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, we give our final thoughts on this round of the Lindsay Clancy Trial. (upbeat music) - Hello everybody and welcome this episode of The Prosecutors I'm Brett. And I'm joined, as always, by my interlocutory co-host, Alice. - Is that because there's going to be an appeal to replace me, mid podcast? You can't do that. I'm actually thinking about how often you interrupt me, but I'm in the middle of some brilliant thought with your interlocutory thoughts. But now that you mention it, there wasn't interlocutory appeal on the Lindsay Clancy case. - So I guess it works, it works as that too. - It's like multiple things, multiple things, and who would be the higher being here? - Hmm, that's a good point. - Well, apparently, I've been going to come in and pardon Lindsay Clancy. I don't know if you've heard this. - In Mass, did you know he's King of Massage? - I do. - I didn't. - Did you know? - He'll love this expansion of his powers, because-- - I mean, I think he's already working on it. He's probably gonna-- - He's probably going to-- - He's probably going to name Massachusetts, Lindsay Clancy Stan. I think that's the next-- - Lindsay Clancy Stan. - Yes. - That's his course. - That's his course. - I was going to go with Trumpa Stan, but, you know-- - Well, if I were to pick somewhere else for Trumpa Stan. - The commonwealth of Lindsay Clancy. (laughing) - Okay, so-- - He had all sorts of suggestions about what to call you. Somebody wanted me to call you disbarraging, which I didn't really understand exactly what that meant. - To get disbarred. - Yeah, I get that, but I don't know that disbarraging is a word. - Disbarging is not, but I think it's a mashup. You know, we love mashups, like-- - Mm. - Brettless. - That's a good point, that's a good point. So, anyway, so-- - We have no notes tonight, guys. - No, no, no. - This is gonna be wild. If some of you were angry about us not starting on time, boy, you're gonna be angry about our-- - That's a lot of thoughts. - It's gonna be nice. - We haven't thought about it. - It's not too much of-- - It's not too much of-- - This is an episode for the ages, I think. So, I just want to say hello to all of you that I met at the wedding that I was at. There were so many of you, I was surprised. So, I'm glad you guys listened to the podcast. I hope you enjoyed my children who were the highlight of the whole thing. - I saw pictures. - Amazing. - It looked awesome. - It was awesome. - It looked awesome. So, congratulations, 'cause they sometimes, maybe, sometimes listen to our podcast, but we are so happy for you guys. - Yeah, we're awesome. - Yeah, we're all awesome. - Really great children, terrific, fantastic. I drove, I was telling Alice, 1900 miles total. When I got the minivan, 'cause we rented a minivan to do this, it had three miles on it. And it was pristine and brand new. And let me tell you, when you drive for 1900 miles with three children, one of whom threw up all over themselves at one point, might've had a spilled drink at another point. It's not brand new anymore. - Good luck to those of you who have to clean that minivan. Congratulations. - Wait, did you get a minivan? - Yeah, we got a minivan. - For the trip? - For the trip. - Oh, no, you don't buy a minivan. - No, no, we rented a minivan. - Yeah, I am thinking like, that's a really big life movie, just like left me out of, 'cause you know how I feel about minivans, they're awesome. Okay, I'm sorry, I just pulled. I thought we were not friends anymore. They didn't tell me you bought a minivan. - I would tell you. - Yeah, absolutely. - Yeah, that's disgusting. - Yeah, we're in a Chrysler. I would've bought a Odyssey to be just like-- - Yeah, you would. We love Hottices. The only of the hottest moms drive Hottices. Okay. - Sure. - Anyways, you guys have played days upon days. First of all, thank you for letting us have-- - I feel so refreshed. I know it's only been like three, four days since we've talked about Lindsey Clancy, but I feel like a new woman. I feel kind of lazy, I'm not gonna lie, that we didn't record every single night, but I will have to say this. Even though we left y'all on the day of the verdict, we called everything that happened, except for like the press conference, which is not really trial-specific, or the appeal specifically, which we can talk about, but it didn't change anything. We definitely said that it was not gonna go past Friday, that it was gonna come back as another hung jury, which meant that it would end the entire case because the-- - The Wellington-- - To be charged. - Was lying. - That the Wellington was lying about, we called that 1,000%, I'm sorry. - That was a percent. - I just have to pat ourselves a little bit on the back because that was 100% just that there was a hearing that day. There was absolutely no inquiry of the juror. All to say is, basically, making excuses. We didn't really leave you guys 'cause we just foretold everything. Now, we get to revisit all the things that didn't change the outcome of the mistrial, but maybe demystify real craziness that happened because last time we talked to you guys, we were like, guys, we oftentimes come on as cold water prosecutors and say, sorry guys, don't worry. This is so boring, this happens all the time. And we said, no, no. Everything that happened last time was pretty crazy. I will tell you, Friday, the last day of trial, was also bananas, totally bananas. - Totally bananas. But a really good opportunity for us to discuss the many things that happened. Because, you know, this was the first time, we talk about interlocutory appeals all the time. And we usually, like, throw 'em out there and it's like, well, they could do that. And they never do that because they're so rare, but it happened on Friday and you got to see it live. So, look, this case is tragic and terrible and awful, but the last couple of days were pure circus. I mean, it was pure, like, the musical Chicago style. What was going on? - And let's be clear. It was a circus that was intended to be a circus. It wasn't a circus because people didn't know what they were doing. I very much think that this circus is meant to continue attention on a case that otherwise would even the most exciting of cases fades into the background. And when you hit a mistrial until there's a retrial, if there's going to be one, typically fades into the background, but I will say this much. Way to go, Reddington, he is doing all he can to make sure Lindsey Clancy's stand is going to stay on everyone's tongue forever and to make it reach a national stage when these are Massachusetts state charges and even invoking the president's name today on Good Morning America. So, this circus is of the defense is making for a specific purpose and what have we always said. If you're charged of a crime, who cares about your attorney? Go get the media on your side. And that is absolutely what has been happening. But that's part of the circus you're seeing. And by the way, the circus only works when people click and people watch and we do click and we do watch. And so it's going to continue as long as, basically, we are the oxygen that feeds the circus. - And look, when this trial started and I saw the openings for both sides, I thought, okay, we're not gonna have the best lawyers here. (laughs) I don't think I said this at the time because I didn't wanna be overly critical of either side. But my initial thought was, okay, we got some, I'm sure these prosecutors are gonna try really hard but that opening wasn't the best I've ever heard and they read it. And as we talked about, didn't build the shelves. You know, there was just a lot going on there. Reddington was kind of just like, flailing and yelling at the district attorney and all this other stuff. And I just thought, okay, this is not gonna be like Karen Reed. This is not gonna be like Karen Reed part two where you felt like you had some really world class litigators on both sides of that. This is gonna be a little bit of a second team operation. And as it went on though, Reddington really showed where his strengths are. And I thought the prosecution is they went on. I mean, by the time they got to their closing, the closing was super impressive. So they both, you know, in some ways impressed me. But Reddington's ability to both perform well in the courtroom and also guide this public perception thing because I am convinced. I mean, Reddington obviously would have loved if these 12 jurors had gone his way and he was really close to getting that. I mean, he was one away. And just that's the way it was. And that gets confirmed even more. I still still see people saying, how do we know it was 11 to 1? Not guilty. It was absolutely 11 to 1. Not guilty by Resident Sandy. Not guilty. Everyone agrees she did it that has any sense. But he is really angling for some sort of deal. That's what he wants. He wants a deal that will prevent this woman from going to prison for the rest of her life and allow her to get whatever treatment he thinks is appropriate. And he was angling for that even afterwards in his comments and how strident they were. And you know that because of how he then back them off during Good Morning America. I have read in us.
I assume this is true because I don't know why it wouldn't be true, that Reddington is a big fan of President Trump's. And as some of you know, not getting political, but just this is the way President Trump presents his negotiating strategy is to be the crazy person on the front end and then try and make a deal on the back end. And you sort of saw that with Reddington afterwards and the way he acted in his post-trial press conference, which we're going to talk about. And then he comes back on Good Morning America and all of a sudden he's apologizing for some of the things he said. He's talking about how he's open to a new deal and he's really hoping he can work with the district attorney. And it was just very much a sort of bait and switch proposition where he seems completely unreasonable and now he's looking for the reasonable out. So that's how he's played this. It's really interesting to watch him in court versus his public advocate persona. But it all started with what happened on Friday when the jury came back. And once again, Reddington was playing the game. So he told everyone, yeah, we're going to have a hearing on Friday morning and we're going to tell the New York Times specifically. New York Times sends out an alert juror to be questioned tomorrow morning. That was the night before around like 9 p.m. we were in the middle of recording when that hit the airways. A.I. tells me it's going to happen. And I was like, why are you trusting A.I.? Who's smart now? A.I. Is it you? Or is it the prosecutors? Because I think it's the prosecutors podcast and that's what they're actually talking about. That's not what's happening. What's actually going to happen is they're going to have a hearing. And if the judge rules away the Reddington wants, there should be an immediate interlocutorial appeal to the Supreme Court. We got that, but not because of that hearing. The hearing did happen and they had this whole questioning and look, one thing I think it's really important for everyone to understand right off the bat. Just because the four men, four person, so woman, just because she says this person says they have reasonable doubt and won't come to a verdict does not make it true. I keep hearing people say and she repeated it today. Well, he had reasonable doubt and he wouldn't come to a verdict. He was ignored the instructions. This is jury notification blah, blah, blah. Her interpretation, which remember is filtered through her perception, which is someone who as she even said, when she thought he was saying he had reasonable doubt was excited about the proposition of filling out the form, saying that Lindsey Clancy was not guilty. Her perception of what he said was that he had reasonable doubt. The one thing I can absolutely guarantee you, he did not say the words. Well, I have reasonable doubt. Those words did not come out of his mouth. And as the jury instruction, which is read back to the jury says, and as we have repeatedly told you, reasonable doubt doesn't mean no doubt. It doesn't mean no questions. It doesn't mean you don't think maybe it's possible. It is a different definition and it's one that every single person has to come to on their own. So whatever he may have said, it does not necessarily mean that he was sitting there saying I have reasonable doubt. But I won't vote no guilty. And this is probably what happened in the jury room in terms of the question and how was interpreted. And this is what came out in the individual law, dear by the judge and why he decided to continue to let them deliberate likely it was something along the lines of 11 people yelling at this one juror saying, you can't possibly know for sure. You have no questions about this. You're going to walk straight into this brick wall and it's like, well, of course, I still have questions. But yeah, of course, you can't be sure about everything. But I, that's not reasonable doubt and they're fighting back and forth and that's probably what the vlogger was. Well, can you apply the law? Yeah, I can apply the law. Do you understand what reasonable that is? Yeah, I heard your instruction on it. Are you refusing to apply the law? No, I'm absolutely applying it. And that's the misinterpretation, but I bet you would happen is 11 people screaming at him probably all at one time saying, you have no doubts about this and he's like a reasonable person saying, of course, everyone's going to have doubt about something, everything. I could be looking at Brett right here. I'm not 1000% sure he's really right there not AI. I don't know. I'm pretty sure it's not a reasonable doubt, but it's not really Brett there. But that's probably the conversation he's having, but it's filtered through and the person who's writing the note, by the way, is the four person. And so she gets to interpret how it is. That's why I never believed the way that Reddington was framing it because it's all filtered through the four person who we know disagrees with the one juror away from it. So we have not seen the note, of course, but if there was the individual volunteer, there is absolutely no evidence and no statement by the one individual that we can point to that says they refuse to follow the law. And let me just say and I just want to repeat to you what the standard is, we do not remove jurors because they don't agree with the majority that we don't do that. We can remove jurors who are obstantly refusing to deliberate. So there was a case recently in Levant Circuit where a juror went in and said, "The Lord has told me this person's not guilty, so I'm voting not guilty." And this ended up in an on-bought case. Originally the panel said the judge removing them was legitimate. They went on-bought, the on-bought court evenly, pretty evenly divided, said no, the judge incorrectly removed them. I thought that on-bought opinion, apologies to the judges who joined it, was completely wrong. I think the judge absolutely had the discretion to remove someone for that reason, but nevertheless, I mean, that's the kind of thing that happens. It really has to be someone who just says, "Look, I don't care. I don't care what the judge said, I don't care what the instructions say. I'm voting X, Y, or Z, right?" And that circumstance, if it comes to the judge's attention, that juror can be removed, but it has to be the juror basically in Vordire. And this happened, by the way, in the Lord told me case. The juror basically has to say the judge, "Yeah, I'm not deliberating with these 11 morons. I don't care what they think. I'm voting this way and that's the way I'm voting. If you've said something like that, you can be removed." But just because the people who obviously have a vested interest in reaching a unanimous opinion, which happens to agree with them, say that you're not deliberating, doesn't mean it's happening, and it doesn't meet the standard, the very, very, to the ceiling high standard that you have to have to remove a juror, because remember, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. This is a rule that applies evenly. The judges, in this case, they did know, but a judge is not supposed to know how the 11 are voting. It's supposed to be a black box. So if you can remove a juror on this ground, you can do it if they're the long holdout for not guilty. And I think most people agree that that would be a huge violation of the defendant's rights. If you remove someone who basically believes there's reasonable down, just because they want to agree with the 11, your standard has to apply both ways. No way this reads that, and certainly bringing the juror in independently by themselves for the judge to break them. And that's what it would be. And it doesn't matter what language the judge used or how kind the judge was or how like even handed he tried to be. If you bring a single juror into the courtroom to question them about why they're doing what they're doing, that is coercion. It is coercive, absolutely, and it seems like very much so you'd be sending a signal, you need to change your vote. And I think everyone would agree that if it was 11 guilty. I just don't think there's any question that everyone who's on Twitter next right now, acting like this was some sort of mistake by the judge would agree that that's coercive. And you can't do that if the vote had been the other way, which is why you're not supposed to know what the vote is because you're supposed to be making an independent, reasoned, law-based decision, not one based on how the case is going to go one way or the other. So frankly, as we said in our last episode, knowing that information was so corrosive to this whole process because it made it much more difficult. And I have been very critical of this judge for a lot of things he's done, but he absolutely made the right decision. He stood up to Reddington, he held the line, and he maintained the way it's supposed to go, even though it's a train wreck heading towards a mistrial, which none of us wanted, under the law, that's how he had to go. Insurance isn't one-size-fits-all, and shopping for it shouldn't feel exquisite into something that just doesn't fit. That's why drivers have enjoyed progressives name your price tool for years. With the name your price tool, you tell them what you want to pay, and they show you options that fit your budget. Enough hunting for discounts, trying to calculate rates, and tinkering with coverages. Maybe you're picking out your very first policy, or maybe you're just looking for something that works better for you and your family. Either way, they make it simple to see your options. No guesswork? No surprises. Ready to see how easy and fun shopping for car insurance can be? Go to www.progressive.com and give the name your price tool a try. Take the stress out of shopping, and find coverage that fits your life on your terms. Progressive casualty insurance company and affiliates, price and coverage match limited by state law. I cannot wait because fall is here. It's time to get back into some cozy, weather, cold, fall day, self-care routines. I just love slowing down, slow mornings, cozy blankets, candles, a warm cup of coffee, face mask, you name it. But you know what?
Something that's always felt more like a chore than self-care? Shaving. Why is that? So most women's razors aren't actually made for women's bodies. Cheap, dull blades tug at your skin rather than gliding over it. So this leaves you with redness, in-ground hairs, and razor bumps. And there's nothing worse than irritated skin right before wearing shorts or a swimsuit. Self-care should be a ritual, not a chore that you rush through. So that all changed when I found Flamingo. Flamingo was born when the women who helped build Harry's notice that the other companies selling women's razors were just shrinking men's razors down and making them pink. Ugh, that is not what we need. Instead, Flamingo created a shaving solution that's actually made with a woman's body in mind. They have no flimsy design. The razor feels so good in your hand because the handle is weighted. And I have found that the blades just glide smoothly and it still shaves very closely. And my skin feels so smooth for days after shaving. The best part? There's no pink tax pricing. You're not paying more just because it's a woman's product. So you've got to start with their starter set. That has everything you need. Whether you're doing a quick shave before heading out the door or a full reset the night before a trip. Flamingo's original razor is something I use every day. This 5-sharp blade of 360 degree comfort system helps protect my skin from irritation and a flexible hinge to hug every curve. You'll also find their facial derma plane razor that sweeps away peach fuzz and exfoliate skin, making skin care and makeup application so easy. They also have their foaming shave gel, which is like a pillowy cushion between your skin and your razor. And of course, the wonderful shower holder so that your razors always within reach. This whole kit that I just described seven dollars and shipping is free. You heard that right. So Flamingo doesn't just make women's razors. They've got a full line of self-care essentials from wax kits to daily moisturizing lotion. All imagined with women's bodies in mind. For a limited time, our listeners can get the Flamingo starter set for only seven dollars at shopflamingo.com/pricetors. This set includes the Flamingo original razor, one five blade cartridge, a one ounce of foaming shave gel and a shower holder. Just head to shopflamingo.com/pricetors to claim this offer. After you purchase, they'll ask where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we sent you. And we had said this the whole time at this point because of the fact that we already know what the breakdown is because all this has already happened. Honestly, no one wanted a mistrial. You guys know, we did not want a mistrial, but at this point, that was the best outcome because I think any sort of a verdict was going to be tainted and we were likely going to have to do this again anyway. So as unsatisfactory as this is, it was honestly the best outcome at this point in this case. And so during that argument, of course, Reddington was flailing and by flailing, I mean his arms were big and wide and he was like yelling and the judge did make some funny comments. Like Reddington argued that he didn't give the reasonable doubt instruction forcefully enough. He was like, what, you want to do it with a little more pizzazz and see if there's something about bringing in a brass band? That was kind of funny because that was the instruction. That is the instruction you read. There's not more you add to it. You guys know this because we've read it to you before. We didn't telepathically know what he was going to say. We knew these instructions. We knew Tui Rodriguez and we knew the reasonable doubt instruction because it's all there. Just Google it. It is a form instruction that's given to every single jury. He didn't make it up on the spot. He didn't smash together his own instruction there. That is the instruction. So just so you know, that was pure argument on Reddington's part when he was like, there's not enough forcefulness that you gave the instruction. There isn't more forcefulness to be given. You don't write the instructions, especially if you know the breakdown of how to give the instruction. It is vetted language that we give over and over and over. And so we all knew what was going to happen. I mean, it's an 11-to-1 dead log. The one is like Odysseus, Elysees. Can I just say one thing about this? So now obviously, when we talked about this on Thursday, there had been a note and Reddington had said in his arguments that it was 11-to-1, but we didn't yet know. So when we recorded on Thursday, we were still like, we don't know that it's 11-to-1. At this point, with the amount of publicity and the amount of times he said it and no one has counted it, including the Commonwealth, it was 11-to-1. They somehow knew because it was made clear even if it wasn't written out in the note. So I do think it was 11-to-1, 11-knock guilty by reason of insanity to one guilty. Who knows what the guilty is? Could have been anything. Murder one, two, manslaughter. It doesn't matter at this point because the others weren't going to budge, so he might as well stood on murder one for that. But when you're, that may be so disappointed because I didn't really want to believe that's what the breakdown was on Thursday. But I think we can be pretty clear, even though we don't quote officially know the fact it hasn't been rebutted by anybody at this point and it's been said so many times. The note said something about it and that's probably why the judge didn't read the note. Now we know we've always said that these jury notes are supposed to be part of the public record. Usually you don't sidebar these sorts of things. He had been sidebarring a lot of things. So this fell in line with what he had been doing, which I thought was not common practice and not best practices. But now I begin to understand a little better why he didn't read that jury note out loud is I do think there was a very clear what the breakdown was and how the breakdown was in that note. So we do know that at this point and I should say that the one, everyone on the internet says it's a man, it's likely a man who was the one hold out, man. I hope he wasn't just like everyone else was not supposed to be watching media or anything. I feel very like convicted about things in my life. But to be faced with that type of opposition for six plus days of deliberation, I am very impressed that he did not cave in the face of all of these stresses. I think if the judge had brought him out for that inquiry, he probably would have caved and it would have just like blown up everything, it would have been horrible for justice, all of these sorts of things. But I just want to note that these six days really do feel like 600 years for your jury, especially if you actually are ozed off from the world, you're not talking to anybody else about it. It kind of becomes Lord of the Flies in terms of that room. It feels like the whole world is in that room. So I do just kind of want to note that we don't know as a part of the official record, but I think we know that the breakdown was 11 to one and he did not. He did not change his view. I don't know why we're positing it might not have been 11 to one. Yeah, it was 11 and yeah, I mean, honestly, deliberations are supposed to break down the one. It's sort of how it's supposed to work. There's like a part of me that's like, I don't know, man, there's 11 people saying you need to like go the other way. Having said that, you know, the man, as I said, he was like Ulysses tying himself to the mast while the sirens are singing songs at him telling me he has to do this. And as we've now, we've now seen some jurors who've commented, I understand more and more why he stood his ground and totally respect him for doing that. But we knew once the judge did not bring him out to brow beat him into changing his mind, he was not going to change his mind. One going to happen. So a few hours later, we come back, we're hung, that's it. You know, Brayton tries to say, well, maybe you could do two Rodriguez again, which, no, you can't. You can only do it once. That is part of the law, the procedural law. You cannot continue to do it. Sometimes what we call it the dynamite charge, once you do it, it sets off the procedure of the next time they come back and note that they never come back and say, we've reached a, they always phrase it as a question, which was kind of funny. But it sets off that procedural kind of domino effect. Yeah. So nice. Ulysses tied to the mast and that's what he was and he held fast. He didn't change. He sends back the note. It's over. And Judges ready to go and at the last minute, Reddington is like, can I find an introductory pill with the Supreme Court, a mast, he sits and the judge and the judges like, the jury's welcome in and you're literally, you want to do this right now. And so he ends up giving Reddington an hour to file a motion for a single justice motion to stay the proceedings so he can file a full interlocutorial appeal to the Supreme Judicial Court. What exactly he was going to argue, he threw out something about the Americans with Disabilities Act and somehow this was, maybe the juror has some sort of animus against the, against some plants. Protective class of people with mental illnesses. That's not a protected class, by the way. It was a very legally, this is no like statement on whether I think it's valuable. Available or vulnerable or whatnot. He really was throwing spaghetti at the wall in order to try and get a stay. So it was never going to succeed. It was a, Hail Mary isn't even the right word. It was just a delay. True. I mean, look, there was no world in which the Supreme Judicial Court was going to order a judge to remove a juror that was just never going to happen. This is like a discretionary thing. This is a close question, but not a particularly hard question. There's no abyss of discretion going on here. There's no weirdness about this, like it wasn't someone saying, for instance, the Lord told me that Lindsay's guilty. There was nothing like that. It was never going to happen, but he let him do it anyway. So we go through the motions. We'll talk about that.
- I think yes, is weirdly appeal-proofing it, even though there's no world where that would need to happen to be appeal-proof. So like, he was just letting him do it, knowing it would fail. It created a further circus, but I guess because it was an hour, it was okay. I don't know that I would have allowed it, to be honest. - It was kind of like a, what's the harm? I think they were filtering in, they were getting people, like, he was gonna announce it in an hour anyways, so it was kind of wilder doing their administrative get everything together, fine, go do your thing. But Reddington didn't think he was gonna get the state either, just so you know, the purpose of it was just to create more of excitement and circus around this, truly. And look, four or five days later, we're still talking about it, so it worked. It made it like a fireworks of an ending rather than just a womp, womp mistrial. So that's really why I think he was doing it. And look, it bought a little bit more time. You know, maybe while this circus is going on, the holdout says, I'm fine, whatever. I'm fine with that. Maybe that happens, right? I mean, he bought a little bit more time. Obviously that didn't change. He argued his case before a single justice, and that's the way it works. You file your interlocutory appeal, but you require a stay. You have to have a stay to stay the case, otherwise the appeals moot immediately. So the stay is necessary. You see this with the United States Supreme Court. So you'll see people right before an execution. They'll file a stay request and an appeal. And if a judge grants a stay, then the appeal continues until it's completed. A lot of times in the death penalty context, a temporary stay will be granted by a single justice. It'll be very quickly dealt with and then denied, stays lifted, execution gets fought. Same thing here, because once it's over, it's over. And once these jurors are released, that's it. So there is no relief afterwards. Karen Reed tried the relief afterwards root and didn't work. You got to do it while you have those jurors in the courtroom. So procedurally it was correct, but it was never gonna work. And in fact, he'd even told a reporter before he walked in there, he wasn't gonna file an interlocutory appeal because it was a waste of time. But in that moment, he decided to do it. It fails, jury comes back, they're deadlocked. The judge. I know he didn't mean it this way, because he was really talking about duty and doing your duty even in difficult times. But he tells a story about how Britain was all alone, holding strong against the Nazis, and they never back down and I was like, so you call him the 11 Nazis and the one jurors, Britain? Is that what's, is that, oh, duty. Oh, okay, okay, and he tells the story. He gets to duty and how they did their duty, even though it was difficult and he releases them. It was nice, it was a nice little talk. And then it's done and then we start talking about the next phases, so basically, Reddington's gonna file his judgment of acquittal motion, which is essentially, hey, they had a hung jury, but really there wasn't enough evidence anyway, so you should just grant the judgment of acquittal. He thinks he had five days to do that. I assume he's either done it by now or we'll do it soon. They'll have a hearing on that later on. I think they're supposed to have a hearing about it. If it's supposed to be on the 29th, then it temporarily got moved up and then it got moved back, whatever. They'll do that, that'll fail. Then we'll go through the pretrial stuff again and most likely at some point, early next year, summer of next year, depending on the judge's calendar, because he's got a lot going on. Reddington has a lot going on. The prosecution has a lot going on. You saw that when they were discussing scheduling. Reddington's got another murder trial he has to do. Prosecutors out of the state. - The judge has frozen his calendar for six weeks, doing this trial, which actually a lot of things get backed up. - Yeah, so we'll see what happens. It's probably going to happen next year, unless there's some sort of resolution. So immediately afterwards, Reddington goes out and whether he does it in a sort of calculated way or in a aggressive, emotional way, you know, he talks about how basically he won, he talks about how this one juror, he really disparages the juror, which is where the whole department comes in. - Which is very inappropriate. - Very inappropriate. He's not going to be disbarred. People are like, could he be disbarred for that? He's not going to be disbarred for that. - You can't be disbarred. He could have like-- - First amendment, guys, first amendments. - And he wouldn't have gotten disbarred. Unless he steals Lindsey Clancy's money, he's not going to get disbarred. That's just the way it works. And people were like, oh, he has these other complaints against him. Yeah, he's a attorney. He's a defensive attorney. - I was going to say he's a defensive attorney, specifically. - He's probably got 1,000 complaints against him. Most of them are completely-- - Frivolous. - Frivolous. That's just the way it is. - No big deal, you shouldn't have said it. - With that said, though, he really shouldn't look. The first amendment protects what he can say, basically. But he really shouldn't have said the things he said about the Wunger. That Wunger, he hasn't given any interviews, right? If you're listening, Wunger, I would not give any interviews. You will not win on any of this. I don't know, maybe talk to us anonymously. But if I were you, I would not show your face. Not because you don't have incredibly valid reasons to say whatever you want. Obviously, you can speak all you want because of the first amendment. But I think we see the state of mob mentality. And even though you may have a lot of supporters, the people who want to do you harm are going to come out of the woodwork and try to do you harm. So if you're listening, Wunger, I would talk for a while. But the way that Reddington did that is completely unprofessional. We, as attorneys, are supposed to be held to a higher standard. And he should not have disperished a juror doing his civic duty, just like the other 11, by the way, you can't be a sore loser. And only like the ones who voted your way. You're a defense attorney. Most juries all vote against you. And I think it cuts down. It's not just words. I think the way he does it, especially in such a high profile trial and emotional trial as this one. And the fact that we know it is yet unresolved. There's no verdict. Does damage the jury system? Does damage the way that people view their civic duty, whether it is as a witness at their subpoenaed, to testify the grand jury or in trials, or in serving jury duty? I don't know about you, but I definitely don't want to serve on any high profile jury, because it could put my life and my family's life at risk, especially when you have an attorney out there saying, really, disperaging things like that. And the reality is, it is much more common to have one juror holding out for not guilty than guilty. So, he's even cutting off his nose to spot his face, because if he's sending a message to the hold out, it's still hold out, because you're going to be attacked. That's going to cost him down the line. Now, obviously, all he cares about is his own client. And look, I've said this before, and I don't mean this as a criticism, but defense attorneys love to wrap themselves in the constitution, talk about how great the constitution is. They defend the constitution, all sorts of stuff. And they tend to be in the position of doing that, because they're the ones following the motions to suppress, and they're the ones guaranteeing a trial within attorney, and they're the ones guaranteeing confrontation, all sorts of stuff. But they do that because it helps their client. Their actual job is to protect their client. The constitution be damned. And this was an example where you have a constitutional right to a unanimous jury. That is your right. And if writing to him was wrapping himself in the constitution, if what he really cared about was defending the constitution, he'd been up there defending that guy for standing strong. He certainly would have done that if he'd been on the other side. But he's, of course, angry because all he cares about is getting his client off. That is his goal, that is his job. That is his true thing that he is supposed to be dedicated to. He goes off on the sky, and he has encepologized, which is not surprising because he was wrong to do it. And I think he got a lot of criticism for it. I think he heard that criticism, and it's good that he's now said, yeah, I should have said that. I shouldn't have done that. That was wrong. And it was a really bad look for him. Yeah. And obviously, again, because there isn't a verdict in this case, I don't know that he was technically trying to taint the future jury pool, but he certainly was trying to, as Brett said, play this bombastic front to get a better deal for his client. Or did you say, look, it's going to be impossible for you to get a jury on your side because everyone's listening to the press now. No one's a question yet until they're empaneled to the commonwealth. So it may have been directed more at the commonwealth rather than specifically trying to take a jury. Now, one thing, but maybe you know about this. I haven't followed this too closely, but back in the day, last week, so long ago, I did look at the law in terms of ceiling and public record of jury names. So typically, the jury identities become part of the public record in Massachusetts. And I think in most places, because most times people don't care, nor are these trials televised. However, in Massachusetts, as in most places, by motion of, I think, either side, you can ask to seal the names, and this happened in the Karen Reed case for the Karen Reed jury, to seal the names and not release them as public record. So to exempt the identities as public record, but you do have to make a showing of cause and there's several factors you have to show. And it can't just be an oral ruling. The judge actually has to have a written motion. In other words, they really have to put thought behind it. And there is a written reason for why these identities don't become part of the public record, because like we've told you, the court system is supposed to be for the public and something that is not done in the dark. And so I don't know, I haven't followed this this course. I don't know if either side has filed a motion to seal the identities. The fact that in a very similarly high profile case in Massachusetts, the judge ruled to seal the identities in the Karen Reed case, I can see good cause here, especially with, you know, a woman already being arrested for jury intimidation during jury deliberations.
pictures and videos of the jurors, there's already certainly specific tangible factors that either side who wanted to seal the identities could point to as showing danger to the individuals should their identities become public record. So that is something that can happen, but it has to be done in writing by the judge. And hopefully he'll do that. I don't think there's any value in having these names revealed. If they want to reveal themselves, they can. The minuscule public benefit of knowing their identities is vastly outweighed not only by their own safety because we know what a mob story this has become, but also just the effect it has on future jurors. If I'm a juror in the next case, and this guy's identity is released and someone burns his house down, I'm going to have a really hard time ignoring that when I'm making a decision on Lindsey Clancy's guilt or innocence. So I think it's a no-brainer. Hopefully the commonwealth files something. Maybe Reddington can redeem himself by joining the filing in a green to seal them. It does showing that his own comments have added to the potential danger to the individuals. And by the way, I don't believe you can just leave out one. It's like all or nothing. And one other thing that might be happening, I don't know if this is what's actually happening, but I know that a lot of you have noted, oh, it's sealed for the next two weeks. It could very well just be that it's currently sealed pending motions being filed and an order being written. It could be something as simple as that. I don't know that's that's the case, but because the order has to be in writing, it takes time to do such to explain to the judge why he should make such a finding. He has to actually make finding. It's not just like a swing of the wand. There's case law he needs to look at and see if it rises to that occasion. I think it does rise to that occasion, but though two weeks you're looking at right now, because I did not see that in the law that it automatically is sealed two weeks, it could simply be that he is holding it in a bayance while people are filing their motions or he's writing his order. Yeah, then I think if he can, he'll end up sealing it. And he should. And the Boston Globe can get over it because they'll be the ones who can point about it. Guys, after a steamy summer, it is finally starting to cool down and I cannot wait for the fall, because I just love blankets. Specifically, you know it. Lola blankets. It's the first thing I reach for whenever I'm relaxing at home. The first time I felt my Lola blanket, I thought, is it possible that a blanket can really be this life-changing? The answer is yes. It feels incredible. It elevates my entire living room and it just fits in my house. Every other blanket I've ever owned and probably will ever own pales in comparison to the Lola, because Lola is the world's number one blanket crafted with ultra soft luxury faux fur and a signature four-way stretch that sets it apart. The best part, especially because I've so many kids and I use it every day, it's machine washable and it's double hemmed for durability and stays flawless. There's absolutely no pilling, no shedding, even after repeated washes. Fall is the perfect time to give your home a cozy refresh and one Lola instantly elevates your couch bed or favorite chair by making it the most warm and inviting place ever. I discovered Lola through Instagram and now I completely buy into the hype. I recommend it to everybody. Not just that, I give it as a present to everyone I know and they love it as well. Lola has over 20,000 five star reviews and once you feel it, you'll know why. There's a reason it's called the world's number one blanket. This thing is next level. For a limited time, our listeners can get 40% off-select Lola Blanket products with code prosecutors at checkout. Just head to LolaBlankets.com and use code prosecutors to get 40% off your order. Please support our show and let them know we sent you. Wrap yourself in luxury with Lola Blankets. Guys, I am so excited about our sponsor our place because I've heard about our place for so long and now I get to own it. Our place makes beautiful, high-performance kitchen where it designed to make healthy home cooking, easier, simpler, and more joyful. Everything is designed to be multi-functional, which is so key for me because I have limited counter space and it helps me prepare fresh nutrient dense meals without unnecessary kitchen clutter. And the best part, their cookware is made without forever chemicals and has been since day one. Their third party tested to meet global safety standards. Their cookware is truly out of this world because I love cooking with them. I feel healthier because I know they only use the best things. They don't have PFAS. They don't have any sort of forever chemicals that I know can really be bad when I'm cooking. Rather, I've been using their wonder of and pro for everything at my house. The wonder of and pro is an eight-in-one countertop appliance featuring steam-infusion technology that keeps vegetables and roasted proteins tender on the inside while crisping the outside. Every internal cooking surface is non-toxic and made without PFAS. That is so amazing because my kids are always asking for me to use the wonder of and pro. They love everything that I cook in it. Whether it's vegetables, broccoli, beets, you name it and definitely their favorite chicken nuggets. Upgrade your kitchen with our place today. Visit from our place.com/prosecute and use code "prosecute" for 10% off-site wide. That's f-r-o-m-o-u-r-p-l-a-c-e.com/pr-o-s-e-c-u-t-e and use code "prosecute." For 10% off-site wide, with a 100-day trial, you can try it completely risk-free. There were some interesting things that came out today. You had three jurors including the form person who spoke. They did the whole "he had reasonable doubt" thing. That's your take on it. His take was not that he had reasonable doubt, so I'm going to go with his take. He just could not get past the fact that Lindsey Clancy viciously murdered her children. Literally what one of the jurors said just want to know the jurors agreed that she viciously killed her children. Didn't think Patrick did it. They were all in agreement on that. Well, actually let me address something else. There's been criticism of the jurors because some of them had been in the healthcare system and they talked about their experiences and nurses and people were like, "You can't bring outside sources in. This is corrupt. They should be held content." No. That's not how it works. You can't call your doctor friend and say, "Hey, I'm on a jury. Can you explain to me how SSRI does work?" But every single person in that jury brings their own experience into the jury room and the defense attorneys and the prosecutors knew they had that experience when they put them on the jury. And in fact, both sides hoped that they would do exactly that when they were in there. There's nothing wrong with that. You don't have to exercise part of your brain because you're on a jury. So all those like rationary, stupid posts you saw on Twitter from people who don't know what they're talking about completely wrong. Nothing wrong with that. It's completely irrelevant. That happens in every jury trial. And the whole point of bringing 12 people together is they have different life experiences and they apply their life experiences to the case. So not a big deal. Second thing though, one of the things they said that I thought was really interesting and people got mad about but I think stopped getting mad and start listening was that the prosecutors did not show enough sympathy towards Lindsey Clancy. Weird that they said that because I feel like another couple people said that at various points throughout their coverage of this case. I get it. Look, dark Brett gets it. Dark Brett agrees. Lindsey Clancy is too bad. They don't have the death penalty in Massachusetts anymore. She should get that penalty. I get it. If you're out there saying she planned and brutally murdered her children, why would you ever have sympathy for dark bread understands. But light side bread also gets that she has legitimate documented mental health issues. She just does. I'm sorry. She's not a psychopath who faked it. So she could do this. She has legitimate mental health issues, including depression, possible bipolar, possible postpartum depression, maybe a postpartum psychosis. Do I think it means she's not guilty? No. Do I think it means she's probably not guilty of murder one? Yes. As I discussed on the podcast. And if you are the prosecutors, you have to understand that those people who were talking now, that's what your jury pool looks like. And those people very early on decided, I don't like the way you're handling this. You're not showing enough compassion. Attacking Patrick off the bat probably didn't help. You're not acknowledging her mental health issues. And they closed off. And so by the time the prosecution got good towards the end, it was too late. They were never going to be convinced. Their minds are already closed. So if you're going to do this again, you have to approach it differently. You have to treat Lindsey Clancy not as some sort of cold-blooded psycho-murderer who faked her suicide, but as someone who was struggling, someone who you can absolutely have sympathy for and yet hold accountable for her actions. That is the only way you're even possibly going to succeed. And you may still lose, but that's the only way you're going to succeed. These women who were discussing this are not the outliers. They are the main line of your jury pool. The one guy who hailed out, he's the outlier. And you're not going to get 12 outliers on a jury. So if you're going to do this again, you have to change your approach. Of the three jurors who talked said that when she started out, she was actually on the side of criminal responsibility before switching over
over to not guilty by reason of insanity. And I note that because I think that also tells you something else is the commonwealth. Again, this is not me dunking on the commonwealth. I think this is your chance. You got a mistrial. You did not got a not guilty. That's a gift as the commonwealth because of what we know the breakdown to be. So this was the best outcome 'cause you were not gonna switch 11 people. The one guy was not gonna switch 11 people. But likely it was a more even split when they first started. Maybe not six six, but maybe something like eight four. I could imagine was the split. The fact that one of the ones that came out to speak may not be representative of the other 10. But that tells you the commonwealth lost them. If they started out with, okay, criminal responsibility, commonwealth that means you lost to them. And that's not a critique on you. That is you better take a good look at your case. How did you lose them? Because if you had someone who was going to vote for you in the first place, you have to actually do a lot more work to lose them than you would to keep them with you. And so that is a huge lesson to be learned. And I think that's exactly what they did. There's two things in the little bit that these jurors said that I think you can point to. Number one, of course, not wrapping yourselves around the empathy of Lindsey Clancy. They did that by the end too little too late at that point. And you can tell by the prosecutors tone during the closing statement. It was much more empathetic about the struggles that Lindsey was going into. And we've always said this. You cannot be too close to a case emotionally as the prosecutor. Because you see how I truly think the prosecution cared so much about this case. They cared so much about these three kids, so much so that it was almost too black and white for them, that the only way to get justice for Cora Callan and Dawson was in order to just demonize Lindsey Clancy to the max. That clearly was not the right tactic. That's how you lost all these people. So that's number one in how you lost all those people number two. But I already mentioned this was a way they treated Patrick. I would not have put Patrick number one. Not have put Patrick number one. We said that when they called Patrick as number one because we knew that Patrick aligned with the Lindsey Clancy defense of not guilty for criminal responsibility purposes. We also knew he had a civil lawsuit. He had other interests in mind he had to protect. And also we know that he just stands with her. He does not think even though he's no longer with Lindsey Clancy, this is a lot to work against for your first witness. This is really hard. And we saw this because one of the jurors said, of course, he didn't do it. You cannot unhere the 911 call. None of us on the outside heard the 911 call because that's kept from the public. But everyone in the gallery heard it. And the jurors heard it, of course. They heard it. They heard the screams. And they mentioned those screams specifically. So not only do you not start with the most unsympathetic for your case, witness. But when you have something as devastating as that 911 call, you have got to treat that witness differently then they treated him in direct and then on redirect as well. So those are two tiny snapshots for the commonwealth. If they're sitting here taking notes, they should be taking massive notes if they plan to retry this case. I'm gonna say something that I was gonna say for the end. But I also think if the breakdown is 11 to 1, I don't know that they can ever get a conviction to be completely honest. That kills me in my heart because, of course, I'm like, of course you should retry this case. But I think realistically if the breakdown today, I don't know, maybe if the jury was gonna be struck in two or three years and things have changed and like we start talking differently about this case and the tide changed, I don't know, maybe. But I think today if we were going to strike another jury in the next six months, if the breakdown was 11 to 1 after six days of deliberation, and you had people who originally started as criminal responsibility and switched over to not guilty and are confident enough to be talking about it when they don't have to be revealing their names and don't have to give interviews, I don't know that the commonwealth can get a guilty verdict for anything. I'm not talking murder one, I'm talking manslaughter. So that obviously factors into whether you retry the case, you may disagree with me Brett, but I am pretty pessimistic that they can even get a conviction on anything at this point. So, in some ways I share with you. And I recognize that. I hate to be so negative, and let me say this, and I hate to even get down this path because we were very critical of the prosecutors at times, but I also am so sympathetic to what they did, that the effort that went into it, the passion with which they argued for those three kids, when it seems like nobody else was and people kept commenting, there was no one sitting behind the prosecution. You know, and people got mad at me for saying this on Twitter, but I don't care, get mad if you want to. No one represented those kids, no one from the family fought for those kids, nobody stood up and said, "You know what, she murdered those three beautiful babies, my nieces, my nephews, my grandkids, my kids, my cousins, whatever, and she needs to pay for it." No one said that, you know? And in some ways that's a powerful point for Lindsay, because the people closest to those kids were on her side. But on the other hand, it really kind of rubbed me the wrong way, that there's no one standing out for those kids. And so by the end, I really appreciated when all the cops and the prosecutors showed up and sat behind the prosecutors' table for closings. So I finally, somebody standing out for those kids, and I appreciated the way they fought for those kids. And I respect the way they fought for those kids, and I know they gave it their best effort. And so I hate to be critical of them, but the fact of the matter is, globally, strategically, very poorly, prosecutor case. The argument they made, the way it was presented, the way their opening did not match their closing. And I get it. I mean, in some ways, you praise them for changing their strategy and realizing how things were going and seeing how the evidence comes in. But there were so many people who said things like, "How can you trust them?" The things they said in their closing were completely opposite of what's said in opening. And yeah, I mean, what do you say to that? Yeah, you're right. They did not explain to those jurors. And you heard this if you listened to those three taught today, that being mentally ill doesn't mean she's not guilty. You know, they got there by the end. They had witnesses by the end who said that, but they didn't set it up. And I just feel like a lot of the jurors fell victim to something we talked about throughout this trial, which is the notion of how could someone like Lindsay do this to her kids if she's not crazy, right? I mean, that's just to put it in blunt terms, that's how people looked at it. And I just feel like the way they set up their case, they never presented an argument that the jury could buy. So, I think one of the things Reddington is seeing. And one of the reasons I think Reddington is more willing to make a deal than some people might think, given that it was 11/1, is yeah, he did a really great job beating him this time. But they have learned their lessons, right? I mean, surely they're gonna come in the next time with a much different story. The thing we learned from the Karen Reed case, though, is just because you learned all your lessons the first time, in a case like this, it's this well publicized, the second Karen Reed presentation that was done far better, way better. I think probably would have won with the first jury, but not with the second jury, not after all the publicity, not after all the craziness, not after all the press. This is gonna be way worse than that. This is even more polarized, and you have the fact of middle health and women's health care and postpartum health care. You have all these things playing into this middle health, pharmaceuticals, all that stuff. It's gonna be almost impossible to find a jury that you can convince. I think at this point, and that's why I am convinced that if Reddington is willing to take a deal, make the deal, and the deal that I would be willing to take if I'm the prosecution is manslaughter, and I know a lot of you hate this, manslaughter with Wargie for the Judge for what she should get, and I would ask for a mandatory, remand to a middle health institute afterwards, after she finishes her sentence, then to be treated in the same way, not guilty about reason that Sandy would be, which is she'll then be evaluated if she's found not to be dangerous, she can be released. That's how I would approach it. See what the judge gives you. You know, if you're Reddington, he may very well give you time served, and then she goes and spends 40 days at the facility, and she's released. If you're the prosecution, maybe the judge gives you some more time, she's served some time, you get the conviction, she still goes to the middle health facility, she still gets evaluated, maybe she's released, maybe she's not. It's not a perfect solution, but that's the thing about plea deals. They're not perfect. You're not getting everything you want. That, I think, is probably the best you could hope for if you're the Commonwealth. You're never gonna get murder one. Some people have suggested dropping murder one, and trying to get a judge trial, but I don't, I mean, unless she agrees to a judge trial, I don't imagine, unless the law shows different Massachusetts, and the Commonwealth can force you not to have a jury, which I would be surprised by. I don't think she's gonna agree with that. So, now I might drop murder one anyway, and try to just murder two, because murder two has the built-in mitigator of mental health, and so you could just argue that from the very beginning. I think the problem, and one of the reasons you saw the Commonwealth do what they did, if you're gonna argue murder one, you got to pretty much argue that she was, to the extent there was mental health issues, there were incredibly minor. Otherwise, you're not gonna get murder one. You're gonna get murder two. So, I don't know. I don't know what you think about that. I don't know if you think they should to cut a deal or drop a count or what. - I think they should cut a deal, because I think in another jurisdiction, she would be convicted, but I think in this jurisdiction, we've already learned from the Karen Reed case as well. It's gonna be more of a circus this time around, even if they get better, even if they present it better, I think that even if the case was perfectly presented this time, I don't know. I'm just a little pessimistic, that there was,
be not a mistrial or a conviction. So I would be happy with a manslaughter. I was resigned to the best case scenario of a verdict being a manslaughter anyway. Because at least first of all, the case would be resolved in the sense that there will be someone held responsible for these three murders. And we do not, as a society, say it's okay for a mother to murder her children because she has a mental illness, even if she can act with agency in the midst of that mental illness. So I would be okay with the deal. I think Lindsey Clancy will take whatever deal that Reddington tells her to and Reddington wants a deal. Because he does know that he struck lightning. This is great. But Ms. Trial upon Ms. Trial is not actually good for his client and the money will run out eventually. So he does actually want to cut a deal. It would be better. It would be the sure way for his client. And look, he can still spout whatever he wants. He can still be the champion of postpartum, whatever, you know, even with this type of a deal. Because he's like, you know, we already know she's could she continues to be suicidal. And I didn't want to put her through this again for the sake of the memories of her children and her. He can spin this into lots of things. So I think he absolutely would jump at a deal. And I think that's the best we can get at this point. If you're out there, and you think Lindsey Clancy is not guilty by reason with Sandy, whatever they call it, whatever terms they use to messages. If you believe that, then you have to believe that these trials are really hard for her. They are mental. You think all that crying during the autopsy was 100% real. She's devastated. She's crushed. She's suicidal. She doesn't want to live. She would kill herself the next moment she had. If you believe all that's true, then the absolute worst thing for her is another trial. So Reddington, his reasons for making a deal are not just cannot win or cannot not because that this isn't a football game. This is her life. This is her mental health. The best thing for her, assuming all that's true is to get past this, to get past this, to work on her mental health, to work on being able to be released, to work on the next part of her life. If you think that's her issue. So he doesn't want to go through another trial because as much as they're going to be jurors who are going to be hardcore Lindsey Clancy supporters most likely, there's a strong possibility. There's going to be some hardcore murder one people who sneak onto that jury as well. And guess what? They're not going to reach a verdict. Once again, this isn't Karen Reed. Karen Reed was weird in that there weren't that many people who felt strongly about Karen Reed being guilty. There are a few of us that we were definitely in the minority. There were a lot of people who believed the conspiracy and there were a lot of people didn't care. The Lindsey Clancy guys dwarfs Karen Reed. It's crazy. It's insane. If you look at the Google numbers, if you just look at the Google like searches, Karen Reed is pretty big mountain compared to other cases. Lindsey Clancy is like Mount Everest. It is a national story. It is a political story. Everyone has heard about it. Everyone is talking about it. Everybody at the wedding wanted to talk to me about it. It's just all over the place. So you're not going to escape it and you can't guarantee that you're not going to get some people on there who are going to vote guilty no matter what. In which case you have another mistrial. And to some extent, the Commonwealth can do this over and over again to the end of time. She stays in custody as long as they're trying the case. It's not Karen Reed. Karen Reed's out partying with her lawyer, having cocktails with her lawyer down at the waterfront in Boston. She's in custody. So he has a real vested interest in bringing this to a close. And the DA has to make a decision about whether or not he wants to make a deal. He was very forceful in his press conference. But once again, that is his forward facing voice. Posturing. Reddington did the same thing. And now Reddington's talking about making a deal. If the DA is listening, I would say be open to making a deal. That is for lots of different reasons. But I think the biggest one right now is if you're going to strike a jury in the next 12 months, you can have the best case ever. I just think currently because we've already seen a five-week trial where like it seems the world has watched every minute of the trial. So everything has already come out. Even if you repackage it, the way it was presented the first time already exists kind of in the psyche of your jury pool. And I think it's you want to talk about taking the pool. Like I think it's done right now. And I am very, very pessimistic about any sort of a guilty verdict. I don't think that would be another draw. I don't either. I don't think we're covering this again. I think this is the last time we'll do a legal briefs on this when they make a deal. That's my prediction. Could be wrong. I guess we'll do this again if I am. That would be my punishment for being wrong. But I really think a deal is an everyone's best interest. And no one will be happy. And that means it's probably a pretty good deal. Her defenders are going to be our right. Reddington has to be ready for that. The people who think she is the devil incarnate. And you know, it's too bad mass. She's just done have hanging. So she could get the short drop and suffer like her kids do. I mean, that's what people are saying on Twitter. They're going to be our right. And that probably means that it's a good deal. Because as we've said from the very beginning, there is no good outcome in this case. And I remain convinced of that. You know, even though I'm no longer where I was when we started this. I'm no longer in the world of the medical system failed her. I don't think she was psychotic. I don't think she was over-medicated. I just think she was really super depressed and decided to kill herself and take her kids with her, which is murder in my book. That's what I think. But I still don't think there's a great outcome here. And I think the best case is she takes some responsibility for what she did. Take some responsibility for those three dead babies, plead guilty, say you did it, acknowledge and have the state acknowledge that you had some mental health issues. When it happened, get the help that you say you need and then spend the rest of your life trying to make up for it. That's the best we can hope for in this case. So that's where I think we are. We made it to part 20. Is this the longest series ever? I don't even know where my door was. What has been for story was? I know, but there's like 25 episodes on that. But yeah, I mean definitely our live coverage. This is definitely the longest. I think this is the longest. Murdoch didn't reach 20, I don't think. No. But I was only 10, I think. Well, no. What have we been talking about in this case? We used to be much more restrained in the way we discussed. I'm so sorry, all of you. We are not more restrained. I mean, I've already said everything in the last few episodes that I'll have to be repeated again, but I do hope there's a deal. And I think at this point, Reddington wouldn't be saying publicly that he was open to a deal if he didn't think it was favorable for him to say so. He doesn't want to be made a fool either. So I do think a deal is should be in the works and hopefully we'll be in the works. And like we've said, this doesn't stop discussions about postpartum. And by the way, just to be clear, even though I've said it a million times in our other 20 episodes, actually I started around episode 15. I don't believe this is a postpartum case. I think this is a mental illness case, but I don't think this is a postpartum case. But with that caveat, doesn't mean we stop discussions about the difficulties of postpartum for women, the difficulties of mental illness for everybody. And at the end of the day, I hope the takeaway is that no matter how sad you are, no matter how much you're struggling mentally, if you know right from wrong, which I do believe Lindsey Clancy knew, you don't get the right to end your children's lives. They are independent beings, independent individuals with dignity that do not belong to you. They are not your extension for purposes of leaving this life because you are not God. And that's why I believe she's guilty of murder one, but we've already been through that. And I'm never going to get that. And I'm never going to get murder one. And I am okay with that, but I still know that that type of discussion, I hope, and I am heartened honestly because of the mistrial, because of the hungary. There is discussion about that. So these discussions are worthy of having. Remember, this is still just a case about Lindsey Clancy. She is not the shining beacon one way or the other of the way postpartum or mental health or whether mothers can kill their babies and not be held accountable or be held accountable. She is at the end of the day in our justice system just Lindsey Clancy for purposes of this case, even though obviously she has become this bat signal of many other issues that I don't necessarily think she should be. But if it shines a spotlight and important conversations we should have, then so be it. Maybe that is the only silver lining we can get from this devastating case. Well guys, this is our last show on Lindsey Clancy. I hope you've enjoyed this case. I hope you've enjoyed our coverage of this case. I know it's been a tough case, it's been a divisive case. It's brought up a lot of emotions, a lot of passions, but we always try and cover these cases and give you the straight talk on what's happening and then give you our opinions as well. And if you think we're biased, it's probably because you've been listened to really biased people who tell you that everything the defense does is great and that Lindsey Clancy is a saint and that the system failed her. Consider that before you assume that we're the biased ones. There may be the people you've been listening to who tell you all these things that are demonstrably not true are actually the ones you shouldn't listen to. We will always give you the straight skinnier what's happening in court, how the evidence is coming in, and we'll apply our expertise on it about how we sit and you can take it or leave it. And hopefully the information we've given you can help you create your own views even if those views are the opposite of ours.
Guys, I can't help it. I just love a good deal. Maybe it's because my mom taught me that there's really nothing better than finding a good deal on something that you love. But I thought it was only for garage sales or clearance racks. It wasn't until I found what not that I realized my love of deals and the reality of having to shop online was matched in one amazing app. And whatnot, I can find things that are literally half of what it's going for anywhere else. And I get to watch the sellers show it up close so it's personal. So I had my eye on this beautiful tucker-nuck dress, but I wasn't about to pay full price because let's be honest. My clothes these days have little toddler greasy hands on them all the time so I just couldn't pay full price. I got on whatnot, found the exact dress on their website and I got an amazing deal while asking all the questions I wanted from the seller and I really felt like I got to know the seller so I wasn't just buying from some faceless void. What an awesome experience, I'll definitely be going back. That's the real magic of what not and why other apps really don't compare. What not is so special because it is the number one live shopping app in the US where shopping happens in real time with real people, real conversations and incredible deals. There's also this great community that I've really been missing out on now that I basically only shop online. On whatnot you're connecting with sellers and other shoppers, it's like hanging out with a group that gets you. This is a fun way to shop and their deals are just incredible. You almost never pay full price. You can shop name brands across makeup, perfume, clothes, handbags, jewelry and more all without the retail sticker shock. This is the best place to find great deals on products you love. Download what not today and get $20 off your first purchase. Watch what not WHAT and OT in the app store, sign up and start finding the best deals on the products you love with $20 off your first purchase. The Lindsay Clancy is over but we're not done. We're still covering cases. We're in the middle of the Leo Frank case. Even as we record this, which was a trial from about 100 years ago that if you haven't heard about it, you should have. So check that out, we will continue to cover these cases and others, whether it's a Scott Peterson case or the Add Non Side case or the Dollar Routier case, which has, I think, echoes this one in it, Jeffrey McDonnell, why doesn't it get through our greatest hits, John Binet Ramsey? Or if you like things that are more along the lines of D.B. Cooper and The Outlaw of Pass, which are much more fun to talk about because they don't involve the murder of children. We cover those cases as well. If that's the case, she want to hear. She is an email, prosecutor's
[email protected], check us out on social media at prosecutor's pod for Twitter/X. I'm going to call Twitter, I think, to link the time. Instagram, TikTok, join us on the gallery where it's never an echo chamber. So be prepared. People will disagree with you and you shouldn't get your feelings hurt if they do, but you'll have great conversations. Alice was frozen in just a beautiful look there for a second, unfortunately, she's unfresened. If you leave a 5 star review, we're going to get back to this. Maybe we can get back to it today. If you leave a 5 star review, you can leave a question and we will answer it and not miss anything else. Check out our podcast, Legal Briefs, where we talk about ongoing legal cases and legal issues and Supreme Court rulings and everything else. All right, Alice. Is there anything else we should talk about before we sign off? I've never looked more forward to October. Oh, October is coming. And I say that actually, not sarcastically. If you like to speak your side of trick, it's still trick, but if you like to speak your side of trick, we tend to do those in October and October is coming up. So join us for that. I think it will be, as Alice said, a nice respite after this one win. 20 episodes dark 20 episodes that we have experienced. Okay. Let's do a question. Let's do a question. I know. You know, it's intense when I have like multiple friends in my life who I didn't even know listen to the podcast, who texted me after like part 19 of Lindsey Clancy and we're like, are you doing okay? Oh, yeah. I'm like, I'm fine. Why? It's hard. It's hard to really express just how many people follow this case. I mean, it's unlike anything we've ever seen. And we didn't know that going in. We didn't realize it was going to be this big gigantic case. We just, it wasn't. It wasn't. It wasn't. It didn't really get big until week two, even though it had been streamed since day one. Yeah. It's just wild. So shout out to Stephanie who's out here. Yes. So if there are other cases like this that you, you like really want us to cover because we can't cover all the trials because there are so many of them. Let us know. There are always, we read our own emails. We don't have people. We are the people. So email us and let us know what you want to hear about. All right. Here are some questions. Okay. Nurse Becky wants to know if we really played June's journey. The answer is yes. If we tell you we do something, we do it. It's been a long time, though. I forgot about June's journey. Oh, yeah. I still like June's journey. But yeah. Oh, yeah. Let's see. How much? This is from Jackie. How much student-long debt? No. Did you graduate with? Oh, I can answer that. What do you think about that? So both of us, I don't know if yours is the same, but both of us married lawyers as well. So, and I got married like a year after law school, so then there's the combined law school debt. Okay. I was very lucky. I picked all of my schools based on financial aid because I wanted to minimize the amount of debt that I would have. So I picked my college, and I've said this before, specifically because I got a full scholarship to attend the college. It wasn't the most prestigious college I got into. Didn't care. They paid for my summers, my books, my rent, everything, and I was like, yep, going. So I started law school with zero debt. Then I went to law school, and honestly, I picked Yale because they gave me a better financial package than Texas. Texas, you calling you out? Because I wanted to go to Texas since I was from Texas, and wanted to be home and thought it would be cheaper to go there than, you know, somewhere in Connecticut. And so I went to the law school that gave me the best financial aid package, scholarships, and whatnot. And I still graduated with six figures of debt. And it was on the low end of six figures, though, because I think to attend Yale for three years was like $300,000, $250,000, $300,000, like with living costs and everything, because you have to pay for your rent and all the fees and everything. And I think I graduated with like $100,000 of debt. My husband, however, wonderful child, didn't care about financial aid and just like took out all the loans. So together we had honestly like $400,000 of school debt between the two of us. And I've said this before as well, because I think this is important for people who want to go into a life of public service. We both knew that we did not. We wanted to have paths open for our career to be able to serve in public service. And the only way to do that is if you pay off your debt, because it's like 30 years that you pay them back. You know, I haven't been out to law school for 30 years. I'd still be paying it back. So we aggressively lived like poppers for the first two years of our marriage. Like did not go out to eat. We were those weirdos who when we went out to eat in DC with our friends, we did not order food. And we were like the weirdos who ordered water. We still tipped, but we did not order food when our friends all went out. And we took every single paycheck and put it towards our loans and paid off our loans in the first couple of years of our marriage. But we lived like we hadn't zero dollars. But that's how way we lived. Most people don't pay off all their debt like that. So I'm being very clear about that because a lot of people don't know just how expensive law school is. Yeah, law school is expensive. I'm sure we were around the same amount. And yeah, I mean, it was one of those things where I also aggressively repaid it. And people would tell me that that was the wrong thing. It's funny because you got to the Dave Ramsey approach, which you shouldn't have any debt. He's crazy. But then you got the other people's approach, which is like, doesn't matter how much debt you have, invest all your money, pay the minimums on everything. You'll make more through investing and then you can pay it all off. And I was very much in the middle where I was like, I'm going to have debt to do things I want to do, but I'm going to aggressively pay it off because I would just rather not have it. I would rather pay off the debt and then I'll start building my stock portfolio or whatever. So I was the same way. And the feeling I had when I paid off my student loans was worth whatever I lost in annual percentage compounded whatever rates that I would have gotten if I invested that money somewhere else. So yeah, I mean, it's a lot, but it is manageable, but you have to, I think you have to make a plan to go after it and take advantage of every opportunity and get whether it's whatever student loans, you can get help, you can get grants, you can get financial aid, you can get if you are working in public service, make sure that your loans are structured so you can take advantage of any kind of forgiveness or anything else. Just by the way, the reason I couldn't take advantage of the public service, even though I went into public service is because I got married and my husband wasn't in public service. And I know a lot of people and you know me, I don't believe in like delaying your life or your career because your career is not going to mourn you when you die. A lot of my friends put off getting married precisely for that reason actually, which is not great. I don't, that's like we should not encourage that.
So, yeah, you just, you do what you got to do to make it work within the life you want to live, but you can make it work and I was fortunate because I had no debt going into law school. So I had no college debt, I had friends, I had one friend who had so much debt that she had reached the cap, which I didn't know there was a cap. She couldn't take out any more student loans, so she had to work to pay off debt so she could take out more loans for law school. So. And that's another great point. I worked all throughout, even though I had a full ride in college, I worked like 30 hours as a work study, just like stapling papers, working the front desk of the library. So I worked aggressively throughout college and law school, I babysat a nanny, I worked at the law school, I researched, I worked like a full-time job in law school to be paying that down and still graduated with that amount of debt. So all to say is like, there are ways to do this and look, live my dream, got to serve in public service for a decade and so did my husband. So. All right. Well, great question. Keep them coming. We'll answer some more next time. Next time you hear from us, if you're listening to this on the feed, I hope you're enjoying the Leo Frank guys. There'll be more Leo Frank. Next week, if you're listening to us live, we'll have something new for you. We have one more episode to record before October, so you have one more normal episode before the spooky season starts. So though, the people I've already noticed, Halloween decorations going up in the neighborhood, love it. I also believe that September, after Labor Day, is the beginning of the Halloween season. Just like November 2nd, is the beginning of Christmas and I'm excited to see two months of Halloween. All right, guys, well, we will talk to you soon, but until then, I'm Brett and I'm Alice and we are The Prosecutors. Are you familiar with the podcast? This one of the perks? It's not starting on time. It's that we show up at all times, come on. So in the words of Lafayette, from the famed musical Hamilton, what I miss, in a lot of ways, nothing, but in other ways a lot. Yeah, all right, great role, let me do this. [Music] Brett is running on fumes. So it's going to be wild tonight because he has been driving for 2,000 miles and he's still here. So, take that refund and drive 1900 miles. No, I'll simply drive 1900 miles. There you go. There you go. All right, let's start. This is a bad boy. There we go. So he can go to sleep. All right. [Music] Hello, and welcome to Pluto Fo. 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. Time in. From the key in 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.
PodcastTranscript AI