about the lesser charge. But I suspect based on what we're hearing about this jur, that this juror doesn't want her to be found not guilty at all. Thinks there's criminal responsibility here, and so I think this is about 11-1 on all accounts. - I think that's right, that has to be it, because if they had, if they started to consider the individual counts, like, if they went after it with murder-1, and then the juror said, I think she's not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, and the one guy said, I don't think that. I think she's guilty. They would have gotten stuck right there. - Well, how can they? - I don't know. I mean, I guess they. - If that guy felt that way on murder-1, and he felt that way on murder-2, we felt that way. I mean, this guy doesn't think that she is. - But if they believe that she is, if they believe that she would be excused. - If they believe that she was not insane at the time, and then they moved to deliberating in accounts, how could they possibly have 11 votes for not guilty when she doesn't even contest that she did the act? So that's why I believe they're still stuck on the very first question, which is the mental health or the not guilty by reason of insanity part, because the prosecutor has to disprove that claim beyond a reasonable doubt. And once the jury decides that the prosecutor has done that, that she did no right from wrong, et cetera, and could conform her actions to the law, then they can start deliberating on the criminal counts. She guiltly have murdered in the first degree, second degree, or whatever. So I just don't see how they can get to any of those actual criminal charges until they get passed the NGRI question. - I got a question for you. You know how with convicted pedophiles, there can be like a court ordered chemical castration? Is there anything, could they strike a deal where this woman agrees to have her tubes tied or do something so that she cannot have more children? You know, is that even potentially possible? - China likes the idea I can tell. - No, I, you know, anything is possible behind the scenes like when we're negotiating other kinds of criminal cases, we can offer the defendant to do something extraordinary. And then the DA will make a deal that you don't know that the extraordinary thing has happened because it's not part of the deal, but it's the precursor for the deal. But what's gonna stop her Megan from killing somebody else is kids, what's gonna stop the voices from happening for 18 minutes and she, and she kills an adult where she kills a dog, what's gonna stop that? So I don't know if that would be good enough for me if I were prosecuting the case. - You can know maybe how about cutting a deal where she's guaranteed a certain number of years in the mental institution. And that way she can't really get pregnant there. - But what if she's not mental? Like what if she's fine right now? Like we don't know what her last, you know, evaluation revealed, we don't know that. What if she's perfectly fine? - They are telling us that she's not hearing the voices anymore. - Yeah, she only heard those for 18 minutes. - Well, she's confident to stand trial. - Yeah, what about that though, that you can at least guarantee a certain number of years in that institution. I would think you could do that with the defense lawyer. That way she doesn't just get released in a year. Maybe that's the solution. - I just don't know what the mechanism for that would be, Dave. - That's the question, I'm not sure. - I don't know, because then what if you have doctors who say she's fine, she's fine. I don't know why would we keep her for another 10 years. I'm telling you she's fine. She's been evaluated by all of us. And there's no risk to herself for the community. Matt Murphy's back with us. Matt, your reaction to the ridiculous last chapter that we just witnessed where we're on, we're now past the hour mark of him going up to try to get a stay of the mistrial being declared. And on the way out we are accusing the holdout juror of possibly somehow violating the Americans with disabilities act because he's so intractable in his opinion. - I've never heard an ADA claim. You talk about a sign of desperation. Look, I understand Kevin Renison's frustration because he's got 111 hangar. And we've all gone through that before. The problem is I just picked my fanatical football league and there's an expressing the anecdote. Act like you've been in the end zone before, buddy. Like he's been there, we've all been there. You don't accuse somebody of committing a fricking crime because they disagree with you. And newsflash to Kevin Reddington in modern America, disagreement is not a crime. You know, it's just, it's not. And it's the sacrosanct job of the criminal defense attorney in America, which is one of the most important jobs I think Megan that exists, right? Protecting people from false accusations is a really important thing. And when you're in the process of protecting your client from what you believe is a false accusation here, okay? You don't accuse other people falsely of committing crimes. You know, I just, I think that's a step too far. Another thing to remember, Kevin Reddington picked this guy, Kevin Reddington argued to this guy. And I think Kevin Reddington's argument, his closing argument wasn't very good. Personally, I think he lost. I think he lost this guy in his argument. And part of that is because I was a big Kevin Reddington fanatical at the beginning of this. Tactically, I thought he was doing a great job. But he lost me over the course of the trial. I think he comes off as a bully sometimes. And if you come off as a bully to a juror, you're going to lose him. I tell you what I do. I like that. He doesn't like sidebars. He wants everything to be done in open court. And that I appreciate. Yeah, well, the problem. I actually wonder whether this juror went when it's all over. Could he possibly have a civil suit against Kevin Reddington? Could he sue the guy for defamation? No. You stood up. I wasn't even there. The world that I was a felon and a bigot. For literally just sitting on your jury and having a difference of opinion. Typically though court room is our kind of, you have immunity from saying those kind of things inside a court room for that reason, right? Right. It was almost a statement of opinion as well. It was out of order. It was out of order. I got a prediction for you. Kevin Reddington will say that outside the courthouse too. And then he's in some hot water. There you go. He doesn't seem like a guy who's afraid to repeat his in court comments outside. In fact, he's worse outside the court. Now we don't know who the juror is, which should save him currently on a defamation claim, but we're going to. I don't know. I think there's something there. I would definitely rattle his cage a bit if I represented your number, whatever, whoever this dude is. Um, the, that guy was at a line. He was grossly at a line. Okay. So now we are 12 minutes past the, uh, the deadline for him to file his appeal. We should be getting a result any minute now. This is just, just, just tweeted out by end-wokeness has been doing a good job covering this case. Um, John Bataglia killed his two daughters and what forensic psychologist said was psychosis stemming from bipolar disorder. The jury deliberated for 19 minutes. He was executed in 2018. Well, I'm telling you guys, like, there's some sort of, I don't, I, I actually bandfilled with saying, yes, it's, it's because she killed her own kids that they're giving her a break because there's a presumption no mother would do this. I don't, I, I don't buy it. Like, if, if this, if this were a dad, we wouldn't be doing this to him. Even if he had psychosis brought on by bipolar, it's like, there's something going on with like the fact that she's a woman and she killed her own kids that they're getting some level of less protection in the eyes of these jurors, Johnna. And in the eyes of some of these Lindsey Clancy supporters. I agree with that. And that is the part that scares me the most about a potential outcome in this case that would give a green light to those kinds of supporters to say, okay, but you know, my hormones, my, my hormones made me do it. And now I have a pass to do it because I brought them into this world. I can take them out, apparently, but that is not what the law says. And I think those who support her so strongly that they're willing to come on and make ridiculous comments on any site that any of us appear on are not understanding the nature of the law. And I'm not so sure that maybe the one hold out juror like me didn't buy that she was under psychosis when she did this and that that's why this case is so entirely polarizing. And I agree with you too, Megan, she's young, she's somewhat attractive. You know, there is definite evidence that she was suffering. I completely, I agree with that. And there's definite evidence that there was a lot of drugs on board and that maybe the doctors didn't know what the other woman was doing. I agree with all that, but if everybody that had that condition, if everybody who was on these kind of pills, if everybody who had a hormonal problem were allowed to kill because of it, we'd have a lot more dead people in this world. And the gels would be empty. That's not how this is supposed to work. And the sympathy factor has overtaken this case. And like every school shooting, the kid had a psychotic break. Sometimes he was put on a SSRI, he had a trip. I'm sort of trip that unleashed a trip wire in his life or was huge, like on the cannabis that created some mind morph before they unleashed hell on children. And we don't say he should go to the mental institution. We don't. Like people who commit murders, especially serial murder or mass murder, like here generally tend to be very unwell, very unwell. We don't spend a whole lot of time, what brought it on, was it an SSRI, was it bot, was it an abuse of parent, we don't really give a shit. We look at the crime that they committed and figure out as Matt was saying, did you know right from wrong? And were you able to control your actions? And in some, for some reason, this case has just completely spun all of that on its head. I guess because she was asking for help, but she was, that's part of the story. She was asking for help. But that, that too doesn't get you. To get at a jail free card, Matt, I mean, a lot of these school shooters prior had sought help, had a psychiatrist who is advising them a school guidance counselor. That doesn't generally mean they get a pass in the eyes of the law. Generally before this case, to get the advantage of a mental disease or defect, I mean, you, you had to like, gnaw off your own arm. And even then you'd probably have a split jury on whether you qualified. Listen, Dave and Phil and John and I have all dealt with a concept over the course of our entire career. It's not as a murder suicide. Right? They always seem to be better at the murder part than the suicide part, but they call it a murder suicide for a reason. Everybody willing to do that is suffering massive mental health problems. And that as a concept doesn't have, like, we haven't struggled with that until now that you can still commit a murder even if you are mentally ill or you're extremely emotional or whatever it may be. But can I say one thing? Remember when I told you I went on an Arthur idol to defend me if I ever got into trouble in New York City. I want that to be John and now, I want John on my side. I just, I agree with everything. I'll give you half off. Discounting right now. Good. Well, no, I agree with you. I mean, you need a zealous advocate to be able to make these points. And I feel like that's, that's been one of the frustrations of watching this. Huntington's been one, but the prosecution has been so lackluster and all of us can see if you had a little bit of passion, how you could have sold this better to the jury and thought organization and talent at cross examination. And where well placed you raised this earlier, Matt, you were right. Some righteous indignation at the behavior of the, of the defense attorney. If for no other reason than to telegraph to the jury, he is out of line. You know, that guy's a jerk and get them, you know, drive a wedge between the jury and the defense. He don't want them budding up to him with his Boston accent and his Boston charm. You want to show them this guy? No, he's not your friend. He said, jerk, as soon as you leave the room, he's going to call you a felon if you side against him. Yeah. The counter punch is one of the most important things, tactically, in any trial, Megan has been able to come back on her feet and push back against that stuff. And unfortunately, we just didn't see much of that in this, in this case. I think, I think, and to his credit, who's very effective advocate for client, I think this case was his to lose going into closing argument, given how the trial went. And he lost a juror now man up and, you know, take it like he, like, I mean, we've all been there before, Megan, every, every trial journey, yeah, every personalist panel has hung a trial 11 to one. We all have. It's a part of the job. It happens. And the next thing is what happened, but I guarantee nobody here has ever accused somebody of perjury in their juror oath when that happened. That for me is a step too far. The prosecution should have been all over him on that. And remember, the prosecution gets the last word. And he went after them. He went after the cops and his closing. I thought his closing argument was disorganized compared to what I was expecting from him. And then the prosecution did a 40 minute closing argument with their barely talked about a lot, and they didn't counter punch Kevin Reddington. So, yeah, this, this has been, this has been really interesting for you to watch, but I think I'm not alone on this panel. I say it's also very been frustrating a lot with this lodge. You kind of like, I don't know if it's fact that she's a woman or what, but like, I used to do battle with the male attorneys. I was up against in a way that was like, I couldn't stand the fact. And when I ran into one who had diminished me because I was a woman and they were plenty to trust me because I graduated law school in '95, it would, I'd be so excited. It would be so fun. I would make a record. I remember a deposition is going, you see him upset, do you, do we need to step outside? Do you need a break? And these male lawyers would go freaking nuts and they couldn't stand being needled by a young lawyer who's calling them out on their emotionality. There's a way of doing it is simply my point when you're a woman up against a man who's a big personality, who's like insulting, who's diminishing. And this woman, she was just too, she was nothing. She was like flat and kind of checked out. She didn't see, she didn't telegraph to me that she had passion behind the case. And I think some passion would have been in order here. There are three dead children. It's like, somebody was mentioning a moment ago, oh, you know, she was in there. She was Lindsey Clancy. She was crying. I guess she was crying at the autopsy shots of the children she killed, like, who cares that she's crying. Like, if I were the prosecutor, I think I would have said, now she cries, who's she crying for? She's crying for herself. You know, who else cried? I guarantee you, her eight-month-old cried as she strangled him to death. She had absolutely no mercy for them. Nor should you for her. This isn't a case about mercy. It's about justice for these three kids who can't speak for themselves. None of that was given any voice. So I just kind of feel like, whatever, I don't feel sorry for her either, that she lost 11 jurors. And, you know, she's, she's largely to blame for this pickle that she sent to. Well, Megan, if I can add to that, you're exactly right. The prosecutor home balance did a better job than the defense when it came to closings. But the first thing they talked about was basically an admission that Lindsey Clancy, you know, had serious severe mental health conditions at the time. Now they obviously didn't say it went so far as to being, you know, clinically insane. But they did lead with an acknowledgement of that. And I don't know why they did. Maybe it was strategic, but then they didn't do anything really to talk about the kids. But guess who did? Kevin Reddington did because he got out there and like basically gave the jury a visual of what it must have been like for her to strangle the kids. And I thought that was very bizarre. So the closings lead much, much, much to be desired here. And I wanted to point out also that you were talking about, um, could there be, you know, copycats or how many people are going to start using this as a mental health defense in case it's moving forward? But in the United States, I don't know how many hundreds or thousands or, I don't know, maybe a million felony prosecutions a year, uh, less than 1% of those, um, employ a defense of, uh, insanity. And then when it is used, it's only successful about 25% of the time. So it's like. 0.3 percent of all felonies result or wind up with an acquittal based on the insanity defense. So this is still exceedingly rare. And I don't think that we're going to necessarily see a lot of the increase in those statistical numbers if she is in fact acquitted. I just think this is probably a one loss. Yeah, I hope you're right. And I certainly hope, you know, one of the unfortunate things about being in news is you see patterns. And unfortunately, we do see patterns when it comes to violence, you know, it's one of the reasons why the Charlie Kirk assassination was so disturbing. It was like a new way of killing someone in a new target. You know, people weren't generally getting shot to death for their political opinions, civilians, you know, as opposed to politicians. And like the rooftop thing with Trump at Butler, then we saw it again in the Charlie murder. And I just don't want this implanted in the minds of otherwise unstable new mothers as like, a thing, you know, it's like not you. It's your psychosis. It's your postpartum thing. Like, there are some crazy people out there. We had a video queued up the other day. I don't know if we still have it, Deb, of women like mimicking hurting their babies. Oh my god. Just to me. Do we have it? Yeah. It will pull it over. But they were mimicking hurting. Yeah. They're posting videos of themselves pretending to hurt their infants. Do we have it, Deb? That V2. Stand by. It's it's it's yeah, it's a video here. Okay. Here's this woman. What? She's pretending throwing her child down the stairs over the top over the railing, throwing her baby in the dryer. Yeah, we we have a sick culture slap slamming the baby's head. Look at this. This is effed up. There's a real sickness in our culture right now. And it says something about postpartum. Like it's all postpartum. This is like something's wrong with people. So I just I hate the notion of like it's in their heads. And we're about like 11 jurors are about to bless it. Go ahead. Well, I guess that's sick culture. We've seen this Luigi Mangioni's fans. People just don't care about life. If they just have different political views with someone and it's so disgusting. Here, remember the woman who was chasing after who was running away from the cameras who had taken pictures of the jury. She was like, I just did it to get a picture of Lindsey. Like like she was a superstar. Like, no, she's just a woman, a sick woman who killed her three kids in the worst possible way. And so this is what we're dealing with. Times Square. Yeah. People who are defending the the psychopath who murdered that poor woman because she worked for a bank. They think that's a justified killing. We're right now. It's a very difficult time. And at some point, we're going to have to do something's going to have to happen where we just say, Nate, look at ourselves. We're going in the wrong direction. Let's rethink our lives. If we're continuing to lionize these killers, these wrongdoers. And so I'm glad you called attention to it. At least there's one juror who's holding firm. And I've been one who thought that would be hard and possible to get a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt on murder. But now we have one juror is holding firm. And this juror is being called out and perhaps doxed and being accused by fellow jurors and not following the law. So enough. You know, let's let's move on from this. Call Miss Trial and live to fight another day. Just want to update you on what we're hearing. So court TV reported people are assembling. It's unclear if the public has been let in. Then the court said that the door is shot for general public. So they're not letting actual, you know, observers in. That doesn't mean there's nothing happening in the courtroom. We don't know. So here's what we're going to do. We'll take a break, you guys, because there's not action at the moment. We're not sure when there will be action. But as soon as there is action, let's come back together and we'll pick it up and we'll talk about whatever it is this judge has decided. All right. Council, it's my understanding that the SJC issued their order that the emergency request for relief was denied and the temporary stay is lifted. And so it would be my intention at this time to call the jurors back in. And as I indicated to you before to declare Miss Trial. I understand your honor and at the risk of incurring the wrath of the court, I'd like to raise additional issue just for purposes of the federal law, because this I believe constitutes a violation of the United States Constitution and federal issue in that circuit, which is the first circuit. When a jury reports through a four person that admits the liberation that a juror refuses to follow the law, the issue is handled under federal rules of criminal procedure 23B, but the law itself that we're dealing with clearly indicates that a judge has the authority to excuse a deliberating juror for quote good cause and quote and allow the remaining 11 jurors to return a valid verdict and or with the substitution of one of the jurors that have been waiting obviously as alternates. While the first circuit acknowledges that a juror's refusal to follow the law or instructions constitutes good cause for dismissal that does in pros procedural issues as to how the court would navigate and which would require a hearing. The court standard is United States versus Sepulveda, RSEP, UL, VDDA, press circuit 1993. And in that case, your honor, which is significant precedent, the first circuit address the underlying concept of nullification and where a juror refuses to follow the court's instructions. And then in the Sepulveda case, the court held that while jurors possess a raw power to a quit for any reason, they have a significant duty and their duty requires them to apply the law as given to them by the court. If a juror abdicates this duty, it triggers the court's authority to intervene and the court would then have a procedural way you would inquire just like a hearing like we were suggesting that the court should have a hearing. So I would suggest your honor that clearly under the first circuit law, federal law as well as the argument to the court, Massachusetts law, that we have a juror who has according to the four-person is the only person who is basically holding out so to speak. And unfortunately, they're not holding out based on a good faith issue with the facts or with the law, but they're holding out as a result that even though they have agreed and expressed doubt, they are refusing to apply the law as you've given it. So I would ask again that you conduct a hearing and understand that you're probably going to deny that. For reasons as I stated earlier this morning, that request will be denied. So we ready to bring the jury in? [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] >> This court is now on set, we continue to. >> Here I have for the purpose of the record. We return present for the four 12 deliberating jurors and six often, it's in the matter of Commonwealth versus Lindsey Clancy, all of the parties are present. >> All right, thank you, Madam Clerk. >> Welcome. >> All right, members of the jury, at this point, I'm going to declare that the jury is deadlocked and I'm going to declare a mistrial. All right, I just wanted to make a comment. And I'm kind of a history buff. And during World War II, Winston Churchill was the prime minister for England. When England pretty much stood against that's Germany alone. And so Churchill oftentimes had to talk to the citizens and say, let us brace for our duties. I always like that phrase. And I thought of that phrase when all of you were agreeing to be on this jury. The agreed to brace for that duty. And each one of you knew how long the case was going to go. You knew how difficult the case was going to be to listen to facts wise, but still you brace for that duty. And I just kind of wanted to also let you know, I watch every day, day after day, week after week, all of you performing that duty that you're braced for. And I just kind of wanted to let you know, I understood how hard everybody worked in this case. I understood that you all gave everything you could and probably more than you thought you could. And so on behalf of myself, I just want to thank you so much. And you should be proud for what you did. You're braced for that duty. You're performed that duty. And I just kind of wanted to thank you by half myself and behalf of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Thank you so much. The only thing I am going to ask one more thing is that what I'd like to do is be able to come back and thank you personally. that talk to the council for just a couple of minutes. So if you can stage this for a couple of minutes, not to go over the deliberations really like that, but just to thank you personally, again, for just an incredible commitment and dedication that each and every one of you showed here. So I just wanna thank you so much, and with that, you're discharged. Thank you. - All right, no, just wait for it. - Good. - The jurors are back to the court of Wisconsin Section. - Excuse me. - All right. - And I think what I had said at the end of the evidence, I just kind of wanted to echo again, I wanted to compliment all three council. I try to like this so hard, so difficult. And so I just kind of wanted to thank the three of you for your efforts and regards to this. And so with that, if you talk, I think we should probably pick a status date in any where we are trial assignment date. - I wouldn't talk about that. - Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. I know I would like to argue at 25b2, and I have to be done within five days. So I mean, I would like it possible to have this on for a hearing on a motion for required finding reconsideration, 25b2 on Tuesday. And my request, assuming that you deny that motion, would be that we impanel the following Monday. - That would require, I'm going to have to check my schedule. And also, so what I'm going to suggest, I understand that's the request. And my thinking is to try it sooner rather than later, but I'm not sure of that sooner. And it's a situation. I also have to check the trial court schedule, council schedule, witness the schedule. But my thought would be to try this, if we could do it maybe sometime later in the fall. But why don't we pick a date, maybe a couple of weeks down the road, so everybody could get their calendars together and kind of see where we go. All right. - What about the 25b2? The motion for required finding reconsideration within five days. - We can file it. Do we have to have a hearing within the five days? - I'd like to, but I mean it's okay. - I know you'd like to, but I, you know, maybe we could do it later in the week, maybe not Tuesday, maybe Thursday or so. - Sure. - And I'm going to be out of the state for the 22nd. - All right, well as it's filed, do you want to pick, we could do is pick that status date, trial assignment date, it actually then do the argument of the 25, on rule 25. - Maybe that week of the 28th. - It's supposed to, it's supposed to, it's that emergency pitch field. I'm hoping that that's going to be continued. So I would ask if it's agreeable with the court and counsel if we could have Tuesday the 29th. - Come on. - So why don't we, why don't we do that? - 29th. - Is that the at two o'clock or nine? - Doesn't matter to me. - Let's see, nine o'clock. Why don't we see nine o'clock? I would come in. - We'll have the defendant bright in. - Yes, please. - I'll sit. - And the matter of Commonwealth versus Lindsay. Clancy, the court to cleanse of mistrial. All prior bail orders remain in full force. And effect this matter is continued just September 29th. 2026 at 9 a.m. for status, trial assignment and the rule 25 motion implemented. - All right, and counsel, thank you. - Thank you. - Go ahead. All right. - Yes. And there you have it. Welcome, everybody. There you have it. The court has officially declared a mistrial in the case of the people versus Lindsay Clancy, the Commonwealth versus Lindsay Clancy. And that is not what the defendant wanted. It is a victory of sorts for the defense. And honestly, would have been considered a victory for the defense for virtually every week of this trial. But Kevin Reddington was within an inch of getting the verdict he wanted, which was not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. And he apparently had 11 jurors in his palm and could not get that 12th juror. Just couldn't do it. And did everything within his power to get that juror bounced, cross examined, pressured, called a felon and open court, suggesting he had lied to the judge under oath when he said that he could be fair and followed the law. And in the end, the judge was not persuaded and followed regular procedure, which was to remind the jury that they had an obligation to follow his instructions and the law, that they had to follow the law as instructed and not their own version of it. Even if they didn't like the law, they had to follow it. And what we saw earlier today was as the judge went to declare a mistrial, Kevin Reddington, the Defense Council said, give me the chance to file an immediate appeal to the Supreme Court and see if I can't get a stay of this proceeding, such that he's looking for an order to compel this judge to do what he wanted the judge to do. He am reading his brief right here. The four person has sent a note to the judge indicating that one of the jurors has acknowledged doubt but is refusing to apply it to the case, quote, as the law states. The defendant has requested that the court either excuse the juror or inquire further to determine whether the juror can in fact follow instructions. So he wanted this judge Sullivan to either bounce the juror and replace him with an alternate, one assumes, or question the juror further to determine whether he can, in fact, follow instructions. And it kind of doesn't matter right now what this judge on the Massachusetts Supreme Court says because the mist trials been declared and the jury's been disbanded and excused. So there will be no cross examination of the mystery juror. There will be no excusing of the juror because all of the jurors are gone now. And I don't know what the Massachusetts Supreme Court judge is going to rule and it could make for an interesting appellate issue. If that judge says judge Sullivan was wrong and should have done one of those two things. Okay, they'll litigate that on appeal like they always do when there's a trial court error. But for now, Kevin Reddington has lost his motion to keep this thing alive and to try to salvage a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict out of this jury. That's where we are right now. Okay, I'm going to bring in our panel. We've got the whole gang back from earlier, Phil Houston, Matt Murphy, John Spillbore, and Dave Ehrenberg back with me now as well. So it's over for all intents and purposes for now. And you heard the judge start talking about what's the next trial date? What are we going to, what are we going to rebook the next trial? And the defense is more focused on a motion to reconsider that he has to file within five days, which he acknowledged. He expects the judge to deny and then we'll figure out what's what. But this whole drama of the past, what two plus hours was all for not, Dave Ehrenberg, because whatever this Supreme Court justice does, it's over. The jury's gone. Yeah, it's over. The best chance they had was that quicky appealed into lockatory appeal where they did it on Zoom and I got to watch it. And here's, I want to read you one sentence from actually the appellate brief they put out. This is going to make you crazy. It says, I know what you're about to read, and I'm with you, do it. Here, the removal of the juror is particularly important because the juror's reasoning reflects a biased against those who suffer from debilitating mental illness, a protected category under both the fifth and 14th amendments and Article 114 of the Massachusetts. There's a typo of the Massachusetts. I mean, my head's going to explode there. Really, he's leaning in to the ADA stuff about being an ableist. This is like a false accusation, but because you do it in a legal brief, you get immunity. So he'll get away with it, but I'm glad the appellate court didn't buy into it. Justice was served, at least when it came to this motion, and this thing was always headed to a mistrial. The next page of the motion seems to tell us why he's doing that. It reads, "In Commonwealth versus McCallup, this court outlined the judicial protocol in cases where juror, juror, racial and/or ethnic bias is alleged. In such cases, the judge must determine whether the defendant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the offending juror was actually biased. So they seem to think that if because of the defendant's race or ethnicity, considering the content of the statement in court, the same considerations apply here in the context of mental illness. So he thinks he's going to get a better standard applied, right? He says in cases where bias has been alleged, the just must determine whether the defendant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the offending juror was actually biased because of this issue. So they're trying to up the ante on this judge saying, you have no choice. When we alleged bias, you have to cross examine the juror to figure out whether he's biased. And I feel like Matt Murphy, this judge, treated that, well, we haven't gotten a ruling from the Supreme Court judge, but this trial court judge treated the argument, which was raised in front of him about the American with Disabilities Act, with the respect that it deserved, which was to completely disregard it and issue his ruling, telling them to get out. Judge, it's great, Megan, actually, but there's critical as I've been on the prosecution on this case. I think the judge has been equally, equally good. And yeah, he knocked that down, he gave it, he gave it the, I'm sure he considered it properly, all that, but he gave it exactly the short shrift that it deserved because it's an absurd argument. Yeah. What did you think, John? So it's over for now, right? Like whatever happens at the Supreme Court, you can't resurrect a dead jury. No, you can't resurrect the dead jury, but I have to wonder on that particular argument, can we rewind five or six weeks when they were picking this jury? Because I can't imagine a world where there wasn't a question on the, on the juror question there or in Voidere, where they made inquiry, whether maybe anybody on the panel had a bias against people with mental illness because that was the heart of the defense. Did anybody have somebody with mental illness in their family? Have they ever known anybody with mental illness? That had to have been vetted when they were picking this jury. So it seems a little disingenuous to now raise it as a, as a Hail Mary to try to keep this case alive by making everybody sit through another lunch on a Labor Day weekend and taking it to the higher court. And that's, you know, he's like one of these, you know, that commercial like in a, you know, over rock, you know, like a rock, he's getting beat up like any, and he just doesn't want to die. He just doesn't want to call it or stay down. That's Kevin, Kevin right in this case, but ultimately, I know he's, he's treating this case like, you know, he's got something going on with Lindsey Clancy, like Bill Hammer used to say you can take the, the L out of lover because it's over like it is over. Sorry, Kevin. It's like you did a great job getting 11 of those jurors on your side actually will probably change your client's fate in a very favorable way. But you know, Phil, this guy's got to learn to take the L like, it's, it looks like this trial judge will be his trial judge the second time around. So you really don't want to alienate him completely. And I don't think he's taken an L and I'm not, there may not be another trial with this or any other judge because see, here's, here's what Reddington's actually doing. He's not necessarily playing the game that we think he's playing because there's, there's the short game, which is now, which is today, and then there's the long game. And so he knows that he either had to, he got to let was 11 to one. He was very, very close to just winning outright and he could taste it. And so his, his goal was either to get the juror removed or in some way maybe get an alternate on there so that he could get the 12 to agree to not guilty. But in the alternative and since that's not going to happen now, Miss Trial has been declared. He's obviously opposed to the Miss Trial. He's opposed it vigorously and he's raised a lot of other issues, frivolous and other wise as part of it, including this effort to go into the appeals court. So now what's going to happen? He says he's ready for trial. He wants to go right away week after next, but I don't think he really does want because what you're going to see between now and next week probably is you're going to see something, we would call it here in Georgia, plea in bar. He's going to say that the second trial is barred on the grounds of double jeopardy and here's why he's going to say that because this was a Miss Trial, then it was done over the defense's objection that the, it would not, it would be a manifest necessity is what you have to have to have a retrial over the defense objection. And so he's going to say that even though this was a, a jury Miss Trial based on not reaching a verdict, he's going to say that it was still error and that in order to try her, there has to be a manifest necessity, which he's going to say there is not because he's going to ledge these errors by the court that were not opposed by the prosecutor. So that's in a nutshell where he's going, he's going to try to get his cake and eat it too. He's going to try to get his win now from the court of appeals. I mean, I guess if he can, if he can persuade the appellate court that this note, he's acknowledged out but is refusing to apply it to the case as the law states. If he can convince the appellate court that that was an allegation of a juror who refused to follow the court's instructions on the law, I guess there's some tiny percentage chance that, you know, the appellate court could say the judge should have done a voidier of the juror, but I don't think so, Matt. I just feel like in general, the appellate court is going to be very deferential to the trial court judge. He did bring the jury back in and he did question them one by one, can you follow the law? Can you be fair? They all said yes. And the appellate court's probably not going to require more than that. They're not, these appellate courts are not actually looking to, to perform colonoscopies on every decision the trial court makes. No, no, they're not. And it's like this is the law according to Kevin Reddington, right? Where any doubt equals reasonable doubt, and that means you got a vote for my client, that's just not the law. And another thing, Megan, what's interesting procedurally about this is what's the remedy? You know, what do they do? Bring the jury back and force them back to deliberate, that's not going to happen. So she wasn't convicted. So the appellate options for the defense here are pretty limited. I think that the remedy would be a new trial, basically, and that's what she's going to get if she wants it anyway. So. Well, and there must be, I haven't had a chance to research the law in Massachusetts, but there's a reason they switched to, this is about bias so quickly, clearly the person writing the brief thought they'd do better. They had a higher chance of compelling action by the judge, but that's not going to fly either because there's zero evidence this juror has exhibited any bias. Do you imagine that world? It's like, okay, my client has mental health issues, and therefore any juror that votes against me has biased against my client from the health issues, it's completely circular. It's a, it's fallacy reasoning and the court of appeals going to spot that. It's, you know, I mean, we'll never have another criminal conviction if that's the case unless you're like a straight white man, you know, in America, like it's just, it's, it's not going anywhere. Most jurors are biased against criminals. So you're right. We would never have another trial. So that's not going to work. Yeah. And I mean, that's what he was saying when we saw the ADA, I just assumed he meant the wheelchair. No, he was talking about the drugs, the mental illness that he was, so it's like the whole purpose of the jury was determined, whether she was so mentally ill that she was legally mentally ill, but because this one guy wouldn't say yes to that, he has to be violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, he's got to be biased against mentally ill people. Like this is, like, that is so circular. You will find not guilty or you will be accused of bias against the mentally ill Dave. Unless this juror actually said, you know what? I'm not going to let her off the hook because I don't like people who are mentally ill. I don't like people who take these drugs, but we know he didn't say that. You know how he know he didn't say that because the tattletails on the jury, the jury 4 person would have put that in the note. They went to the judges and Reddington would have held that up and proclaimed it to the world. So we know that didn't happen. So this is, this is done. It's dead. It's done. And now the big question is, will the two sides reach a deal to avoid another trial? I think they will because the prosecution sees that it's 11-1, they don't want to do this again. I think the way I actually have a question though. I have a question for you before we get to that, the two sides agreeing. What could happen literally any moment now or any day now is a juror pops up in front of a microphone or, you know, if history is any guide on the today's short Good Morning America. Like those shows are relevant now, but they still believe they're in the booking wars of 20 years ago where their bookers, like this is why they pay the bookers, what they pay them. Get the jurors. Get me two or three jurors. [BLANK_AUDIO] So my bet is we will see a couple of them, if not at the mics shortly, then on one of the morning shows tomorrow, or possibly again, cable tonight. And you guys all know, when you are the winning side, it's terrifying to see your jury speaking stare. You don't know what they're going to say. Is it going to cause a problem for you, you know, like, and it did, like I keep going back to Scott Peterson, just got neck deep in that case. But it did cause trouble for Scott Peterson. There was remember strawberry shortcake that one juror on the Scott Peterson trial. Do you guys remember this with the bright red hair? She wound up on the jury, and she shot her mouth off after the verdict. And she started writing letters to Scott Peterson. And that unleashed a whole can of worms that up to the interest in her led somebody to go back to her juror questionnaire. And that issue remains alive in the Scott Peterson case to this moment, like it, so it's terrifying when the jury speaks after their service is over. And that's my question. Could the jury still somehow upend this in Kevin Reddington's favor by going out, either the one guy himself or the others who are now, they weren't free to say what was happening in the room before. But now they are. What if they come out and they say, he said he doesn't like mentally ill people. He said he could never vote for one or he said, I don't give a damn about that moral certainty thing. I in my gut, I just, I can't possibly vote her not like whatever they could say. So what are the remedies after the jurors speak and is anyone worried about that? Well, if you asked me, I can take it. It's, look, I think that because this was a mistrial that was objected to, okay, as I mentioned before, they're going to come back now and they're going to say, look, this was a mistrial over our objection and that the mistrial was not manifestly necessary. And there's, that's the constitutional magic words. And therefore, the next trial would be a vital to the double jeopardy clause. And therefore, you can't have a new trial. So to the extent that these jurors might come out and make statements, if they, if, if Reddington and his team find that there's any, anything that happened back there in that juror room that can support their position, that the retrial, excuse me, that the mist trial was not manifestly necessary. They can get affidavits from those jurors. They can use that as part of their appeal. So yeah, sure, some things depending on what said, of course, they're going to try to interview all of the witnesses, the jurors that they can because they may become witnesses at any future hearings to try to support the position of the mist trial as a proper. Well, I'm close to just, it just makes your case better. Does it not like, John, if I'm Reddington and I get a juror to say something that's damning for the whole doubt, something that makes it sound like, you know what, that judge should have waddeered him again. And this would have come out, you know, if the jurors like, no, he was, you should have seen this guy in the deliberation room. His arms were crossed. He literally put his hands over his ears. He told us he'd had it and, you know, he was just never going to find a reason, well, that he didn't care what the judge's instructions were, whatever. At a minimum, you put that in your brief as Reddington and an alive appeal to the Supreme Court. And now you've got their attention. Maybe now thanks to your weird disability objection, saying, you know, the judge had a heightened duty. What's that Steve, we have a presser, the DA, let's see, you know, let's go to him. This is Tim Cruz. Let's watch the jury. Obviously work. We've had stayed with that case for six and a half days. And that truly is people who understand the word of service as to what they did for our community. And I am grateful for that as we all should be. But in the end, I understand that this has been an emotional trial for everybody. It's emotional to the Duxbury community. It's even emotional for you members of the media. But in the end, I bring it all back to the child victims in this case, Cora Dawson and Calon. This was and has always been about getting justice for those three little babies. We're here at this courthouse today because those children are not. One of our many roles as prosecutors is seeking justice and giving voice to those who are tragically taken from us. And one of our pots in this proceeding is to speak for the victims who are no longer here. And that is one of our most important functions. Our priority has always been to fight for Cora for Dawson and for Calon. The noise in this case may be louder than it is for other prosecution than our county. But we have treated it the same as any other case. Children were murdered and it's our job to seek justice. I appreciate the fact that there are strong feelings and opinions tied to this case. However, our job is to set aside our feelings and focus solely on the facts. The facts are Lindsey Clancy killed her three children and the evidence suggested to us that she was control of her actions when she committed those homicides. Our court system is built to weigh our views with those of defense counsel and bear out whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty. We did our part and I'm proud of the part of the work we did in this prosecution because this case is not about a health care system or about how women are treated in it or what's diagnosis around the DSM or what they're not. Those are all important issues. They stir up emotion and sometimes they stir up anger. This case, however, was about Lindsey Clancy and what she did on January 24th, 2023 and the cruel and calculated killing of three innocents. I understand that post-partum depression has impacted the lives of countless women and their families and I sympathize with their struggles. The investigation of these heinous killings, however, did not establish that they were caused by such suppression and based upon that assessment, it was determined that the charges of first degree murder were warranted and appropriate in these circumstances. Notwithstanding the undeniably important and delicate issues raising this case, we proceeded accordingly and consistent with the evidence and the law. I have led the Plymouth the Azov's for a long time now and I have never been swayed to act a certain way or make certain decisions based upon public sentiment. In this job, it is the facts ultimately decide how you act. Not the opinions of observers several steps removed from our court proceedings. I would like to thank our prosecutors, Jen Sprague and Shannon Buckingham, who are both mothers themselves, and went home to their families after each long day in court. They embraced the most difficult trial assignment with utmost professionalism and always with the thoughts of Korra Dawson and little Kallen on their minds. I am proud of the work I have with his advocates who work long and hard, Karen and Kelsey, and they lived and breathed this case from the very beginning. Unfortunately, the way they were vilified or portrayed on social media is disgusting to me. Threats to them and their families, their addresses being dot being posted, it's unfortunate that in today's society, potentially people placed at risk who are merely doing their jobs as prosecutors, professional women, for the Commonwealth. And once again, I am proud of their professionalism under these very stressful and difficult times. I commend the Massachusetts State Police and the Duxbury Police and Fire. From the moment that 911 called, they performed a thorough and complete investigation, and this was probably one of the most difficult crime scenes any of them has been to. They did their jobs, professionalism and integrity. This is a case of three children who died of violent and horrific death at the hands of the person who showed them the most. This isn't rumors speculation. This isn't guess work. You know, speaking generally, we live in a great country, and we have the best criminal justice system in the world if you ask me. And that's what you've started today. You've startled the course of the last few weeks. There isn't defense, dealing in court, and ultimately having individuals make their determinations, jurors making their determinations. And the defendants that are charged with crimes in our country have an awful lot of rights. And you know what? They should. They should have the rights to set forth a United States Constitution, and here in Massachusetts I have mass declaration of rights. They should have those. But also speaking in the world that we live today, and all too often. criminals are being treated as victims and the real victims are invisible. It is our job to make sure that the victims are not invisible, to make sure that they're not forgotten, and to make sure that we stand in terms of the crews, his press conference will get a break and we'll pick it up later. All right. Well, Court TV has decided as pool, or we're no longer going to have access to the remarks. Very strong comments from the Republican DA. Tim crews love the accent. We did our pot. The victim's advocates worked long and hard. The chasers were appropriate. I love it. I want to commend the police and fire. Like it should, I find that so charming having grown up with a dad who was born in Brooklyn and lived in Manhattan for much of my life. I just, I freaking love it. Boston and New York are not the same, but they've got shades of the same. That did not sound to me, Matt Murphy, like a man who's not going to retry Lindsey Clancy. He said at the top, we didn't take it that he would not be making, it would not be addressing the possibility of retrial today that that decision will be addressed at an appropriate time, but he did not sound like a man who's ready to back down to me. No, the problem, Megan, is that we just heard a better closing argument than we heard in the court. He obviously, he's got some passion, he's got some heat. That's what this case needs from the prosecution standpoint. I don't know if he's got a gunslinger somewhere in his office that can take this thing over for a retrial because the result could be different, maybe not for a first, but possibly for a ball. The team he has in there is outmatched. I'm not saying that. That's not a criticism. That's a tactical observation, but here is another thing. I love the fact that he's up there going against the grain and defending his prosecutors. There's a lot of ideas, Megan, that don't do that. I worked for one for a little while. You want somebody that gives you top cover that sticks up for his people. I like that, regardless of how we think this should have landed or whether you got to stick up for the prosecution and they did their job in the sense that they put this case through the process. I think we just got a good glimpse into why he believes very strongly in his position. From his position, he's advocating on behalf of three children that were killed by their mother. It's kind of hard to find fault in that, despite all the rest of the lunacy that we've seen. Doxing is insane. That makes me angry that somebody would do that. Doxing the female prosecutors too, which is, I thought I appreciated the point he raised about their mothers too, and they had to go home night after night to their kids. Unlike Lindsay Clancy, they did not get to leave the courtroom because of upset in looking at the autopsy photos. Unlike Lindsay Clancy, they didn't cause those photos to exist in the first place. He humanized both women and reminded us all, they've been under a lot of stress too. They've had a terrible God-awful assignment here to spend your day, every day, in the details of this case, Matt. This is literally something you did between the sex crimes unit and the murder cases you've tried. You forget about the human toll. It's a place to be, Megan. Sometimes it's the role of the prosecutors to make decisions that aren't popular in the current time we're living in with social media and all the, I'm sorry, the insanity surrounding this case. That lady doing the press conference after taking pictures of the jurors, I mean, I am still fired up about that. That should never happen, and that's what these prosecutors are dealing with. I was very critical of their tactical performance, but not their motivations. I think we have to remember that. We need good prosecutors, guys. In America, you have to have that in order for the system to work the way it should. Maybe the retrial can be an MK True Crime All-Star cast that you can go volunteer to sub in at the DA's office. I, Glarsh, will be volunteering to help Kevin Reddington. Bam, we've got a real trial on our hands. Everybody would watch that. I know you got to run Matt. Thanks for being here. We'll see you in the well, both the actual one. If you take me up on my offer and the show that you do from the media. So this is what he said, John, this is a case about three children who died of violent, horrific death at the hands of the person who was supposed to love them the most. Man, oh man. So powerful. And I'm so glad he brought that up because if you paid attention to the defense side of things, Kevin Reddington was, you know, all too ready to hold up the Instagram photos of a loving and smiling Lindsey Clancy and how much she loved her kids and that you could easily forget if you're a juror. That that's not what this is about. We're not here because there are three happy children. We were there because there are three horribly murdered dead children. And this poor jury had to witness autopsy photos. I mean, I wouldn't be surprised. I'm not even being, I'm not even exaggerating about this. To have some sort of post-traumatic stress from witnessing autopsy photographs of dead children. That's a real thing that this jury was just thrust into. So this is also swirling around in their minds. And the other thing, just back to the, to the women who did prosecute this for a minute, you have to remember people forget they are assigned this case. They are paid by the county that tax dollars of the people of Plymouth County paid or salaries. They are assigned. I don't know if anybody in that DA's office said, pick me, pick me. I want to prosecute this case. Probably didn't happen that way. juxtaposed that to Kevin Rennington who I am assuming was paid. He's not a public defender and paid very well. And it's nobody's doxing him. They're praising him. They're standing in line. They want his autograph. And these poor women with families and children of their own on the county dime, not being paid nearly as well as Kevin Rennington have to go home, feed their kids and then worry that one of their kids is going to get run over in the street because of a crazy mob. That is stressful. That is unfair. And it shouldn't be that way. But it is folks. It is. Yeah. Oh, another reason why court TV should not have cut out of the DA's presser. I'm not sure why that happened. But he was making his points forcefully and to me persuasively. We are here because the victims are not. We speak for them. Our priority has always been to fight for Kora, Dawson and Callan. These children were murdered. Our job is to seek justice. And then he said, I have never been swayed to make decisions based on public sentiment. Never. I don't know, Phil. It could go either way because even though he only got one juror, I think the prosecutors are probably going to convince themselves that they'll do better the next time. They learned from the mistakes they made the first time and that they'll do better. I don't know. I can't hear your value. Are you muted? I'm not now. Thank you. That would have made a very good closing argument. And he had a lot of passion. He, you know, speaking from the heart. That would have been a great closing. And who knows if he had given that or some of the other prosecutors had given something along those lines. We may have had a different split in the jury. And you're right. 11 to 1 gives him a lot to think about. He's got to come out today. He's got to support his prosecutors. He's got to do this press conference just as a matter of course. But once things settled down and back at the office when everybody's had time to calm down and reflect on it, the reality is his office with all the evidence that he made reference to was unable to convince a jury of her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Even the one that held out, and it held out reportedly had doubt. And so the defense argument would be of course that had that person followed the judge's instruction, that doubt should have led to an acquittal, you know, by the unanimous jury of 12 people. So they're going to have to decide how they're going to, how they're going to move forward. And public sentiment or not is, you know, this is a big undertaking. This is an expensive undertaking. And one that he could very well lose outright, outright the second time, because guess what, Kevin Reddington and his team, they're going to come at him with both barrels on appeal now. They're going to appeal and say you can't retry her again. And that's going to go up through the appellate system. That's going to put a strain on his office. It's going to cost money. It's going to use resources. And then if he survives that appeal, and he may not, this may very well be a winner of an appeal for Kevin Reddington on double jeopardy grounds, because this was something that was done over the defense's objection. And so should he survive the appeal, he's now got to go through this very heavy lift of a trial again. And it's going to cost money. It's going to cost resources. And he's going to have to figure out a way to come up with a better way to counter the defense arguments, because there is significant evidence of postpartum mental illness. And even these prosecutors even conceded that in their closing arguments. So he has an uphill climb to be sure. And I wouldn't be surprised if we don't see this leading bringing all the parties now to the negotiating table to figure out some way to move forward without a trial. It definitely might. And maybe that's the best result. I don't know. I don't really think so, because I think she belongs behind bars. And I don't think Reddington is going to agree to that under any circumstances. circumstances. I mean, jail bars, prison bars. That's where I would like to see Lindsey Clancy ASAP. Like yesterday, uh, John, uh, we zeroed in here on one of the pink shirt ladies behind DA Tim Cruz. So as he was making his remarks, watch this, look at this. I am proud of the professionalism and these very stressful and difficult times. I commend the Massachusetts state police and the dexporate police and fire from the moment that 911 call, they performed a thorough, complete investigation. And this was probably one of the most difficult crime scenes. Any of them is mentioned making a thumbs down sign, mm-hmm. Another sign, uh, thumbs down Miranda divine in the New York Post announces another woman put up an L for loser behind Cruz. Okay. I mean, how is this like be kind Brigade so nasty and hateful, but you know, the pro Lindsey Clancy women who are just a bizarre set, the ones that show up at that courthouse are a bizarre set. So hateful. Um, by the way, it's he didn't lose. He didn't win. No one won. No one won. If you're not on their team, um, they can be very nasty. If you're not on their team, if you're on their team, then apparently if you're on this particular team, it is perfectly okay to murder your children. If you are suffering from some sort of postpartum mental illness, which is also not the law mental illness doesn't give you the license. I feel like they said it was it's the psychosis that she may or may not have been in the jury couldn't obviously figure it out. Nobody could figure out nobody won. Nobody lost. All right. I completely get that. But here's the other thing. I know that he said, you know, we we don't make our decisions based on public sentiment. And that's great. And they shouldn't. But which prosecutor in that office, Megan and Phil is going to jump up and down and volunteer to do the retrial, knowing full well, that they're going to be met with this kind of hatred that they're going to be docs that this the picture is going to be out again. Who is going to volunteer for that to to be the one to be the face of this retrial. So maybe the true answer. I don't know if Kevin Reddington will agree to a voluntary manslaughter in a period of incarcerated period of institutionalization followed by something for a period of years. Maybe he will. Maybe he won't. But whenever I've had this kind of case where it's that difficult, if you can give the judge a reason to get you off the hook, then give the judge a reason to get you off the hook. And maybe that's going to be Reddington might file a motion to vacate might file a motion to dismiss in the interest of justice and find out put all these reasons everything but the kitchen sink in there. Maybe it'll fall on the judge to be the heavy so that the prosecutor does not have to do it. I don't know that I'm trying to read tea leaves that don't even exist yet. But I'm just thinking I had my bills are spinning of course. Listen to this Bill Mellusion of Fox reports. He believes he's said our producer Fox's producer on scene says it came from an NBC news producer or reporter on scene just asked the DA if his prosecution of Lindsay Clancy was insensitive. Is it to who? Is it insensitive to prosecute a woman, a mother who kills her three children fill? I mean, like this is ridiculous. Somebody online was asking, what if what if Lindsay Clancy in this exact same mental state had gone out and killed George Floyd? Would we be seeing it any differently? This woke Massachusetts jury. We think they would have struggled. You know, it's like no, it's because she killed her own children. They gave her a break. And I get it because there's a presumption of mother loves her children. They don't all do we give? Do we give child molesters who molest their own sons or daughters a break? Cause we're like, you know what? Only crazy person would do that. Only a sick, deranged person would do that. It was just their kids. So like the fact that they did that they did this horrific thing to their kids make me have some empathy for them because no sane parent would ever hurt their kids. Fuck an A. We don't do that sentiment or those principles with anyone. Why are we doing it with a mother just because she murdered her kids? And I'm sorry to be that person, but I have to believe if this had been a black mother who murdered her children, I actually do have my doubts about whether this jury would have come to the same conclusion. I think this woke probably mostly white Massachusetts jury. I don't know. I'm just spitballing here. Identified with Lindsey Clancy. I think they identified with her. They were like me too. I've got 14, 14 ailments or disorders myself. I've been, you know, pulling my nails out and my hair out and washing my hands two thousand times a day myself. So we all need to have super amounts of empathy for women who do bad things because of craziness because they can see themselves in her. That's that's my theory. You know, I've obviously not a woman. I'm the odd man out right now on this panel. Quite literally. I'm outflanked by two wonderful ladies, but, you know, I can tell you that it doesn't take much for women to identify with Lindsey Clancy because the issue of postpartum mental illness, and I want to say psychosis, but the number of women who will, who could come form and will tell you because they tell me all the time, you know, that postpartum is something that is not well identified by the, by the healthcare system. The, there's lack of treatment for it. There's, you know, a lot of women are afraid to even talk about it because they're afraid their kids are going to get taken away because they have, you know, hard feelings, maybe you start to resent children with postpartum. And so they, they just keep this to themselves. And so the, and when they don't, the medical treatment providers do not help them deal with it well. So it's, it's a real thing. It's a real problem. And it's widespread. I hear this from moms and women all the time, particularly now that we've been covering this case here on your show as, of course, over on MK True Crime as well. And so I can just, when I saw that there was nine women on this jury, I knew that it was going to be at least deadlocked, at least a hung jury because it doesn't take much for women to identify with the, with the claims that she's making. And even the prosecutor admitted she had significant postpartum mental illness. They just didn't concede that it rose to the level of being, you know, not guilty by a reason of insanity. But it doesn't take much. And if you, a lot of women suffer from this, no one kills their child. If you, if they get women a lot on the, or several of them on the next jury, they're looking for, they're looking at another hung jury is probably just the way it is. Um, standby. Let's say Connecticut insurer insider. Yeah. Connecticut insider does report that the 12 jurors are mostly white and middle aged, appearing to span several generations. I just was curious what the race of the jury is. And it is mostly white. Not surprised. Here's that sound bite of the insensitive death. You know, I'm not going to stand out here and listen to this. Yeah. You had 11 jurors that didn't necessarily believe your case. What do you say to those people who felt that the whole prosecution was incensitive? Where's what? Incensative. Incensative is killing three children. Incensative is ignoring those facts. We have an obligation to stand up for those people and see justice and make sure that if they get justice and make sure they get justice. So people don't, can't understand that. I don't know how I can answer that question. Good for him. Um, this is just like this defense attorney was clever and came up with all the right arguments. Poor Lindsay. She's the real victim and the certain subset bought it hookline and sinker. That's, that's really what happened here, John. But thankfully, there was one hold out who understood she knew exactly what she was doing. And thanks to that guy, it's not an outright not guilty by reason of insanity. It's a hung jury, which means the prosecutors might get a second bite at this apple. And as you point out, it happens all the time, they take that second bite. And every time there's a mistrial, it's because the jury, the prosecution couldn't convince the jury. And so every time we have a second trial, it's because the prosecution failed in some way. Um, so look, it could be a better numbers who could have been like 11 to 2. The other way would favor the prosecution. But who knows, you know, that, that guy right there, Tim Cruz, to me, sounds like a fighter. And I'm not so sure he's just going to throw on the towel. Well, he needs to be pregnant. I mean, but he doesn't need to make this decision because he's pissed off right now. He needs to make the decision. What he's going to do next needs to be grounded by an informed by the fact that he was within a hair's breath of losing this trial was 11 to 1. And the one still had doubts. And that was what this whole thing was about about, you know, should, should this person be removed for not following the judge's instructions? So he had 12 people with doubts about her guilt, whether or not the prosecution had disproved her mental illness defense. So he needs to be practical because we really don't pay DA's. We don't elect or hire DA's to make decisions based off emotion. And right now, that seems to be what's running very high. Phil, can I push back on that for a second? Because again, if we never got the dynamite charge, right? If this judge had maybe been a little more forceful, the first time the jury came in with, we're deadlocked. And then the second time declared a mistrial at that point. We wouldn't have any of this information. And I know that there was a no and I know that we're all thinking it was 11 to 1 in favor of defense right. But we don't really know we will never know what was going on in that deliberation room unless these jurors open their mouths and I kind of hope they do. If for no other reason than it will give the prosecution a blueprint for the future because I'll tell you what it will send. Stand by, John, forgive me. Stand by their Reddington's talking. Let's listen. Cruz knows that he was crushed. He doesn't have a case. He doesn't have to stand here and say that he's advocating on behalf of the victims and then look down to see what their names are. I'm representing a woman who is a fantastic, wonderful individual. This woman is so brave, so awesome. Every day she came in this courthouse, stood tall, open intended, the poor thing is in a wheelchair as we all know for the rest of her life. Sat there through seven weeks of the trial where nobody had anything bad to say about her except for the two prosecutors and apparently Tim Cruz. She had people that would meet her nurses that would know her that would visit with her, the chaplain who had never known from Brigham and the women who went to three years and continues to visit with her because of the type of person she is. And it's not right what she had to go through because she grieves the loss of those three children, Kora Dawson. It opened up with him taking a shot at the DA for what he said was having to read their names, the children's names off of a list. What the, I mean that he is, you know, maybe we'd all get to know the three children, Kora Dawson and Calum, a little better, Kevinton. If their mother had allowed them to live, you know, if they had been allowed to live in flourish and get their own lives going and flourish in this world in a way that they would have come onto our radar as stars or geniuses. What have you? We'll never know. Why? Because of the woman you said, nothing bad was said about in the court. You know, she's an absolute saint. Why are we here again? I said, he just said that went too far. He wants, I guess he wants the public. I guess he wanted the jury to fall in love with her and to like her and she's maybe just not very likable because regardless of her mental health problems, she did brutally and horrifically kill three young children who are innocent and helpless, the victims in the case. And she did it in a terrible, horrible way. So that's why the jury, even though there was 11 of them that were voting to find her not guilty by reason and sanity, that's the reason they didn't want to look at her when she, when they entered the room today in the courtroom. She's not really a likable person, right? She, at least not from what we've seen. And he wants to ask us as the public, I guess, to like her as a person. And that's just, that's just too big of an ask. Um, you know, it's one thing to say that yes, she did something terrible. And you know, if she, if she could take it back, she would, but she can't, but she did not understand what she was doing at the time due to severe mental illness. And so therefore the law means she's not guilty of a crime. That's one thing. But he's wanting the public and everybody. And I guess the jury to embrace her and that's too far. And if he, and if he tries to do that, if there's another trial and he tries to do too much of that, he needs to focus on the mental health aspect and just let people continue to dislike her because she killed her children. I know. I, like, I was looking at that picture. I don't know if you guys saw this. We have it made of Lindsey Clancy and, and Kevin Reddington during, this is during the zoom for the appellate, um, argument that just happened. And she's looking right, pretty much right into cam. And all I could think was this, this is the phase. Those children saw when she strangled them to death as she approached. And then of course she would have had to get behind them. But this face is the one that looked at her three babies and strangled them to get to death with a ligature. As they struggled as we believed us and ran for his life, all I could think of is Chris Watts. When he smothered his two daughters and the one was killed right in front of the older one, they were four and three. And he killed the little one first. And when he turned to the older one, she said, are you going to do to me what you did to her? Like this, this, this, there's no way these kids didn't have any idea what she was doing. And that face staring at us is just eerie and disturbing and should be nowhere near fresh air for decades and decades and decades. Like I don't know what's going to happen if they cut a deal. And I think this guy, Tim Cruz, while he does have, he's a politician at some level, you know, you get elected as DA. And now he's got a constituency and he's going to have to answer to them. But, um, I do think he gets that. Like if you work in this line of business, John, I you as a DA, you see terrible people and terrible crimes all the time. And, and when one stands out, like this one does, I don't think you roll over that easily on, okay, you'll go to the mental institution, especially in Massachusetts, especially there where I'll bet you she's got a very good chance of getting out within the next 10 years. I would agree with that. And she certainly won in the court of public opinion. And I don't do we credit Kevin, Kevin Reddington with that, or is there more? Is there more? Why did she put in so handily in the court of public opinion in a case where people are so eager to forget that there are three dead children that I can't, I can't, I could cry. If I were capable of crying, Megan, I would cry over this case because it's that. It's, I mean, it just, it gets inside me to think the, of the last moments of these children, knowing football that the person who gave them life was strangling the last breath out of them. And that's why I hope this DA does not roll over. I don't know if there's going to be a middle ground, but I end, you know, at this point, I don't know how we got elected the first time if he's a Republican over there, but that should be the least of his concerns. He needs justice for these three. And we cannot send a message that just having postpartum anything is licensed to do horrific things. It's not just, no, of course it's not, and this just, this note just came from CNN, per a producer who was in the courtroom while the judge was speaking to the jury declaring a mistrial. There was one female juror that was nodding her head. No, is it a nod when you go side to side? I think it's a shake. Yeah. I think a nod is only up and down. Don't you agree? If I say she nodded. Yeah, that's up and down. Yeah. Okay. So anyway, just a, okay, point of clarity. One female juror was shaking. I'll change it. Her head. No. Another female juror was clenching her hands into fists. One female juror would not even open her eyes. Phil, these women were very invested in getting the not guilty by reason of insanity. They've been working for, for almost one, to hear that mist, right? They've been working that a month and a half and they know that mistrial means that some other jury's going to go through it again. Look, this, the reason, and to what, to what John was just saying, okay, the reason why, you know, she won sort of in the court of opinion, I just got a text message from a woman that I know and who herself suffered postpartum mental ill or mental, I would say mental illness, but certainly severe postpartum depression, okay? She says, I'm not justifying her behavior in any way, but she was failed so many times along the way and the jury listened to every single piece of the trial. And I think there's, you know, that's, there's a lot of truth in that. I mean, the, it's obvious to me that the healthcare system did fail Lindsey Clancy in it, but it fails women all the time. And so there are literally thousands and thousands or millions of people who have, you know, the same mental health challenges, right? That Lindsey Clancy went through. And so this is why women can identify with him because they've been through it. They've been to the doctors that ignored what they were saying. They've been to, to healthcare providers who gave them the wrong drug and gave them the wrong diagnosis or just said, oh, it'll just, it'll pass. And, you know, you should still go back to work after a week or two, even though that you've got, you know, serious postpartum issues to deal with. And so millions of women around the world and certainly around the country, they just can, they can empathize with the struggle that she went through, even if they don't necessarily want to justify and what she did to her children. I get it, but it's not about them. It's not about them. It's about Lindsey Clancy. And if you read her little note on her iPhone, you know, that she posted about the, her, her struggle with the drug. I, I took, I think it was all off to 25 milligrams. just isn't instructed. Then I was supposed to go up to 50 and I did and I was having complications. Then she took me off that and she put me on two other drugs to get me through the weaning period. It's like, it's modern pharmacology and modern psychiatry combined. This is what you go to psychiatrists just like going to a surgeon and saying, "Gee, you know, something's really wrong with my hip. Guess what he's going to do? Guess what he's going to propose." And if you go to psychiatrists and say like, "I'm severely depressed and I can't sleep, they're definitely going to start prescribing you drugs," which is why you should consider a psychologist who doesn't have prescribing the powders. Anyway, it just reads like somebody who got churned and burned through the psychiatric health system the way, yeah, many, many people who go for help do, but they don't kill their children. They don't kill their children. Lindsay Clancy is special in that way. And there's a reason for that. There's something wrong with her beyond postpartum. There is. There's something wrong with this woman. And I don't think she should be on the street. I don't think she should be on the street for decades at a minimum. And I'm very worried that some woke Massachusetts medical staff is going to say, "Oh, you know, she's in a wheelchair and she's got severe postpartum." And, "Oh, she doesn't belong here." And before you know it, she's going to be back out on the street with those police and fire. Okay, I think that's it, right? That's, that's it. So, okay. That's where we leave it today, you guys. We don't know when they're officially going to announce whether there's a retrial, but we are told there's a September 29th hearing set in the case. And we believe by then the prosecutor has to make his announcement on whether, you know, what he's going to do and why. And then that'll be a very interesting decision, but I just think if there's any practical takeaway here, I really think it's not about, in the medical system needs to do better, yes, but pharmacology, it's fucking sucks. And it's been doing what it's been doing to us all, male and female for a long time. It's really about the individuals around her, in my view. You know, when she was deteriorating, that husband, I don't blame Patrick Clancy exactly for this. It's Lindsey Clancy's fault, but that husband needed to be far more active in keeping her the hell away from the children until he knew she was well. That is a husband's job. And it's a father's job. And Lindsey Clancy's mother should have been far more interventional on it too. I know generally when you have an adult child, you try not to control their decisions, but she had asked her mother for help. She had said, I'm spiraling. I'm decompensating. The mother, too, could have insisted that this woman be hospitalized inpatient until she was better. I think they had the means for that. They weren't rich, but I think they would have had the means for it. And I do see this as a failure, first and foremost, of the people around Lindsey Clancy who were supposed to love her, and the people around the children who were supposed to love and look out for them. You know, those those three kids were Patrick Clancy's actual dependence. He had not only a moral, religious, ethical, but a legal duty to look out for them. And he failed. Was it as bad as what Lindsey did? Obviously not, but he failed in his duty. And I I'll bet you it keeps him up at night because not just because of the horrific end they met, but because of what he failed to do. So there's any warning in here. I think it's for those who are around around a mentally unwell person to take this very, very seriously. And we protect the most vulnerable among us, even if it hurts the feelings of or possibly even sets back the recovery of the grownup who is the threat. Also, the second takeaway is MK true crime is amazing. They've got to know all the lawyers on MK true crime. I said for Ashley, we haven't seen Ashley in our travails over these past two days, but she's delightful and the woman we have to thank for the end of Fanny Willis's prosecution against Trump. That's how Phil and I first became friends. So check out MK true crime. Go now. While you're thinking about it on your podcast, you go to that little purple button on your iPhone or whatever it is. If you have the other and you go into the podcast thing and then you hit search and type in MK true crime. If you just subscribed to that, you'll subscribe to all their shows and you go on YouTube and do the same. It would help them out and you will never miss a moment of their very sparkling, special legal coverage. It's fun and it's insightful and it's educational. Go ahead. And thank you for the shout out about MK true crime. We are very close to our first 100,000 subscribers on YouTube. And so we want to ask your audience to hit that subscribe button, but also listen on the podcast. Put you over the top. Yeah, I got to listen to the podcast too. And so we're very close to 100,000. So if you're audience, your YouTube audience could come check us out. We would be ever grateful. I think that we have a good lineup. We have a good, we have good three excellent shows. Four days a week, you get new episodes. And so it's really good true crime content. And the thing that sets us apart and makes us different from our friends at court TV or law and crime or all the other great places where you can go to get true crime content as well. We are seven practicing lawyers. And so we try to bring these cases to the audience with that perspective. And so these are our friends. Everybody else that does true crimes, not necessarily our competitors. There's plenty of space to take in all this content, but we do it a little differently. And so that's why I want everybody to check us out because I think they'll learn a lot. I couldn't agree more. Very well said. Ashley's been on trial, which is the only reason it's Ashley Merchant. I should point out we've had Ashley Bandfield who's not a lawyer, but a lovely person, a great reporter. So yes, we'll get Ashley on as well and check it out, support all the gang at mk true crime. So they can keep doing this and entertaining us and informing us for years to come. All the best guys. It's great to see you. Thanks for everything. Thank you. Happy Labor Day weekend. Same to you. Yeah, you two have a great Labor Day weekend. And thanks to all of you who have been listening today and yesterday. I hope you all have a great Labor Day weekend as well. And now I am going to finish that workout. I am going to put the hair back into the ponytail. And I am going to try to enjoy the weekend, although we have to start on our we've got to get a couple of episodes in the bank for next week's mk confidential. I believe what we've settled on is we're going to do a four episode case next week so that my team can breathe a little over Labor Day weekend. But we will resume on Tuesday night. So if you're not, we've got you covered. There are two more weeks of mk confidential. And then we will be meeting and deciding and then announcing what its next iteration will be. Taking your thoughts and suggestions, Megan at Megankelly.com. Lots of love. We'll see you next week. Thanks for listening to The Megankelly Show, no BS, no agenda, and no fear.