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

the least. Hey everyone, I'm Megan Kelly. Welcome to the Megan Kelly show. We are coming to you live to cover the dramatic developments in the Lindsey Clancy Murder Trial this morning where a verdict may now hinge on a single holdout juror and what's going to happen to that juror we do not know reporting to you from the beach where I was planning on a

more casual day. Okay, the jury is about to be brought into the courtroom, which we

will take live. You won't miss it. But first, let's get you up to speed on yesterday's

dramatic developments. It started around 3 p.m. The jury for person sending a note to the court indicating that one juror is refusing allegedly to follow the judges' instructions

“on the legal standard for reasonable doubt. It's important to point out we do not know”

for sure, which way the jury is leaning. Neither does the judge, the prosecution or defense. We believe we haven't seen the actual note, but nothing communicated in court yesterday would suggest the jury has in any way tipped its hand as to which way any any number of them might be leaning. Judge William Sullivan immediately calling a side bar, which was not shown in the live court feed. Per court room reporters inside the

courtroom, Lindsey Clancy's attorney Kevin Rettington was seeing slamming down paperwork

and reacting with physical anger. At times Judge Sullivan was heard raising his voice at one point, Rettington was said to have put his head in his hands out of frustration and there was another moment where Lindsey Clancy herself was wheeled over to the side bar up to the judge's bench to participate in the discussion. In the end, Judge Sullivan

“individually questioned the jurors. We believe that the questions were, can you be fair?”

Can you follow the law? Very generic stuff. And then he re-read to them in open court. This part we heard, his instructions on reasonable doubt. The ones he'd already read prior to their deliberation and he sent the jurors back to resume deliberations. After the

jury left the courtroom, Kevin Rettington stood up again and asked the judge to remove

the juror who's allegedly refusing to follow the instructions on reasonable doubt, arguing that the person was not properly applying the law and even taking shots at the judge himself. Thank you. I appreciate that. I appreciate the fact you wanted that you were allowing us to be heard in public rather than at the side by the juror. The court has an instruction

“from the four person of that juror that's been working for a week now, saying that there's”

one juror who refuses to listen to the law that you've given him or her on reasonable doubt. And I suggest, respectfully, that the soft instruction that you gave them saying, at the sidebar, can you listen to the law as I instruct you? Does not focus on the issue? It is that question is not sufficient enough. It does not allow any foundation for a motion to remove the juror who refuses to accept your instructions on the law, on reasonable doubt.

And if we come back here in a half an hour with a mistrial because of the juror that has just sprained the instructions of this court. It's a shame. It's a real shame. And that's why I object to the courts rolling. I request that we have further inquiry. I request that my motion is to remove this juror that refuses to listen to your instruction on reasonable doubt. It's such a mystery because he wants that juror gone, but we do not know that

this juror is for the prosecution. We don't know whether he is against Lindsey Clancy. How is Kevin Readington so sure that this juror needs to go? What if that juror is the loan hold out for his side? This dominated much of our discussion yesterday when this news broke and I have to tell you, I'm no more clear on it this morning than I was yesterday. Judge Sullivan refused to bounce the juror calling this a sensitive undertaking and it is

indeed, and noting that the jurors had individually affirmed to him that they could follow his instructions. Kevin Readington later telling lawyers that this morning, this is after court in a scrum yesterday, saying that this morning at 9 a.m. any minute now, Judge Sullivan will conduct an inquiry into this holdout juror. How is that going to go? Is this juror going to be questioned at an open court? Readington said it is expected to happen in open

court, not at the sidebar. I mean, that seems impossible, but in fact, Readington this morning filing motion asking the court to end all sidebars for the remainder of the trial. I mean,

from yesterday that I brought with me down here. Thank you. So let's talk about it as we await the court happenings. Can we see the feed? Please, as we're awaiting what's happening in court, as soon as something happens there, we're going to, oh, there's no feed. Okay, so they haven't even put up the feed. So when we get the feed, we'll put it on the board. Make sure you see it as we see it and then we'll analyze it together. Journey me now for all of that fill

hallway. He is host of the MK true crime show. We have an MK true crime podcast channel, and basically

the way that works is you go on your phone, you hit podcasts, and you type in MK true crime, and we have a few different shows on that channel. All about true crime, all about the day's legal cases, and we have the best in the business hosting those shows. Fill is one of the co-hosts of the signature show, which is called MK true crime. Having had a day now to reflect or

“night, Matt Murphy, I'll start with you. Any further thoughts on what's actually happening?”

Well, we've got, we've got somebody who's dug their heels in apparently. But you're right, Megan, that's a bit of a gamble by Kevin Redington. He doesn't know. He thinks that they're going his way. I think he's probably right, but we can't see the jurors. So we were really kind of operating in a

vacuum, and it's always reading two leaves, trying to figure out what a jury is thinking.

I don't think the judge is going to do any of those things that he's asking. I don't think the judge should do any of the things that he's asking. The jurors, if you deliberate and you're talking about it, it's kind of tough to say when somebody is or is not subjectively applying a particular instruction or loss. So there must be something behind that, but the judge did exactly what he should have done, and that is you four-dire each individual juror, and you ask if they'll go back, right?

And one thing that is interesting, Megan, is Massachusetts has a law that you can only judge can only send a jury back twice. And then if the jury wants to hang, the court cannot order them

“to continue to deliberate. So if this person holds out for the rest of the day, I think that”

we're in a situation that we're probably going to see him install the clerk. But it's a lot of pressure in that, and by the way, that weak instruction that Kevin Reddings has talked about isn't you at all? Excuse me Matt, they're going live in the court. Let's listen. We put over to today to address it. Come off the head of the opportunity review that note. Yes, you're on it. All right. A defendant had an opportunity. Yes, you're on it. All right. And so

I will hear from the parties as to how the each party suggests or requests

ideal with that note. So, I want to hear from the Commonwealth first.

Thank you, Your Honor. I apologize for my voice. So, the Commonwealth's suggestion is that the jurors being instructed to return to their deliberations without any further instruction over there.

“The basis for that request is Commonwealth versus Ronkey, ROMC, CHI, 491 Mass, 284 from 2023.”

In that case, it's a similar situation where it's reported one juror is having issues with the other jurors. And it says in that case, where reliable information comes to a judge suggesting a lack of impartiality, bias, extraneous influence, or inability to deliberate that there should be an individual warrior hearing regarding that. We don't have any of those circumstances here. There's no indication of a lack of impartiality, or bias, or extraneous influence,

and no indication of inability to deliberate, in fact, the deliberated for a very long time in this case, and very conscientiously. So, what we have here is a note that indicates a disagreement about how to weigh the evidence, and that's deliberation. So, it's a Commonwealth's position, especially considering the fact that you're on our right here at each of the jurors yesterday, and they all said that they could follow your instructions. So, when you couple that with the requirements

of Ronkey, I don't think an individual guard here is necessary. If you're on a death determined to do one, we would just ask along the lines of all the case law in this area, Ronkey Williams, Torres, the whole string of cases that the juror be instructed not to comment on the deliberations, and that the juror be told that he or she cannot be discharged unless a personal problem unrelated to their relationship with the jurors, or their views on the case, and that any attempt,

or any comments by the juror that tend to get into deliberations that you're on our interrupt, and remind the juror that we're not to get into that, and that questioning be ceased of the juror unless he or she indicates that there is a personal problem unrelated to the case of the relationships.

argue this to you a couple of points that occur to me. First of all, as Ronkey is well aware,

a defendant, any defendant in this court room or any court room in our country, is entitled to have a juror who is true to their oath, who will agree that they will apply the facts as they determine them to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. To the law, I was given to them by you as a judge or any other judge. If a jury consists of people in this one person who is refusing to actually apply the law to the facts as determined for reasons that are not

arising out of the case, but are personal to the jurors' position regarding their review of

their oath and how they should apply their oath. In other words, if it's personal to this individual,

“which I believe it is, based on the first question that you had, and I have never seen a situation”

like this where a four person on the jury is so courageous as to speak on behalf of 11 jurors and indicate that jury number which I will not mention, and I quote, "Has made statements acknowledging doubt, but refuses to apply it to the verdict as the law states." Clearly, Judge, we have a person who under their oath stood in front of you yesterday, when you did the individual of Yadia, and according to this information, under oath, looked you in the eye and lied.

That jury told you that he would be able to apply the law to the facts as you asked them.

And based on this note from this jury, it clearly and unequivocally indicates that

“clearly 11 to 11, and this person will not apply reasonable doubt to the evidence to return”

a not guilty verdict. I would ask that the court would, and I know it's awkward. I'm familiar with the law, I know that we try to protect and preserve the sanctity if you will, of the jury. We don't want to invade their deliberations. We want to keep that private. Obviously, that's a good thing to do. But when you have a situation where you have not one but two notes, that clearly indicates that this individual has acknowledged doubt, but refuses to apply it

to the verdict. He is as the law states. He is not being honest with you. At the sidebar, I would go so far as to reluctantly say that the individual has made a false statement under oath to this court. There has to be an issue that is not arising out of deliberations in the facts of this case. But the individual is refusing to apply your instructions on proof beyond a reasonable doubt to allow that jury to return a verdict of not guilty.

I just wanted to put on the record that the note does not indicate that this jury lied to your owner when responding. The note indicates that the parties disagree on what is reasonable doubt or what doubt is and how it should be applied. And we are in no position to judge if the 11 or the 11 is right. But there's no indication that the jury is intentionally trying to mislead the court or lie to the court. All right. Thank you. All three counsel or where the case

law spells out the concerns that everybody has in a situation like this where it says the discharge of a deliberating jury is sensitive undertaking fraught with potential error. It's to be done only in special circumstances with special precautions. A judge must take the utmost caution

“to avoid invading the province of the jury. That's what I'm concerned with in this at this point.”

And even under the statute during deliberations a jury probably may be discharged only for reasons personal to that jury having nothing whatsoever to do. Nothing whatever I'm sorry to do with the issues of the case or with the jury's relationship with their fellow jurors. In this case here, I see no showing of the need for an inquiry of this particular jury. The note that we were referring to the one from late yesterday afternoon indicates that the jury says acknowledged doubt

we give in regards to reasonable doubt. And the both parties agreed to says the reasonable doubt

does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt. And so in reading that note carefully and strictly in the way that I have to before I possibly invade the province of the jury, that note does not indicate that this is a person who has refused to follow the law. And in addition, as the parties recognize yesterday, we brought all the jurors and including the juror who is at issue here. And we asked, I asked whether or not those jurors could follow the instruction, including the

instruction I just referred to. And the all the jurors indicated that they could. This is not a case

that there's any indication that the juror has refused to deliberate or has any reason

has indicated that they would not follow the law or that they're physically suffering or there's no note from the juror that indicates that the juror cannot or will not be able to continue deliberating in some of the other cases talk about. So for reasons of for that, I'm not going to do a further inquiry of this juror over the defendant's objection. And at that point, my inclination would be to bring the jury back. If my thought would be though to remind them that it's the

adjudity to accept the law as I give it to them. And that they have to follow that law and I think this is what I told them a week ago. They have to follow whether they like it or not. So I'm going to give them that instruction and remind them of that. So with that, I'm going to ask if the court also instruct the jurors or remind them that any future notes should not contain information about deliberation. Well, the user is going to say if there's any notes

“or a future notes if they're already, you should refrain from detailing any of the actual deliberations”

and do not indicate where they stay in numerical. A couple of things. Sure. It's the law of the honor. Knowledge is that I have an objection that I appreciate and I do have an objection and I am again citing Article 12. Sixth Amendment in the United States Constitution. This goes beyond Massachusetts law. This is constitutional. It's a structural, I suggest, respectfully defect in the procedure that we're engaged in. We're elevating form over substance. And that's your

run is ruling. I understand I've objected. But I would ask that you not instruct the jury that they cannot indicate anything. And I understand why traditionally we tell jurors. Don't let us know what your division is or what your split is. But in this case, I'm concerned that if you do that, that for a person is going to feel that that is some type of that she violated something and might feel that your honor is kind of coming down on her and not to do that. And I think

it's too delicate right now with situation. And in addition, and finally, I would ask that you

not just give them as I describe it yesterday a soft inquiry. You will listen to my instructions. I would ask that you specifically direct their attention to proof beyond a reasonable doubt

“and re-instruct them on that forcefully. I think you did yesterday, didn't I?”

Yes. You did yesterday, you did it soft, you didn't do it forcefully. And I'm asking maybe what do you want me to do? I want you to get a brass band. I read the instruction as written by the SJC. The fact that I perhaps didn't give it my full inflection, I'm sorry about them. I'm not an actor. I've just given the instructions. Well, my point judge simply is that you're kind of glossing over the issue. The issue is this juror will not, according to that note,

apply the law of reasonable doubt. And that's why I've requested you know what I've requested. Right. But it just in case the record, I am specifically not glossing over this issue. I have thought about this issue long. And I know that it's an objective, but the characterization that I'm glossing over it, trust me. That's not the situation. I've been thinking about this

“for quite a while. So that's what I'm going to do. I'm going to just give that instruction.”

As I said, that they have to follow follow my instructions. I'm not going to reiterate the

give this with more pizzazz than I gave yesterday, I suppose. So with that, we'll bring the jury back in.

And I'll ask the questions. I'll give those kind of that instruction and we'll send it back out. All right, bringing the jury in. We'll get a break. Wow. Wow. As he brings the jury back in, let's talk. And then we can go back at this action in the courtroom. But there you have it. The answer to our mystery right there, the note from the jurors from the four persons said that there is a

“juror who has acknowledged doubt, but refuses to apply it to the verdict. That's why Kevin”

Readington was so sure that the one hold out was against him and why the prosecution is arguing that that juror should not be bounced. And overall, what we heard today is Kevin Readington also accusing the juror of lying to the court when he they used the pronoun "he" was questioned yesterday. But Kevin Readington lost for now. His push to have the judge bounce the juror do additional questioning of the juror in court and so on was rejected. And he pushed it to the point where the

judge got pissed. He heard there at the end. You didn't give the reasonable doubt instruction forcefully enough. He said, "What would you like me do to do, call in a brass band?" He didn't

appreciate that and he always knows counsel when you're out on a thin read. And you've gone out too far

the judge will slap you and you got to back up a little. So it doesn't look like this judge is going to do John out what Kevin Readington wants him to do. He's gotten all he's going to get. The judge is doing the right thing though, Megan, because it is a major, I don't know. It takes almost an act of God. I think to remove a juror under this situation and the judge doesn't think it requires that level of judicial scrutiny under the circumstances. And at the risk of being odd

woman out and I'm okay with that. God knows I've done that for my entire career. I am still not convinced

“you can beat me up if you want to. That the fact that a juror has expressed doubt means that”

that juror is wholeheartedly on Kevin Readington's side. He made me this juror as having doubt,

but doesn't know whether how to define reasonable. He's not on Kevin Readington's side. He's on the the the the the theory is he's on the prosecution side that he that the other jurors are complaining he and they do know which they they also reveal that the note the agenda revealed which juror is accused his juror number and also revealed the split. So there was a lot in that note we did not know about they said who it was the juror number. It's a man and what the split was 111. But that doesn't

and said he has acknowledged doubt that this juror has acknowledged doubt but refuses to apply it to the verdict. So Phil, it is it is somebody who is refusing to go along with 11 others who

“appear to be ready to decide with Lindsey Clancy. That's that's what we just learned.”

Yeah, and if I can take just a quick minute to bloat I said this yesterday I said when they went to the sidebar before we had any argument in the courtroom they all went to sidebar and they spent several minutes there before they brought the jurors in for a little questioning at the judge's bench and my prediction my sense yesterday was there's a lot more in that note there's something in that note that tells Rattington that you know this juror needs to go because it is you know it's

so close to him getting the verdict that he wants which is going to be not guilty by a reason of insanity and so it now makes perfectly good sense to that we can understand why he wanted an alternate juror but the thing about an alternate juror you know we don't know how that person might go because the deliberations when that's to start all over again and you add another person in there the does that person then try to you know does that person want to vote guilty and bring some of

the others over to his or her side so it's you know it might be a situation where Rattington needs to stick with the devil you know so to speak versus the devil you don't know and rely on this judge's instructions he's about to remind him again that they must acquit a defendant if they have reasonable doubt and so I think that given these two sets of instructions now that might just be enough to budge that juror off of his position because now we

do know it's a he so I think we're getting very close here is one of the things that concerns me Matt I'll stand by the judges back stand by from Eddie source about this case there would

serious matter concerned bearing on your services adjourn this case that anybody needs to bring

my attention at this time thank you all right so I did get the note yesterday and one thing I would say if there are any notes in the future I'm not saying there are but if there are just don't make sure we don't put down where everybody is numerically okay but what I wanted to do was give you go over one thing I wanted to remind you as I instructed you earlier it's your duty as jurors

“to accept the law as I stated to you you should consider all of my instructions as a whole you”

may not ignore any instruction or give special attention to any one instruction you must follow the law as I give it to you whether you agree with it or not the law that I'm instructing you on is the

law that's been established by our legislature and our pellet courts and it applies to everyone

and you must apply the law as I have instructed you and you have a copy of the instructions that I gave you you should still have them back there with the juror and with that you may now resume your deliberations that is easy to yeah okay so the juror is going back to deliberate so the judge saying you must follow the law whether you agree with it or not and making sure the jurors had no personal issues that would prevent that and they you heard the

jury say you know we're good here's one thing that jumped out at me Matt you had defense counsel stand up and open court and then accuse a juror of lying under oath to the court which I mean

correctly if I'm wrong but would be a crime in and of itself to lie under oath and is this juror

“now potentially exposed in a way someone needs to tell him about like this is I think that's”

juror intimidation by Kevin Rettington but this juror doesn't know so it's like it's intimidation outside the presence of that juror if I were his lawyer just watching this whole thing I'd be very angry that my client is trying to do his civic duty almost guaranteed rather do be doing something else these past two months and just got accused in open court of lying under oath which is a crime yeah I'm not as lawyer and it makes me angry to be honest with you I saw John is reaction that's

that's not racist thing to say and look Kevin Rettington is going to have done a very good job of defending his client but over and over in this trial Megan he just pushes a little too far for me I'm sick of listening to the guy to be honest with you and one of the things it's frustrating to me right now and I'm sorry it's early morning I'm jet lagging but you know these these pros and cuters need to counterpunch that stuff you know they need to be on their feet

yeah now Rettington to say this guy has he's done his juror duty reasonable doubt just for the viewer a lot of people think that that's any doubt or proved to 100% certainty the language of the law on Massachusetts is the same as California that's anything relating to human affairs is open to some possible imaginary doubt that's been the law only for about the last 500 years you can't know anything with 100% certainty unless you wouldn't sit yourself in which case you're

in the witness box not not a juror so it is perfectly okay to have to have doubt and not be violating the law but saying that the doubt is not reasonable it doesn't rise to the level that you're going to acquit that is that that's 500 years of precedent that's perfectly okay and for a defense lawyer and officer of the court to stand up for somebody that's given his time sworn to and worked very hard with his fellow jurors to accuse him of committing perjury

“in open court when the entire world is watching I think it's irresponsible I think especially when”

you've got that lunatic out there with your camera the other day taking pictures of all these people that's um I'd be I'm pissed right now make it listening to that it's not it's not okay to do that and he needs to fricking he needs to shift down he's he is zealously advocating for his climate to accuse a juror of a crime under these circumstances I believe is vastly improper and I look look I wish we had honestly I wish you had stronger prosecutors who are counter punching

that nonsense because you shouldn't be doing it on this case it's not right it's not fair and frankly John I we should also not know that it's a male juror we shouldn't know anything about Kevin Reddington is the one revealing all these details and they noticed the judge didn't reveal that the prosecution didn't reveal that Kevin Reddington is the one who got up there and said it was a he and threatened him with I mean as of committing a felony and is jumping up and down

about getting this guy bounced for what where is he getting Kevin Reddington I believe he made a false statement to you under oath he won't apply your instructions and then the prosecutor prosecutor got up and said that that note did not indicate that this juror is lying to the court

judge then re-read the law unreasonable doubt but what we clearly have here is

“just a disagreement between the eleven and the one and it seems to me that Kevin Reddington”

and arguably the other eleven or at least the four person are trying to strongarm the one

into just going along with it so they can get out of there by saying always violating the law

that's true and think about this also there are only three men on the jury so it's not going to be hard to figure out you know any meany money moe which one Kevin Reddington oh in janna let me just add to that there's a john but to prep the petro show he's been in the court for this trial he tweeted out pretty sure we know which juror it is he has his head up he seems confident he's not going to be coerced by the defense that's this guy's take and let me clarify

what I meant earlier because I'm I'm not convinced that the eleven that this jury is on Kevin Reddington side only because when they talk about the context of the note like Matt said this

person indicated they have doubt but they didn't say what level of doubt is they have beyond all

doubt are they trying to use that standard which is not the standard or do they have reasonable doubt but they're not going to apply it so there's still some things that are unclear about the nature of this very curse no so I'm not a hundred percent convinced that this jury is going to come back with a defense verdict if they are able to quote unquote strong arm this one hold out I get that you know the tea leaves kind of indicate that but I'm not a hundred percent in my gut on

on that and that's all I meant to say earlier I got it that makes sense what they said in court Reddington said this jury has made statements acknowledging he was quoting the the note or paraphrasing this jury has made statements acknowledging doubt but will not apply it to the facts or to the verdict I can't remember how that went and then he went out to say this jury lied to you judge he said he would be able to apply the law to the facts he won't apply the reasonable doubt

standard to these facts then he revealed there were two notes that's also something we didn't know

“in two notes they say he's acknowledged doubt but refuses to apply it to the verdict I believe he's”

made a false statement under oath to you you won't apply your instructions and then the judge said this jury in a note yesterday has acknowledged doubt but refuses to apply it to the verdict so that's that's about as much as we know here just for the audience just tuning in is the contentious exchange between Kevin Reddington and Judge Sullivan on this whole doctor I would ask that you not just give them as a describe it yesterday a soft inquiry

will you listen to my instructions I would ask that you specifically direct their attention to proof beyond a reasonable doubt and re-instruct them on that forcefully you did it yourself you didn't do it forcefully and I'm asking maybe what do you want me to do I want to get a brass band I read the instruction as written by the SJC look fact that I perhaps didn't give it my full inflection I'm sorry about them not an actor I've just given the instructions well my point judge

simply is that you're kind of glossing over the issue the issue is this jury will not according

“to that note apply the law of reasonable doubt and that's why I've requested you know what I”

requested so I know go ahead but it just just in case the record I am specifically not glossing over this issue I have thought about this issue long and I I know that if they're just the characterization that I'm glossing over it trust me that's not the situation you said you'd give the jury the instructions again or not he wasn't going to reread the reasonable doubt instruction but just remind them to follow the instructions with more pizzazz and fail this judge is trying to avoid

reversible at committing reversible error but the the biggest danger zone for him in reversible error is to bounce the juror that the judge is not going to bounce the jury he's made that clear this morning without more like if another note comes back suggesting he's he's gotten more egregious in his alleged refusal to follow the reasonable doubt standard okay maybe we'll have to you know

go there but what what it seems to me is this jury is second tired of this guy holding out saying

he doesn't have reasonable doubt or maybe to Jonas point maybe he's holding out saying he does have reasonable doubt but this juror is holding onto his own version of what a reasonable doubt is

convictions and you know if he's not going to be if he's not certain that his doubts rise to the

level of reasonable doubt pardon me then he's absolutely you know deliberating the way we would want them to but a couple of points here to something Jonna just said she's not sure that the jury is

“leaning towards not guilty at york and please correctly if I'm wrong but I think I heard”

whether it was ready to under the judge or maybe both you know they didn't exactly read verbatim the the note or notes but they did read from them apparently and I thought I heard one of them say that the juror was refusing to acquit or something along those lines and the other point that I want to make is when the jurors were brought in yesterday to the sidebar and the judge question them individually we don't know what they were asked and we certainly don't know how this one particular

juror answered so Readington has accused him of making a false statement but I'm going to reserve judgment on Readington's claim because I don't know what the juror said to the judge when they read the bench so it's kind of hard for me to evaluate whether or not the juror made a false statement if I don't know what the statement was so Readington was there he was privy to it I wasn't so I would have to reserve judgment on whether or not he went too far in accusing

someone of lying I do acknowledge that it's a you know it's a it's a big claim and to make it an open court it's not something that should be done lightly for sure but I just don't know what was said so I don't think we can we can comment whether or not it was a lie I didn't hear the judge or Readington say anything about acquittal any there we can go back and listen to it I'm looking at all my notes of what he said so first first we had the prosecutor say the instruction to the

jurors to return to deliberation is what's needed we don't need further questioning of the jurors and then you had then she said there's no inability to deliberate there's only disagreement the defense stood up and said any defendant is entitled to jurors who are true to their oath

“if one juror is refusing to follow instructions for personal reasons which I believe is what's”

happening then we have a problem I've never seen a situation like this he said where a juror has

made statements acknowledging doubt but will not apply it to the facts that's when we first had the light bulb moment of okay this the note was more specific than we know then he said this juror lied to you he said he would be able to apply the law to the facts he won't apply the reasonable doubt standard to these facts there were two notes he's acknowledged doubt but refuses to apply it to the verdict I believe he made a false statement under oath to you

he won't apply your instructions the prosecutor the note did not indicate that he was lying to the court the four person said he's not following the law the judge special circumstances only come when you can only discharge a juror for special circumstances only for reasons personal to this juror can he be discharged I see no reason for additional questioning and then acknowledge that the note yesterday reflected the juror has acknowledged doubt but refuses to apply it to the verdict

the note did not indicate that he refuses to follow the law I asked each juror can you follow the instructions and they all said yes and then they had their little fight over what he should

“say when the jury came back in that's where I think we are but I wonder if you have any thoughts on”

Janna the the threat that was made by Kevin Readington to the juror the one hold out juror openly accusing him of committing a crime you know the fact that the juror wasn't privy to the threat and that Kevin Readington didn't go so far as to I think he actually said I'm not going to say the number somebody I could be imagining that at this point might save Kevin Readington from some

other civil liability down the road for basically outing a juror that he obviously believes is the

reason why he's not getting a defense verdict or hasn't gotten when thus far when we actually do not know we do not know what is going on in that jury room and the note I don't think was indicative of it either if it were this judge would not have just made the decision that he made and that was thank you very much Mr. Readington but I'm going to leave the jury alone I'm going to let them continue to do their job I think the judge who individually questioned all 12 would know better

than any of us and anybody watching this trial whether or not this juror's conduct rises to the

on what I was looting to yesterday not a looting to I was flat out saying Kevin Readington knows

how to play for the camera he knows how to put on the show this is part of it that's not bad lorrying that's good lorrying but it's not going to change what's happening in that jury room

“that the the truth is though Matt if if the jury is split 111 and they come back in an hour and say”

we're hopelessly deadlocked and the judge declares a mistrial we will know within an hour what the split was I mean we we will have confirmation that it was 114 Lindsay Clancy and one for the prosecution we think one of those jurors is probably going to talk and and when that happens if it really is 11 for Clancy and one for the prosecution she and Kevin Readington are in a

much better position than they were before this trial started I mean this prosecutor who is fighting

we should know because this prosecutor has the same interpretation that Kevin Readington does that this juror is good for the prosecution and bad for the defense but the prosecution is going to have a serious decision to make knowing that they fought their hardest and at best we think they've persuaded one juror like one so what what is that tell us what where did we go from there well hopefully they negotiate a settlement here and we don't go through another trial and I say

hopefully for everybody for for the defendant in this case and also for the conference welcome Massachusetts I don't know I don't know what happens I don't know what happened behind the scenes

“that's what they should do Megan if it's 11 to one if it's 11 to one the court also has the”

option of exercising discretion although they rarely do that after our jury hangs once even if it's just if it's 11 to one and we all have stories over the course for a career of jury's coming back 11 to one one way and then they they're a quit or a convict the next trial around it's just you know it it it's tough to say I've been advocating if that happens for the elected DA to sit down with Rattington and see if they can find some middle ground and put this whole thing behind Lindsey

Clancy and all the rest of us I for one how well mind not having a how fail will the enormous media scrutiny on the case affect the DA's willingness to do that well I think he's getting it on on two different sides right he's got he's got people who see this as the murder of three children and there's there's very good reason for him to think that and then you've got people that believe that this one was suffering from postpartum to the point that choose it was actual psychosis not just

depression and that under mass shoots its law she shouldn't be criminally responsible and that's one of the reasons why it's not a surprise this jury's hanging because there's there's good arguments and good facts and supported both positions on this so I think they'll get it from both sides no matter

“what he does and that's why you get paid the big bucks isn't all at the DA. Yeah now it's the time”

for the DA to call into that courtroom and or go in there and talk to his prosecutors and say look if it's 11 to one against us we have no reason to think that it's going to be better next time if we try to case my friend Doug Weinstein posted on Twitter he's a lawyer I know he said it would be smart for them to go ahead and tell the judge that they will accept an 11 person verdict which would be presumably not guilty by a reason of insanity and send her on off to the mental health

system that would be something that they could do. Oh yeah they could agree too. The prosecution would say that. The prosecution look if they're if it's 11 to one there's no reason to think they're going to get a more favorable outcome next time it's just going to cost them a lot more time and a lot more money. It might make sense to them to just go ahead and agree to take a verdict with the 11 that they've got and have the judge sent her on her way to the mental health system and

there's no reason to think I can see it in the comments now people are going to tell me what she could be out next week but there's no reason to think that she would not be held for a significant period of time. My experience with these things is that when people have committed crimes particularly serious and high profile crimes and they are mentally ill and they maybe get acquitted based on that they they aren't released from the hospital anytime soon. The people who make the decision on

when to release someone from these this psychiatric systems so to speak. They they look at it more like prosecutors and they want to err on the side of safety and caution and so she probably would be there for a long time. I keep thinking about John Hinkley who shot President Reagan

and arguably he was he had recovered and he had been basically brought to a place in terms of

and they kept on keeping him for a long time probably longer than was medically necessary and I think

“she would be kept for a long time as well. I mean John Hinkley was just on our show I interviewed him”

about a month and a half ago he's he is out he's back out he's got his freedom again which is you know what concerns a lot of people we talked about the case of Constance Fisher on this program last week who killed her three kids up in Maine she drowned all three of them they were almost exactly the same ages as these kids she went to the mental institution she was deemed well enough to leave the mental institution not that long after I don't know how long it was but it was a relatively

short period of time she went back to her same husband Carl who she'd been married to and had the

three kids with they had three more children and she drowned them too she did it again so there are some disturbing precedence of these mental institutions let's face it looking at a young mother

“in a wheelchair very differently than they would look at Phil Holloway if he strangled three children”

and you know the seriously and like going soft on her she's 36 years old I had a child when I was 42 just saying like this is we are playing with fire here you know John this is like this is no joke where she winds up and this is one of the reasons why I very much think it should be a jail cell I wholeheartedly agree I'm wondering what her mental state is now because she's been in some sort of

psychiatric care since since she was arrested basically so is she quote unquote same now

me she doesn't open her mouth in the trial she doesn't have to open her mouth in the trial you know but for crying some tears I get it so we don't even know we don't know how close she is to quote unquote being well and how soon she would be released if she is not guilty by you know

“reason up in sanity the Massachusetts equivalent of that and that is scary because Megan here's”

what one of the reasons why I am all for a conviction in this case is I don't want Lindsey Clancy's verdict to be the reason why women all across the country mistakenly believe that a case of post lot of pressure gives you license to kill your kids or anybody else and I'm afraid by the pink shirts that that is a real possibility they don't understand the law and that scares the hell out of me I totally agree with you this is my concern too I mean it is no accident that

right after that woman killed the 32 year old bank of America executive also was a new mom the nutcase who killed her by stabbing in time square days ago what happened when the press got to that nutcase's brother he said oh she was suffering from postpartum and bipolar you well her kids are in their 20s okay but I don't think it's any accident he threw those two terms out to be like and now like I do not want to see a rash of women who hurt or killed their

children throwing out the Lindsey Clancy up postpartum like Matt you know better than anybody here on this panel or in America that crazy people kill others all the time and are not able to afford themselves of an insanity defense because what we all understand colloquially as he's nuts or she's nuts doesn't necessarily mean legally they will be excused for the conduct that's what this whole case is about pretty much everybody who commits serial murder is nuts but that's

not the end of the inquiry we have people in the red mind to tend not to kill each other right and that goes back to a hundred thousand years and you can make that argument you absolutely I mean you can make that argument for anybody virtually any murder case there's some DSM diagnosis you can give them that that that that you could say they're nuts they're not playing with full deck whatever clever euphemism we want to use question it here is was she so psychotic at the time

that either she didn't understand red from wrong when she killed her kids or she knew right from wrong but could not conform her own actions to what is required under the law that's that's Massachusetts law right and but you're right both like I agree with both you and John on this it's like what what kind of precedent does this set not legally as much as just in the minds of every like every loony person out there who may have some homicidal ideation want to kill people

does this become the next big excuse and I'm with you guys I worry about that on on a case like this

the world gets a little crazier every day but this case is I don't know I just wish we had

better lawyers on the prosecution side of you honest and I only be unfair I keep they they should be punching Kevin Reddington they should be counter punching in these arguments far more effectively than they are and I wish we had yes so I know no I would we can't have Matt Murphy everywhere on fortunately he can only one face at one time but I mean you know what I took the Massachusetts bar and passed it when I took the New York bar maybe maybe I will hang out a shingle and go

volunteer to step into the DA's office if I ever were to go back to the Prax of law it definitely

“would be on the prosecution side all right so listen nothing's happening right now it I think”

you tell me Phil but I think the real question we're dealing with at the moment is how long until they give up and it doesn't seem like this juror is going to give in I could be wrong so either he gives in and we get a probably not guilty by reason of mental defect and she goes to the mental institution or he doesn't give in we have a hung jury and they come back into the court and announce that within some period of time what what would you guess well it's to me and they've been back

in about 30 minutes and so they're free lunch that they get every day is coming up soon so the traditional wisdom amongst lawyers is like you know the jury on the day they reach a verdict they're

going to get there lunch first and then they'll give you their verdict so I do think it's going to be

“you know after the new hour I think sometime later today we're going to get a verdict I think”

that the instructions the judge gave yesterday combined with what he said today gives the 11 people that are I guess apparently voting not guilty by a reason of insanity it will give them some leverage to to use to remind this other individual what reasonable doubt is and and perhaps convince him to come over to their side now I could very well be wrong the one way or another it's going to be over today I think if they give it a few more hours and the person does not budge they're likely

to send the judge notes as look now we are definitely hopelessly deadlock and then the judge is stuck

he cannot send them back at least not against their will to deliberate a third time and would have

“no choice but to declare a mistrial all right don't go far because I think we're going to be back”

together shortly as soon as we hear from this jury again there's zero chance this jury wants this thing to go into Labor Day weekend I mean zero so our only real question is is that guy sitting there like this I've made up my mind I'm good or does he go through the motions of I had it doubt it doesn't rise to the level of reasonable I'm listening does he do the show trial of I've listened to the judges instructions I heard what he said unreasonable doubt I do have a moral

certainty that she committed this crime and that she knew what she was we have no idea I hope we find out all the deeds later but in the meantime we remain unvertyed watch guys thank you all so much for coming on you guys check out MK true crime our channel you go on the podcast button you type in MK true crime and you can get all of my panelist shows MK true crime positively legal and in the well where Matt and Mark Garagos partner on a great show talking about all these issues for now

we sign off and we will see you again later when there's news thanks for listening to the Megan Kelly show no BS no agenda and no fear