The moment a body is found, the clock starts ticking. 48 hours before the trail goes cold. From A&E and Crime House, this is the official podcast from the famous True Crime series, The First 48. I'm Carter Roy. Every Thursday, I revisit a landmark homicide investigation in depth with long-form storytelling built for your ears. Listen to and follow The First 48 on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, or Wherever You Listen to Podcasts. I'm Brett. And I'm Alice. And we are The Prosecutors. Today on The Prosecutors, the Lindsay Clancy jury is at an impasse. Will we get a verdict? Or are they hopelessly hung? Hello everyone and welcome back to The Prosecutors. I am Brett and I'm joined as always by my well-hung co-host, Alice. No one put the laugh we all needed today. Woo! You know what? I know you guys are. I was pretty heated about this case for the last few times. You're recorded. I admit. I admit. I like to say that I keep my emotions under wrap. Yeah, right. Said no one ever. But I've actually reached a new zen. I really actually have because if this is the America what you want, this is the America you want. You know, I've thought about this a lot actually that I was thinking about this today. People are going to be angry on both sides, assuming the students are hanging. The people who think Lindsay is obviously mentally ill and needs to be in hospital. The people who think Lindsay is obviously guilty and needs to be in prison. And I was thinking about this today and I was like, you know what? If you really care about this and you're upset about the fact that Jerry is going to hang, you need to invest in literacy about our nation and history, civics. They need to be taught that we need to understand and the fact that we don't might lead us to things like this. Here's a very small thing that I actually took from Mrs. Brett. So how many birthday parties do your kids go to, especially when you have four kids, right? Lots of birthday parties, lots of junk presents that parents probably don't want you to even bring. Thanks to Mrs. Brett, I now basically age appropriate. I give one present. So my oldest went to an eight year old birthday party this weekend. Everyone else gave him like real presents. And I'm not sure that he'll even like, or he'll even like read my present. But I now give them like an encyclopedic book set of the What is America set? Of like the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Underground Railroad, basic civics that we no longer learn anymore. And like, at least this will exist in their home. And maybe someday this child will decide to read about the country they live in. And our future jury pool will be educated. One can hope. That's my small, you know, like consumerism has to go somewhere. I'm going to do that for now. And maybe that's what you can do as well. That's a great idea. You know, I was thinking about, I was just kind of rambling, but I mean, it's not like anything's happened. But there's nothing's happened. I was thinking about how neither side really talked about reasonable doubt and what reasonable doubt is. And I had commented on that about how the defense didn't do it. But the prosecution didn't do it either. And I was impressed by the prosecution's closing. And I think that kind of blinded me to the fact that they did not talk about reasonable doubt. And when you're an AUSA, the best thing about working for the federal government is the training you get. Like a lot of people who are working in states and local prosecutors offices, they just throw them to the wall. So they're like, oh, you're a lawyer. Go try a case. When you work for the federal government, you get those of you in South Carolina. It's something to be very proud of. You have the National Advocacy Center on the campus of the University of South Carolina in your state capital. And it's fantastic. And if you're working for the federal government, you get to go there and take all these different classes. Half the ones I took were actually related to the podcast, don't tell anybody. Like, did I need to take a class on whether it was staging with a scene was staged? Probably not. But I learned a lot about how strangulations are staged to look like suicides when they're actually murders. Very helpful for the podcast. Would have been helpful if I was trying murder cases in Oklahoma, but you know, that's fine. But anyways, one of the things is they teach you how to do grand jury and they teach you about evidence they teach you about discovery and they teach you how to track case. And one of the things they talk about with closing arguments is how no one actually understands what beyond a reasonable doubt means. It's difficult and it's complicated and the judge is going to give an instruction, but it's very technical even when the judge gives it. Explain much and that you need to do it and you need to do it for two reasons. The first reason is just to explain what it means in layman's terms in a way you're comfortable way to the jury. And the second reason and this is what I was thinking about today is to arm the people in the jury with the definition they can use against other jurors. So when they're having an argument and one of the jurors is like, well, it's possible this or maybe that someone who listen to you and agrees with you can say, yeah, but remember what they said about reasonable doubt. You know, for it to be reasonable doubt, it's got to be X, Y and Z and is what you're saying is that really reasonable doubt and you're sort of giving them the tools they need and that didn't happen in this case. And I kind of wonder if nail obviously you got people on both sides, but neither side is really armed with the tools to move each other and at this point they're just screaming each other. And this case is really difficult because honestly, both sides, I'm not just going to say the defense both sides do a lot of spaghetti at the wall. She does have mental illness, she doesn't have mental illness, she does have psychosis, she doesn't have psychosis. Both sides honestly didn't like really settle on one theory throughout the trial, which lends itself to the whole. Anything can happen and if anything can happen, that's reasonable doubt, which we know is not the definition of reasonable doubt. So I think this was like perfectly primed to fall into the category of misunderstanding reasonable doubt. I don't think the words reasonable doubt came up in either closing argument at all, which you may expect, well no, no, no, we always said it when we were prosecutors. We always talked about reasonable doubt, even if it were at the end, preemptively to counter what we expected the defense to say. And essentially it was something as simple as a one liner along the lines of reasonable doubt doesn't mean that anything is possible. It's not any doubt, you're never going to have zero doubt even as you walk through a door thinking you're going to go to the exit. There's always a doubt of something that's not going to be sure, this is life, right? And so usually if you can distill it to one sentence and give like one really visceral example, you're right. Then the juror who's like sitting on this side being like, dude, Patrick could have done it. Here's how he couldn't have done it and it's not anything could have happened. It's not that when that first responder came, he could have done it, like literally anything could happen. That is not reasonable doubt. But they really came back on day, what day is day three, four, day four of deliberations. The first day, honestly, it's three and a half days. It's not really a full day, three and a half hours in the first day of deliberations. You're picking your foreman. You're probably taking an initial poll. You're barely getting your what's about you before you break for the day. So I don't even really count the first day as full deliberations. Three days of deliberations and they're calling it quits. We'll talk about what that actually means. It tells you the level of emotion on each side. They didn't deliberate for like six days, seven days and say, we're on Friday now. We were here for a whole week. We're tired. There's nothing else we can do. Three days is relatively short to decide you're totally done, deliberating because you can't move anymore. And these are short days, too. I mean, they're only staying at the very short days. Right. Right. Okay. Well, we'll actually dive in now. So if you have no idea what we're talking about, we're talking about the Lindsay Clancy trial, of course, which as we record is in jury deliberations today was day four. So this morning, as we record, the jury came back with a note. They had set one note on Friday day two, asking to see a couple pieces of evidence, the knife and some pill bottles. But since then, it's been quiet from the jury. So after many hours of deliberation, their question wasn't really a question. It was a statement. It said that they're unable to come to a unanimous decision. And at this point, they had deliberated for around 17 hours over the course of four days. Judge Sullivan took a very conservative approach. He told them that it had been a very long trial with many witnesses and exhibits, and he urged them to return to deliberations while keeping his instructions in mind. The jury deliberated for the rest of the day before asking to go home on the early side, around 330 when they had been breaking around.
four. So what happens next? So, you know, one thing that's interesting is this going home early thing, they did this yesterday too. And when they did it yesterday, I think the hope was they had reached some sort of decision, whatever it was. And it was a, hey, we've reached a decision, but rather than saying that now, let's all go home and sleep on it. See what happens. Instead, they came back and basically first thing they're sending in this note. So the fact that they ended at 330 makes you think that we're probably in a situation where there's some very heated debates going on. And they kind of reached a point where they were sick of being in the same room with each other. And we're just ready to go. Could be something else. Maybe somebody had a, you know, had an appointment for absolutely possible. But I think the more likely scenario is that this has become very heated and very difficult in that room. So now we're all reading tea leaves. We can't tell you what they're doing. No one can. But let's assume for a second that tomorrow morning, they come back with another note that says, hey, we're still deadlocked. What happens then? Well, that is where the dynamite charge comes in. So at this point, the judge has handled this in a very informal manner. And he's just like, you know what? Just go back and talk some more and he can do that. And some people have said he can only do twice. It's not true. He did as many times as he wants until he decides in his discretion, which is appealable under the abuse of discretion standard that the jury has been through due and thorough deliberations. Once the judge decides that once he decides they've deliberated as much as one would expect on a case like this, they've given it due consideration. And they're now telling me they can't reach a conclusion. That's the point when a dynamite charge is appropriate. And the dynamite charge is an instruction given to the jury that is intended to blow up whatever obstacle is keeping them from reaching a verdict. That's why we call it the dynamite charge is supposed to break through the blockade or the obstruction that's keeping the jury from reaching a conclusion. In the federal system, it is called the Allen charge. The Allen charge is actually based on an 1851 Massachusetts case called twoee. That charge has been modified in a case called Rodriguez. So in Massachusetts, they don't call it the Allen charge. They call it the twoee Rodriguez charge. But it's essentially the same idea. It's not as aggressive as the federal version, but a similar thing. And here is how it reads. So it says our Constitution and laws provide that in a criminal case, the principle way for deciding questions of fact is the verdict of a jury. In most cases and perhaps strictly speaking, in all cases, absolute certainty cannot be attained or expected. The verdict to which each jury agrees must or of course be his or her own verdict, the result of his or her own convictions and not merely an acquiescence in the conclusion of the other jurors. Still, in order to bring 12 minds to a unanimous result, you must examine the issues you have to decide with candor and with a proper regard and respect for each other's opinions. You should consider that it is desirable that the case be decided. You should consider that you have been selected in the same manner and from the same source as any future jury would be. There is no reason to suppose that the case will ever be submitted took 12 persons who are more intelligent, more impartial or more competent to decide it than you are, or that more or clearer evidence will be produced on one side or the other. With all this in mind, it is your duty to decide this case if you can do so conscientiously. So that's not the end of it. We're going to keep going. This is the model jury instruction. The judge can obviously change it. He probably will not, because as we said before, if you give the model, you're good. You're not going to be overturned later on. But if you're interesting things about this. So number one, it explains that notion we talked about earlier. Yes, beyond a reasonable doubt, but that doesn't mean absolute certainty. It doesn't mean you're not going to have some lingering thoughts in the back of your head. And essentially, if that's what's keeping you from reaching a verdict, you need to get past it. And look, you guys are as good as we're going to get. You're smart. Here's competent. You're as unbiased as anybody who's going to come in here. And if you tell us you can't decide this, we're going to have to try it again with a new jury. They're going to be just like you. So there's no reason that you can reach some sort of verdict. And that's sort of how it starts is this sort of you can do this. You can do this and don't push it off on some future juries. That's how it starts. And then it goes on. In order to make a decision more attainable, the law always imposes the burden of proof on one side or the other. In this criminal case, the burden of proof is on the commonwealth to establish every part of it, every essential element beyond a reasonable doubt. If you are left and doubt as to any essential element, the defendant isn't titled to the benefit of that doubt and must be acquitted. Inconferring together, you ought to give proper respect to each other's opinions and listen with an open mind to each other's arguments. When there is disagreement, those jurors who are for acquittal should consider whether a doubt in their own minds is a reasonable one. If it makes no impression on the minds of other jurors who are equally honest, equally intelligent, and who have heard the same evidence with the same intention with an equal desire to arrive at the truth and who have taken the same oath as other jurors. So essentially, if you're here in your saying, I'm not guilty, I got reasonable doubt. Well, consider whether your doubt's really reasonable because if there are other jurors in that room who don't have reasonable doubt, and they're just as smart as you and they're just as awful as you and they heard the same evidence, that is something that should cause you to reexamine your doubt and whether or not it actually means that the person who is accused is not guilty. Then it goes on. On the other hand, those jurors who are for conviction ought seriously to ask themselves whether they may not reasonably doubt the correctness of their judgment. If it is not shared by other members of the jury, they should ask themselves whether they should distrust the weight or adequacy of the evidence if it has failed to convince the minds of their fellow jurors. I would ask you now to return to your deliberations with these thoughts in mind. So we just read you the two E Allen charge. The judge is not required to give a two E charge, though in this case, he almost certainly will. But I'm not surprised he didn't give it yet that he gave kind of a it was kind of a one sentence like, look, I know this is tiring. This is a lot. Just go back and try it again in a very non forceful way, shall we say? Because I know there are people who are like, wait, how can you send them back? Isn't that just telling them to change their minds? You don't know what's happening back there. You don't know what kind of fights are happening. There could be someone folding their hands saying, I refuse to engage with you no matter what I'm making this up, but you can imagine someone's like, if the defendant is a woman and a mother and I see no signs of abuse, I refuse to dig into the evidence and consider whether she's actually criminally liable because she's not that person. Now this kind of instruction is really geared at them like, okay, you have to engage, you know, like if you are correct, okay, let's engage you can't just like stop all discussion. So it's not telling them to change. But since we have no idea the black box of a jury, you don't know the discussions that they're having, and people can change minds. That is the purpose of a deliberation. You don't have to have your minds made up when you go back there. Many of them, after hearing five weeks of evidence, know how they want to vote. But just like all of us, by the way, a lot of you say it to us after each day of trial, as we're talking through the evidence, you're like, I didn't think about it that way. As I'm listening to my fellow juror, say, explain how they interpret that expert hadn't thought about it in that way. Let me take that into consideration. That's the purpose of deliberation. You're supposed to help each other arrive at a decision that hopefully is unanimous. And look, I mean, yeah, yeah, court TV. It used to be a great channel. We really confused by their takes on this case. They are truly am. They are just draw all the care about drama. All they care about is driving ratings. It's embarrassing. They know they know all of them. I mean, true practicing. They've all practiced. They're all practicing it. They know that a to e charge is not coercive. That's the whole point. Literally every judge, every single judge will give this. We've gotten we we haven't noticed. We refused the Alan charge one time. I like forget it. They're never going to reach it. It is not uncommon. Honestly, especially in some of our fraud cases, where it was not like a violent case, the fraud cases, people get all worked out because they're like, well, nobody died. We're really going to send someone to prison. That happened a lot in fraud cases, the white collar cases. A lot of our cases came back with like, we can't really reach a decision. And all of our cases ultimately reached a decision when they were sent back. Maybe not even on the first time, but they did. So it's not a course of thing. Think about, I don't know, normal discussion. You would have like many of you are teachers in the chat. I've seen you, you know, talk about teaching your students, civics lessons and those sorts of things. If your students can't like arrive at a decision or something, do you help them work through it? And like at the second, they're like, impossible teach can't do it. No, right? Your job as the judge as the teacher is to help guide them in the way that they're thinking to recognize their duty.
This is their civic duty right now. - Look, these people aren't experts. They're off the street. They don't know what they're doing. This is just another instruction from the judge and it's meant to be balanced and it's saying to both sides, look, if you think she's not guilty, consider your other jurors and why they think that. If you think she's guilty, consider why they have reasonable doubt. It's saying that to both sides. And look, the whole point of having 12 jurors and putting them in a room and having them deliberate is that through that process of discussion, some people are gonna change their minds. Otherwise, we shouldn't have deliberations. It should just be like, the judge should turn to the jury and be like, all right everybody, who says guilty? And they just raise their hands. And if 12 raise their hands, they're guilty. If not 12, then they're hung. If 12 raise their hands for not guilty, that's not guilty. That's not the way this works. The whole point of it is to have open and honest discussions and that's why we have these charges. There's nothing coercive about it. There's nothing improper about it. It happens in every single jurisdiction in this country, including federal jurisdictions. The courts have been very careful at crafting this to make sure it's not coercive. And anyone who suggests that this is somehow unusual or improper or unfair to anybody doesn't know what they're talking about. And Kevin Reddington has said, he doesn't want a hung jury. He doesn't want her to have to go through this again. No one does. Hunguries are incredibly disfavored. It is a waste of time, effort, energy, money, emotional pain. I mean, no one wants to go through this again. So yes, we're going to have some tools we use to try and help 12 people come to a conclusion, particularly if there's one person in there who's just being obstinate, if telling them this can help them reach a verdict, then it absolutely should happen. - Today's episode is brought to you by Vintage. Guys, if you're like me, you really like to buy clothes and I never get rid of anything. And I've been through so many seasons of my life in a very short amount of time. Yeah, I'm a podcaster, but I'm a sole lawyer who goes to trial and I also have kids and I'm on the soccer field with them. And I've been many sizes because I've had many kids at this point. I keep it all and my closet is so cluttered. It's embarrassing. Finally, the other day, I may or may not have broken a rod in my closet and I thought it is time to clean it out, but not just clean it out because these clothes are great. I spent a lot of money buying it, what if I had a way to make a little extra money while cleaning out my closet and giving my clothes a second life? I was so excited to find Vintage. Vintage is a second hand app that makes it easy for everyday sellers, people like you and me to sell pre-loved fashion and earn some extra money. I decided to give it a try and for me, it has to be easy or I just can't stick with it. And Vintage helps solve the problem that we are all facing, which is clutter. They made it so easy to fit into my routine and I absolutely recommend looking into it to help you make a little extra money but give you some of your closet space back. - You know what's the worst thing about selling stuff? Fees. It feels like by the time you pay the fees, you're not even making any money of what you sold. You might as well have kept it in your cluttered closet. Well, that is not the case with Vintage. With Vintage, there are no selling fees. So you keep everything you earn and you can do what you want with that extra money. And the app is free to download as well. So what are you waiting on? Vintage offers you a simple selling experience. Listing items is quick and simple and what's an item sales, Vintage creates the prepaid shipping label just for you. If you're ready to clean out your closet and make some extra money, download the vented app for free and start listening. With no seller fees, you keep every dollar you earn. Give your clothes a second life with Vintage. - This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp. If you could wake up tomorrow and be better at one thing, what would that be? There are so many things I could list but something that really comes to the front of my mind that I've been feeling kind of guilty about is being able to put my phone down and just being present with my kids. My kids are little, they still really like being around me but whether it's work or wanting to know what's going on in the news, I'm always looking at my phone which takes time away from my kids. But the thing is, I feel so tied to my phone and it seems like an easy thing to do but I just can't seem to do it by myself which is why I am so glad that there's BetterHelp. Because BetterHelp helps me be able to draw boundaries to be the best version of myself that I can be so that I can be the best mother I can be to my kids. Guys, the great thing about BetterHelp is they will connect you to a therapist that works for you. Just take a short survey, they will connect you to someone and if it doesn't work, they will find you someone else on their vast spectrum of therapists who can help you. Better is the feeling defined by you and for BetterHelp, it's a BetterHelp therapist who really gets you. It's a focus on global emotional wellbeing with thousands of therapists and millions of members in over 100 countries. It's progress. Sign up and get 10% off at BetterHelp.com/Prosicuters. That's betterhelp.com/Prosicuters. (upbeat music) Here's the other thing, here's another way to look at it as to why it's not only non-coercive, it's actually more democratic. What is the jury? It's a jury of your peers and it's the reasonable person's standard. Everyone comes in, you're not told to check your experiences of life at the door. You're picked because you have a set of experiences but we're not letting one person decide the fate of Lindsey Clancy or any other criminal defendant. Rather, what we're trying to do is take 12 people's amalgamation. This is what the deliberative process is. So that you don't just have one person who comes in who's like, no, I've definitely had postpartum depression before she's absolutely not guilty. By reason of like, I can't move off of this. So you have that person, wonderful. We have her experience. Then we also have three other people who see it from a different perspective. And then we have this person who sees it from this perspective and the idea of what the founding fathers read those books I just told you to go get. The founding fathers thought, okay, one person would you want, I don't want to just point randomly, there's 300 people in here. I wouldn't want to point randomly even if it were Brett to say, your decision will determine my fate. Rather, we're taking an amalgamation of 12 people's experiences who are also supposed to be a jury of your peers to arrive at basically like the people's voice. That's kind of the idea of the deliberation. And while you saying, if the judge just started the jury was like, who votes guilty? Like makes my stomach drop because I as a criminal defendant don't want that. And I think you almost never reached a verdict in that case as well. But think about it that way. It's not meant to be this like horrendous anti-democratic means of convicting someone. Actually, it's the opposite. So that no one person, no one view of the world dominates and is the and all be all for a criminal defendant. Okay, but here's the thing. Even though the judge doesn't have to give this to recharge, once he gives the to recharge, and I do think Judge Sullivan will in this case, and it would be appropriate to give it at some point, an important procedural safeguard is triggered. If the jury comes back after the to recharge and says that they are still hung, the case is over. Unless that jury agrees to continue deliberating, but they almost never will. That the whole point is they're like, we're not going to celebrate anymore. And the judge can no longer force them to keep deliberating after he's given the to recharge. Now, there's a question that people have asked multiple times. There's 12 jurors, there's six alternates. Can we just replace the obstinate ones? Not for being obstinate, you can't. That's the whole point of having the jury system and which ones are obstinate? Is it the three in the minority or the nine who won't listen to them? However, there are two circumstances in which you could replace them. Number one, if they refuse to deliberate. They're supposed to deliberate. If a juror goes back there and says, I'm not even gonna talk to y'all. I got my mind made up and I'm care what you say. It doesn't matter. You can agree with me or not, but we're not moving off of this. If a juror does that, they can be replaced. Now, the judges never tell the jury that. So the jury has to just sort of accidentally stumble upon telling the judge that. They have to basically say, we're hopelessly deadlocked because we have a juror who refuses to deliberate. They won't even consider it. Then you can talk about replacing them. The second reason would be if the, let's say there are three jurors who are saying, not guilty, cross the board. And they're like, look, you guys haven't been on TikTok, but I have. And Patrick totally did it. Imagine that was happening in the jury room. And juryless judges know that. Those jurors have violated their oath. They could be replaced. Those are circumstances in which you could replace somebody. But otherwise, you're not gonna replace anybody just because there's some sort of deadlock. That's not gonna happen. Now, let's say they do the toey charge and it doesn't work, right? If the jury simply tells the court that they are deadlocked, we're deadlocked. Hopelessly deadlocked. You gave us the toey charge. We tried to go back, but we can't get anywhere. The judge may not inquire whether they've reached a verdict on any count. He cannot delve, if all they say is we're deadlocked, he cannot say, well, are you deadlocked on everything? What about, did you decide first degree murder? Who about second, can you go back and figure that out? Like just make clear to me what you're deadlocked on. That risk.
coercion and this was established conclusively in a case this random murder case you've probably never heard of that wasn't important called Commonwealth versus Reed from 2025 where the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court said the judge can't do that. So if they just come back with a blanket we're deadlocked the judge is not going to delve into what exactly that means. If however the jury says something more definitive like we cannot reach a conclusion on count one we're deadlocked on murder one. At that point the judge can say well then you need to go back and see if you can reach an agreement on a lesser count. So if they specifically say we're deadlocked as to murder one he can say we'll go back and see if you can reach an agreement on murder two or manslaughter that could happen. I don't know that that's necessarily going to happen but we could see that. Furthermore if the jury comes back and says we have reached a conclusion on murder one and murder two but we're deadlocked on manslaughter they can return a not guilty verdict on those counts and if the case were recharged you would not be able to proceed on those counts you would have to proceed on the manslaughter count alone which doesn't even count and it's like a lesser included basically the jury would only be instructed on manslaughter if you had another trial. So that's sort of legally where we are. Now a few things that I think are interesting and we're happy to answer questions that people in the chat have as well because if you're thinking it I'm sure other people are thinking it. Some really interesting things. Number one I don't think Reddington is in any way a nefarious character I don't think he's unethical I don't think he's doing anything or would do anything that's improper but he said some interesting things today when he was talking to the press. One of the things he said was he noted that in his opinion there will be no resolving this that if the jury deadlocks it will be tried again and the Commonwealth will go for murder one and they will try and put her away for the rest of her life. I thought this was interesting because one could say that if the jurors who are on the not guilty side or whatever not guilty bear reason and sandy side we're not doing what they're supposed to do and we're actually paying attention to the press. To me that signals a if you're listening compromising on manslaughter is not the worst thing. You know manslaughter is what he wants or it's the alternative that he wants. I think you would prefer that honestly to a hung jury because I think Reddington understands better than most people how precarious his client situation is and how close she is to go into prison for the rest of her life. I think he appreciates that more than a lot of Lindsey Clancy's supporters. You know there are a lot of people out there who just thought it was obvious she was going to get not guilty by reason and sandy. We didn't think that. I don't think Reddington thought that at all and I think him seeing this deadlock. Number one I mean this trial went really well for him. The prosecution fumbled all over themselves kind of threw up over all themselves for the first bit. Got their footing towards the end and now we're in a situation where there are some jurors on there who absolutely ready to convict her and I think he has to be very concerned that if this is tried again and it's tried by prosecution who now knows the case very well knows exactly the path they should be taking. And changed during the trial to a better tactics. Exactly. They would start where they ended, which is a better tactic. I think he's worried about that. And I think he's rightfully. So obviously this is just reading tea leaves but I don't think it split down the middle. I think usually when you have a deadlock it's usually not split half and half. It's honestly usually like two or three very impassioned people on one side. And I think that side is probably the not guilty by reason of a mental defect side because I think if it were the other side, if they were like murder one or nothing, recognizing that it would be hung or she would be let off completely, I do think there are three options of like a conviction is better than nothing. So fine, we'll go down to murder two or manslaughter. So I don't think the actual like heated we will not move from is on the conviction side. I do think it's on the not guilty side. And that's just a guess. I have no idea. And I can imagine that because of that, they see the case so differently because they're like, if we stand in the breach between her going to prison at all and nothing then like why would we do anything? Because if we have a hung jury, she's not going to go to prison. Now she's still a tuxberry. You know, she's not a free woman. But in their mind, that's where she's been this whole time. And so there's less to quote unquote lose for her if you believe that she should not be in prison at all. That's why I think the holdouts, if you want to call it that, the ones who are refusing to change, I think is on that side. I wouldn't be surprised. I don't know. We haven't talked about this. I don't know if you think the same thing or not. So you know, I don't know. I kind of wonder, obviously it's possible that you got 11 people for not guilty by reason of insanity. And we're one person who's like, she killed her children. I'll be damned. If I say she's not guilty, by any reason, that's a possibility. And I do think we'll learn that afterwards. And look, jurors can do whatever they want to afterwards. They have freedom speech. They can tell everything they have. They can write a book about it. Go on a documentary. Exactly. So I think we probably will learn where the split was. Now, people have asked, do we think that jurors have avoided coverage? I like to believe that jurors try very diligently to follow the instructions. I would be very disappointed. I mean, look, the Karen Ray jury, they were a mess. I mean, that's second jury. You could tell me they were doing anything. And I believe it. I was very deferential to them after they came out with their verdict. And then after weeks of them going on talk shows and saying what they were doing, I was like, oh my goodness, what an absolute mess that jury was. So this jury could be doing the same thing. I mean, maybe they are on TikTok every night. Maybe they're listening to our podcast. You know, maybe they're listening to some of the Patrick did it people. I mean, who knows? We don't know for certain. And unless they say so in the jury, we're not going to know. That's possible. Now look, do I think the fact that there were a couple women wearing pink means anything? I wore pink today. I mean, pink's a nice color. I don't think it necessarily means that they're like part of the Lindsey Clancy crew. I mean, they could be. But I think that's a silly thing given that pink's a popular color for people to wear. And especially because they weren't necessarily, oh, I just chuckled a little bit because Nancy Grace asked me that specific question about wearing pink and I was wearing pink. And I was like, anybody else seeing this? No, no, I wasn't kidding. When I started and I said, I've reached a gazine about this. I think to come back, because I do, I truly think juries really do take their jobs seriously. I do think it's been a very intense 17 hours and four days of deliberation now at this point longer than 17 hours. I do think they all take it very seriously. And for a jury to come back and say that they're deadlocked, it usually is emotional for the jurors to do that as well. I have not seen jurors come out here. It feels like a failure. They're like, so they're telling me neither side has won, right? Like, you're not getting what you want. And so I say all that to say, I have reached us in and are like an acceptance, honestly, that they will be hung. I think the fact that they've already come back after just really three full days of deliberations that said that they were hung. I think there is a high likelihood even after a two-week charge, they will continue to be hung. We always knew this is going to be a high likelihood. Look, I am still talking to people who are just now coming online to the Lindsay Clancy case, like seeing it for the first time now that is still in deliberations. And their first comments to me, like, who are very educated and, you know, like knowledgeable people are like, well, isn't it a given that she was in psychosis? You know, like, things that can, even if you sit through the trial, can be the clickbait version of a trial, even if you sat through it. I get it because I am talking to people who actually sat through the trial. I'm like, that's what you've got from the trial? You got nothing else from the trial, except that, except that definitely anyone who's in psychosis, like, just had to kill their kids. So I'm not pessimistic about it because this is a reality of juries. And whenever I would give over a case to the jury, I did feel kind of a zen of like, I've done all I can. And this is now the jury system at work. And I have to accept what it is. Doesn't mean I won't, you know, be very upset that there isn't a conclusion. But it's more of like, I'm not going to rage. There's no point. It is out of my hands. What's been done has been done. And if this is a hung jury, it is a hung jury. Like, that's just a reality. We have to accept under this judicial system. And we talked about this in the beginning. I mean, this is the nightmare. The hung jury is the nightmare scenario. I have nothing but respect for people who think Lindsey Clancy is not guilty about reason of insanity. Nothing but respect for you. That's the position you took. I understand why you would come to that position. I understand the evidence that she would point to to support that. I don't think it's true. After watching the the trial, but that's my opinion. And you have your opinion. And I feel like it's an opinion we can shake hands on. And you know, go have a beer down at the bar. If you think Patrick did it, I have no respect for you whatsoever. And you need to either. Actually, there are three types of people who think Patrick did it. There are either idiots on TikTok who don't know any better. They are grifters on TikTok who do know better, but know that it gets clicks. Or they're people who have listened to the idiots on TikTok or the grifters on TikTok. And if refused to engage their brain and actually consider the evidence. And I'm sorry, I have no grace for you whatsoever. Because when you come onto places like the gallery and And you start spewing the Patrick, did it stuff.
And then you say things like now I haven't watched any of the trial and I haven't done any of this I just I'm sorry. If you're gonna accuse a man of murdering his three children attempting to murder his wife Invading her brain to convince her that she did it in some sort of Fengali-like hypnosis Movie we're watching a movie scenario who then Incorporates his best friend into this into the murder of three children and a woman convinces her to do it and then in some theories Invinces his fiance to do it as well who then manages to fake his appearance on video fake telephone calls Spoof telephone calls talk to her through the ring camera whatever other BS theories you have if you're gonna believe that and you're not even gonna Take the time to sit down and watch the trial I have no respect for you whatsoever. So those people can stuff it But if you think she's not guilty because of her mental illness Nothing but respect for you and if this jury reached that conclusion nothing but respect for that jury But a hung jury is a nightmare and I just I don't want to see us get there because What's gonna happen next is gonna be awful awful? So agree with that that I can't even I don't even want to say or even address the Patrick did it Crew and again, I have very intelligent people in my life who think that I'm gonna give a slightly different view of this Now that we've seen a jury deliberate and if they do come back with a hung jury I think the Commonwealth will retry the case They likely will not retry the case more than two times But here's where I kind of lose hope if there's a hung jury in this case as Brett said It will only become more of a circus next time the jury wasn't sequestered this time They should be sequestered next time. It's really expensive. It's really hard. Reddington asked to have them sequester He did have them asked and it worked. I think in his favor that they did not because of the sea of pink that they walked through in order to get in But here is where I lose hope Because this if this ends up in a Miss trial and a hung jury. I think it will forever be hung juries and here's why the biggest hurdle And I didn't think maybe it is by numbers. I don't think the biggest hurdle by numbers is that the Patrick did it people I think that's tiktok. I think that's people who are trying to make money off of clicks. I think the biggest hurdle to reaching a conviction in this case or to reaching a unanimous decision is the inability of People who are not educated in the civics of this country, which is why I started with why I gift civics books to kids now Separating their own emotions and personal experience from the facts before them on a certain defendant I think it is very difficult for people on this jury in the broader public to look at this case of Lindsey Clancy's specific case With the murders of these three children without bringing into it, but like once I had hallucinations because I didn't sleep for a while Yeah, okay cool totally fine very valid to have your own experiences Four weeks ago or whatever I did that video where I was like when we didn't know what was happening I really didn't know I thought this was like the medical system failed Lindsey Clancy I was still in that mindset and I made a video that many of you saw where I basically was like you're not Lindsey Clancy and It's the same message here. I have lost hope if this jury cannot reach a verdict that all future juries will be unable to reach a Vertict one way or the other because people are unable to see the civic duty and the way that we deal with a case in Controversy before us and the reason that we don't convict criminal defendants based on statistics We don't look at someone who's from a poor neighborhood from a low socio-economic background and be like Statistically, you burglarize that house, so I'm just gonna convict you We don't do that instead we look at the facts of that case and if it's beyond a reasonable doubt that that criminal defended no matter who they are Committed the crime that's when we convict and that's what a jury is charged to do in this case I think we cannot do that unfortunately. This is why by the way if you've read all the online reviews and if you've read read it Don't do it. By the way, it's a horrible place. People hate me Brett saying the same things not getting anything because I am a woman who somehow has stepped out of my lane of Being a woman who's had experiences of having children and somehow I have different thoughts because I'm following the evidence of the Lindsey Clancy case while recognizing that postpartum struggles for women is a real thing that may not be what we are dealing with in this case That's the difference between emotion and Life experiences that are very valid for everybody to discuss and the evidence before us for a criminal defended Those are two different things and I've lost complete confidence in our current society And it is uneducated to be able to make that deliberation. So if I were the commonwealth, yeah, I would prosecute the case again I Start where I ended, but I don't think it's gonna matter because I don't think with this current polity We are able to do that and this is why we shout into the void all day because I do care about this I think when you move away you move straight towards mob justice and you move towards like Convicting by statistics, which is anti-democratic and the antithesis of what this country was built on and So this case to me is so much more than just Okay, I honestly can accept a not guilty. I can even accept a hung jury Sometimes it's difficult for juries, but what it means for the future of our ability to deliberate based on the evidence before us and to have Rational discussions and deliberations based on the facts before us in a certain case without saying but I once had a baby and I was sad So therefore she didn't kill them. That is not evidence-based deliberation Your experience completely valid. We should be having discussions about this. You should talk to someone about it You should talk to your girlfriends about it. You composed about it on Facebook. Thank you for sharing your experiences Not to do with Lindsay Clancy and the guilt of whether she murdered her kids. That's why I've like totally lost That's why I've reached to Zen because I'm like, this is the America we want. This is the America we get. I'll ever sin I Think you're right and I think what you said The Commonwealth needs to hear because look. I think they're gonna hang. I mean, I wish I could tell you they're gonna come back tomorrow and have a jerk I just don't think that's gonna happen. I think this is gonna be a hung jury. So That's what's gonna happen in my opinion. I Never be happier to be wrong than if tomorrow they come back with a verdict I will be thrilled to be wrong. I will pour a glass of bourbon and toast the jury to be wrong if they come back But let's the same they come back hung. I think the Commonwealth needs to really think about this because there's two things to consider Number one, Alice is right and it's only gonna be made worse by the circus This is going to be and I think you need to appreciate what a second trial will look like We're gonna have a whole year for the build-up of Patrick did it conspiracies. Number one number two This case is a money maker and people didn't realize that at the beginning We started covering this case all the way back and when it happened, we did a legal briefs on this right after it happened talking about Insanity and insanity defenses. We use that on legal briefs to sort of make that point We were always gonna cover this case. We started covering this case for the first week It was low level. There wasn't a whole lot going on. I mean, we were talking to you You guys were enjoying it. We were having some great conversations But it had not gotten big Then the Patrick did it stuff started towards the end of the week Then it started to catch national news the grifters didn't show up until week two That they realized oh this is a money maker and all of a sudden they jumped on top of it. They are gonna be Out there in force that this happens again It became political at some point. I don't know if you'll notice that but it can't became Incredibly political with all these political figures and commentators jumping in how This is an example of the downfall of America because of Massachusetts you can kill your children and they don't even care And it was like Massachusetts signed and expanded abortion law as this was happening It was like see this is just an example People Massachusetts don't care about children. They just want to murder children right like that whole thing happened And then like this sort of fight between people across the political spectrum about what this means and what it means for all sorts of different things It it just it completely laws contain it stopped me in about Lindsey Clancy It started being about all these other things. That is going to be magnified 10,000 times if this happens again and I think the Commonwealth needs to know that they need to appreciate it They need to appreciate what this is going to be and they need to cut a deal Reddington would accept manslaughter tomorrow He would accept it before the jury even comes back He would accept it. You want me to play guilty manslaughter right now? I'll do it So I think the Commonwealth needs to make a decision They know their doctors better than anybody. They know their system better than anybody if they think those doctors Would keep Lindsey Clancy in a facility for years on end on the basis of her Middle disease or defect if they truly believe that then just agree to a not guilty by reason of middle disease or defect and Keeper there as long as you can. I don't think so. I think she's out in a year max. Maybe less
if she's not guilty, they could do that. They could agree to a manslaughter conviction and argue for 20 years, which is the max. They could argue for 20 years on each child to run consecutively, they're not gonna get it. They know this judge as well, they know how he sentences, they know how he's acted in this trial. Those are the kind of things they have to think about. But normally, ordinarily, I would say whatever, retry the case, your case isn't gonna get weaker. You know where you got hit before, you can correct those things. If there are new things you need to look into, you can do that. If you need to shore up the fact that Lindsey did it, not Patrick, to deal with the TikTok idiots, you can do that, and I always believe that the second Karen Reed presentation of evidence, if it had gone to the first jury, would have been successful. But the problem is, by the time you got to Karen Reed part two, it was just insanity across the board, and that case was lost at jury selection. And that's going to happen if you try her again. So if I'm the Commonwealth, if Reddington will give me a deal, I take the deal. That's just my opinion. And Reddington keeps saying that they don't make deals. I think that's him playing the press to try and pressure them to make a deal, 'cause he sees the hung jury coming as well. He also sees what manslaughter could get to him. Yeah, they can argue up to 20 years. Like we said earlier, I think there's no chance that she gets close to 20 years. She's already been in to despair for about three years. This judge, shoot, he's going to like, time-served with a little flap on the wrist, an extra month for each kid. And I'm not actually kidding about that. I don't think she serves much time even with manslaughter, but then you have a conviction. You have justice for the three children whose names are not on her lips. They truly are not. And someone said to me today, they were like, wow, I didn't realize it's so, when they were like, if she was in psychosis, isn't she not guilty? And I said, well, actually, that's not the standard. Not everyone in psychosis commits murder. You know, there's that number one, but you also have to show certain elements. And my friend was like, gosh, it didn't know it was so hard to prove insanity. By the way, first of all, it's not that hard to prove insanity, but I said, well, you have to have a standard. Otherwise, anyone who has any sort of a diagnosis as Brett has previously mentioned, can get away with murder. You know who is not safe in Massachusetts anymore, kids? And basically anyone who dies at the hands of anyone who has a mental disease of any kind, which is not fair, by the way, for the millions of people who do have real diagnoses and fight every single day to stay healthy for their kids and to stay healthy for the people around them and do not hurt the people around them. So like, bravo to all of you. You all should be wearing pink, because thank you. Thank you for the hard work you put in every single day in order to protect those you love, despite dark forces and intrusive thoughts in your own mind telling you to do otherwise, 'cause that's very real. So what she did is way off, way off the bell curve of what every single expert defense and prosecution said on the stand. What she did is not the norm. And I don't think we're there to be able to, like, be able to see the difference. - And look, so you could have some sort of, I'm still trying to reach, I'm trying to reach some sort of, you can have some sort of miss. - No, no, I'm sorry, I'm not in zen clearly. - You could have an agreement that basically says, and they talked about this excellent trial. There are circumstances where your sentence has ended, but you are dangerous and you can be committed. That happens. So you've got 20 years of murder, but as we're coming up, you know, you've become psychotic in prison. Actually, at that point, the prosecutor can move rather than to release you to transfer you to a medical facility. - The problem is, everything that's come out in trial of the last three years is the opposite of that. - I know. - She was on high alert for all the anniversaries and she was fine. - That's where she's visiting with her friends. - That is where the agreement comes in, but that's where I'm saying she won't stay. I know, you're trying to convince the Commonwealth right now and I'm blowing you up. - Agreed to a manslaughter conviction with some set period of time she has to stay in the hospital afterwards. So she will, by the function of the plea agreement, she will waive her review for three years or five years, whatever you wanted to be. So then if the judge say he orders time served, she would immediately get it to expiry and she would remain there for that period where she would get treatment. And then at the end of that period, she could move to be released. And at that point, you go through the same process. If she's no longer dangerous, she'll be released. There are some interesting things you could do. There are some creative solutions you could reach in this case where you have a defense attorney who clearly is willing to make a deal. Now he wants a good deal for his client. He's not gonna plead to murder too. - And by the way, yes, you can plead until the jury comes back. So even as she can plead at any time, like they could be walking in and they'd be like, "No, no, no, I plead." You can absolutely do that. We did, I have a case that went to jury deliberations and pled, no they did this. - There was a case while I was in the office that at the close of the government's evidence that offended decided to plead guilty. - Because I had to sign off on that. That's right, right. - So it's complicated because you probably would need the agreement of the Commonwealth to do it because of where you are in the trial. But I think she would have to, I mean, I guess she could reach an agreement. I mean, she could plead open, but she would reach an agreement. I mean, you'd have some agreement. - You would want to reach an agreement. - And you would want an agreement. - And it's an interesting question, right? Like do you say something like, instead of five years, 10 years, because then she's not totally past child bearing years, but closer to past child bearing years than just five years? - And then, you don't know if you're the. So Alison, I had a case. I've told the story before, but I'll tell it again, because we've told it in the care and read case when we were at this point. So we had a case where the jury comes back, it was a fraud case, it was a multiple charge fraud case. The jury comes back and says, we've reached some agreement on some counts, but we're deadlocked on the wrist. And our initial thought was Alan Charge. But the judge gave us like five minutes to think about it. And we went back in the back and I was like, let's not do the Alan Charge. Because if they're agreed on some counts, then we're either in a situation where we have guiltys or where they're agreed on a bunch of not guiltys, and we got like one hold out on our side. And we don't want to down them out that guy. We want to at least be able to retry those charges if they've reached a bunch of not guilty. But if we have one guilty, we're good. All we need is one, you know, and we win. And so we decided not to do the Alan Charge, and sure enough, they had found the person guilty on certain charges, and they deadlocked others. And we didn't care. If you're the commonwealth, for all you know, you're gonna do the two each charge. And the one person who's holding out is gonna say, okay, fine, not guilty about reason in Sandy. So it is a unique situation where everyone is in a position to make some sort of deal and reach some sort of agreement. And I just feel like that's what they should do. And they're not gonna do it. They're not gonna do it tomorrow. It's gonna come back hung. And then the deal making process is gonna happen. And they gotta swallow their pride because honestly, the opening statement was a prideful opening statement by the commonwealth. It was aggressive. It was all, she's a murderer. She didn't kill a better kid. She didn't have any mental health issues. She wasn't trying to kill herself. She's just a narcissist to whatever. That was their opening statement. That's not where they were by the closing. By the closing, they had realized the error of their ways and they had changed. And I feel like given where they were in the closing, they can get to some sort of agreement after the jury hangs. That's my thought. You seem less optimistic. - No, I've just reached Zen. This is my Zen. (laughing) - No, no, I think I think a deal is possible, except I wonder if either Lindsey or Reddington will get in their own way because of the money to be made. - Well, let me say this. If Lindsey Clancy won't plead guilty to manslaughter, then forget her. Like all of my- - Right, I just wonder at this point because she's not sequestered. She can see everything out there. And there's more money to be made if you don't plead. So that's, I just, I think we're in hung jury land forever. (laughing) But, you know, I'm usually a polyanna, but that's kind of how I see where things are right now. The fact that, you know, for example, like they've raised over a million dollars for her parents. That's really code for, they raised a million dollars for her. And it's just not the same documentary when you've pleaded to manslaughter. - And look, I mean, the civil case is still ongoing. I think the civil case is absolutely trash. Especially after watching this trial. I just don't think there's any hope there. But, given the way the trial's gone and the way people have reacted, I can imagine some insurance company saying, "Let's settle this, make it go away." So, yeah, I mean, there's certainly money at issue here and how does the conviction affect the civil case? Hard to say. I mean, in some ways it could help. In other ways, it would definitely hurt. But, yeah, I mean, money has become an issue. It just has. It's become an issue in this case. And I don't know how much of an effect it has, but I'm curious what Patrick thinks about all this. I mean, when Patrick walked into trial on the first day, he was all supportive of Lindsay. Now he's had his name drunk through the mud. - He's had his attorneys say that people are noticed for defamation, so he certainly is seeing what's going on. He's not. - He's now seen all the evidence? I don't know. I mean, he's not in trial, but presumably he's paying attention. Who knows what his position is gonna be by the time we get around to trial number two? I mean, I don't know. There's just a lot. There's so much to think about in a retrial situation that, and this isn't care and read, where everybody was so obstinate and hated each other, and there was never gonna be a deal in that.
case, she was never gonna admit anything. In this case, she said she did it. If she truly was under some sort of mental strain, then she feels guilt about it. It's hard for me to believe that she wouldn't accept a manslaughter charge where you accept that yes, your culpability is lessened because of your mental health, but you're still responsible. I can't imagine not feeling that way if I had done this to my three children. So the manslaughter thing, and the fact that Reddington argued so hard for it in front of the judge, it just, that's the way out here, I think. But at this point, I think it's gonna take a deal to get there. So that's my thoughts. And we can be totally wrong. Maybe they come back with a verdict tomorrow, one way or the other. And then, you know, we'll see, but we're entering day five of deliberations, and I think they'll come back sometime tomorrow and say they're still deadlocked. They'll get the two-ee charge. They'll deliberate maybe through the end of the day, and then maybe on Thursday. This is just my crystal ball. Maybe Thursday they come back after getting the two-ee charge and say that they are deadlocked. I think before, if they are going to be hung, it'll be before the weekend. Yeah, I think. Pull it over the weekend. I think you nailed it, but we're wrong. In that you said, there'd be a verdict on Wednesday. I think we get the deadlock at the end of the day tomorrow. That's fair. We'll see. Hope springs eternal, but I'm not hopeful. Yeah. And look, I mean, this has been a tough case. I'm glad you guys have some stuck with us. I know everybody's disappointed. I can't imagine anyone is happy about a hungarian this case. Oftentimes, defendants are happy about a hungarian's, but not in this case. This is not a circumstance in which this is a good outcome for anybody. And let's say, say this again as well. Like we said this before, and I think it's still worth saying, this is horrible for the jury. Like, they're not grouped together as one group. Each individual person is going through their own journey and they've all had two, three or the nine, one, one called it all had to see the autopsy photos that the rest of the public hasn't. And they are, by the way, voting what they believe is right, right? I have to think that as well. And so that is a very, very emotional and difficult place for them to be in as well. So I do not envy the jury at all. So there we are. There's your hopeful message of the day. Well, look, I know you guys have lots of thoughts on this. She's an email,
[email protected], that prosecutorspot for our social media. Join the gallery where people are discussing this case every day in all the different ways they could possibly discuss it. Social media, we're on Twitter, we're on Instagram, we're on TikTok. We put out some pretty good stuff on there. So I hope you all check it out. If you want to see us record these episodes, join Patreon. If you want to get them early and add free, you can get them on Patreon or on Apple subscriptions. If you want to see the edited version of these videos, you can join our substack, the True Crime Times and also get a lot of other articles on various issues about True Crime. Well, Alice, is there anything else you want to say before we sign off for today? No, if we do end up getting a verdict either way, even if it's not the one that I think it should be, that is better than a hung jury. And this is the jury system. We are seeing it play out. Hung jury is a possibility in this system. And despite all its flaws, I still think this is the best system we can get to in our criminal justice system, despite the flaws that we have. And part of it is you have to have good inputs. And that's where I think every single person really can have a role in the type of just society you want, educating yourself, educating those around you on what our government is and what the constitution says and what the evidence means. This is just like our small slice of trying to do that. But you all have a role in that as well. And look, this case is sui generous. I mean, this case is the exception to the rule. There every day, thousands of cases happen and justice is served. And that's the way it typically works. As we've said many times, the cases we tend to focus on are the exceptions. So don't let this case make you feel like man, the whole system's broken. If we can't get justice for these three kids, how can we ever get justice? Or if someone like Lindsey Clancy who searched for help and couldn't get it, if she can't get not guilty by reason of insanity, who can? What's the even point of having it? Don't let that sort of thinking take over. It's a hard case. It's a tough case. It's not surprising. Given the intensity of the debates we've seen, it's not all that surprising that those same debates are happening in the jury room. All right, guys, this has been awesome. We'll talk to you soon. I don't know. Honestly, if they did like tomorrow, we probably will not talk to you again about the Lindsey Clancy case right now. We may have a discussion about it on the prosecutor's legal briefs. Check out that we will probably move on to another case to talk about next week. If they convict, I guess we'll get together. Or if they quit, we'll get together and talk about what that means. So in any event, we will see you safe. But until then, I'm Brett and I'm Alice and we are the prosecutors. You know, this is just it's meta. Not waiting for the jury. We're waiting for us to start. It's really just when art imitates life and life imitates art. How much better reason than the jury does, though? Or you were just busy picking my fantasy football team. I really loaded up on the NCC players and Alabama players. So hopefully it's all going to work out. It's all going to work out. It's going to be great. Putting all your eggs in my mouth. As long as they don't all go back to college, which is a possibility these days. They don't want to go back to them. They give me more money in college. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
, I don't want to scrap this. Don't screw this up. I'm just kidding. Hello everybody and welcome to everybody and welcome this episode of the prosecutors. I'm Brett and I'm joined out. I can't talk. Here, let me take a drink. Take a drink. It'll help. How long have you been drinking already? Yes. Yes. Okay. Hello and welcome to Pluto foe. If you know the name of the movie you'd like to see, just stream it for free on Pluto TV. We're all your blockbuster favorites are landing all summer long. Catch anchor man. The Legend of Ron Burgundy. Fantastic. The Matrix trilogy. Welcome to the real world. Mean Girls. Side up. Time in. From the key in the world. And so much more for showtime. Express nothing. They're free 24/7. That is so fast. On Pluto TV, stream now. Pay never.
PodcastTranscript AI