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

Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, live on Sirius XM Channel 111, every weekday at noon east. Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show. We are coming to you live to cover the dramatic developments in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial this morning, where a verdict may now hinge on a single holdout juror, and what's going to happen to that juror, we do not know. Reporting to you from the beach, where I was planning on a more casual day. Okay, the jury is about to be brought into the courtroom, which we will take live, you won't miss it, but first, let's get you up to speed on yesterday's dramatic developments. It started around 3 p.m., the jury foreperson sending a note to the court indicating that one juror is refusing, allegedly, to follow the judge's instructions on the legal standard for reasonable doubt. It's important to point out, we do not know for sure, which way the jury is leaning. Neither does the judge, the prosecution, or defense. We believe. We haven't seen the actual note, but nothing communicated in court yesterday would suggest the jury has in any way tipped its hand as to which way any number of them might be leaning. Judge William Sullivan immediately calling a sidebar, which was not shown in the live court feed. Per courtroom reporters inside the courtroom, Lindsay Clancy's attorney, Kevin Reddington, was seen slamming down the door, and the judge said, and reacting with physical anger. At times, Judge Sullivan was heard raising his voice. At one point, Reddington was said to have put his head in his hands out of frustration, and there was another moment where Lindsay Clancy herself was wheeled over to the sidebar, up to the judge's bench, to participate in the discussion. In the end, Judge Sullivan individually questioned the jurors. We believe that the questions were, can you be fair? Can you follow the law? Very generic stuff. And then he re-read to them in open court, this part we heard, his instructions on reasonable doubt. The ones he'd already read prior to their deliberation, and he sent the jurors back to resume deliberations. After the jury left the courtroom, Kevin Reddington stood up again and asked the judge to remove the juror who's allegedly refusing to follow the instructions on reasonable doubt, arguing that the person was not properly applying the law, and even taking the case into consideration. Kevin Reddington stood up again and asked the judge to remove the juror who's allegedly refusing to follow the instructions on reasonable doubt, arguing that the person was not properly applying the law, and even taking the case into consideration. And even taking the case into consideration. And even taking shots at the judge himself. Thank you, Your Honor. I appreciate that. I appreciate the fact, Your Honor, that you're allowing us to be heard in public rather than at the sidebar. The court has an instruction from the foreperson of that juror that's been working for a week now, saying that there's one juror who refuses to listen to the law that you've given him or her on reasonable doubt. And I suggest respectfully that the soft, instruction that you gave them saying at the sidebar, "Can you listen to the law as I instruct you?" does not focus on the issue. The question is not sufficient enough. It does not allow any foundation for a motion to remove the juror who refuses to accept your instructions on the law, on reasonable doubt. And if we come back here in a half an hour with a mistrial because of a juror that has just passed away, we're going to be in trouble. We're going to be in trouble. And if the judge has just spurned the instructions of this court, it's a shame. It's a real shame. And that's why I object to the court's ruling. I request that we have further inquiry. I request that my motion is to remove this juror that refuses to listen to your instruction on reasonable doubt. It's such a mystery because he wants that juror gone, but we do not know that this juror is for the prosecution. We don't know, whether he's against Lindsay Clancy. How is Kevin Reddington so sure that this juror needs to go? What if that juror is the lone holdout for his side? This dominated much of our discussion yesterday when this news broke. And I have to tell you, I'm no more clear on it this morning than I was yesterday. Judge Sullivan refused to bounce the juror, calling this a sensitive undertaking, and it is indeed. And noting that the jurors had individually affirmed to him that they could follow his instructions. Kevin Reddington later telling lawyers that this morning, this is after court in a scrum yesterday, saying that this morning at 9:00 AM any minute now, Judge Sullivan will conduct an inquiry into this holdout juror. How's that going to go? Is this juror going to be questioned in open court? Reddington said it is expected to happen in open court, not at a sidebar. I mean, it seems impossible. But in fact, Reddington this morning filing motion asking the court to end all sidebars for the remainder of the trial. I mean, that would be, hi, you can bring it to me. Thank you. I'm getting my file folder from yesterday that I brought with me down here. Thank you. So let's talk about it as we await the court happenings. Can we see the feed, please? As we're waiting, what's happening in court, as soon as something happens there, we're going to, oh, there's no feed. Okay. So they haven't even put up the feed. So when we get the feed, we'll put it on the board, make sure you see it as we see it, and then we'll analyze it together. Joining me now for all of that, Phil Holloway, he is host of the MK True Crime Show. We have an MK True Crime podcast channel. And basically the way that works is you go out on your phone, you hit podcasts and you type in MK True Crime. And we have a few different shows on that channel, all about true crime, all about the day's legal cases. And we have the best in the business hosting those shows. Phil is one of the co-hosts of the signature show, which is called MK True Crime. Having had a day now to reflect or a night, Matt Murphy, I'll start with you. Any further thoughts on what's actually happening? Well, we've got, we've got somebody who's dug their heels in apparently. But you're right, Megan. It's a bit of a gamble by Kevin Reddington. He doesn't know. He thinks that they're going his way. I think he's probably right, but we can't see the jurors. So we were really kind of operating in a vacuum and it's always reading tea leaves, trying to figure out what a jury is thinking. I don't think the judge is going to do any of those things that he's asking. I don't think the judge should do any of the things that he's asking. The jurors, if you deliberate and you're talking about it, it's kind of tough to say when somebody is or is not subjectively applying a particular instruction or law. So there must be something behind that. But the judge did exactly what he should have done. And that is you for dire each individual juror and you and you ask if if if they'll go back. Right. And one thing that is interesting, Megan, is Massachusetts has a law that you can only a judge can only send a jury back twice. And then if the jury wants to hang, the court cannot order them to continue to deliberate. So if this person holds out for the rest of the day, I think that we're in a situation that we're probably going to see a mistrial declared. But it's a lot of pressure. And by the way, that weak instruction that Kevin Reddington is talking about isn't weak at all. Excuse me, Matt. They're going live in the court. Let's listen. We put over to today to address it. Come up. You had the opportunity to review that note. Yes, Your Honor. All right. I definitely had an opportunity. Yes, Your Honor. All right. And so I will hear from the parties as to how the each party suggests or requests I deal with that note. So I want to hear from the commonwealth first. I apologize for my voice. So commonwealth's suggestion is that the jurors be instructed to return to their deliberations without any further instruction of order. The basis for that request is Commonwealth versus Ronchi, R-O-N-C-H-I, 491 Mass 284 from 2020. In that case, it's a similar situation where it's reported one juror is having issues with the other jurors. And it says in that case where reliable information comes to a judge suggesting a lack of impartiality, bias, extraneous influence, or inability to deliberate that there should be an individual voir dire hearing regarding that. We don't have any of those circumstances here. There's no indication of a lack of impartiality or bias or extraneous influence and no indication of inability to deliberate. In fact, if deliberated for a very long time in this case and very conscientiously. So what we have here is a note that indicates a disagreement about how to weigh the evidence and that's deliberation. So it's the commonwealth's position, especially considering the fact that Your Honor voir dire each of the jurors yesterday and they all said that they could follow your instructions. So when you couple that with the requirements of Ronchi, R-O-N-C-H-I, 491 Mass 284 from 2020. I don't think an individual voir dire is necessary. If Your Honor does determine to do one, we would just ask along the lines of all the case law in this area, Ronchi, Williams, Torres, the whole string of cases that the juror be instructed not to comment on the deliberations and that the juror be told that he or she cannot be discharged unless a personal problem unrelated to their relationship with the jurors or their views on the case. And that any attempt or any comments by the juror that tend to get into deliberations that Your Honor interrupt and remind the juror that we're not to get into that and that questioning be ceased of the juror unless he or she indicates that there is a personal problem unrelated to the case or the relationships. - All right, thank you. Defendant? - Thank you very much, Your Honor. Appreciate the opportunity to argue this to you. Couple of points that occur to me. First of all, as Your Honor is well aware, a defendant, any defendant in this courtroom or any courtroom in our country is entitled to have a juror who is true to their oath, who will agree that they will apply the facts as they determine them to be, proven beyond a reasonable doubt to the law as given to them by you as a judge or any other judge. If a jury consists of people and there's one person who is refusing to actually apply the law to the facts as determined for, reasons that are not arising out of the case but are personal to the juror's position regarding their review of their oath and how they should apply their oath. In other words, if it's personal to this individual, which I believe it is, based on the first question that you had, and I have never seen a situation like this where a foreperson on the jury is so, I don't know, it's hard to understand. A foreperson on the jury is so courageous as to speak on behalf of 11 jurors and indicate that juror number, which I will not mention, and I quote, "Has made statements acknowledging doubt, but refuses to apply it to the verdict as the law states." Clearly, judge, we have a person who under their oath, stood in front of you yesterday when you did the individual voir dire, and according to this information, under oath, looked you in the eye and lied. That juror told you that he would be able to apply the law to the facts as you asked him, and based on this note from this juror, it clearly and unequivocally indicates that they, it clearly 11 to one, and this person is the one who has the right to apply the law, and this person will not apply reasonable doubt to the evidence to return a not guilty verdict. I would ask that the court would, and I know it's awkward. I'm familiar with the law. I know that we try to protect and preserve the sanctity, if you will, of the jury. We don't want to invade their deliberations. We want to keep that private. Obviously, that's a good thing to do, but when you have a situation where you have not one, but two notes that clearly indicates that this individual has acknowledged doubt, but refuses to apply it to the verdict, he is, as the law states, he is not being honest with you at the sidebar. I would go so far as to reluctantly say that the individual has made a false statement under oath to this court. There has to be an issue that is not arising out of deliberations. - Mm-hmm. There are no deliberations in the facts of this case, but the individual is refusing to apply your instructions on proof beyond a reasonable doubt to allow that jury to return a verdict of not guilty. - If I may, Your Honor, I just wanted to put on the record that the note does not indicate that this juror lied to Your Honor when responding. The note indicates that the parties disagree on what is reasonable doubt, or what doubt is, and how it should be applied, and we are in no position to judge if the 11 are right or the one is right, but there's no indication that the juror is intentionally trying to mislead the court or lie to the court. Well, as all three counsel are aware, the case law spells out kind of the concerns that everybody has in a situation like this, where it says the discharge of a deliberating juror is sensitive undertaking, fraught with potential error. It's to be done only in special circumstances, with special, special precautions, a judge must take the utmost caution to avoid invading the province of the jury. That's what I'm concerned with in this, at this point. And as even under the statute, during deliberations, a juror properly may be discharged only for reasons personal to that juror, having nothing whatsoever to do, nothing whatever, I'm sorry, to do with the issues of the case, or with the juror's relationship with their fellow jurors. In this case here, I see no showing of the need for an inquiry of this particular juror. The note that we were referring to, the one from late yesterday afternoon, indicates that the juror has, says acknowledged doubt, but refuses to apply it to the verdict. Well, the instruction that the SJC has suggested we give in regards to reasonable doubt, and that both parties agreed to, says the reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt. And so in reading that note carefully and strictly in the way that I have to before I possibly invade the province of the jury, that note does not indicate that this is a person who has refused to follow the law. And in addition, as the parties recognized yesterday, we brought all the jurors in, including the juror who, is at issue here. And we asked, I asked, whether or not those jurors could follow the instructions, including the instruction I just referred to. And all the jurors indicated that they could. This is not a case that there's any indication that the juror has refused to deliberate, or has any reason, has indicated that they would not follow the law, or that they're physically suffering, or there's no note from the juror that indicates that the juror cannot or will not be able to continue deliberating, as some of the other cases talk about. So for reasons for that, I'm not going to do a further inquiry of this juror over the defendant's objection. And at that point, my inclination would be to bring the jury back. My thought would be, though, to remind them that it's their duty to accept the law as I give it to them. And that they have to follow that law. I think this is what I told them a week ago. They have to follow it, whether they like it or not. So I'm going to give them that instruction and remind them of that. So with that-- - You know, you went right forward, go ahead. - Oh, I was just going to ask, ask that the court also instruct the jurors, or remind them, that any future notes should not contain any information about deliberation. - Well, here's what I was going to say. If there's any notes, or any future notes, if there are any, you should refrain from detailing any of the actual deliberations, and do not indicate where they stand numerically. - A couple of things. - Sure. - First of all, your Honor acknowledges that I have an objection, which I appreciate. And I do have an objection. And I am, again, citing Article 12, Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This goes beyond Massachusetts. This is a constitutional, it's a structural, I suggest respectfully, defect in the procedure that we're engaged in. We're elevating form over substance, and that's your Honor's ruling. I understand, I've objected. But I would ask that you not instruct the jury that they cannot indicate anything. And I understand why, traditionally, we tell jurors, don't let us know what your division is or what your split is. But in this case, I'm concerned that if you do that, that foreperson is gonna feel that that is some type of, that she violated something and might feel that your Honor is kind of coming down on her and not to do that. And I think it's too delicate right now, the situation. And in addition, and finally, I would ask that you not just give them, as I described it yesterday, a soft inquiry. Will you listen to my instructions? I would ask that you specifically direct their attention to proof beyond a reasonable doubt and re-instruct them on, and I would ask that you do that forcefully. - I think I did that yesterday, didn't I? - Yes. - You did it yesterday, you did it soft, you didn't do it forcefully, and I'm asking, maybe do it forcefully. - What do you want me to do? - I want you to tell us. - Get a brass band? I read the instruction as written by the SJC. The fact that I perhaps didn't give it my full inflection, I'm sorry about that, I'm not an actor. I've just given the instructions. - Well, my point, Judge, simply, is that you're kind of glossing over the issue. The issue is this juror will not, according to that note, apply the law of reasonable doubt, and that's why I've requested, you know what I've requested, so I know my objection. - But just in case the record's clear, I am specifically not glossing over this issue. I have thought about this issue long and hard. I know the defendant objects, but the characterization that I'm glossing over it, trust me, that's not the situation. I've been thinking about this for quite a while. So that's my, that's what I'm going to do. going to just give that instruction, as I said, that they have to follow my instructions. I'm not going to reiterate the reasonable doubt at this point. It may come to that again as we go through it. And I'll try and give this with more pizzazz than I gave yesterday, I suppose. So with that, we'll bring the jury back in. And I'll ask the questions. I'll give that instruction, and then we'll send it back out. All right, bringing the jury in. We'll get a-- Wow. Wow. As he brings the jury back in, let's talk. And then we can go back if there's action in the courtroom. But there you have it, the answer to our mystery right there, the note from the jurors, from the foreperson, said that there is a juror who has acknowledged doubt but refuses to apply it to the verdict. That's why Kevin Redington was so sure that the one holdout was against him, and why the prosecution is arguing that that juror should not be bounced. And overall, what we heard today is Kevin Redington also accusing the juror of lying to the court when he-- they use the pronoun he-- was questioned yesterday. But Kevin Redington lost, for now, his push to have the judge bounce the juror. Bounce the juror, do additional questioning of the juror in court, and so on, was rejected. And he pushed it to the point where the judge got pissed. You heard there at the end, you didn't give the reasonable doubt instruction forcefully enough. He said, what would you like me to do, call in a brass band? He didn't appreciate that. And you always know, as counsel, when you're out on a thin reed and you've gone out too far, the judge will slap you and you've got to back up a little. So it doesn't look like this judge is going to do, Jonna, what Kevin Reddington wants him to do. He's gotten all he's going to get. The judge is doing the right thing, though, Megan, because it is a major-- I don't know. It takes almost an act of God, I think, to remove a juror under this situation. And the judge doesn't think it requires that level of judicial scrutiny under the circumstances. And at the risk of being odd woman out-- and I'm OK with that. God knows. I've done that. I've done that my entire career. I am still not convinced-- you can beat me up if you want to-- that the fact that a juror has expressed doubt means that that juror is wholeheartedly on Kevin Reddington's side. Maybe this juror is having doubt but doesn't know how to define reasonable versus all. He's not on Kevin Reddington's side. The theory is he's on the prosecution's side, that the other jurors are complaining he-- and they do know which-- they also-- they also revealed that the note the jury sent revealed which juror it is, that used his juror number, and also revealed the split. So there was a lot in that note we did not know about. They said who it was, the juror number, it's a man, and what the split was, 11-1. But that doesn't-- And said he has acknowledged doubt, that this juror has acknowledged doubt, but refuses to apply it to the verdict. So Phil, it is-- it is somebody who is refusing to go along with 11 others who appear to be ready to side with Lindsey Clancy. That's-- that's what we just learned. Yeah, and if I can take just a quick minute to gloat. I said this yesterday. I said when they went to the sidebar before we had any argument in the courtroom, they all went to sidebar, and they spent several minutes there before they brought the jurors in for a little questioning at the judge's bench. And my prediction, my sense yesterday was there's a lot more in that note. There's something in that note that tells Reddington that, you know, this juror needs to go because it is, you know, it's so close to him getting the verdict that he wants, which is going to be not guilty by reason of insanity. And so it now makes perfectly good sense to-- that we can understand why he wanted an alternate juror. But the thing about an alternate juror, you know, we don't know how that person might go, because the deliberations would have to start all over again, and you add another person in there, does that person then try to, you know, does that person want to vote guilty and bring some of the others over to his or her side? So it's, you know, it might be a situation where Reddington needs to stick with the devil you know, so to speak, versus the devil you don't know, and rely on this judge's instructions. He's about to remind them again that they must acquit a defendant if they have reasonable doubt. And so I think that given these two sets of instructions now, that might just be enough to budge that juror off of his position, because now we do know it's a he. So I think we're getting very close. Here is one of the things that concerns me, Matt. I'll stand by. The judge is back. Stand by. From any source about this case that would affect your ability to be a fair and impartial juror. The last of these questions is, is there any other serious matter or concern bearing on your service as a juror? In this case, that anybody needs to bring to my attention at this time? No, sir. Thank you. All right. So I did get the note yesterday. And one thing I would say, if there are any notes in the future, and I'm not saying there are, but if there are, just make sure we don't put down where everybody is numerically, OK? But what I wanted to do was give you-- go over one thing. I wanted to remind you, as I instructed you earlier, it's your duty as jurors to accept the law, as I stated to you. You should consider all of my instructions as a whole. You may not ignore any instruction or give special attention to any one instruction. You must follow the law as I give it to you, whether you agree with it or not. The law that I'm instructing you on is the law that's been established by our legislature and our appellate courts. And it applies to everyone. And you must apply the law as I have instructed you. And you have a copy of the instructions that I gave you. You should still have them back there with the jury room. And with that, you may now resume your deliberations. Court, all rise. Jurors, just wait a minute. Matt, is he-- yeah, OK, so the jury's going back to deliberate. So the judge saying you must follow the law whether you agree with it or not, and making sure the jurors had no personal issues that would prevent that. And they-- you heard the jury say, you know, we're good. We're good. Here's one thing that jumped out at me, Matt. You had defense counsel stand up in open court and accuse a juror of lying under oath to the court. Which, I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but would be a crime in and of itself to lie under oath. And is this juror now potentially exposed in a way someone needs to tell him? Like, this is-- I think that's juror intimidation by Kevin Reddington. But this juror doesn't know. So it's like, it's intimidation outside the presence of that juror. If I were his lawyer just watching this whole thing, I'd be very angry that my client is trying to do his civic duty, almost guaranteed he'd rather be doing something else these past two months, and just got accused in open court of lying under oath, which is a crime. Yeah, I'm not his lawyer, and that makes me angry, to be honest with you. I saw Johnna's reaction. That's an outrageous thing to say. And look, Kevin Reddington has done a very good job defending his client, but over and over in this trial, Megan, he just pushes a little too far for me. I'm sick of listening to the guy, to be honest with you. And one of the things that's frustrating to me right now, and I'm sorry it's early morning, I'm jet lagging, but these prosecutors need to counterpunch that stuff. They need to be on their feet. It's an outrageous thing to say. This guy has-- he's done his jury duty. Reasonable doubt, just for the viewer, a lot of people think that that's any doubt, or proof to 100% certainty. The language of the law in Massachusetts is the same as California, and that's anything relating to human affairs is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. That's been the law only for about the last 500 years. You can't know anything with 100% certainty unless you witness it yourself, in which case you're in the witness box, not a juror. So it is perfectly OK to have doubt and not be violating the law, but saying that the doubt is not reasonable or doesn't rise to the level that you're going to acquit. That is-- that's 500 years of precedent. That's perfectly OK. And for a defense lawyer, an officer of the court, a judge of the court, a judge of the court, a judge of the court, somebody that's going to stand up for somebody that's given his time, sworn to-- and worked very hard with his fellow jurors, to accuse him of committing perjury in open court when the entire world is watching, I think it's irresponsible. I think especially when you've got that lunatic out there with their camera the other day, taking pictures of all these people, that's-- I'd be-- I'm pissed right now, Megan, listening to that. It's not-- it's not OK to do that. And he needs to freaking-- he needs to shift down. And it's not OK to do that. up um and is jumping up and down about getting this guy bounced for where is he getting kevin reddington i believe he made a false statement to you under oath he won't apply your instructions uh and then the prosecutor prosecutor got up and said that that note did not indicate that this juror is lying to the court uh they the foreperson suggested he's not following the law on reasonable doubt which is why the judge then re-read the law on reasonable doubt but what we clearly have here is just a disagreement between the 11 and the one and it seems to me that kevin reddington and arguably the other 11 or at least the four person are trying to strong-arm the one into just going along with it so they can get out of there by saying oh he's violating the law that's true and think about this also there are only three men on the jury so it's not going to be hard to figure out you know any means of getting out of court but it's going to be hard to figure out you know any means of getting out of court but it's going to be hard to figure out you know any means of getting out of court but it's going to be hard to figure out you know any means of getting out of court but it's going to be hard to figure out you know any means of getting out of court but it's not going to be hard to figure out you know any means of getting out of court but it's not going to be hard to figure out you know any means of getting out of court but it's not going to be hard to figure out you know any means of getting out of court but it's not going to be hard to figure out which one kevin reddington oh and jonna let me just add to that there's um a john de petro show he's been in the court uh for this trial he tweeted out pretty sure we know which juror it is he has his head up he seems confident he's not going to be coerced by the defense that's this guy's taking excuse me and also let me clarify what i meant earlier because i'm i'm not convinced that the 11 that this jury is on kevin reddington side only because when they talk about the context of the note like matt said this person indicated they have doubt but they didn't say what level of doubt is they have uh beyond all doubt are they trying to use that standard which is not the standard or do they have reasonable doubt but they're not going to apply it so there's still some um things that are unclear about the nature of this very terse note so i'm not 100 convinced that this jury is going to come back with a defense verdict if they are able to quote unquote strong arm this one holdout i get that you know the tea leaves kind of indicate that but i'm not a hundred percent in my gut on on that and that's all i meant to say earlier i got it that makes sense the the um what they said in court reddington said this juror has made statements acknowledge he was quoting the the note or paraphrasing this juror has made statements acknowledging doubt but will not apply it to the facts or to the verdict i can't remember how that went and then he went out to say this juror lied to you judge he said he would be able to apply the law to the facts he won't apply the reasonable doubt standard to these facts then he revealed there were two notes that's also something we didn't know um in two notes they say he's acknowledged doubt but refuses to apply it to the verdict i believe he's made a false statement under oath to you he won't apply your instructions um and then the judge said this juror in a note yesterday has acknowledged doubt but refuses to apply it to the verdict so that's that's about as much as we know um here just for the audience just tuning in is the contentious exchange between kevin reddington and judge sullivan on this holdout juror i would ask that you not just give them as i described it yesterday a soft inquiry where you were listen to my instructions i would ask that you specifically direct their attention to proof beyond a reasonable doubt and re-instruct them on that forcefully i think i did that yesterday didn't i yes you did it yesterday you did it soft you didn't do it forcefully and i'm asking maybe what do you want me to do i wanted to get a brass band i read the instruction as written by the sjc the fact that i perhaps didn't give it it my full inflection i'm sorry about that i'm not an actor i've just given the instructions well my point judge simply is that you're kind of glossing over the issue the issue is this juror will not according to that note apply the law of reasonable doubt and that's why i've requested you know what i've requested so i know my objection but it just just in case the wreck is good i am specifically not glossing over this issue i have thought about this issue long and hard i know the definitive objects but the characterization that i'm glossing over it uh trust me that's not the situation he said he'd give the jury the instructions uh again or not he wasn't going to reread the reasonable doubt instruction but just remind them to follow the instructions with more pizazz and phil this judge is trying to avoid reversible committing reversible error but the the biggest danger zone for him in reversible error is to bounce the juror the judge is not going to bounce the jury he's made that clear this morning without more like if another note comes back suggesting he's he's gotten more egregious in his alleged refusal to follow the reasonable doubt standard okay maybe we'll have to you know go there but what what it seems to me is this jury is sick and tired of this guy holding out saying he doesn't care he doesn't have reasonable doubt or maybe to jana's point maybe he's holding out saying he does have reasonable doubt but this juror is holding on to his own version of what a reasonable doubt is having heard the standard and he's allowed to do that yeah he's allowed to have his own personal convictions and you know if he's not going to be if he's not certain that his doubts rise to the level of reasonable doubt pardon me then he's absolutely um you know he's not going to have his own personal convictions and you know he's not going to have his own personal convictions and you know he's not going to have his own personal convictions and you know he's not going to have his own personal convictions and you know he's not going to have his own personal convictions and you know he's not going to have his own personal convictions and you know he's not going to have his own personal convictions and you know he's not going to have his own personal convictions and you know he's not going to have his own personal personal convictions and you know he's not going to have his own personal convictions and you know he's not going to have his own personal convictions and you know he's not going to have his own personal convictions and you know he's not And we actually do not know, we do not know, we do not know what is going on in that jury room. And the note, I don't think was indicative of it either. If it were, this judge would not have just made the decision that he made. And that was, thank you very much, Mr. Reddington, but I'm going to leave the jury alone. I'm going to let them continue to do their job. I think the judge who individually questioned all 12 would know better than any of us and anybody watching this trial, whether or not this juror's conduct rises to the level of we need to do something so severe as to discharge him. So once again, I'll go back on what I was alluding to yesterday, not alluding to, I was flat out saying it. Kevin Reddington knows how to play for the camera. He knows how to put on the show. This is part of it. That's not bad lawyering. That's good lawyering, but it's not going to change what's happening in that jury room. The truth is, though. Matt, if if the jury is split 11 one and they come back in an hour and say we're hopelessly deadlocked and the judge declares a mistrial, we will know within an hour what the split was. I mean, we we will have confirmation that it was 11 for Lindsay Clancy and one for the prosecution. We think one of those jurors is probably going to talk and and when that happens, if it really is 11 for Clancy and one for the prosecution. She and Kevin Reddington are in a much better position than they were before this trial started. I mean, this prosecutor who is fighting, we should note because this prosecutor has the same interpretation that Kevin Reddington does, that this juror is good for the prosecution and bad for the defense. But the prosecution is going to have a serious decision to make, knowing that they fought their hardest and at best, we think they've persuaded one juror. Like. One. So what what does that tell us? What where did we go from there? Well, hopefully they negotiate a settlement here and we don't go through another trial. And I say hopefully for everybody, for for the defendant in this case and also for the competent wealth of Massachusetts. I don't know. I don't know what happens. I don't know what happened behind the scenes. That's what they should do. Megan, if it's 11 to one, if it's 11 to one, the court also has the option of exercising discretion, although they rarely do that after a jury hands. Once, even if it's just if it's 11 to one. And we all have stories over the course of our career of juries coming back 11 to one one way and then they either acquit or convict the next trial around. It's just, you know, it's tough to say I've I've been advocating if that happens for the elected D.A. to sit down with Reddington and see if they can find some middle ground and put this whole thing behind Lindsay Clancy and all the rest of us. I, for one, I won't mind not having. How, Phil, will the enormous media scrutiny on the case affect the D.A.'s willingness to do that? Well, I think he's getting it on two different sides, right? He's got he's got people who see this as the murder of three children. And there's been there's very good reason for him to think that. And then you've got people that believe that this one was suffering from postpartum to the point that she was it was actual psychosis, not just depression, and that under Massachusetts law, she shouldn't be criminally responsible. And that's one of the reasons why it's not a surprise. This jury. Is hanging because there's there's good arguments and good facts in support of both positions on this. So I think that he'll get it from both sides no matter what he does. And that's why you get paid the big bucks as an elected D.A. Yeah. Now's the time for the D.A. to call into that courtroom and or go in there and talk to his prosecutors and say, look, if it's eleven to one against us, we have no reason to think that it's going to be better next time if we try the case. My friend, Doug Weinstein. Posts on Twitter. He's a lawyer. I know he said it would be smart for them to go ahead and tell the judge that they will accept an eleven person verdict, which would be presumably not guilty by reason of insanity and send her on off to the mental health system. That would be something that they could do. That's a thing. Oh, yeah. They can agree to the prosecution would say that the prosecution look if they're if it's eleven to one, there's no reason to think they're going to get a. A more favorable outcome next time. It's just going to cost them a lot more time and a lot more money. It might make sense for them to just go ahead and agree to take a verdict with the eleven that they've got and have the judge sent her on her way to the mental health system. And there's no reason to think I can see it in the comments now. People are going to tell me, well, she could be out next week, but there's no reason to think that she would not be held for a significant period of time. My experience with these things is that when people have. Committed crimes, particularly serious and high profile crimes, and they are mentally ill and they maybe get acquitted based on that. They aren't released from the hospital anytime soon. The people who make the decision on when to release someone from these this psychiatric system, so to speak, they they look at it more like prosecutors and they want to err on the side of safety and caution. And so she probably would be there for a long time. I keep thinking about John Hinckley. Who shot President Reagan and arguably he was he had recovered and he had been basically brought to a place in terms of his mental health, where he could function well on the outside. But they kept him and they kept him and they kept on keeping him for a long time, probably longer than was medically necessary. And I think she would be kept for a long time as well. I mean, John Hinckley was just on our show. I interviewed him about a month and a half ago. He's. He is out. He's back out. He's got his freedom again, which is, you know, what concerns a lot of people. We talked about the case of Constance Fisher on this program last week who killed her three kids up in Maine. She drowned all three of them. They were almost exactly the same ages as these kids. She went to the mental institution. She was deemed well enough to leave the mental institution. Not that long after. I don't know how long it was. But. But it was a relatively short period of time. She went back to her same husband, Carl, who she'd been married to and had the three kids with. They had three more children and she drowned them, too. And she did it again. So there are some disturbing precedents of these mental institutions. Let's face it. Looking at a young mother in a wheelchair very differently than they would look at Phil Holloway. If he strangled three children and, you know, seriously, and like going soft on her. She's 36 years old. I had a child when I was 42. Just saying, like, this is we are playing with fire here. You know, John, this is like this is no joke where she winds up. And this is one of the reasons why I very much think it should be a jail cell. I wholeheartedly agree. I'm wondering what her mental state is now, because she's. She's been in some sort of psychiatric care since since she was arrested, basically. So is she, quote, unquote, saying now she doesn't open her mouth in the trial. She doesn't have to open her mouth in trial, you know, but for crying some tears. I get it. So we don't even know. We don't know how close she is to, quote, unquote, being well and how soon she would be released if if she is not guilty by reason of insanity. The Massachusetts equivalent of that. And that is scary because. Megan, here's what one of the reasons why I am all for a conviction in this case is I don't want Lindsay Clancy's verdict to be the reason why women all across the country mistakenly believe that a case of postpartum depression gives you license to kill your kids or anybody else. And I'm afraid by the pink shirts that that is a real possibility. They don't understand the law. And that scares the hell out of me. I totally agree. I totally agree with you. This is my concern, too. I mean, it is no accident that right after that woman killed the 32 year old Bank of America executive, who also was a new mom, the nutcase who killed her by stabbing in Times Square days ago. What happened when the press got to that nutcase's brother? He said, oh, she was suffering from postpartum and bipolar. Meanwhile, her kids are in their 20s. OK, but I don't think it's any accident. He threw. He threw those two terms out to be like, and now I do not want to see a rash of women who hurt or kill their children, throwing out the Lindsay Clancy postpartum. Like, Matt, you know better than anybody here on this panel or in America that crazy people kill others all the time and are not able to afford themselves of an insanity defense. Because what we all understand colloquially. As he's nuts or she's nuts doesn't necessarily mean legally they will be excused for the conduct. That's what this whole case is about. Pretty much everybody who commits serial murder is nuts. But that's not the end of the inquiry. We have people in their right minds tend not to kill each other. Right. And that goes back 200000 years. And you can make that argument. You absolutely, Megan, you can make that argument for anybody, virtually any murder case. There's some DSM. You could give them that that you could say they're nuts. They're not playing with full deck, whatever clever. euphemism we want to use. Question here is, was she so psychotic at the time that either she didn't understand right from wrong when she killed her kids or she knew right from wrong but could not conform her own actions to what is required under the law? That's Massachusetts law, right? But you're right. Look, I agree with both you and John on this. It's like, what kind of precedent does this set not legally as much as just in the minds of every loony person out there who may have some homicidal ideation and want to kill people? Does this become the next big excuse? And I'm with you guys. I worry about that on a case like this. And the shocking pink shirts and all that stuff. And yeah, it's, I don't know. I think the world gets a little crazier every day. But this case is, I don't know. I just wish we had better lawyers on the prosecution side, to be honest. And I don't want to be unfair. I just, I keep, they should be punching Kevin Reddington. They should be counterpunching in these arguments far more effectively than they are. And I wish we had some. Yes. So. I know. No, we can't have Matt Murphy everywhere, unfortunately. He can only be in one place at one time. But I mean, you know what? I took the Massachusetts bar and passed it when I took the New York bar. Maybe, maybe I will hang out a shingle and go volunteer to step into the DA's office. If I ever were to go back to the practice of law, it definitely would be on the prosecution side. All right. So listen, nothing's happening right now. I think you tell me, Phil, but I think the real question we're dealing with at the moment is how long until they give up? And it doesn't seem like this juror is going to give in. I could be wrong. So either he gives in and we get a probably not guilty by reason of mental defect. And she goes to the mental institution. Or he doesn't give in. We have a hung jury and they come back into the court and announce that within some period of time. What would you guess? Well, it's 10 a.m. and they've been back now about 30 minutes. And so their free lunch that they get every day is coming up soon. So, you know, the traditional wisdom amongst lawyers is like, you know, the jury on the day they reach a verdict, they're going to they're going to get their lunch first and then they'll give you their verdict. So I do think it's going to be, you know, after the noon hour. I think sometimes later today we're going to get a verdict. I think that the instructions the judge gave yesterday combined with what he said today gives the 11 people that are, I guess, apparently voting not guilty by reason of insanity. It will give them some leverage to to use to remind this other individual what reasonable doubt is and and perhaps convince him to come over to their side. Now, I could very well be wrong, but one way or another, it's going to be over today. I think if we give it a few more hours and the person does not budge, they're likely to send the judge a note says, look, now we are definitely hopelessly deadlocked. And then the judge is stuck. He cannot send them back, at least not against their will to deliberate a third time and would have no choice but to declare a mistrial. All right. Don't go far, because I think we're going to be back together shortly as soon as we hear from this jury again. There's zero chance this jury wants this thing to go into Labor Day weekend. I mean, zero. So our only real question is, is that guy sitting there like this? I've made up my mind. I'm good. Or does he go through the motions of I had a doubt. It doesn't rise to the level of reasonable. I'm listening. Does he does he do the show trial of I've listened to the judge's instructions? I heard what he said on reasonable doubt. I do have a moral certainty that she committed this crime and that she knew what she was. We have no idea. I hope we find out all the deets later. But in the meantime, we remain on Verdict Watch. Guys, thank you all so much for coming on. Love you. You guys check out MK True Crime, our channel. You go on the podcast button, you type in MK True Crime and you can get all of my panelist shows and get your crime positively legal and in the well where Matt and Mark Garagos partner on a great show talking about all these issues. For now, we sign off and we will see you again later when there's news. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda and no fear. You.