391. The Lindsay Clancy Trial Part 19 -- Jury Madness

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, just when we think we're out, they pull us back in. Hello, everybody, welcome to this episode of The Prosecutors. I'm Brett, and I'm joking, as always, by my chance, get away, co-host, Alice. You know, you are on your way to a wedding. One of my favorite dance moves on the dance floor is the fishing. Hook that fish, reel it in. That's what this jury is doing. I truly thought we were just going to be a hung jury today. But they sent a note, and I was like, that's the hung jury note. It's the hung jury note, and baboom. They reeled me back in, because if you think this is bananas, this is unusual. This is incredibly unusual. Everything about this jury deliberation has been unusual. And I'm reeled right back in. I was like, I did not want to watch eight hours of standby on the core feed yet again, but I did. But I did. And so that's what we're here talking about today, because if you're thinking, this is so unusual, it really, today really has been very unusual, and we'll talk about what exactly made today's deliberations, and the note from the jury, and the judge's response to it, unusual. Yeah, and I don't know what my sound quality is, so apologies if it's bad. But I am on my way to a wedding, but we thought this was so wild today. We needed to talk about it. And I feel it. Usually we're telling you guys, however, everybody's blown it out of proportion. It's clickbait. They're just trying to drag you in. This happens all the time. This is totally normal. No, this is normal. This is a very unusual, very unusual deliberations. By the way, so I can't watch like legal commentators on this, because no one knows what's going on. And everyone's kind of making stuff up. We will tell you what you can know and what you cannot know. And I know there are people out there, and we'll actually get to what the jury note said. But out there claiming they know exactly what the breakdown is, what's happening, who the holdout is, they know exactly if it's a man or woman. Just by the way, that's not true. Everything you know is what came out of the judge's mouth. And then the slight argument that they had about removing a juror between Reddington and the prosecutor, which the judge by the way denied. That's all we know. So those of you who are like, but no, no, no. Reddington has said it's 11 to 1, not guilty. There is no way any of us can know that. We will break down all the things you can know and cannot know. And what might be happening, but across the board, the legal commentators are all over the place on this, because this is very unusual. This hardly ever happens. So I think people don't know what's going on. And they feel like they have to fill the air and start just kind of making up stuff. Yeah, and I think there are things we can attempt to draw from. This, what was said today, and what's happened. Because this deliberation has felt strange. You know, they would come out and say they were hung. And then we wouldn't hear, they get sent back. We wouldn't hear anything from them for a while. And that's unusual. Usually if you say you're hung, the judge sends you back a couple hours later. You're back, Sam. We're still hung. And then the judge gives you the Allen charts, the dynamite charts we talked about. And into the day, you come back and say, we tried, we're hung. And in this case, we had the Allen chart yesterday. And I think we all thought that's it. It's over. And it was surprising that they even made it through the end of the day. It came back. And certainly, as Alice said, when we hear there's a note, they have to launch. It's like, they did their very best, but they're done. And then they go back in there. And the reporting is, you know, Reddingson's losing his mind in the sideboard. He's throwing down his papers. He's yelling at the judge. They've been buddy-buddy this whole time. So this is the first time things have really gone sideways. And it was just weird. It was very strange. And then you have the jury in this Gourdire that's happening, where the judge is asking each one of the jurors a question. And the first thing that I thought is this seems like a possible situation. 10 and 11 of the jurors are trying to remove a juror. I mean, that's immediately what I thought. Because they've been deadlocked. Now they're having this conversation. He could be the juror said, "Hey, I was on TikTok last night. Learn all sorts of information you guys need to know." And maybe the jury is talking about that. Or it could be someone who's being obstinate and this developed and the judge sort of addressed them. So you have this moment where he talks to all the jurors alone, independently. He then brings them back out. And he reads them his charge on reasonable doubt. Well, she may recall the last time. About to pat ourselves on the back. But one of the things we talked about was that in the closing, neither side really armed the jury with reasonable doubt in how you can use it and what it means. And so you have the judge who's re-instructing the jury. But he's not only re-instructing the jury on reasonable doubt. He's also telling them, "Remember, you are supposed to follow by instructions." And so it seemed pretty clear there's a juror, at least one, who in some way is not following the instructions. And they're talking about reasonable doubt. And he could cut either way. It could be a juror who's saying, "Look, I'm not guilty. I don't care what you say. I don't care what the evidence says. You can remove all doubt from my mind. It's just impossible. You're never going to convince me." That's a juror who doesn't understand reasonable doubt. Or it could be someone who's like, "Well, you know, I'm pretty confident and that's beyond a reasonable doubt." So I'm saying guilty. And the rest of the jurors are saying not guilty. You can have either one of them. Like the fact that he's reading the reasonable doubt, instruction doesn't necessarily tell you anything. But then we had reddington, reddingtoning. We need like, we need a verb for when reddington goes off. He went red. He went red hot. He went red. He was a cold red in the courtroom today. Okay. So what prejudice explained to you? You could see that on the feed. That is all we know. We know that he spoke to them individually and then he read the charge. Which by the way, I think we've read that exact charge to you about what reasonable doubt is. Now, then reddington gets up and says, "Judge, I would like you to remove that juror." And he makes an argument. He says, "We should remove that juror who's not following instructions and bring in an alternate." And he's very heated about this. There's more to the argument that that's the crux of his argument. The prosecution stands up and says, "We have no idea if that's the case. They've been instructed and they have said you assume that the voidier was, "Can you follow my instruction?" When you took an oath and then when I charged you, you said at all these points in the impaneling through this trial that you would follow the instructions, no matter your personal feelings, where you still do this. Presumably, they all 12 said, "Yes, again." And then he read the charge, right? So the prosecution is like, "You can't just remove someone because you have no idea what's actually happening back there." And by the way, that's correct. So all we know is the foreman has represented something about reasonable down. We don't exactly know what, right? Because it is possible that there is someone who's being very clear, the way Brett just said, and they are making clear that they're not going to follow the instruction of what reasonable down is. They can even say, "Yeah, I'm not 100% sure, but I don't care if that's what the judge told us to do. I need 110% sure." Something like that would be very clear. They're not willing to follow the law. You can also imagine a situation where someone is presented. If it indeed is 11 to 1, we do not know it is 11 to 1. Let's imagine another situation that is a less clear cut that they're not following the law. Everyone sees the case one way. And they keep presenting what they think are very compelling facts to this one holdout. And that person says, "I hear what you're saying. Still disagree, still disagree, still disagree." And so the foreman on behalf of the 11 people are like, "They're not following reasonable down, because we've given them all the facts. And all they'll say to us is we disagree. Disagreeing in and of itself is not cause for you to be removed as a juror. You actually have to have a finding for something like misconduct. So they have been reading Reddit. They have been discussing the case with their girlfriends or boyfriends via text message when they should not be contacting anyone. They've been talking to reporters on the side or something like that. getting information elsewhere, reading about the case, doing things they shouldn't, or it is possible to remove someone if they're not refused to deliberate, participate, or follow. But that can only come after an inquiry, like a hearing, like where you get to put someone on the stand and talk to them. Now, that did not happen. No inquiry was done after the judge read them the reasonable doubt instruction again. What did he do? He excused them back to the jury deliberation room and told them to continue deliberating. This is relevant because that's all that happened. If you were going to have an inquiry, it would make sense to have it at the time of the note before you're sent back to deliberate again. And I note that because I know some people have noted that Reddington said somewhere, and it's only come from him that there's going to be an inquiry of one juror in the morning to see if they are in fact able to follow the law. I don't know if that's true. It certainly didn't come out in court today. I would be very surprised if that happened, because that is an incredibly coercive step once the jury has already been voidured individually. By the judge, the judge was satisfied with those answers. In open court, they were then read the instruction presumably to address whatever the jury note was about and then sent back to deliberate. And by the way, they were excused for the end of the day around like 408, 408 Eastern time. And so to have them be deliberating and then jerk them back out to be able to have this inquiry would be very unusual. And I would say maybe a potentially like misstep by the judge that could actually wreak havoc. So maybe Reddington know something we don't. I think more likely he has maybe filed a motion or asked the court to conduct an inquiry and that hasn't been granted. And that's where we're getting the news that there's going to be. 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 therapist 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 well-being, with thousands of therapists and millions of members in over 100 countries. It's progress. Sign up and get 10% off at www.betterhelp.com/prosecuters. That's www.betterhelp.com/prosecuters. Today's episode is brought to you by Vinted. 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 Vinted. Vinted 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 Vinted helped 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, it'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 Vinted. With Vinted, 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? Vinted offers you a simple selling experience. Listing items is quick and simple. And what's an item sales, Vinted creates the prepaid shipping label just for you. If you're ready to clean out your closet and make some extra money, download the Vinted app for free and start listening. With no seller fees, you keep every dollar you earn. Give your clothes a second life with Vinted. So I want to take these in reverse order. The set who on the inquiry thing, which Reddit has been talking about, if the judge does that awful, horrific, terrible. I can't even imagine a judge doing that, taking a juror who is described as a holdout, bringing them into court, treating them like a criminal, questioning them arguably in some ways, berating them because they're holding up the verdict. Nothing could be more unfair. And I think we all need to remember fairness cuts both ways. Okay, most protections and a trial are for the defendant. But when we talk about a fair trial, it has to be fair for both sides. It has to be fair for the Commonwealth, it has to be fair for the defendant. And typically, if it's not something you'd want to do to the defendant, you shouldn't do it to the Commonwealth. So let's assume for a second it is 11-1 and the one who holds us not guilty. Can you imagine if you brought someone with sincerely pale beliefs that there's reasonable doubt in this case, you brought them into court, berated them for not deliberating with the other 11 jurors who you're not bringing in to berate them about their position. And they changed your mind and voted guilty. To me, that's automatic appeal granted new trial. Like you've corrupted the trial to its core. Because there's nothing real with being the one person who has reasonable doubt or being the one person who thinks guilty. There's nothing wrong with that whatsoever. That's why we have 12 jurors and they're all independent people. If it hangs 11-1 after days deliberations where somebody says, I'm sorry, I just don't think she's guilty or I'm sorry, I just think she's guilty, that's how the system works and that's what should have. And you cannot remove that person. If this happens three hours into deliberations, that's a totally different situation. In that situation, you could imagine someone who just walked in and refuses to deliberate. And the jurors very quickly noticed that and very quickly identified that person and it's keeping them from reaching consensus. But when you're this far here and you've already had one go back and deliberate this more and the two-year-old regains, now you have jurors coming in who are upset, understandably, they've all reached your conclusion. They don't understand why this person want to agree with them. That's not a reason to remove someone. And it's not a reason to bully someone into changing their position either. So if the judge does that, if Reddington's right and they bring this one juror in there and do this to them tomorrow morning, obviously if she's acquitted, the state has no recourse. If she's convicted, Reddington should file the appeal five minutes afterwards and the court should grin at by the end of the day is that is a complete violation of her rights. I have been very critical this judge. I cannot imagine him doing something like that at this point in the trial. Yeah. He already, by the way, after the arguments, they were just like oral arguments. They stood up and had the argument. This is not like a brief sort of situation. The judge said no, that he was not going to remove the juror. So that should be the end of that, I guess, oral motion. There is nothing pending. So when I said where Reddington is getting this, I'm giving him the best benefit of the doubt of where he's possibly getting this. Maybe he went home and filed a paper motion with the judge and that's where things stand. But as things stand, what we saw on the feed and the court ended for the day and the camera shut off, what we saw was that he did make like an oral request, I guess, technically it's an oral motion. The judge denied it. So that's the end of that request, shall we say. There's no pending decision that we're going to wait for for the judge to make in the morning. Let me just say this. Somebody said, how could you appeal it if Reddington asked for it? There are some things that are so egregious that even if you ask for and get it, we call it plain error because it's so obviously wrong that the judge should interject himself and say, no, we're not going to do that. And the reason we do that is because it's so obviously wrong that it's ineffective assistance to counsel to do it and it would be overturned eventually anyway. So to me, if he does that, it's just plain error. It's straight up plain error. And one of the worst things you'll We've never seen a trial, if he does that. I think Rang's probably is going to file a motion asking for it. It should be denied. That's the first thing. Does anything? Absolutely think we're in 111 situation. I don't even think question about it. He's a showman and obviously he could not be describing the situation correctly. But given where we are in the deliberations, for so many days in, we've had two things. It was 9-3, or 8-4. And there's one guy who refuses to accept the instruction. They just hang. You know, the fact that they came in there like that. I mean, I guess they could be saying there's six of us who are guilty and six not guiltys. And those not guilty people, they're just not even trying. I mean, I guess it's a possibility. But I think Reddington's description is probably accurate. I think we're probably down to 10-111, a very close situation. And that's where I think we are. Now, the better question is who's the one and who's the 11? Reddington said afterwards that he didn't know. I know, really, by then. Because, yeah, Reddington could be showboating for the cameras. The way he lost his mind over it. He's probably telling the truth when he says, the question didn't say there are 11 of us saying not guilty and one of us saying guilty. Can you deal with the guilty guy? But I feel like he has either heard things and he even, even in what he said to the judge, was that, it sounded like they've known for a while that they were in an 111 type situation, that it had been indicated to them before, that there was a juror who would deliver it. That's the way he couldn't when he was speaking in court. And so I think he either knows it for certain or he's reading the tea leagues. Is it possible? The judge would take the person tomorrow, they're replacing them with an alternate and all of a sudden, we got a conviction? I mean, sure, that's possible. But it feels like this speculation that this is 11, not guilty. Very reason it's anti. And one person holding it out for guilty, to me seems more plausible. Now, we don't know and we can't know and we won't know until this is all over. But I just feel like based on what we saw and what we've heard, that seems more likely than the other side. But I mean, it's a possible never certain. When it first happened, I was thinking, this is a gift to the prosecution because if they think there's one holdout who's been watching TikTok and thinks Patrick did it, this is their opportunity to get rid of them. And the Commonwealth was very reserved in their argument. And basically just said, look, we can't know who's right or who's wrong. And when I think they meant by the aliens, we don't know whether this person is actually deliberating in good faith or not. We just don't know that. We're not in there. And we don't know if it's 11 people who are upset or not. And the thing is to remove a juror for not deliberating. You basically have to be absolutely certain that that's what's happening. - And you have to write an order, by the way. You can't even just declare it like has to be basically an appealable written order. It takes time. I think you have to pause everything for the judge to write this order in order to do it. And then you start from square one. The alternate's not in the room with them. You can't just pick up where you left off and be like, hey, alternate, come on and take a seat. So 11 of us think that she's not guilty by reason of insanity. So what's your vote? You can't do that. You have to start as if it were day one. - Yeah. And this has put the judge in a very difficult position too because you're not really supposed to know what's going on in the jury red. The jury are supposed to be a black box. It's supposed to be they're having their discussions. And maybe he does it now. And typically, when you talk about, and I don't even remember this part of jury instruction, so I don't know what he said. But a lot of times the jury instructions will include something that's like, if you have a question, feel free to write the question and give it to the bailiff. You shouldn't tell us where you stand. You shouldn't tell us what your vote count is. But if you have a question, you can give it to us. The thing is because the question was not read. - Which is very bizarre. By the way, typically they are read in open court. That's been the case for all of the jury trials I've ever watched or conducted myself. So this is very bizarre that none of them are read. So typically what happens is the bailiff will take the note to the judge. The judge will look at it real quick, just to make sure they, you know, something like crazy, obscene drawing or something. And then say, "Council, we have a jury question. "Is everyone in the room?" And then read it into the record with everyone hearing. So if you're in the gallery, you would hear it as well. They are typically not done by sidebar and they are typically not shown to the rest of the public. Now, I would assume the attorneys have seen the note though because that is typically what happens. But I actually don't know 'cause I haven't seen it. Do you know if, I actually don't-- - I think they have, I think they absolutely did. I think he calls them a sidebar. He tells them what the note says. - Yeah, he tells them what the note says. They sort of discuss what they're gonna do. And then he does it. He and Vinny, on court TV, very nice guy. Rarely actually grew with anything he says on television. But he said yesterday, I think it was that this was absurd. The whole point of sidebar is to prevent the jury from being influenced by what's going on. Trials are supposed to happen in the open. All these things are public record. There is no reason for them not to read those notes. All out or everyone to see with the jury out of the room and discuss it. That's what should be happening. And I don't know if this is just a side-effective television that because it's broadcast, he's being more secretive, but that's not how it's supposed to work. And it just fuels the speculation that we're having now because if we all knew what the notes said, - It's like in Karen Reed. You know, there were notes in the Karen Reed case towards the end that telegraphed pretty strongly what was gonna happen to that because of the way the note was worth it. In this case, we don't know what it's said. And depending on what it's said, it may have made it very clear. You know, I mean, it might have said, and there's a juror who thinks that, you know, beyond the reasonable doubt just means he feels pretty confident. If it said something like that, it doesn't have to say, there's 11 of us who think by guilty, and one of us who think guilty. You would be able to tell from the way the note was written, what the vote came to wasn't. So that goes back to Readington. You know, is Readington just being a Shumbo? What's the point of that? I mean, a lot of people have said that, and I guess he has obviously become more attuned to the TikTokers and the YouTubers and everything else. So maybe he's just playing up for them. That's a possibility. - So I don't know. - I'm not as convinced, but you're right. He's putting all his eggs in one basket, but I have a theory on that. So I know, so he saw the note. So maybe there's something telegraphed. Maybe the jurors who walk and wink at him or Lindsay, when they come in, things that we can't pick up 'cause we don't see the jurors, which is appropriate, by the way. There's enough harassing someone got arrested outside of them for trying to take pictures of the jurors, even though she claims she was trying to see Lindsay Clancy. All to say is there may be things that we are not picking up, and he may actually know for sure. When I first heard it out, I wasn't sure. I truly didn't know if it was 11 knock guilty or 11 manslaughter would be the best. I would think that nothing higher than that. But then I was trying to think through this. I haven't talked through this with you, Brett. But I was like, okay, let's think through. If you had no idea, no idea at all. No one's been winking at him. He didn't see the question, the question doesn't telegraph anything about him. Would he still so vigorously argue to have a juror replace? And I wonder if the answer's still yes because maybe he's confident, first of all, that it's not guilty just because he's been on TikTok and he's like, I'm for sure gonna win. Or he thinks there's no way it could be murder one. So a manslaughter is still better than a mistrial. That's kind of what I was thinking this afternoon. That is a lot. I mean, he was red hot. It was not just show boating. It did not feel like just show boating. It felt like for the first time he was actually mad at the judge. So maybe he does know something we don't. But I was wondering if that may have been a possibility 'cause he's like, look, a mistrial's not gonna be good for my client, this girl, what he calls her. And I would rather roll the dice 'cause I do think it's gonna be not guilty 'cause it happened for Karen Reid. So it could happen for us here. And see if we can't get a not guilty and worst case scenario, wealth, crude. It's gonna be a manslaughter, but I wasn't gonna win over those 11 anyways with this trial. And that's better than the unknown or whatnot. I don't know what your thoughts are on that, but he has truly, he's gotten an aura throughout this trial but I wonder if some of it has maybe gone to his head and his confidence of where the jury stands. - Look, and that's absolutely possible. It's just hard for me to believe that he could be sitting over there with no idea with the possibility that there are 11 murder one guilties and one person fighting for Lindsey. And he'd be so aggressively wanting to remove that one person if he just had no idea. You know, he can one of his interviews. So the reason he doesn't want to mistrial is because he's absolutely destroyed their case. And a mistrial means they get to do it again. So he really wants to verdict 'cause he feels like this is his best chance to win. And maybe that's true. Maybe it's just as simple as that. He just feels like he crushed it. They didn't have a whole lot. It's gonna be so much better next time. So if there's a 50/50 chance that it's 11 one his way, he'll take that bet. And if he loses, fine. He couldn't get any better next time. That could be what he's thinking. That's not irrational. We have his own words saying he doesn't actually know. I just when he said that, I was like, - Really? - With that all said though. I think it was a case you and I tried together. I can't remember, but I remember, we had to call the jury back in a couple of times. two or three times, but I remember Remember, there was this sweet grandma looking lady. Like, she had, she looked the part, right? She had sweet, coiffed hair. It was like permed back. It was all silver. She had this cardigan on. And it was a drug dealer case. So like, I wouldn't know that she'd know anything about drug cartels. But every time she came in, she never said anything, but she always picked me out. 'Cause I was the only woman in the courtroom. The judge was a man, you know, defense attorneys, men, everyone at our council table, except for me was a man. And she would always look at me as she walked in. She's not allowed. I, like, aggressively tried to avoid her eye contact. But every time she'd, like, look at me, smile real big, and nod, and just, like, keep nodding. And I kept, like, looking everywhere else, lest I be in trouble for, like, soliciting some sort of information from a juror, mid deliberations. But she did that, like, twice. Maybe something like that is happening where we cannot see, and Reddington knows more, not based on words, not based on anything actually improper, like, no one's told him anything. But we don't have the cameras on the juries. I will say that's happened to me before, where juror wanted to indicate desperately to me, while I desperately tried to avoid their eye contact, that it's all gonna be okay, don't worry, don't worry. And so it's, it is possible that he knows more, just based on being in a room, the things, the intangibles that we cannot see. So I'm cutting against my previous argument before, because that is a, that's a lot of eggs in one basket when your client's, you know, life is on the line here. I'd bring someone noticed in the chat, which is something I meant to bring up. Reddington is indicating the holdout is a man. Now, I don't know that he actually knows that or not. I read what someone said, that he almost said the gender, but I didn't see where I read or where I didn't see it. So there was all of them. That's the same he did. Miss word, okay. Let's assume he did that, okay. Number one, he told the press he didn't know his shirt was, which once again, he may just be lying at the press. I don't know. But let's say he does know it's a man. The sort of stereotype take that we've seen on the TikToks, on the sweaters, is that it's the nine women want to acquit Lindsey and the three men are holding it out because they're horrible sexist. I don't know if they're sure or not. I know plenty of women who think Lindsey Clancy is guilty. But if Reddington's buying into that and he does know it's a man, then that may have convinced him that the holdout is guilty. Now he said somewhere that he thought the holdout was guilty, but understand, of course, that's what he's going to say. He's going to say the holdout is obviously guilty because I agree with his case. Exactly, he's going to say that. That doesn't mean he knows that for certain. And he always follows it up with, he doesn't know. So he's talking about both sides of his mouth, which makes it more difficult, because it comes with not saying anything, obviously. So maybe he has information or maybe, as I said, he's going on what he thinks to strengthen the cases. He's going on the rumors in the window and assumptions of social media that if it's a man, that's a guilty holdout. He can be going on all that and honestly have no idea. And we'll just have to see what happens tomorrow. At this point, I think last episode, I talked about how much I really hoped they came to a verdict. We are really, really close to these deliberations have been compromised. And we just need to do this again. Whatever the case, because it feels like to me, there's one person on that jury. And I don't know if they're guilty or not guilty, but it feels like they are absolutely sincere in their beliefs. And if we get to a verdict at this point, it's only going to be because we coerced them to changing their view. And I don't think that's fair how we want to do things. I will say, you know, the two Rodriguez charged makes a lot of sense. To a certain extent, if you're on a jury and there's 11 reasonable people who are all pretty certain, you should at least give their arguments and series consideration if you're the one person holding out. But at the end of the day, as two Rodriguez says, the verdict has to be your own. And it's important, although you race that verdict with the consideration of the whole jury, because that's the point of deliberations. It has to be your own. It has to be your sincerely held belief. And if it's that person sincerely held believe that she's guilty or not guilty, whatever it is, then I think we gotta hang this jury. We can't force a verdict where 12 people don't agree. Then I hate that. Because I really don't want to do this again. And by the way, this is not because we, it may or may not be 11 not guilty. And we think it should be a conviction. No, we said this last time, if you remember, this is the jury process. A hung jury is a result. It's not a desirable result at all. But I am getting really nervous that we're getting closer and closer to already having to do all of this because the jury deliberation process has been compromised. We don't know. I'm afraid this is going to be one of those situations like the Murdoch case where after this case is over, whether it's by a mistrial or by a verdict that more information is gonna come out. And we're gonna have to go through this whole inquiry again to see if there was misconduct at the deliberation phase. But this is very unusual what we're seeing right now. (upbeat music) - Somebody in the chat asked why was Lindsay allowed to go to the sidebar? Technically, it is your right to be at the sidebar because once again, this is part of the trial. You know, as the defendant, you get to take part in all necessary parts of trial, which this obviously is. She has not gone up there before. The reason in my mind, now what I'm convinced is this was a breadington ploy. You know how like, during some of the witnesses, he would walk over and like, put his hands on her and he'd be like, you look at this girl and you tell her that she, you know, right? I think he took her up there and he was like, hold it, you look at my client and tell her that you're gonna let one person hold up this when they're not even willing to deliberate. I think it was something like that. I think breadington is pulling all of the strings of this judge to try and getting him to dance and we're gonna see tomorrow. And all those people is funny because people are like, I just, all the other commentators talk about how great the judge is and I don't understand why we all decide the judge. And it's like, yeah, use your own right. What's the trial? Do you feel like the way the judge has acted at various times was appropriate? If you do, then great. We disagree. If you don't, then you should be on our side, not the other commentator's side. If tomorrow he brings this jury and does this. Not a good judge. Not a good judge. Like, like objectively, that is coercive. I know that like court TV has been reporting that it was coercive to give the two-week Rodriguez charge. No, it is completely proper to give the dynamite charge. The Supreme Court has said so, right? And the language, which if you listen to the two-week Rodriguez charge, we read it word for word to you. He didn't make it up. He didn't write it. It is the charge that has been approved by the Supreme Court. And that is absolutely-- - The charge of the 1800s. - Yeah, it is, that is not coercive. What would be coercive is after he's done this war deer, which we're not privy to. And then he gave the re-instruction about reasonable doubt and then released them to go deliberate. Then at this point, it brings back a juror in without another note, for example, 'cause maybe if another note came in and said, "Okay, last time you asked us these questions, "he told us as soon as we got in there." Or she, "I lied to the judge on all the questions "he got geared me on." Okay, then maybe we have an inquiry at that point. But if he just comes in tomorrow morning and at nine o'clock 'cause like, you know what, jury, hold up. We're gonna have an inquiry first. That is completely improper. But if he doesn't, good job. Truly, because that is the correct response. I mean, to the extent, if he does that, the colonel should immediately make for a mistrial consider an interlocutory appeal. I'm serious, like, if he does, because that's all, what's the jury speaks in so far? We're done. Even if he screwed it up. So if he brings and juror in, they should immediately make for a mistrial and as soon as he denies it, they should be writing the motion right now. If this is gonna happen and they know it, they should be writing an interlocutory appeal motion to have this case declared a mistrial. And this judge removed from the case would be mother think that I would take. For what it's worth, he's already spoken on the issue. So I am cautiously optimistic. This will not happen tomorrow. Because again, we are not operating under a situation where he says, I'm gonna take this into consideration. But stranger things have happened. And interlocutory appeals an immediate appeal that happens during the trial. Not the way to the trial. You pause everything. You don't let them continue to deliberate and reach a verdict because it's so important and the harm is so great that it cannot be undone to wait until what typically happens, the end of a case and then you appeal up. And you can imagine because if there's a verdict, the case can end if it's an acquittal. - Hey, Mark, that news is, if he does this and removes the juror, theoretically the deliberations are supposed to start again. Now, imagine that scenario. - Objective. - You're the alternate. - Objectively. You're like, hey, vote me and touch out, ready? You go in and the other jurors are like, so we 11 are ready to start the deliberations with you again. We 11 would just like to note that we've taken a poll in 11 of us say whatever. I'm not trying to influence you at all. Let's talk about the evidence. I mean, whatever. We are in the most situation. - And they all know each other. It's been like 38 hours of intense togetherness. Like for better or worse, they're family. Yeah, you're like down at the end, you're like, hello. Welcome. Please step in. So even though you're totally right about that. On paper, you're supposed to start deliberations a new Wisvet said After deliberations have been going on for almost 40 hours and then to bring in someone new Obviously, it would and you'd have to look at this very suspect especially if it was the one a sold out in the vote So I mean if I'm that one juror. I might look us We're going through all the evidence like I got to be sure Most likely if they call this guy in at night and then kick him off at 905 we were verdict but lunch I mean that's what's gonna happen. So and I'm not gonna feel good about that verdict whatever it is now And if it's guilty and you want to celebrate that because you don't like Lindsey Clancy you better celebrate fast because It's gonna get overturned real soon and the problem here is you also have this issue with The judge who just had a big murder trial in a insanity case So he's a little skittish. He doesn't want that to happen again And I honestly think it's made him more solicitous of the defense. So You know, I mean he's got nothing to lose but denying Reddington because worst case it's a mistrial You can't appeal a mistrial. I mean if it's 11 1 and he should remove the guy. It doesn't matter You can't appeal that you can't get a directed verdict for not guilty. What thing? I don't know is let's say I actually don't know the longest. We'll see what you think about this else So let's say the jurors came back tomorrow guilty and said she's guilty. Thank you for your time. Demise is the jury at that point The defense can move for a verdict notwithstanding the jury verdict and the judge can actually say you're right No reasonable jury on this evidence would have found her guilty. I'm entering a judgment of acquittal He'd do that. What can I don't know if a jury comes back and hangs and they hang 11 what can a judge say Well, I'm entering a verdict of not guilty just like you would if they convicted or can he only do that if they convicted? I don't answer that question. I thought it was a one way ratchet and it may very well be I don't think because typically those rules are I think it's okay because the burden is against the prosecution They're one way ratchets against the prosecution, but I don't know what Massachusetts is to be honest I didn't think we'd be here. So I hadn't researched that. Now let me say this on the For what it's worth I know a lot of you are saying the New York Times is reporting. There's a 9 a.m one Corey I just searched the New York Times. I didn't see it yet. So I could be wrong Well, they could just be reporting. That's what Ragington said correct and look I think that where this is coming from is Ragington orally argued and then he immediately went back to his office and filed a written motion I would probably do that if I were him too. You can file the motion a motion is pending. It's not granted And I would just honestly said I would like in person void our In court tomorrow and just so you know the proper procedure. You don't just grant the motion You'd want to hear from the other side more likely is he'll hear the motion at 9 a.m. from both sides then deny it He shouldn't hear the motion because he already denied it today But at the very least if this is what happened procedurally. I don't know the New York Times. They're always right, right? procedurally he would at least wait for the other side the prosecution because they've indicated today in their argument in court that they disagree So he would not just grant his sue a sponte without the other side having a chance to respond at the very least I would think he would at least say if you want to file anything prosecution file it by 9 a.m I'll hear argument about it in the morning, but I'd like to know that we've already argued this today And so maybe there's a hearing at 9 a.m. about a motion that was filed and technically it's a motion that's pending So the judge wants to deal with it before the deliberations start I'm just trying to tell you what the reporting may actually mean or how real facts may be misconstrued So that's that's where things stand and that has to be it because He didn't say them on the record. He didn't say he was gonna do that. There probably will be an inquiry With the judge in 9 o'clock with all the lawyers there with filed motions and the judge is gonna rule and that would just be an oral argument Not an inquiry into the individual chair. And look, I mean, this is so weird once again If he does it, I'm totally vindicated. I don't have criticize this judge. So is Alice because he had The sidebar he talked to these jurors. He gave him an instruction. He sent them back They deliberated for another hour and now he's just gonna do it again with it with no reason no The jury correct. You can't do that. I mean, that would be an abuse Imagine for example, they're just deliberating and there's been no notes. We've known nothing We just know it's day six the judge couldn't just reach into the jury room and say like I'm gonna start Void hearing each of you because it's been a really long time and we're all tired and we all want to go home He can't do that. This would be no different from doing that at this point Yeah, so now look Unless Aggressive way to do it would be I don't know if there's any good way to do it. I think you have to talk to every juror again I also think he would have to wait for another note that indicates an inquiry is necessary at that point if he does that I just yeah, I can't even see we'll find out by 9 a.m What's really happening? I know I'm still seeing people be like no it says that the judge said it I don't think the judge is talking to the New York Times at 11 p.m. at night. It's not trusting a Yeah, it's just Scraping with the New York Times said, which is what Reddington said. A.I. doesn't know anything like and maybe it'll happen Reddington said it, but he said a bunch of other stuff too And by the way you may be sure to put pressure on the judge to do it because the judges are sequestered The judge can watch the news so Reddington could just be using all the tools in his toolbox to make the judge do it because if the whole world is Reporting, well, there's going to be an inquiry in the morning and the judge is like, oh jeez, I feel like everyone's expecting an inquiry Maybe I have to do one. So this could very well just be a pressure tactic by Reddington well done Reddington you have everyone confused Yeah, I mean it's just a mess at this point. It's to tell the men's and honestly, but even the note I wonder If we're in he should have declared a mistrial land anyway Because remember the Massachusetts after you do to Rodriguez. There's a statute that says after that if they come back Huh, you have to declare mistrial, right? They didn't say we're home, but they kind of did I mean They basically said there's 11 of us who fell one way and one who feels the other way and they won't change their mind And it's so bad. We want to get them kicked off the jury What's he? What if it comes back? He does this and the person changes our mind and all of a sudden she's guilty of murder What you telling me that's not going to be a serious issue on a bill at this point I just think I think the whole the jury situation is Completely it's tainted at this point. I don't feel comfortable really doing anything Certainly the only thing I feel comfortable doing is they go back He says hello to him at nine and they go back to deliberating That's it and if they come back and say they're home, it's over But doing this putting more pressure on this juror to comply. That's not it So this is maybe our shortness yet because Much of this was telling you how much we don't know and a lot of the things that people are reporting that they know for sure We can't know we can all try to draw conclusions But there's very little that we know right now all we know There was a note that prompted the re-instruction of reasonable doubt So you would imagine the note said something about someone Not understanding or not following reasonable doubt instruction And then they were released to go deliberate which they are still in the midst of deliberation They've just been released for the night, but nothing changed They went back and deliberated for an hour They broke for the day because the core always breaks around that time And they are instructed to be back at nine a.m. At which point I expect that they will just go back and continue to deliberate And then if everything goes as regular they will probably come back and say We still cannot decide We're a hung jury at which point a mistrial is declared that in tomorrow's Friday And I would expect if that is the case that they would do it before the end of the weekend Chris is over tomorrow. You got Labor Day coming up That's true. It's no way There's no way in this case isn't ending tomorrow either in hung jury or in a verdict It's going to happen The only bond is a whole Friday thing, but they've been going over a week Everything that's happened Labor Day they're done There's a that's the first and second things to they ask this is Sony headquarters They're great kind of expensive Great, you haven't really good Somebody asked if it is 11 one what effect is that hand and they mistrial They hang what effect does that have on the next trial If it's 11 one guilty Then that's to come what's going to reach dry And they probably will say the bread now is their idiots We're going to do exactly what we did last time and hope that we don't have some stupid One person who doesn't get it because obviously we killed it We had 11 people who thought she was guilty If it's 11 one the other way Did I think you've heard and have to make a deal I think you make a deal, but you definitely drop murder one Yeah, I mean, I think you could drop murder one. You obviously have to change How you did it and your focus a lot of soul searching is going to have to happen If you have 11 people because this has been a very divided case in the public I would not say it's been 11 one in the public Right it feels closer to the 50 50 right yeah based on poll like everyone has different polls But this does not feel like an 11 one in the public opinion. Well, the thing is, people are asking if we'll know, they'll know. They'll know because all the cases one, you just need one juror to say what it was. And they're allowed to. Even if it seems like one, somebody's in jail. Someone's going to say honestly, the one, look, the one, if they're holding out for not guilty, then they're about to have 10 million TikTok subscribers. If they're holding out for guilty, they're going to be lied, run it for governor of Massachusetts. There's something. I mean, this case is so divided. The one person who is the hero in the minds of 50% of the people, no way that stays the secret. We're going to know the breakdown of this treaty. All right, guys. Well, this has been fun. Don't, don't make bread come back tomorrow night. He has to be at, like, some rehearsal day or something. I know exactly. But we can't tonight. The kids are in the wedding, the dollars of flower girl, son's ring bear. It's going to be awesome. That's our home coming game tomorrow night, guys. There you go. Already home college football starting roll tonight. We're supposed to go. I think it's literally going to be 110 degrees. Yeah, hopefully you got, hopefully, because you're awesome and important people, you'll be in a box because otherwise don't go. I know. I'm, I'm, I've been, I've been to an 11 a.m. game. It was a lot. It was great. And it is hell owners. (laughs) We are literally under a heated advisory until 8 p.m. Saturday night, which is well after the game. Hoof, but the thing is, if I can bring the kids to it, they won't bug me about going to a game. I'll see like any other game would just be like, you know, icing on the cake. But otherwise, I will hear about it every single day until we get to a game. So if I can bring them to actually a really annoying game, that's really hot. They maybe will stop annoying me to bring them to a game. He's kids. He's kids. All right. Well, this has been fun as always. We're gonna go ahead and sign off since I'm in the middle of nowhere, but it's been finished. Thanks, thanks for signing on from a hotel room. Next week, we'll do an episode of whatever happens, but you probably won't see us tomorrow. You really shouldn't. You should go enjoy this wedding. You really should. All right, guys. Well, we'll see what happens and we'll see you soon. But until then, I'm Brett and I'm Alice and we are The Prosecutors. We're here with Brett and a hotel room. Where are your kids? Are they asleep? They're in the other room, so if she hear them, they're in trouble. Basically. It's pretty late. It's pretty late there, too. I can't believe you jumped on. But for you guys, you know what? You just showed the squeaky wheel gets the oil because you guys posted a lot, so I was a Brett. You guys are. It's not a family wedding, too, like an important thing. Family wedding. It's in the wedding. And then he reaches over and turns on the TV. We don't really watch TV that often, we certainly don't watch TV alone, but it's like something we do together. And I was like, "Oh, he doesn't know about to record." And I was like, "Oh, I'm so sorry. We're about to go record." Because what? It was on our, like, we have a family chat, like both of our spouses are on it, too. And he goes, "Oh, gosh. I needed that days ago because y'all would not stop talking about Lindsey Clancy." I thought you'd like to record. That's hilarious. I had no idea y'all are going to record. I was like, "Oh, he doesn't know about to record." 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. I'm the king, girls. Side up. I'm the king of the world. And so much more. For showtime. Press nothing. They're free. 24/7. That is so fast. On Pluto TV. Stream now. Pay never.