Lindsay Clancy Trial Ends in MISTRIAL as Jury Remains Deadlocked with One Single Holdout Juror

22:06We just sent them back to deliberate. So technically we have one report of deadlock that your honor gave the tuy rodriguez charge to i believe under the statute as well as the the case law this court has the ability to send the jury back the fact that that jury for person wrote very unusually with a heavy heart that we are unable to come to a decision based on the earlier questions that we have i think that it would be a sound and a wise decision for this court to send it back under the law?

22:44Well, I would find that under Massachusetts case law and statutory law, the jury did not ask to be sent back, which would be a possibility if they had requested it to be sent back to them. But under the statute and the case law, I don't feel I have a choice but to declare this trial.

23:07Dave Aronberg:Yeah, it's it's it's one thing of the jury after the judge tells them you're the only ones who can do this. There will be no 12 who are more informed or more fair or more able. Please give it another shot if after that he can't send them back again. And so that was Reddington trying to argue that he hadn't quite taken as big a bite of the apple as he could have. And maybe there is one more shot. But Massachusetts law seems pretty clear. The judge is definitely playing with fire if he sends them back in there again. And again, this is typically, you can understand these laws perfectly if you can think of it as the lone holdout is trying to say not guilty.

23:45Dave Aronberg:And the others are saying guilty. You can't, in that circumstance, it seems so clear. You cannot pressure this juror to within an inch of his life to change his verdict or else. I mean, any defendant would get an appeal granted and a verdict overturned if they came to a guilty under those circumstances. But the exact same rules apply when it would be a not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. No, which is what they're looking at. There's a case in New York. Paul Callen, who's a commentator I worked with for years, was actually litigator in this murder case in New York in which there was one holdout for not guilty.

24:21And apparently the deliberations got so pitched that he locked himself. It was a sequester jury. He locked himself in the hotel bathroom because he feared. Oh, wow. He feared the physical intimidation from other jurors. It went into the courtroom, this issue. And the judge, according to Paul Callen, the judge ordered the court to break down the bathroom door and put him back into deliberations, at which point he changed to guilty. And Paul said there was nothing that could be done on appeal after that. I've never heard of something so insane in my life, but that happened. And so it sort of gave me a bar for, you know, what happens in a jury room.

25:02Dave Aronberg:Well, you know, honestly, can you imagine this guy was like, just do it? Nobody wants to do jury service. And then he gets sucked in for two months. Now you're finally wrapping it up. And like, you've been called a felon. You're getting potentially dragged back in there. But wait, Garrett goes, I've been talking about you with these past couple of days because you're my star of my Scott Peterson MK Confidential series this week. And to wait in last night's episode, we feature you talking all about the foreperson of the Scott Peterson jury. And why don't you take it from there? As always, you read my mind.

25:39And we got into our little usual Scott Peterson tiff on episode four.

25:45Dave Aronberg:I was very fair to you, though. Very fair to you. So day seven of Scott's deliberations, the judge had already removed several jurors because the jury was hung. Our foreperson, and I specifically wanted this guy in the jury because he was both an MD and a JD, and I wanted somebody with that kind of a brain watching the evidence. he came in on day seven and they had sequestered the jury during deliberations because it was so crazy the atmosphere was so crazy and he said on the record dr lawyer as we called him he said i cannot deliver the verdict that the community wants and i feel threatened in the jury room i wanted my mistrial then i wanted him to bring in the judge to bring in the people who were threatening him or he felt threatened by judge didn't do that the judge excused dr lawyer the foreperson and substituted in a new juror and after seven days they have to restart deliberations they immediately came to a guilty within hours but but i i should correct myself that's in tonight's episode they're blending uh but but the difference there mark i think was that the juror was saying, I can't be fair and impartial anymore.

27:06Dave Aronberg:I feel too threatened. I don't know what kind of, I don't, if I came to a verdict, I don't know what would be motivating it anymore. The pressure from outside, the pressure from inside, like he was saying he can't be fair now. So that gave the judge the perfect excuse to bounce him, which is why this didn't become a good appellate issue for you, I imagine. Correct. And on that note, I have to leave as the old white guy on the West. And And so the Southern white guy can take my place. Who's here. By the way, I could never, I could never fill your shoes, my friend. I want you to fill my shoes because Megan was convicting you already.

27:45I was going to need to seek an emergency appeal to get a bond. Yes.

27:52Dave Aronberg:I'll say if she looked like Phil Holloway, thank you, Gary goes, Phil, welcome to the party. Yeah. So we haven't gotten your reaction yet to what's happened here with the judge wanting to declare a mistrial and getting an hour, giving an hour reprieve while Reddington tries to appeal him. Well, my first thought, I was surprised that the jury didn't wait until after they got their free lunch for the day before trying to throw in the towel, which is kind of what we normally see. But I think that, you know, Reddington's obviously zealously advocating for his client. And I understand that. However, what he wants is, I think, you know, he wants essentially to get the appeals court to tell the trial judge to do this hearing designed to potentially.

28:41The problem with that is, as you guys just were talking about, that would mean then sending this jury back a third time after they have twice told the judge they were deadlocked. And that would violate Massachusetts law. So I think it's...

28:59Dave Aronberg:Wait, would it if the jury's different? You know, if it's not the same 12 members? I think that certainly in the spirit of the law, I obviously don't have access to all the appeals cases and the rulings in Massachusetts right at my fingertips. But I would be willing to bet my last dollar that that would would be a violation of the rule, sending them back a third time after they have twice said that they were deadlocked. The judge would be on some very shaky legal ground if he tried to do that. I think. All right. We actually had to jump. But John, a spillboard is back with us before we start with you, John.

29:38Dave Aronberg:I want to play the other soundbite that we have cut, which is the judge granting Reddington one hour to file an appeal on the judge's decision to file or to grant a mistrial. Here it is. What I'm asking for is time to file a single justice appeal for this travesty. That's what I'm asking for. So you're asking for an emergency stay at this point? Yes. And the jurors don't have to come back tomorrow. They can be. They even have to come back if I lose the motion. But if I win the motion, then obviously they would have to come back Tuesday.

30:12If you want to go up and petition to the SJC for a stay, I'll give you an hour before we bring the jury back down. I think it's just a request for the stay of the declaration of the mistrial. So I'll hold off for an hour, and then we'll come back in in regards to that. Okay. All right.

30:36Dave Aronberg:But can I can I ask you, I actually still don't understand if he's just going to stay the effectiveness of the mistrial for one hour. That's what you basically said. I won't my order declaring a mistrial won't take effect for another hour while you go up and ask for a stay of the order. If the if the appellate court grants a stay of the order declaring a mistrial, what happens with the jury? They they'd be sent home until the appellate argument played out and then they'd be brought back in days from now after having been home and media coverage and all that. They'd reconstitute and try to have another go at it, Jonna.

31:18Yeah. So I think this procedure isn't going to be a protracted procedure. juror, most likely what's going to happen is the appellate, like we call it the appellate division here, whatever they call it in Massachusetts, is either going to rubber stamp this yes or no. I suppose if they granted the stay of the mistrial, then this particular judge is going to have to make another decision and maybe send the jury back immediately to continue deliberating or most likely replace the juror that Kevin Reddington has wanted to boot off of this jury for the last two days and they start anew.

31:55Dave Aronberg:He wouldn't do that. I mean, but he wouldn't do that because what the judge, what the appellate court would be doing is just staying the mistrial. Like, don't declare it yet. Limbo shall continue while Kevin Reddington files a substantive appeal of the decision. But they can't keep it. I don't know what that means for the jury. They can't let the jury linger. So either there's going to have to be some sort of resolution. I mean, if the mistrial is not declared, then we still have active jurors, right? We're not done. There has been no declaration if it's stayed. So once that happens, then this judge, the trial judge, is going to have to do something to remedy the situation absent letting these jurors just go home for a couple weeks until the appellate division decides what they're going to do.

32:41I can't imagine that being one of the options. I can't either. Well, I think the procedure that he's seeking, it's not a full appeal, and it involves only one judge or justice off the Supreme Judicial Court. And it was my understanding this is a sort of an emergency process. It's decided by one judge, and it's designed to get a quick answer. Now, I wouldn't be surprised if Reddington is not asking for not only a stay, when he's on the phone or doing whatever he's doing to contact this, whichever justice is on call today to hear this request, I wouldn't be surprised if he's not asking not only for a stay, but an order directing the trial court to conduct the hearing that he wants, which is to bring in the juror and sort of drill down on are you deliberating Or are you just being, you know, just digging your heels in and refusing to participate in the process?

33:42And because he's refusing to participate in the process, just being stubborn, then the judge would be on more solid ground to replace him with an alternate. Right.

33:53Dave Aronberg:So this appellate judge could force the trial judge Sullivan to conduct the hearing that Reddington wanted, where we cross-examine this juror, whoever he is, and dig into his deliberative process, which feels so wrong and like reversible error the other way, Dave. Exactly. That's why you're playing with fire here. I mean, you give a lot of discretion to the jury. The judge has repeatedly given instructions, questioned people one at a time. I mean, how much more coercion do you want here? And I think you're right, Megan. And if this were the other way around, we'd be outraged if it was one vote from convicting and we really put the screws to this person and made this person feel like they're doing something wrong or illegal and the other jurors are out to get them.

34:39We would be so upset about that. So why are we not upset here when you have a juror who just says, I have doubts but not enough to overcome my belief she's guilty? And so that's – what's wrong with that, right? It's supposed to be reasonable doubt here, not just any doubt. So this is headed towards a mistrial. I think the appellate court or the single judge on appeal is going to reject this. I think the judge realizes this, too. That's why he said, I'll give you an hour. You're going to lose. Come back in an hour. Then we'll declare the mistrial.

35:09Dave Aronberg:Yes. And this Judge Sullivan would know the appellate court judges much better than the rest of us. So, yeah, he did not seem threatened by Reddington taking him up for this one hour asking for because this what Reddington is seeking is extraordinary relief. This is not an average like this isn't something that happens all the time that the appellate court is likely to indulge. Oh, yeah, sure. We'll get the stay. That's that's that's harmless. So I think if they just follow this, treat this like a normal case, not like the case that's being covered wall to wall by all these news organizations, including us, then they should do.

35:41Dave Aronberg:They should do what Dave said, Jonna. They should say this is an easy one. The answer is no. Yeah. For that reason and others. And think of the other wrinkle, though, Megan, because Reddington basically accused this one juror of committing a felony by lying under oath to this judge. If I were this person, that juror's attorney, I'd be like, no, no, no, no, no. Now he's not going to say anything. You can't interview him, Judge Sullivan, because now you're going to you're he's in jeopardy. Right. Of he's going to exercise his Fifth Amendment right because of what the defense attorney said. So it's so I was thinking about that, Jonna.

36:16Dave Aronberg:Like if this if Megan Kelly were on that jury, I've got Brian Friedman on retainer. OK, and he's a pit bull litigator and he's watching this and somebody gets up there and says the blonde juror who's the holdout has committed a felony. Your honor, I'm telling you, I believe she lied under oath to this court. He'd be there so fast saying there'll be absolutely no more questioning of juror number seven. Yeah, it's over. So, like, Kevin Reddington has actually created a difficult situation for this court and for this juror. And I'm sure the juror, when they find out that this has happened, is going to be none too happy with Kevin Reddington.

36:54Dave Aronberg:It's already on between the two of them, even if the juror doesn't know that. Sullivan didn't seem to be all that concerned with the allegation that the witness had misled or was untruthful with him. You know, Reddington raised the issue, and the judge just kind of glossed over it. We don't know what the questioning was about. We didn't hear it. This all happened at Sidebar. Reddington characterized it as a lie. No, but they suggested they did. They did repeat what he said, that he asked them, can you follow the law? Can you be fair? Yeah. And so, well, you know, the judge, nevertheless, did not seem offended.

37:27In other words, if I were the judge and I felt somebody lied to me, I'd be.

37:30Dave Aronberg:Because Matt Murphy said earlier that it was up to the prosecutor to get up and say, how dare he? Your Honor, Mr. Reddington has gone beyond zealous advocacy to now accusing one of our good faith jurors who is sat here for two months doing his civic duty of a felony because he's a holdout on the issue of reasonable doubt. This is grossly inappropriate. He knows the TV cameras have taken this. He's besmirched him. He's defamed him. I would ask the court to rein in defense counsel. Yeah, they certainly could have done it that way. But the prosecutors have kind of seemed asleep at the switch through a lot of these proceedings.

38:12But right now, I think that they are just they're probably shell shocked because, you know, when I was on last hour, I said that I thought I remembered hearing Reddington or the judge reading from the note and telling us that the note said that they were complaining that this holdout would not return a verdict of not guilty. And nobody remembered it. I went back and looked, and I found where he said it. He said, based on this note from this juror, it clearly says this person will not apply reasonable doubt to the evidence to return a not guilty verdict. So that's why Reddington is basically leaving no stone unturned, trying to get some relief to get this juror off and get another one seated because he can just feel that he's that close to winning this case.

39:03and who knows if they try it again you're going to get a different jury and the prosecutors are going to know what to do different next time they're going to probably get a different team of prosecutors i would say as well um they'll use different witnesses they'll see what went wrong in this case and so the next time around we might actually get a very different um a very different situation out of a second jury i mean we might but like this prosecutor does not instill

39:29Dave Aronberg:confidence, even if she has learned based on the first trial, you know, I think the first lesson for Mr. Cruz is don't put Ms. Sprague back. You're going to need different, different talent to take this over. And I don't know, like the Massachusetts jury, John, it's probably Massachusetts doesn't have one elected Republican in the U.S. Congress. It's all Democrats. It's as blue as the blue states come. So the jury pool is going to be reflective of that. And for whatever reason, the politics, politics are tracking in this trial, like in Liz, in Lindsay Clancy's favor. Yeah, they are. And, and look, maybe in a jurisdiction like that, the prosecution doesn't handle too many trials.

40:22I mean, look, most cases do resolve by a plea bargain. So they're not too used to doing it. One of the things I thought with this prosecutor, because she is a little lackluster and I know she could be the smartest, you know, tool in the shed, sharpest tool in the shed. That's all good. Maybe, though, the dynamic, which is so opposite of Kevin Reddington, maybe this prosecution team who has dealt with him probably now for a couple of years, right, that these trials don't just happen overnight, is so exhausted by his bombastic energy that they just, you know, I'm going to do my job. I'm going to ask my direct questions.

40:56I don't get the fun part of asking a lot of cross. And they just sort of let him go. And this man is going down swinging. I got to hand it to him for that. But I will also hand it to the prosecution that at closing argument, they redeem themselves somewhat in the closing argument for sure. Megan, can I add something to that? Although there are no Republican members of Congress in Massachusetts. There are 11 district attorneys elected in Massachusetts. 10 of them are Democrats. There's only one Republican district attorney elected in Massachusetts. And you know who that is?

41:33Dave Aronberg:Tim, your friend, Tim Cruz, Tim Cruz, correct. Tim Cruz, the only one. That makes a lot of sense. You have a Republican friend. So maybe that's why we have this case to begin with. Republicans tend to be more law and order. We don't tend to be big on like letting the mother who kills three children walk away scot-free because she threw herself out the window afterward. Sorry, that doesn't save you. That's not going to spare you a lifetime behind bars with most, I think, Republican DAs. I would have charged this just as he did. I don't think he overcharged it at all. And I think I would have voted to convict her too.

42:08Dave Aronberg:So realistically, though, what do you think? Like now, if you've got an emboldened Kevin Reddington, and if the judge does declare the mistrial, as we all think he's probably going to at the in 18 minutes. He has now 17 minutes on the clock until we're at one hour. And I don't think this judge is going to mess around because the jury is still sitting there. I don't think this is going to turn into one hour. Suddenly, four hours, they've been sitting there and they want to leave. And so does the judge probably. What what is reasonable? Because, Dave, they can't they cannot come up with a sentence in the mental institution, right?

42:43Dave Aronberg:It's the only option is send her. Do we agree she's going to the mental institution or we don't have an agreement on that and you are going to retry her criminally? Oh, OK. If this is 11 to one, what's going to happen next? Is that what you were referring to? If the judge says no, it's a mistrial. OK, it's a mistrial. Goodbye. Get out. She'll she'll be kept where she is now. And then there will be a decision by the prosecutor and only by the prosecutor as to what to do next. And I suspect if it is indeed 11-1 that the DA, Tim Cruz, will go to Reddington and they'll work this out where they'll find some way to avoid a second trial.

43:21I hear my co-host that maybe with a new jury, but nah, this is Massachusetts. And this is maybe the most conservative county that you'll get because it's the only one that elected a Republican district attorney. And if it's 11-1 there, I don't think you're getting a better result, even if you have a better prosecutor who's trying the case. And if Tim Cruz thought he had some star prosecutor that he could just insert instead of the one, Sprague, who did it here, he would have done so already. This is a high-profile matter. I think this case, it'll be tough to pry it from her cold hands. So I think that if it is a mistrial, and it will be, that they'll reach a deal where she'll go to a mental hospital.

44:00I don't know if they'll ever include incarceration, but it'll be a guaranteed mental hospital so that there's no chance that she goes free. I don't know how you can get her, though, Dave, to a mental hospital where she's guaranteed never to get out. Oh, no, I didn't say that. If it's not guilty by reason of insanity, at some point they could release her. Yeah, no, no. There'll always be a chance she could be released. But that's currently if there is an acquittal, it would be the same thing. She would go to a mental hospital. I think what Tim Cruz wants to ensure is that she just doesn't get released out into the public.

44:30You go to the mental hospital and then it's up to the doctors and the judge eventually to make the decision whether to release her. And in a high-profile case like this, there's a lot of pressure not to let her out in a year. John Hinckley was probably okay years after he attempted to assassinate President Reagan, but he was kept there nearly until he died in prison because it's a high-profile case like this one. Yeah, that's what I said.

44:54Dave Aronberg:Is there any way to guarantee the number of years she would spend in the mental hospital? No. No. No. It's completely up to the doctors. But you know what they could do, Dave and John? They could have an agreement and they could say, all right, what we are going to do is we're going to take a verdict with 11 jurors. We're going to take the NGRI and move on. That's one thing they could do because that would make sure that she goes on to the mental, I guess, I don't know what the correct word is for that, but through the mental health sort of pathway rather than prison. So they could do that. And as Dave pointed out, I don't think I don't think they're going to let her out anytime soon.

45:38But, of course, there's no guarantees. The other thing they could do is they could decide to bring lesser charges, maybe second degree or something along. Stand by.

45:47Dave Aronberg:The judge is back in court. Let's listen. My well, let me ask what is the party's position in regards to that question. Your Honor, from the commons perspective, since the TUI instruction has already been given and then there was like a deliberation after that, I think that it would require a mistrial at this point. Attorney Ragton. Your Honor, my understanding is that this court has the discretion to have the jury sent back for the second time. The first time that there was a report, we did not treat it as a report of deadlock. We did not instruct them under TUI. We did not give them soft TUI.

46:26We didn't give them anything. We just sent them back to deliver it.

46:29Dave Aronberg:So all right, it's fine. This is court TV replaying. We're just waiting until the bottom of the hour. Sorry, they're pool. So we, you know, we go with their shot because they're getting the feed inside the courtroom for all of us. So in any event, soon enough, 13 minutes, we think the hour will be up and the judge will probably be calling them back in there. What, what is generally the protocol with jury members once they're released? my memory from back when I was practicing is it differs state to state. Like in some states, you're not allowed to talk to them. And in some states you are, but isn't it generally up to them?

47:08Dave Aronberg:Like if they want to come out and come to the microphone and even point to, it's that guy. They, they can, can't they, John? Yeah, I believe they can. It's completely up to the individual jurors if they want to or not. And I don't think there's anything, there's no gag order. and there certainly wouldn't be stopping them from pointing out who the holdout was. And in a case like this, you guys, I can't imagine that there won't be probably half the jury who's going to want to get on camera and talk about this. This is their time to shine. This will be their 15 minutes of fame. This is a, you know, a national case that's garnered polarizing attention.

47:45They're going to want to talk and maybe even the holdout might want to talk if he's not fearful of some sort of like actual repercussion, because it is so polarizing that there are people on both sides. He might be a little fearful of letting his identity be known.

48:02Dave Aronberg:There were people on X after this morning saying Kevin Reddington put a bounty on that guy's head. He specifically said he perjured himself to the world. He knows the cameras are taking this in and we will eventually know that guy's identity. There's only three male jurors, so we know it's one of them. It's not going to take a lot to figure out which one it was, even if they don't throw him under the bus, because probably one or both of the others will come out and say it wasn't me. So we're going to find out. And this crazy crowd that's been supporting Lindsay outside of the trial, I don't mean everybody who supports her is crazy.

48:40Dave Aronberg:They're not. There's a lot of good hearted listeners to the show who support her. But there's a rabid crowd that's been showing up at the courthouse every day. How about that? That one lunatic who is filming the jurors and put it and it was in her deleted file. She's already under arrest like this. That moment of Kevin Redding to do this is is going to have repercussions, Phil. You know, it's really a shame that someone can't go to do their civic duty without worrying about being outed for some decision that they make that's not popular to the mob. And so he's going to be doxxed. All that information is going to be out there any time now.

49:23You're right. And it's just going to discourage. Those of us who are practicing law, when we go to try cases, we try to find jurors who don't mind being there. And so if we happen to have a case that gathers any media attention or anything like that, it's going to be in the back of these jurors' minds, and it's going to make them very reluctant to even – we can force them to sit on a jury, but they're not going to necessarily be happy about it. And if they're not happy about it, they're not paying attention to the case, and we want them to pay attention to the case. So I think that this was really unfortunate, and it's going to sort of spoil the milk, so to speak, for all future juries, you know, anybody certainly who's watched this case.

50:10But I did want to point out something that I see. Brian Enten, Megan, has posted. He posted this an hour ago on X. He says, Lindsey Clancy's attorney, Kevin Reddington, just told me in the hallway he does not plan to file emergency intervention with the Supreme Judicial Court. regarding this issue. Quote, it's a waste of time, he says. What?

50:33Dave Aronberg:That's old, according to my team. So I don't I don't know that that's current. We have every reason to believe that's exactly what Kevin Reddington has been spending the past 42 minutes doing. But maybe he'll surprise us once again. As one of the court TV reporters tweeted out there, Kathy Rusan wrote, a unicorn could walk into the courtroom and I would not be shocked at this point. So, I mean, it really is crazy. It's, it's, there's a new one from Enten, Steve. Oh yeah. Okay. Enten. Let's see. He just tweeted out standby 18 minutes ago. We are all in the hallway waiting to see what is going to happen next with Lindsay Clancy.

51:16Dave Aronberg:If cutting, if Kevin Reddington filed the stay with the Supreme Judicial Court, but does not get a response, this could turn into a longer delay, even though the The judge gave him an hour. So that's his latest. And yeah, it could. I mean, it could turn longer, but I just can't imagine that the court, the appellate court is going to do that, Dave. I mean, they know what's going on. They know that these jurors are sitting there in limbo. They're prisoners right now. Yeah, it's unusual that there's this kind of attention to this appellate court. These justices or judges, they pretty much toil in obscurity and anonymity.

51:52And now the world is watching them and waiting for them to decide. So they know the import of this moment and they're going to decide. They're not going to just say, oh, I didn't know this was a big case. You're all waiting on us to decide. Now they know there's a lot of pressure on them. They will decide. Judge Reddington, excuse me, Judge Reddington, God forbid. But the judge in this case is going to get his answer and then it'll be a mistrial today. That's my prediction. I'm sticking with it.

52:20Dave Aronberg:Don't you do? Is it just me or I feel like I don't know. This doesn't look like a young judge. And so I'm just assuming he's been on the bench a while, but I could be wrong. I just feel like most judges would have denied that request out of hand, Jonna, and said the answer is no, Mr. Reddington. I'm declaring a mistrial deal with it. You can take up whatever issues you want on appeal. Like the fact that he even indulged this is pretty extraordinary. Maybe at this point, the judge doesn't want to be doxxed. Maybe at this point, the judge doesn't want stones thrown at his front door. He's letting, you know, he's given, giving Reddington enough rope.

52:59He's letting him, you know, have his dog and pony show. He's letting him indulge as long as it doesn't take more than an hour, because he knows to, Let's look at the practicality of this, you guys. It's Friday on a holiday weekend with a case that has endured for, what, six weeks at this point with deliberations that have come back twice with with a hung jury hanging in the balance. No pun intended on that. We all see the forest through the trees. Half of the appellate division in that courthouse is probably already on the golf course. They don't want to be making these kind of heavy decisions when it's not going to result in Lindsay Clancy going being put behind bars.

53:36It's going to be we're back to square one. So in terms of the ramifications of it, if they rubber stamp it and say, nice try, Kevin Reddington, the answer is no. Get back in the trial department. The Judge Sullivan declares a mistrial. Everybody gets to go to their barbecues this weekend and we decide what we're going to do on Tuesday, Miss Prosecutor. And by the way, just sidebar, if they do try this again, you guys, I don't know how many female prosecutors they have in that office, but this case has to be retried by a female prosecutor. I don't think a male prosecutor can can do what needs to be done.

54:10John, John could go up there and do it. No, you know what, you guys? Yeah. I gosh. You know, Mark, my partner, I'm positively legal. He emailed Kevin Reddington and said, your closing argument sucked. if there's a retrial in this case i want to be on your team mark eiglars did that so i may lose him to the retrial you guys are gonna have to stand in there will be no retrial that would be so

54:35Dave Aronberg:you there that but that would be so amazing i mean that would be great for mk true crime front row seat but mark has to use the honey and not the vinegar You know, hold on a second. All right. This is what I'm just reading this. This is what Reddington said. Listen to this. I would ask before you formally declare a mistrial that the court afford us the opportunity to take a 211-3 appeal direct to the Supreme Judicial Court, single justice on this issue because of any number of issues that are of concern. others that have been addressed in the motions and the objections. But I further raise the issue.

55:15Dave Aronberg:Did he say this of the Americans with Disabilities Act? Yeah. Did he actually say this? Steve, we heard this. I believe that this is a situation where there is a clear and present danger that this individual, for some reason, what it is we don't know, is taking a position that's intractable regardless of proof. Oh, my God. He played the ableist card against the juror. I further raise the issue of the Americans with Disabilities Act. I believe this is a situation where there's a clear and present danger that this individual, for some reason, what it is we don't know, is taking a position that's intractable, regardless of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

55:58Dave Aronberg:That is unbelievable. That completely escaped my notice the first time around. The Americans with Disabilities Act. Now, so this juror is a felon and ableist bigot. That's where we are, John. I don't even know. I remember him saying that an hour ago. I don't know. I can't make the connection. If he's thinking that this juror is holding out because he's because he's an ableist, that is nowhere anywhere in the I mean, I don't understand how he's making that connection. And that that is really a bridge too far. then again kevin reddington loves to take that bridge too far i've seen him do it a couple of other times in the course this is the dumbest objection i've ever heard in my life what is that what i i got money now that the holdout juror is a republican i'm putting money on it right now that guy said something or checked some box that told kevin reddington he's a republican And so Kevin Reddington has decided to play one of the disability cards because in Massachusetts, if you're a Republican, you're automatically a racist, bigot, ableist, transphobe, all the folks like what else.

57:13Dave Aronberg:This is so outrageous, Dave. I'm shocked because it just shows you in this sense the desperation, perhaps. I mean, that's a desperate person when they're or they're invoking the ableist card. I didn't even know what it meant. I'm in Florida. We don't talk like that down here, so I don't know. But in Massachusetts, I guess that's the thing. This judge, though, doesn't seem like one who's going to entertain this. And the reason why the judge has even allowed the one-hour appeal and has not been offended by some of the things that Reddington has said. Remember, Reddington said, you're a weak judge.

57:44That instruction was weak. I think the judge and Reddington know each other. They both seem like they've been around a long time, right? And so he's going to indulge them. But he's not going to indulge them on a ridiculous claim of being an ableist. That's ridiculous. And if he did, he'd get overturned on appeal.

58:00Dave Aronberg:And then the judge, again, like the judge is kind of weak instead of being like, fuck off, Kevin. I gave the instructions the way I give instructions. He was like, I'll try to do it with more pizzazz. I was I'm humiliated for him. Like, I'll dance for you, Kevin. Let me dance for you, because he doesn't want to be appealed is really why he's doing it. Well, he's going to be appealed, but he doesn't want to be overturned. So he's trying to create a record so that the appellate court, when they eventually look at this, say that judge did everything he possibly could to indulge the defendant's rights.

58:32Dave Aronberg:But I mean, able it like good luck with that. Based on what? And you know what? Beyond predicting that the holdout is a Republican, I think it's clear Kevin Reddington is a lib because generally Republicans don't run around looking for ADA claims in the jurors that are against them. Phil, come on. This is ridiculous. Well, I can tell you, I'm sure that next week on the MK True Crime Show, Dave and I and Ashley will be talking all about this whole fiasco that we've been seeing throughout the day today. And maybe that's something that I can ask Dave to thoroughly research so he can basically go ahead.

59:13I'll get right on it. But speaking of which, if I can take just a minute, I want to ask your audience, Megan, your YouTube audience and your podcast audience to, if you haven't followed us or subscribed to us, we're everywhere you get your podcast, MK True Crime, but we're also on YouTube. And we use a lot of video elements and sound elements. And so it really makes sense, in my opinion, to subscribe both ways, podcast and YouTube. But I want to mention YouTube specifically, Megan, because you may not know this. I'd love to shout out. No, we launched the channel, I think it was Labor Day or just after Labor Day last year, and we are just on the cusp of getting 100 ,000 subscribers.

59:54So if your audience could help us get to that milestone, I promise you we would really appreciate it, and that would be a nice thing to do to ring in our second year.

1:00:06Dave Aronberg:Yes, I totally agree with you. We love MK True Crime. It is a hit. It's been a hit across all platforms. So and these guys are the reasons why, because we have the best in the business. They're fun. They're easy to understand. They have good humor, which is, you know, that's not present in every lawyer. I don't think I don't think ever. I'm not sure I'm not going to give a job offer to Kevin Reddington over here at MK True Crime, although he's kind of entertaining. I love his accent. I will say that the bah, the juror. I love it. In any event, this he's playing cards that are really ridiculous.

1:00:38Dave Aronberg:Per Court TV, they're letting people back into the courtroom. It's now been an hour. While we wait for that, let's listen to that Disabilities Act claim on tape from Kevin Reddington. I further raised the issue of the American with Disabilities Act. I believe that this is a situation where there is a clear and present danger that this individual, for some reason, what it is, we don't know, but is taking a position that's intractable, regardless of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. So I want an opportunity to take an appeal to the single justice if the court will afford us that opportunity. It's amazing.

1:01:16Dave Aronberg:So there's someone on the jury who is a bigoted ableist and felon. According to Kevin Reddington, the only criminal in that courtroom is the juror, not the woman sitting beside him who strangled her three children to death. That's Kevin Reddington's worldview. This is why I never became a criminal defense attorney. Guys, I like I couldn't do it. I couldn't make these arguments. Well, not all of us do. Yeah. I don't. Well, yes. I mean, some would stay within the bounds of decency in the law and just argue. I mean, zealous advocacy. Great. I'm all for it. Give me the appeal. Fight to the end. Try to preserve this verdict if you can because it's good for you.

1:02:00Dave Aronberg:Great. I love it. But this is crazy, Phil. Yeah. I've never heard of the Americans with Disabilities Act being invoked in a criminal case. This may be the first time. I don't know. But I certainly can't think of any reason how it might apply in the context of jury deliberations in a criminal case, even if the defendant is paralyzed in a wheelchair. I just, you know, I mean, I just don't I don't have no idea how it's going to apply. And, you know, sometimes lawyers just make stuff up and they just pull it out of their rear end just because they feel like they need something to say, whether it applies or not.

1:02:38And that's kind of what I sense going on here. I don't think that Reddington really believes he's got a claim under the ADA. He's just throwing things out to try to get the judge to bite on something. What's the clear and present danger? Like, what? Like, is he armed? Is the juror armed? Like, I don't understand. That was a great movie with Harrison Ford. Harrison Ford. Yeah.

1:03:00Dave Aronberg:Yeah. You know, it's like, he just started spitting crap out. No, it's like A Few Good Men. I strenuously object. Is that how it works? The two youps. Anyway, I don't know what he was doing there, but yeah. And the I don't either calling the trial judge right now saying, well, what's going on? And Judge Sullivan's probably like, yeah, don't worry about it. Just bring we'll bring him back in an hour. Is there any opportunity here for a partial verdict? Is there is this or is that a non sequitur? Because we're we're at a ruling for all for all the charges, which is we're hung. I mean, that's that's I know that's a ruling, too.

1:03:44Dave Aronberg:Like, is there any chance he could say go back and deliberate on just one charge or I think they're hung on any other option? They're hung on whether or not she's not guilty by reason of insanity. And they got to get past that before they can start considering any of the charges. That's that's my read on it. Yeah, I get a sense that they're hung on on everything, that that one juror has decided, no, she's guilty. And this is not going to be a compromise. This is not just about involuntary manslaughter. And they've already acquitted on the first charge, although that's a possibility that they could have just said not guilty on murder.

1:04:16But this is about the lesser charge. But I suspect based on what we're hearing about this juror, that this juror doesn't want her to be found not guilty at all. thinks there's criminal responsibility here. And so I think this is about 11-1 on all the counts.

1:04:31Dave Aronberg:I think that's right. That has to be it, because if they had, if they started to consider the individual counts, like if they went after it with murder one and then the juror said, I think she's not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, and the one guy said, I don't think that, I think she's guilty, they would have gotten stuck right there. well how can they i don't know i mean i guess they how is that guy felt that way on murder one he felt that way on murder two he felt that way like i mean this guy doesn't think that she is but if they if they believe that she's if they believe she was that she would be excused if they believe that she was not insane at the time and then they moved to deliberate in the counts how could they possibly have 11 votes for not guilty when she doesn't even contest that she did the act So that's why I believe they're still stuck on the very first question, which is the mental health or the not guilty by reason of insanity part because they – the prosecutor has to disprove that claim beyond a reasonable doubt.

1:05:34And once the jury decides that the prosecutor has done that, that she did know right from wrong, et cetera, and could conform her actions to the law, then they can start deliberating on the criminal counts. Is she guilty of murder in the first degree, second degree, or whatever? So I just don't see how they can get to any of those actual criminal charges until they get past the NGRI question.

1:05:57Dave Aronberg:I got a question for you. You know how with convicted pedophiles, there can be like a court ordered chemical castration. Is there anything like could they strike a deal where this woman agrees to have her tubes tied or do something so that she cannot have more children? You know, is that even potentially possible? Chana likes the idea, I can tell. No, I, you know, anything is possible behind the scenes. Like when we're negotiating other kinds of criminal cases, we can offer the defendant to do something extraordinary. And then the DA will make a deal that you don't know that the extraordinary thing has happened because it's not part of the deal, but it's the precursor for the deal.

1:06:41But what's going to stop her, Megan, from killing somebody else's kids? What's going to stop the voices from happening for 18 minutes and she and she kills an adult or she kills a dog? What's going to stop that? So I don't know if that would be good enough for me if I were prosecuting the case. You can know me. Yeah. How about cutting a deal where she's guaranteed a certain number of years in the mental institution? And that way she can't really get pregnant there. What if she's not mental? Like, what if she's fine right now? Like, we don't know what her last, you know, evaluation revealed. We don't know that.

1:07:14What if she's perfectly?

1:07:16Dave Aronberg:They are telling us that she's not hearing the voices anymore. Yeah, she only heard those for 18 minutes. She's confident to stand trial. Yeah, what about that, though, that you can at least guarantee a certain number of years in that institution? I would think you could do that with the defense lawyer. That way she doesn't just get released in a year. Maybe that's the solution. I just don't know what the mechanism for that would be, Dave. That's the question. I'm not sure. I don't know, because what if you have doctors who say she's fine? Yeah. She's fine. I don't know why. Why would we keep her for another 10 years?

1:07:47Dave Aronberg:I'm telling you, she's fine. She's been evaluated by all of us. And there's there's no risk to herself for the community. Matt Murphy's back with us. Matt, your reaction to the ridiculous last chapter that we just witnessed where we're on. We're now past the hour mark of him going up to try to get a stay of the mistrial being declared. And on the way out, we are accusing the holdout juror of possibly somehow violating the Americans with Disabilities Act because he's so intractable in his opinion. I've never heard an ADA claim. You talk about a sign of desperation. Look, I understand Kevin Radinson's frustration because he's got he's got an 11 one hanger and we've all gone through that before.

1:08:32The problem is, I just picked my fantasy football league and there's an expression in the NFL, act like you've been in the end zone before, buddy. Like he's been there. We've all been there. You don't accuse somebody of committing a freaking crime because they disagree with you. And newsflash to Kevin Reddington in modern America, disagreement is not a crime. You know, it's just, it's not. And it's the sacrosanct job of the criminal defense attorney in America, which is one of the most important jobs, I think, Megan, that exists, right? Protecting people from false accusations is a really important thing.

1:09:06And when you're in the process of protecting your client from what you believe is a false accusation here, you don't accuse other people falsely of committing crimes. I think that's a step too far. Another thing to remember, Kevin Reddington picked this guy. Kevin Reddington argued to this guy. And I think Kevin Reddington's argument, his closing argument, wasn't very good. Personally, I think he lost this guy in his argument. And part of that is because I was a big Kevin Reddington fan at the beginning of this. Tactically, I thought he was doing a great job. But he lost me over the course of the trial.

1:09:37I think he comes off as a bully sometimes. And if you come off as a bully to a juror, you're going to lose him. I'll tell you what I do like. I like that he doesn't like sidebars. He wants everything to be done in open court. And that I appreciate. Yeah, well, the problem with that, though, is when you get this much— I actually wonder whether this juror, when it's all over,

1:09:57Dave Aronberg:could he possibly have a civil suit against Kevin Reddington? Could he sue the guy for defamation? You stood up. I wasn't even there. And you told the world that I was a felon and a bigot for literally just sitting on your jury and having a difference of opinion. Typically though, courtrooms are kind of, you have immunity from saying those kinds of things inside a courtroom for that reason. Right. It was almost a statement of opinion as well.

1:10:28Dave Aronberg:It was out of order. It was out of order. I got a prediction for you. Kevin Reddington will say that outside the courthouse, too. And then he's in some hot water. There you go. He doesn't seem like a guy who's afraid to repeat his in court comments outside. In fact, he's worse outside the court. Now, we don't know who the juror is, which should save him currently on a defamation claim. But we're going to. I don't know. I think there's something there. I would definitely rattle his cage a bit if I represented juror number, whatever, whoever this dude is. That guy was out of line. He was grossly out of line.

1:11:03Dave Aronberg:Okay, so now we are 12 minutes past the deadline for him to file his appeal. We should be getting a result any minute now. This is just tweeted out by End Wokeness. He's been doing a good job covering this case. um john bataglia killed his two daughters and what forensic psychologists said was psychosis stemming from bipolar disorder the jury deliberated for 19 minutes he was executed in 2018 i'm telling you guys like there's some sort of i don't i ashley banfield was saying yes it's it's because she killed her own kids that they're giving her a break because there's a presumption no mother would do this.

1:11:46Dave Aronberg:I don't I don't buy it. Like if this if this were a dad, we wouldn't be doing this to him, even if he had psychosis brought on by bipolar. It's like there's something going on with like the fact that she's a woman and she killed her own kids, that they're getting some level of less protection in the eyes of these jurors, John, and in the eyes of some of these Lindsay Clancy supporters. I agree with that. And that is the part that scares me the most about a potential outcome in this case that would give a green light to those kinds of supporters to say, okay, but you know, my hormones, my hormones made me do it.

1:12:22And now I have a pass to do it because I brought them into this world. I can take them out apparently, but that is not what the law says. And I think those who support her so strongly that they're willing to come on and make ridiculous comments on any site that any of us appear on are not understanding the nature of the law. And I'm not so sure that maybe the one holdout juror like me didn't buy that she was under psychosis when she did this. And that's why this case is so entirely polarizing. And I agree with you, too, Megan. She's young. She's somewhat attractive. You know, there is definite evidence that she was suffering.

1:13:01I completely I agree with that. And there's definite evidence that there was a lot of drugs on board and that maybe the doctors didn't know what the other one was doing. I agree with all that. But if everybody that had that condition, if everybody who was on these kind of pills, if everybody who had a hormonal problem were allowed to kill because of it, we'd have a lot more dead people in this world and the jails would be empty. That's not how this is supposed to work. And the sympathy factor has overtaken this case.

1:13:30Dave Aronberg:And like every school shooting, the kid had a psychotic break. Sometimes he was put on an SSRI. He had a trip, some sort of trip that unleashed a trip wire in his life or was huge, like on the cannabis that created some mind morph before they unleashed hell on children. And we don't say he should go to the mental institution. We don't like people who commit murders, especially serial murder or mass murder like here, generally tend to be very unwell, very unwell. And we don't spend a whole lot of time. What brought it on? Was it an SSRI? Was it pot? Was it an abusive parent? We don't really give a shit.

1:14:15Dave Aronberg:We look at the crime that they committed and figure out, as Matt was saying, did you know right from wrong? And were you able to control your actions? And in some for some reason, this case has just completely spun all of that on its head, I guess, because she was asking for help. Well, she was. That's part of the story. She was asking for help. But that that, too, doesn't get you a get out of jail free card, Matt. I mean, a lot of these school shooters prior had sought help, had a psychiatrist who was advising them, a school guidance counselor. That doesn't generally mean they get a pass in the eyes of the law.

1:14:45Dave Aronberg:Generally, before this case, to get the advantage of a mental disease or defect, I mean, you had to like gnaw off your own arm. And even then, you'd probably have a split jury on whether you qualified. Listen, Dave and Phil and John and I have all dealt with a concept over the course of our entire career. It's known as a murder-suicide, right? And they always seem to be better at the murder part than the suicide part. But it's called a murder-suicide for a reason. Everybody who's willing to do that is suffering massive mental health problems. and that as a concept doesn't have, like we haven't struggled with that until now that you can still commit a murder even if you are mentally ill or you're extremely emotional or whatever it may be.

1:15:27But can I just say one thing? Remember when I told you I wanted Arthur Idola to defend me if I ever got into trouble in New York City? I want that to be Jonna now. I want Jonna on my side. I just, I agree with everything. I'll give you half off. Discounted rate. Okay, I'll get a discount too. Good.

1:15:46Dave Aronberg:Well, no, I agree with you. I mean, you need a zealous advocate to be able to make these points. And I feel like that's that's been one of the frustrations in watching this. Reddington's been one. But the prosecution has been so lackluster. And all of us can see if you had a little bit of passion, how you could have sold this better to the jury and thought organization and talent at cross-examination. And where well placed. You raised this earlier, Matt, you were right. some righteous indignation at the behavior of the defense attorney. If for no other reason than to telegraph to the jury, he is out of line.

1:16:18Dave Aronberg:You know, that guy's a jerk. And get them, you know, drive a wedge between the jury and the defense. You don't want them buddying up to him with his Boston accent and his Boston charm. You want to show them this guy? No, he's not your friend. He's a jerk. As soon as you leave the room, he's going to call you a felon if you side against him. Yeah, the counterpunch is one of the most important things tactically in any trial. Megan, it's being able to come back on your feet and push back against that stuff. And unfortunately, we just didn't see much of that in this in this case. I think I think to his credit, he's a very effective advocate for his client.

1:16:52I think this case was his to lose going into closing argument, given how the trial went. And he lost a juror. Now, man up and, you know, take it like he like I mean, we've all been there before. Like a trial attorney. Yeah. Every person on this panel has hung a trial 11 to 1. We all have. It's a part of the job. It happens. And then the next thing is what happened. But I guarantee you nobody here has ever accused somebody of perjury in their juror oath when that happened. That, for me, is a step too far. The prosecution should have been all over him on that. And remember, the prosecution gets the last word.

1:17:29And he went after them. He went after the cops in his closing. I thought his closing argument was disorganized. compared to what I was expecting from him. And and then the prosecution did a 40 minute closing argument with their barely talked about the law and they didn't counterpunch Kevin Reddington. So, yeah, this this has been this has been really interesting for you to watch. But I think I'm not alone on this panel. I say it's also very been frustrating. Yes.

1:17:56Dave Aronberg:You got it like I don't know if it's the fact that she's a woman or what, but like I used to do battle with the male attorneys I was up against in a way that was like, I couldn't stand the fact. When I ran into one who would diminish me because I was a woman and there were plenty, trust me, because I graduated law school in 95. I'd be so excited. It would be so fun. I would make a record. I remember at depositions going, you seem upset. Do we need to step outside? Do you need a break? And these male lawyers would go freaking nuts and they couldn't stand being needled by a young lawyer who's calling them out on their emotionality.

1:18:32Dave Aronberg:There's a way of doing it is simply my point. When you're a woman up against a man who's a big personality, who's like insulting, who's diminishing. And this woman, she was just too, she was nothing. She was like flat and kind of checked out. She didn't see, she didn't telegraph to me that she had passion behind the case. And I think some passion would have been in order here. There are three dead children. It's like somebody was mentioning a moment ago. Oh, you know, she was in there. She Lindsay Clancy. She was crying. She was crying at the autopsy shots of the children she killed. Like, who cares that she's crying?

1:19:10Dave Aronberg:Like, if I were the prosecutor, I think I would have said, oh, she now she cries. Who's she crying for? She's crying for herself. You know who else cried? I guarantee you her eight month old cried as she strangled him to death. She had absolutely no mercy for them. Nor should you for her. This isn't a case about mercy. It's about justice for these three kids who can't speak for themselves. None of that was given any voice. So I just kind of feel like, whatever, I don't feel sorry for her either, that she lost 11 jurors. And, you know, she's largely to blame for this pickle that she's in, too. Megan, if I can add to that, you're exactly right.

1:19:43The prosecutor on balance did a better job than the defense when it came to closings. But the first thing they talked about was basically an admission that Lindsay Clancy, you know, had serious severe mental health conditions at the time. Now, obviously, they didn't say it went so far as to being, you know, clinically insane. But they did lead with an acknowledgment of that. And I don't know why they did. Maybe it was strategic. But then they didn't do anything really to talk about the kids. But guess who did? Kevin Reddington did because he got out there and basically gave the jury a visual of what it must have been like for her to strangle the kids.

1:20:23And I thought that was very bizarre. So the closings leave much, much, much to be desired here. But I wanted to point out also that you were talking about could there be copycats or how many people are going to start using this as a mental health defense in cases moving forward. But in the United States, I don't know how many hundreds or thousands or maybe a million felony prosecutions a year. Less than 1 % of those employ a defense of insanity. And then when it is used, it's only successful about 25 % of the time. So it's like 0.3 % of all felonies wind up with an acquittal based on the insanity defense.

1:21:08So this is still exceedingly rare. And I don't think that we're going to necessarily see a lot of the increase in those statistical numbers if she is, in fact, acquitted. I just I just think this is probably a one. You're right. Yeah, I hope you're right.

1:21:23Dave Aronberg:And I certainly hope, you know, one of the unfortunate things about being in news is you see patterns. And unfortunately, we do see patterns when it comes to violence. You know, it's one of the reasons why the Charlie Kirk assassination was so disturbing. It was like a new way of killing someone in a new target. You know, people weren't generally getting shot to death for their political opinions, civilians, you know, as opposed to politicians and like the rooftop thing with Trump at Butler. Then we saw it again in the Charlie murder. And I just don't want this implanted in the minds of otherwise unstable new mothers as like a thing, you know, it's like not you, it's your psychosis, it's your postpartum thing.

1:22:07Dave Aronberg:Like there are some crazy people out there there. We had a video queued up the other day. I don't know if we still have it, Deb, of women like mimicking, hurting their babies. Oh my God. Like just to, do we have it? Yeah. We'll pull it over, but they were mimicking, hurting. Yeah. They were posting videos of themselves pretending to hurt their infants. Do we have it, Deb, that v2 standby it's it's it's yeah it's a video here okay here's this woman what looks she's pretending throwing her child down the stairs over the top over the railing throwing her baby in the dryer yeah we we have a sick culture slap slamming the baby's head look at this this is effed up there's a real sickness in our culture right now and it says something about postpartum Like it's all postpartum.

1:22:56Dave Aronberg:This is like something's wrong with people. So I just I hate the notion of like it's in their heads and we're about like 11 jurors are about to bless it. Go ahead. Well, like I said, it's a sick culture. We've seen this. Luigi Mangione, his fans, people just don't care about life if they just have different political views with someone. And it's so disgusting here. You remember the woman who was chasing after who was running away from the cameras who had taken pictures of the jury? she was like i just did it to get a picture of lindsey like like she was a superstar like no she's a woman a sick woman who killed her three kids in the worst possible way and so this is what we're dealing with times square you have people who are defending the the psychopath who murdered that poor woman because she worked for a bank they think that's a justified killing that we're right now it's a very difficult time and at some point we're gonna have to do something's gonna have to happen where we just say nate look at ourselves we're going in the wrong direction Let's rethink our lives if we're continuing to lionize these killers, these wrongdoers.

1:23:56And so I'm glad you called attention to it. At least there's one juror who's holding firm. And I've been one who thought that would be hard, maybe impossible to get a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt on murder. But now we have one juror who's holding firm. And this juror is being called out and perhaps doxxed and being accused by fellow jurors and not following the law. So enough. Let's move on from this. call mistrial and live to fight another day.

1:24:23Dave Aronberg:I just want to update you on what we're hearing. So Court TV reported people are assembling. It's unclear if the public has been let in. Then the court said that the door is shut for general public. So they're not letting actual observers in. That doesn't mean there's nothing happening in the courtroom. We don't know. So here's what we're going to do. We'll take a break, you guys, because there's not action at the moment. We're not sure when there will be action, but as soon as there is action, let's come back together and we'll pick it up and we'll talk about whatever it is this judge has decided.

1:24:56All right. Counsel, it's my understanding that the SJC issued their order that the emergency request for relief was denied and the temporary stay is lifted. And so it would be my intention at this time to call the jurors back in. And as I indicated to before to declare mistrial. I understand, Your Honor, and at the risk of incurring the wrath of the court, I'd like to raise an additional issue just for purposes of the federal law, because this, I believe, constitutes a violation of the United States Constitution and federal issue. In our circuit, which is the First Circuit, when a jury reports through a four-person that amid deliberation that a juror refuses to follow the law, the issue is handled under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 23B, but the law itself that we're dealing with clearly indicates that a judge has the authority to excuse a deliberating juror for, quote, good cause, end quote, and allow the remaining 11 jurors to return a valid verdict and or with the substitution of one of the jurors that have been waiting, obviously, as alternates.

1:26:15While the First Circuit acknowledges that a juror's refusal to follow the law or instructions constitutes good cause for dismissal, it does impose procedural issues as to how the court would navigate and which would require a hearing. The court's standard is United States v. Sepulveda, S-E-P-U-L-V-E-D-A, First Circuit 1993. And in that case, Your Honor, which is significant precedent, the First Circuit addressed the underlying concept of nullification where a juror refuses to follow the court's instructions. In the Sepulveda case, the court held that while jurors possess a raw power to acquit for any reason.

1:26:56They have a significant duty and their duty requires them to apply the law as given to them by the court. If a juror abdicates this duty, it triggers the court's authority to intervene and the court would then have a procedure where you would inquire just like a hearing like we were suggesting that the court should have a hearing. So I would suggest, Your Honor, that clearly under the First Circuit law, federal law, as well as an argument to the court, Massachusetts law that we have a juror who has according to the foreperson is the only person who is basically holding out so to speak and unfortunately they're not holding out based on a good faith issue with the facts or with the law but they're holding out as a result that even though they have agreed and expressed doubt they are refusing to apply the laws you've given it so I would ask again that you conduct a hearing and understand that you're probably going to deny that For reasons as I stated earlier this morning, that request will be denied.

1:27:58All right, so are we ready to bring the jury in?

1:28:24Court, all rise. The third is entering.

1:28:50This court is now in session. We continue. Your Honor, for the purpose of the record, we return to the president for the court, 12 deliberating jurors and six alternates in the matter of Commonwealth versus Lindsay Clancy. All other parties are present. All right. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Welcome. All right, members of the jury, at this point, I'm going to declare that the jury is deadlocked, and I'm going to declare a mistrial. All right? I just wanted to make a comment. and I'm kind of a history buff and during World War II Winston Churchill was the prime minister for England when England pretty much stood against Nazi Germany alone and so Churchill oftentimes had to talk to the citizens and say let us brace for our duties.

1:29:44I always liked that phrase and I thought of that phrase when all of you were agreeing to be on this jury. He agreed to brace for that duty and each one of you knew how long the case was going to go. You knew how difficult the case was going to be to listen to facts wise but still you braced for that duty and I just kind of wanted to also let you know I watched every day day after day week after week all of you performing that duty that you braced for and I just kind of wanted to let you know I understood how hard everybody worked in this case I understood that you all gave everything you could and probably more than you thought you could and so on behalf myself I just want to thank you so much that you should be be proud for what you did.

1:30:40You braced for that duty. You performed that duty. And I just kind of wanted to thank you on behalf of myself and behalf of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Thank you so much. The only thing I am going to ask one more thing is that what I'd like to do is be able to come back and thank you personally. I'm going to have to talk to the council for just a couple of minutes. So if you could stay just for a couple of minutes, It's not to go over the deliberations or anything like that, but just to thank you personally, again, for just an incredible commitment and dedication that each and every one of you showed here.

1:31:18So I just want to thank you so much. And with that, you're discharged. Thank you. All right. All right. Just wait, please.

1:31:54The jurors have executed the court on Wisconsin Session. All right. And I think what I had said at the end of the evidence, I just kind of wanted to echo again. I wanted to compliment all three counsel. A trial like this is so hard, so difficult. And so I just kind of wanted to thank the three of you for your efforts in regards to this. And so with that, if you talked, I think we should probably pick a status date and where we are, a trial assignment date. So we can talk about where we are. I would ask, Judge, sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. I know I would like to argue with 25B2, and that has to be done within five days.

1:32:41So I mean, I would like, if possible, to have this on for a hearing on a motion for required finding reconsideration 25b2 on tuesday and my request assuming that you deny that motion would be that we impaneled the following monday that would require i'm gonna have to check my schedule um and also so what i'm going to suggest i understand that's the request um in my my thinking is to try it sooner rather than later but i'm not sure that's sooner um and And it's a situation, I also have to check the trial court schedule, counsel schedule, witnesses schedule. But my thought would be to try this, you know, if we could do it maybe sometime later in the fall.

1:33:31But why don't we pick a date maybe a couple of weeks down the road so everybody could get their calendars together and kind of see where we go. All right. What about the 25 v. 2? The motion for required finding reconsideration within five days? You can file it. Do we have to have a hearing within the five days? I'd like to, but I mean... I know you'd like to, but I, you know... Maybe we could do it later in the week. Maybe not Tuesday. Maybe Thursday or so. I'm going to be out of the state until the 22nd. As long as it's filed... What you want to pick, what you could do is pick that status date, trial assignment date and actually then do the argument of the 25, rule 25.

1:34:25Maybe that week of the 28th?

1:34:36I'm supposed to spend a murder in Pittsfield. I'm hoping that that's going to be continued. So I would ask if it's agreeable with the court and counsel if we could have Tuesday the 29th.

1:34:53That's fine. Why don't we do that? 29th. Would that be at 2 o 'clock or 9?

1:35:04Doesn't matter to me. Let's see 9 o 'clock. When we see 9 o 'clock, we come in.

1:35:15We'll have the defendant brought in. Yes, please.

1:35:23I'll sit. In the matter of Commonwealth versus Lindsay Clancy, the court declares a mistrial. All prior bail orders remain in full force in effect. This matter is continued to September 29, 2026 at 9 a.m. for status, trial assignment, and the Rule 25 motion in Plymouth. No. Counsel, thank you. Thank you. Court, all rise.

1:35:48Dave Aronberg:Yes.

1:35:54Dave Aronberg:And there you have it. Welcome, everybody. There you have it. The court has officially declared a mistrial in the case of the people versus Lindsay Clancy, the Commonwealth versus Lindsay Clancy. And that is not what the defendant wanted. It is a victory of sorts for the defense and honestly would have been considered a victory for the defense for virtually every week of this trial. But Kevin Reddington was within an inch of getting the verdict he wanted, which was not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. And he apparently had 11 jurors in his palm and could not get that 12th juror, just couldn't do it.

1:36:38Dave Aronberg:and did everything within his power to get that juror bounced, cross-examined, pressured, called him a felon in open court, suggesting he had lied to the judge under oath when he said that he could be fair and follow the law. And in the end, the judge was not persuaded and followed regular procedure, which was to remind the jury that they had an obligation to follow his instructions and the law, that they had to follow the law as instructed and not their own version of it. Even if they didn't like the law, they had to follow it. And what we saw earlier today was as the judge went to declare a mistrial, Kevin Reddington, the defense counsel said, give me the chance to file an immediate appeal to the Supreme Court and see if I can't get a stay of this proceeding such that I can, he's looking for an order to compel this judge to do what he wanted the judge to do.

1:37:39Dave Aronberg:I'm reading his brief right here. The foreperson has sent a note to the judge indicating that one of the jurors has acknowledged doubt but is refusing to apply it to the case, quote, as the law states. The defendant has requested that the court either excuse the juror or inquire further to determine whether the juror can in fact follow instructions. So he wanted this judge, Sullivan, to either bounce the juror and replace him with an alternate, one assumes, or question the juror further to determine whether he can, in fact, follow instructions. And it kind of doesn't matter right now what this judge on the Massachusetts Supreme Court says, because the mistrial has been declared and the jury's been disbanded and excused.

1:38:31Dave Aronberg:So there will be no cross-examination of the mystery juror. there will be no excusing of the juror because all of the jurors are gone now and I don't know what the Massachusetts Supreme Court judge is going to rule but and it could make for an interesting appellate issue if that judge says Judge Sullivan was wrong and should have done one of those two things okay they'll litigate that on appeal like they always do when there's a trial court error but for now Kevin Reddington has lost his motion to keep this thing alive and to try to salvage a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict out of this jury.

1:39:16Dave Aronberg:That's where we are right now. Okay, I'm going to bring in our panel. We've got a whole gang back from earlier, Phil Houston, Matt Murphy, John Spilboer, and Dave Ehrenberg back with me now as well. So it's over for all intents and purposes for now. And you heard the judge start talking about what's the next trial date what what are we gonna what are we gonna rebook the next trial and the defense is more focused on a motion to reconsider that he has to file within five days which he acknowledged he expects the judge to deny and then we'll figure out what's what but this whole drama of the past what two plus hours was all for not dave erenberg because whatever this Supreme Court justice does, it's over.

1:40:01Dave Aronberg:The jury's gone. Yeah, it's over. The best chance they had was that quickie appeal, interlocutory appeal where they did it on Zoom and I got to watch it. And here's, I want to read you one sentence from actually the appellate brief they put out. This is going to make you crazy. It says - I know what you're about to read. Right. And I'm with you, do it. Here, the removal of the juror is particularly important because the juror's reasoning reflects a bias against those who suffer from debilitating mental illness, a protected category under both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and Article 114 of the Massachusetts.

1:40:39There's a typo of the Massachusetts. I mean, my head's going to explode there. Really, he's leaning in to the ADA stuff about being an ableist. This is like a false accusation, but because you do it in a legal brief, you get immunity. So he'll get away with it. But I'm glad the appellate court didn't buy into it. Justice was served, at least when it came to this motion. And this thing was always headed to a mistrial. The next page of the motion seems to tell us why he's doing that.

1:41:09Dave Aronberg:It reads, in Commonwealth v. McCallop, this court outlined the judicial protocol in cases where juror racial and or ethnic bias is alleged. In such cases, the judge must determine whether the defendant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the offending juror was actually biased. So they seem to think that if because of the defendant's race or ethnicity, considering the content of the statement in court, the same considerations apply here in the context of mental illness. So he thinks he's going to get a better standard applied. Right. He says in cases where bias has been alleged, the just must determine whether the defendant has proved by a proponents of the evidence that the offending juror was actually biased because of this issue.

1:42:01Dave Aronberg:And so they're trying to up the ante on this judge saying, you have no choice. When we allege bias, you have to cross-examine the juror to figure out whether he's biased. And I feel like, Matt Murphy, this judge treated that—well, we haven't gotten a ruling from the Supreme Court judge, but this trial court judge treated the argument, which was raised in front of him about the American with Disabilities Act, with the respect that it deserved, which was to completely disregard it and issue his ruling telling them to get out. The judge was great, Megan, actually. As critical as I've been of the prosecution on this case, I think the judge has been equally good.

1:42:40And yeah, he knocked that down. I'm sure he considered it properly, all that, but he gave it exactly the short shrift that it deserved because it's an absurd argument. Yeah.

1:42:51Dave Aronberg:What did you think, Jonna? So it's over for now, right? Whatever happens at the Supreme Court, you can't resurrect a dead jury. No, you can't resurrect the dead jury. But I have to wonder on that particular argument, can we rewind five or six weeks when they were picking this jury? Because I can't imagine a world where there wasn't a question on the on the juror questionnaire or in voir dire where they made inquiry, whether maybe anybody on the panel had a bias against people with mental illness, because that was the heart of the defense. Did anybody have somebody with mental illness in their family?

1:43:29Have they ever known anybody with mental illness that had to have been vetted when they were picking this jury? So it seems a little disingenuous to now raise it as a as a Hail Mary to try to keep this case alive by making everybody sit through another lunch on a Labor Day weekend and taking it to the higher court. And that's, you know, he's like one of these, you know, that commercial, like it ain't over, Rock, you know, like Rocky's getting beat up. like and he just doesn't want to die he just doesn't want to call it or stay down that's

1:43:59Dave Aronberg:kevin reddington in this case but ultimately i know he's he's treating this case like you know he's got something going on with lindsey clancy uh like bill hammer used to say you can take the the l out of lover because it's over like it's over sorry kevin like you did a great job getting 11 of those jurors on your side actually will probably change your client's fate in a very favorable way. But, you know, Phil, this guy's got to learn to take the L. Like it's, it looks like this trial judge will be his trial judge the second time around. So you really don't want to alienate him completely. I don't think he's taken an L and I'm not, there may not be another trial with this or any other judge because see, here's, here's what Reddington's actually doing.

1:44:44He's not necessarily playing the game that we think he's playing because there's, there's the short game, which is now, which is today, and then there's the long game. And so he knows that he either had to, he was 11 to 1. He was very, very close to just winning outright, and he could taste it. And so his goal was either to get the juror removed or in some way maybe get an alternate on there so that he could get the 12 to agree to not guilty. But in the alternative, and since that's not going to happen now, mistrial has been declared. He's obviously opposed the mistrial. He's opposed it vigorously, and he's raised a lot of other issues, frivolous and otherwise, as part of it, including this effort that they're going to the appeals court.

1:45:37So now what's going to happen. He says he's ready for trial. He wants to go right away a week after next, but I don't think he really does want, because what you're going to see between now and next week, probably, is you're going to see something, we would call it here in Georgia, a plea in bar. He's going to say that the second trial is barred on the grounds of double jeopardy, and here's why. He's going to say that because this was a mistrial, then it was done over the defense's objection, that it would be a manifest necessity is what you have to have to have a retrial over the defense's objection.

1:46:17And so he's going to say that even though this was a jury mistrial based on not reaching a verdict, he's going to say that it was still error and that in order to try her, there has to be a manifest necessity, which he's going to say there is not because he's going to allege these errors by the court that were not opposed by the prosecutor. So that's in a nutshell where he's going. He's going to try to get his cake and eat it, too. He's going to try to get his win now from the Court of Appeals.

1:46:46Dave Aronberg:I mean, I guess if he can if he can persuade the appellate court that this note he's acknowledged doubt, but is refusing to apply it to the case as the law states. If he can convince the appellate court that that was an allegation of a juror who refused to follow the court's instructions on the law, I guess there's some tiny percentage chance that, you know, the appellate court could say the judge should have done a voir dire of the juror. But I don't think so, Matt. I just feel like in general, the appellate court is going to be very deferential to the trial court judge. He did bring the jury back in and he did question them one by one.

1:47:28Dave Aronberg:Can you follow the law? Can you be fair? And they all said yes. And the appellate courts are probably not going to require more than that. They're not. These appellate courts are not actually looking to to perform colonoscopies on every decision the trial court makes. No, no, they're not. And it's like they this is the law according to Kevin Reddington. Right. Right. Like where any doubt equals reasonable doubt. And that means you got to vote for my for my client. That's just not the law. And another thing, Megan, what's interesting procedurally about this is what's the remedy? You know, what do they do?

1:48:02Bring the jury back and force them back to deliberate. That's not going to happen. So she wasn't convicted. So the appellate options for the defense here are pretty limited. I think that you like the the remedy would be a new trial, basically. And that's what she's going to get if the if she wants it. anyway.

1:48:20Dave Aronberg:So well, and there must be I haven't had a chance to research the law in Massachusetts, but there's a reason they switched to this is about bias so quickly. Clearly, the person writing the brief thought they'd do better. They had a higher chance of compelling action by the judge. But that's not going to fly either because there's zero evidence this juror has exhibited any bias. Can you imagine that world? It's like, OK, my client has mental health issues and therefore any juror that votes against me is biased against my client from health issues. It's completely circular. It's a it's fallacy reasoning.

1:48:53And the court of appeal is going to spot that. It's, you know, I mean, we'll never have another criminal conviction if that's the case, unless you're like a straight white man, you know, in America. Like, it's just it's not going anywhere. Well, most jurors are biased against criminals. So you're right. We would never have another trial. So that's not going to work. Yeah.

1:49:14Dave Aronberg:I mean, that's what he was saying when we saw the ADA. I just assumed he meant the wheelchair. No, he was talking about the drugs, the mental illness that he was. So it's like the whole purpose of the jury was to determine whether she was so mentally ill that she was legally mentally ill. But because this one guy wouldn't say yes to that, he has to be violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. He's got to be biased against mentally ill people like this. Like that is so circular. You will find not guilty or you will be accused of bias against the mentally ill, Dave. Unless this juror actually said, you know what, I'm not going to let her off the hook because I don't like people who are mentally ill.

1:49:57I don't like people who take these drugs. But we know he didn't say that. You know how we know he didn't say that because the tattletales on the jury, the jury foreperson would have put that in the note. they went to the judges and and reddington would have held that up and proclaimed it to the world so we know that didn't happen so this is uh this is done it's dead it's done and now the big question is will the two sides reach a deal to avoid another trial i think they will because the prosecution sees that it's 11-1 they don't want to do this again i think the whole i actually

1:50:31Dave Aronberg:have a question though i have a question for you before we get to that the two sides agreeing What could happen literally any moment now or any day now is a juror pops up in front of a microphone or, you know, if history is any guide on the Today Show or Good Morning America. Like those shows are irrelevant now, but they still believe they're in the booking wars of 20 years ago where their bookers like this is why they pay the bookers what they pay them. Get the jurors. Get me two or three jurors. so my bet is we will see a couple of them if not at the mics shortly then on one of the morning shows uh tomorrow or possibly on cable tonight and um you guys all know when you are the winning side it's terrifying to see your jury speak you don't know what they're gonna say is it gonna cause a problem for you you know like and it did like i keep going back to scott peterson just got I'm neck deep in that case, but it did cause trouble for Scott Peterson.

1:51:31Dave Aronberg:There was remember Strawberry Shortcake, that one juror on the Scott Peterson trial. Do you guys remember this with the bright red hair? She she wound up on the jury and she shot her mouth off after the verdict. And she started writing letters to Scott Peterson. And that unleashed a whole can of worms that upped the interest in her, led somebody to go back to her juror questionnaire. And that issue remains alive in the Scott Peterson case to this moment. Like it. So it's terrifying when the jury speaks after their service is over. And that's my question. Could the jury still somehow upend this in Kevin Reddington's favor by going out either the one guy himself or the others who are now they weren't free to say what was happening in the room before, but now they are.

1:52:29What if they come out and they say he said he doesn't like mentally ill people?

1:52:34Dave Aronberg:He said he could never vote for one. Or he said, I don't give a damn about that moral certainty thing. I in my gut, I just I can't possibly vote her not. You know, like whatever they could say. So what are the remedies after the jurors speak? And is anyone worried about that? Well, if you're asking me, I can take it. Look, I think that because this was a mistrial that was objected to, okay, as I mentioned before, they're going to come back now and they're going to say, look, this is a mistrial over our objection and that the mistrial was not manifestly necessary. And that's the constitutional magic words.

1:53:13And therefore, the next trial would be violent to have the double jeopardy clause. And therefore, you can't have a new trial. So to the extent that these jurors might come out and make statements, if Reddington and his team find that there's anything that happened back there in that jury room that can support their position that the mistrial was not manifestly necessary, they can get affidavits from those jurors. They can use that as part of their appeal. So, yeah, sure. Some things, depending on what's said, of course, they're going to try to interview all of the witnesses, the jurors that they can, because they may become witnesses at any future hearings to try to support the position.

1:53:57Plus, it just makes your case better.

1:54:00Dave Aronberg:Does it not? Like, Jonna, if I'm Reddington and I get a juror to say something that's damning for the holdout, something that makes it sound like, you know what? That judge should have wadiered him again. And this would have come out. You know, if the juror is like, no, he was you should have seen this guy in the deliberation room. His arms were crossed. He literally put his hands over his ears. he told us he he'd had it and you know he was just never going to find reasonable doubt he didn't care what the judge's instructions were whatever at a minimum you put that in your brief as reddington and on an alive appeal to the supreme court and now you've got their attention maybe now thanks to your weird disability objections saying you know the judge had a heightened duty what's that steve we have a presser

1:54:51Dave Aronberg:oh the da let's see yeah let's go to him this is tim cruise let's watch the jury obviously worked incredibly hard stayed with that case for six and a half days and that truly is people who understand the word of service as to what they did for our community and i am i am grateful for that as we all should be but in the end i understand that this has been an emotional trial for everybody It's emotional for the Duxbury community. It's even emotional for you members of the media. But in the end, I bring it all back to the child victims in this case, Cora, Dawson, and Callan. This was and has always been about getting justice for those three little babies.

1:55:41We're here at this courthouse today because those children are not. One of our many roles as prosecutors is seeking justice and giving voice to those who are tragically taken from us. And one of our parts in this proceeding is to speak for the victims who are no longer here. And that is one of our most important functions. Our priority has always been to fight for Cora, for Dawson, and for Callen. The noise in this case may be louder than it is for other prosecutions in our county, but we have treated it the same as any other case. Children were murdered, and it's our job to seek justice.

1:56:37I appreciate the fact that there are strong feelings and opinions tied to this case. However, our job is to set aside our feelings and focus solely on the facts. The facts are Lindsay Clancy killed her three children and the evidence suggested to us that she was in control of her actions when she committed those homicides. Our court system is built to weigh our views with those of the defense counsel and bear out whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty. We did our part. And I'm proud of the part of the work we did in this prosecution. Because this case is not about a health care system or about how women are treated in it or what diagnoses there are in the DSM or what there are not.

1:57:20Those are all important issues. They stir up emotion and sometimes they stir up anger. This case, however, was about Lindsey Clancy and what she did on January 24, 2023, and the cruel and calculated killing of three innocents. I understand that postpartum depression has impacted the lives of countless women and their families, and I sympathize with their struggles. The investigation of these heinous killings, however, did not establish that they caused by such depression. And based upon that assessment, it was determined that the charges of first-degree murder were warranted and appropriate in these circumstances.

1:58:03And notwithstanding the undeniably important and delicate issues raised in this case, we proceed accordingly and consistent with the evidence and the law. I have led the Plymouth DA's Office for a long time now. And I have never been swayed to act a certain way or make certain decisions based upon public sentiment. In this job, it is the facts ultimately decide how you act, not the opinions of observers several steps removed from our court proceedings. I would like to thank our prosecutors, Jen Sprague and Shannon Buckingham, who are both mothers themselves and went home to their families after each long day in court.

1:58:49They embraced the most difficult trial assignment with utmost professionalism and always with the thoughts of Cora, Dawson and Lil' Callan on their minds. I'm proud of the work of our victim-witness advocates who worked long and hard, Karen and Kelsey, and they lived and breathed this case from the very beginning.

1:59:09Unfortunately, the way they were vilified and portrayed on social media is disgusting to me. threats to them and their families, their addresses being posted. It's unfortunate that in today's society, potentially people placed at risk who are merely doing their jobs as prosecutors, professional women for the Commonwealth. And once again, I am proud of their professionalism under these very stressful and difficult times. I commend the Massachusetts State Police and the Duxbury Police and Fire. From the moment that 911 called, they performed a thorough and complete investigation. And this was probably one of the most difficult crime scenes any of them has been to.

1:59:53And yet they did their jobs for professionalism and integrity.

2:00:00This is a case about three children who died a violent and horrific death at the hands of the person who showed them the most. this isn't rumor or speculation this isn't guesswork

2:00:17you know speaking generally we live in in a great country and we have the best criminal justice system in the world if you ask me and that's what you've started today you've started over the course of the last few weeks prosecutors in defense dealing in court and ultimately having having individuals make their determinations, jurors making their determinations. And the defendants that are charged with crimes in our country have an awful lot of rights. And you know what? They should. They should have the rights to set forth in the United States Constitution and here in Massachusetts our mass declaration of rights.

2:00:54They should have those. But also speaking in the world that we live today and all too often, criminals are being treated as victims and the real victims are invisible. It is our job to make sure that the victims are not invisible, to make sure that they're not forgotten, and to make sure that we stand. Timothy Cruz, his press conference will get a break and we'll pick it up later. Hmm.

2:01:20Dave Aronberg:All right. Well, Court TV has decided as pool or we're no longer going to have access to the remarks. Very strong comments from the Republican D.A. Tim Cruz. Love the accent. We did our part. The victims advocates worked long and hard. The charges were appropriate. I love it. I want to commend the police and fire. Yeah, like I find that so charming, having grown up with a dad who was born in Brooklyn and lived in Manhattan for much of my life. I just I freaking love it. Boston and New York are not the same, but they've got shades of the same. That did not sound to me, Matt Murphy, like a man who's not going to retry Lindsay Clancy.

2:02:00Dave Aronberg:He said at the top, we didn't take it, that he would not be making, would not be addressing the possibility of retrial today, that that decision will be addressed at an appropriate time. time but he did not sound like a man who's ready to back down to me no the problem Megan is that we just heard a better closing argument than we heard in court you know he obviously he's got miles he's got some passion he's got some heat that's that's what this case needs from the prosecution standpoint and you know I don't know if he's got a gunslinger somewhere in his office that can take this thing over for a retrial because the result could be different maybe not for a first but possibly for a ball they're just the the team he has in there is outmatched And I'm not saying that that's not enough.

2:02:41That's not a criticism. That's a tactical observation. But here is another thing. I love the fact that he's up there going against the grain and defending his prosecutors. There's a lot of DAs, Megan, that don't do that. I worked for one for a little while. And, you know, you want somebody that gives you top cover that that sticks up for his people. And I like that, regardless of whether how we think this should have landed or what whether that she's, you know, you got to stick up for the prosecution. And they did their job in the sense that they put this case through the process. I think we just got a good glimpse into why he believes very strongly in his position.

2:03:18And he's from his position, he's advocating on behalf of three children that were killed by their mother. You know, it's kind of hard to find fault in that, despite all the rest of the lunacy that we've seen. And doxing him is insane. That makes me angry that somebody would do that.

2:03:35Dave Aronberg:And doxing the female prosecutors, too, which is, you know, I thought I appreciated the point he raised about their mothers, too. And they had to go home night after night to their kids. And unlike Lindsay Clancy, they did not get to leave the courtroom because of upset in looking at the autopsy photos. And unlike Lindsay Clancy, they didn't cause those photos to exist in the first place. You know, like he humanized both women and reminded us all they've been under a lot of stress, too. They've had a terrible, God awful assignment here to spend your day every day in the details of this case. Matt, this is literally something you did between the sex crimes unit and the murder cases you've tried.

2:04:19Yeah.

2:04:20Dave Aronberg:You forget about the human toll place to be, Megan. And sometimes it's the role of the prosecutors to make decisions that aren't popular. And in the in the current time we're living with social media and all the I'm sorry, the insanity surrounding this case that that lady doing the press conference after taking pictures of the jurors. I mean, I am still fired up about that. That should never happen. And that's that's what that's what these prosecutors are dealing with. I was very critical of their tactical performance, but not their motivations. And I think we have to remember that we need we need good prosecutors, guys.

2:04:58In America, you have to have that in order for the system to work to work the way it should.

2:05:04Dave Aronberg:Maybe the retrial can be an MK true crime all-star cast that you can go volunteer to sub in at the DA's office. Iglarsh will be volunteering to help Kevin Reddington and bam, we've got a real trial on our hands. Everybody would watch that. I know you got to run, Matt. Thanks for being here. Thanks guys. We'll see you. We'll see you in the well, both the actual one. If you take me up on my offer and the show that you do. So this is what he said, Jonna, this is a case about three children who died a violent, horrific death at the hands of the person who was supposed to love them the most. Man, oh man.

2:05:46Dave Aronberg:So powerful. That's exactly it. And I'm so glad he brought that up because if you paid attention to the defense side of things, Kevin Reddington was, you know, all too ready to hold up the Instagram photos of a loving and smiling Lindsay Clancy and how much she loved her kids and that you could easily forget if you're a juror that that's not what this is about. We're not here because there are three happy children. We were there because there are three horribly murdered dead children. And this poor jury had to witness autopsy photos. I mean, I wouldn't be surprised. I'm not even being I'm not even exaggerating about this to have some sort of post-traumatic stress from witnessing autopsy photographs of dead children, that's a real thing that this jury was just thrust into.

2:06:33So this is also swirling around in their minds. And the other thing, just back to the women who did prosecute this for a minute, you have to remember, people forget, they are assigned this case. They are paid by the county, the tax dollars of the people of Plymouth County pay their salaries. They are assigned. I don't know if anybody in that DA's office said, pick me, pick me. I want to prosecute this case. Probably didn't happen that way. Juxtapose that to Kevin Reddington, who I am assuming was paid. He's not a public defender and paid very well. And it's nobody's doxing him. They're praising him.

2:07:09They're standing in line. They want his autograph. And these poor women with families and children of their own on the county dime, not being paid nearly as well as Kevin Reddington, have to go home, feed their kids, and then worry that one of their kids is going to get run over in the street because of a crazy mob. That is stressful. That is unfair. And it shouldn't be that way. But it is, folks. It is. Yeah.

2:07:31Dave Aronberg:Another reason why Court TV should not have cut out of the DA's presser. I'm not sure why that happened, but he was making his points forcefully. And to me, persuasively, we are here because the victims are not. We speak for them. Our priority has always been to fight for Cora, Dawson and Callan. These children were murdered. Our job is to seek justice. And then he said, I have never been swayed to make decisions based on public sentiment. Never. I don't know, Phil. It could go either way, because even though he only got one juror, I think the prosecutors are probably going to convince themselves that they'll do better the next time they learned from the mistakes they made the first time and that they'll do better.

2:08:18Dave Aronberg:I don't know. I can't hear you, Phil. Are you muted? I am not now. Thank you. That would have made a very good closing argument, and he had a lot of passion, speaking from the heart. That would have been a great closing, and who knows if he had given that or some of the other prosecutors had given something along those lines. We may have had a different split in the jury. And you're right. 11 to 1 gives him a lot to think about. He's got to come out today. He's got to support his prosecutors. He's got to do this press conference just as a matter of course. But once things settle down and back at the office when everybody's had time to calm down and reflect on it, the reality is his office, with all the evidence that he made reference to, was unable to convince a jury of her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

2:09:11Even the one that held out reportedly had doubt. And so the defense argument would be, of course, that had that person followed the judge's instruction, that doubt should have led to an acquittal by a unanimous jury of 12 people. So they're going to have to decide how they're going to move forward. And public sentiment or not, this is a big undertaking. This is an expensive undertaking and one that he could very well lose outright the second time. because guess what? Kevin Reddington and his team, they're going to come at him with both barrels on appeal now. They're going to appeal and say, you can't retry her again.

2:09:50And that's going to go up through the appellate system. That's going to put a strain on his office. It's going to cost money. It's going to use resources. And then if he survives that appeal, and he may not, this may very well be a winner of an appeal for Kevin Reddington on double jeopardy grounds, because this was something that was done over the defense's objection. And so should he survive the appeal, he's now got to go through this very heavy lift of a trial again, and it's going to cost money, it's going to cost resources, and he's going to have to figure out a way to come up with a better way to counter the defense arguments, because there is significant evidence of postpartum mental illness.

2:10:34And even these prosecutors even conceded that in their closing arguments. So he has an uphill climb to be sure. And I wouldn't be surprised if we don't see this leading, bringing all the parties now to the negotiating table to figure out some way to move forward without a trial.

2:10:52Dave Aronberg:It definitely might. And maybe that's the best result. I don't know. I don't really think so because I think she belongs behind bars and I don't think Reddington is going to agree to that under any circumstances. I mean, jail bars, prison bars. That's where I would like to see Lindsey Clancy ASAP, like yesterday. Jonna, we zeroed in here on one of the pink shirt ladies behind DA Tim Cruz as he was making his remarks. Watch this. Look at this. I am proud of their professionalism under these very stressful and difficult times. I commend the Massachusetts State Police and the Ducksbury Police and Fire.

2:11:30From the moment that 911 called, they performed a thorough and complete investigation. And this was probably one of the most difficult crime scenes any of them has been to.

2:11:39Dave Aronberg:She's making a thumbs down sign. Another sign, thumbs down. Miranda Devine in the New York Post announces another woman put up an L for loser behind Cruz. lose okay i mean how is this like be kind brigade so nasty and hateful but you know the pro lindsey clancy women who are just a bizarre set the ones that show up at that courthouse are a bizarre set so hateful um by the way it's he didn't lose he didn't win no one won no one if you're not on their team um they're they can be very nasty if you're not on their team if you're on their team then apparently if you're on this particular team, it is perfectly OK to murder your children if you are suffering from some sort of postpartum mental illness, which is also not the law.

2:12:29Yes. Mental illness doesn't give you the license. That's what they said. It was it's the psychosis that she may or may not have been in. The jury couldn't obviously figure it out. Nobody could figure out. Nobody won. Nobody lost. All right. I completely get that. But here's the other thing. I know that he said, you know, we don't make our decisions based on public sentiment. And that's great. And they shouldn't. But which prosecutor in that office, Megan and Phil, is going to jump up and down and volunteer to do the retrial, knowing full well that they're going to be met with this kind of hatred, that they're going to be docks, that the pink shirts are going to be out again.

2:13:04Who is going to volunteer for that to be the one to be the face of this retrial? So maybe the true answer, I don't know if Kevin Reddington will agree to a voluntary manslaughter in a period of institutionalization followed by something for a period of years. Maybe he will, maybe he won't. But whenever I've had this kind of case where it's that difficult, if you can give the judge a reason to get you off the hook, then give the judge a reason to get you off the hook. And maybe that's going to be Reddington might file a motion to vacate, might file a motion to dismiss in the interest of justice and find or put all these reasons, everything but the kitchen sink in there.

2:13:45Maybe it'll fall on the judge to be the heavy so that the prosecutor doesn't have to do it. I don't know that I'm trying to read tea leaves that don't even exist yet. But I'm just thinking ahead. My wheels are spinning, of course.

2:13:57Dave Aronberg:Listen to this. Bill Malusian of Fox reports. he believes he said our producer Fox's producer on scene says it came from an NBC news producer or reporter on scene just asked the DA if his prosecution of Lindsay Clancy was insensitive is it to who is it insensitive to prosecute a woman a mother who kills her three children Phil I mean, like, this is ridiculous. Somebody online was asking, what if what if Lindsay Clancy in this exact same mental state had gone out and killed George Floyd? Would we be seeing it any differently? This woke Massachusetts jury? We think they would have struggled. You know, it's like, no, it's because she killed her own children.

2:14:46Dave Aronberg:They gave her a break. And I get it because there's a presumption a mother loves her children. They don't all. Do we give do we give child molesters who molest their own sons or daughters a break? Because we're like, you know what? Only crazy person would do that. Only a sick, deranged person would do that. It was just their kids. So like the fact that they did this horrific thing to their kids make me have some empathy for them because no sane parent would ever hurt their kids. Fucking A, we don't do that. That sentiment or those principles with anyone. Why are we doing it with a mother just because she murdered her kids?

2:15:18Dave Aronberg:And I'm sorry to be that person, but I have to believe if this had been a black mother who murdered her children, I actually do have my doubts about whether this jury would have come to the same conclusion. I think this woke, probably mostly white Massachusetts jury. I don't know. I'm just spitballing here. Identified with Lindsay Clancy. I think they identified with her. They were like, me too. I've got 14, 14 ailments or disorders myself. I've been pulling my nails out and my hair out and washing my hands 2000 times a day myself. So we all need to have super amounts of empathy for women who do bad things because of craziness because they can see themselves in her.

2:15:59Dave Aronberg:That's that's my theory. You know, I'm obviously not a woman. I'm the odd man out right now on this panel. Quite literally, I'm outflanked by two wonderful ladies. But, you know, I can tell you that it doesn't take much for women to identify with Lindsay Clancy because the issue of postpartum mental illness, and I won't necessarily say psychosis, but the number of women who could come for them and will tell you, because they tell me all the time, you know, that postpartum is something that is not well identified by the health care. healthcare system. There's lack of treatment for it. A lot of women are afraid to even talk about it because they're afraid their kids are going to get taken away because they have hard feelings.

2:16:50Maybe you're starting to resent children with postpartum. And so they just keep this to themselves. And when they don't, the medical treatment providers do not help them deal with it well. So it's a real thing. It's a real problem, and it's widespread. I hear this from moms and women all the time, particularly now that we've been covering this case here on your show and, of course, over on MK True Crime as well. And so I can just, when I saw that there was nine women on this jury, I knew that it was going to be at least deadlocked, at least a hung jury, because it doesn't take much for women to identify with the claims that she's making.

2:17:34And even the prosecutor admitted she had significant postpartum mental illness. They just didn't concede that it rose to the level of being not guilty by reason of insanity, but it doesn't take much.

2:17:45Dave Aronberg:While a lot of women suffer from this, no one kills their child. If they get women, several of them on the next jury, they're looking at another hung jury. It's probably just the way it is. Standby. Let's see. Connecticut Insider. Yeah. Connecticut Insider does report that the 12 jurors are mostly white and middle-aged, appearing to span several generations. I just was curious what the race of the jury is, and it is mostly white. Not surprised. Here's that soundbite of the insensitive. You know, I'm not going to stand out here and listen to this. You had 11 jurors that didn't necessarily believe your case.

2:18:27What do you say to those people who felt that the whole prosecution was insensitive? Was what? Insensitive. Insensitive? Insensitive. Insensitive is killing three children. Insensitive is ignoring those facts. We have an obligation to stand up for those people and seek justice and make sure the defendant gets justice and make sure they get justice. So if people can't understand that, I don't know how I can answer that question.

2:18:52Dave Aronberg:Good for him. this is just like this defense attorney was clever and came up with all the right arguments poor lindsey she's the real victim and the certain subset bought it hook line and sinker that's that's really what happened here johnna but thankfully there was one holdout who understood she knew exactly what she was doing and thanks to that guy it's not an outright not guilty by reason of insanity. It's a hung jury, which means the prosecutors might get a second bite at this apple. And as you point out, it happens all the time. They take that second bite. And every time there's a mistrial, it's because the jury, the prosecution couldn't convince the jury.

2:19:33Dave Aronberg:And so every time we have a second trial, it's because the prosecution failed in some way. So look, it could be better numbers. It could have been like 11 to two the other way wouldn't favor the prosecution. But who knows, you know, that, that guy right there, Tim Cruz, to me, sounds like a fighter. And I'm not so sure he's just going to throw in the towel. Well, he needs to be practical, though. I mean, he doesn't need to make this decision because he's pissed off right now. He needs to make the decision. What he's going to do next needs to be grounded by and informed by the fact that he was within a hair's breadth of losing this trial.

2:20:12It was 11 to 1. And the 1 still had doubts. And that was what this whole thing was about, about, you know, should this person be removed for not following the judge's instructions? So you had 12 people with doubts about her guilt or whether or not the prosecution had disproved her mental illness defense. So he needs to be practical because we really don't pay DAs, we don't elect or hire DAs to make decisions based off emotion. And right now, that seems to be what's running very high. Phil, can I push back on that for a second? Because again, if we never got the dynamite charge, right? If this judge had maybe been a little more forceful the first time the jury came in, we're deadlocked, and then the second time declared a mistrial at that point, we wouldn't have any of this information.

2:20:59And I know that there was a no, and I know that we're all thinking it was 11 to 1 in favor of defense, but we don't really know. We will never know what was going on in that deliberation room unless these jurors open their mouths. And I kind of hope they do if for no other reason than it will give the prosecution a blueprint for the future because i'll tell you what it will send standby john forgive me stand by there uh reddington's talking let's listen cruz knows that he was crushed he doesn't have a case he doesn't have to stand here and say that he's advocating on behalf of the victims and then look down to see what their names are I'm representing a woman who is a fantastic, wonderful individual.

2:21:49This woman is so brave, so awesome. Every day she came in this courthouse, stood tall. No pun intended, the poor thing is in a wheelchair, as we all know for the rest of her life. sat there through seven weeks of a trial where nobody had anything bad to say about her except for the two prosecutors and apparently Tim Cruz. She had people that would meet her, nurses that would know her, that would visit with her, the chaplain who never knew her from Brigham and Women's, who went for three years and continues to visit with her because of the type of person she is. And it's not right what she had to go through because she grieves the loss of those three children, Cora, Dawson.

2:22:55It opened up with him taking a shot at the DA

2:22:59Dave Aronberg:for what he said was having to read their names, the children's names off of a list. What the, I mean, he is, you know, maybe we'd all get to know the three children, Cora, Dawson, and Callum a little better, Kevington, if their mother had allowed them to live. You know, if they had been allowed to live and flourish and get their own lives going and flourish in this world in a way that they would have come onto our radar as stars or geniuses, what have you. We'll never know. Why? Because of the woman you said nothing bad was said about in the court. No, she's an absolute saint. Why are we here again?

2:23:40Dave Aronberg:This is gaslighting, John. What he just said, that went too far. He wants, I guess he wants the public, I guess he wanted the jury to fall in love with her and to like her. And she's maybe just not very likable because regardless of her mental health problems, she did brutally and horrifically kill three young children who are innocent and helpless, the victims of the case. And she did it in a terrible, horrible way. So that's why the jury, even though there was 11 of them that were voting to find her not guilty by reason of insanity, that's the reason they didn't want to look at her when they entered the room today in the courtroom.

2:24:19She's not really a likable person, right? She, at least not from what we've seen, and he wants to ask us as the public, I guess, to like her as a person. And that's just too big of an ask. It's one thing to say that, yes, she did something terrible, and if she could take it back, she would, but she can't. But she did not understand what she was doing at the time due to severe mental illness, and so therefore the law means she's not guilty of a crime. That's one thing. But he's wanting the public and everybody and I guess the jury to embrace her. And that's too far. And if he if he tries to do that, if there's another trial and he tries to do too much of that, he needs to focus on the mental health aspect and just let people continue to dislike her because she killed her children.

2:25:09Dave Aronberg:I know I like I was looking at that picture. I don't know if you guys saw this. We have it made of Lindsay Clancy and Kevin Reddington during this is during the Zoom for the appellate. argument that just happened. And she's looking pretty much right into Cam. And all I could think was, this is the face those children saw when she strangled them to death as she approached. And then, of course, she would have had to get behind them. But this face is the one that looked at her three babies and strangled them to get to death with a ligature. As they struggled as we believe Dawson ran for his life.

2:25:51Dave Aronberg:All I could think of is Chris Watts when he smothered his two daughters and the one was killed right in front of the older one. They were four and three. Then he killed the little one first. And when he turned to the older one, she said, are you going to do to me what you did to her? There's no way these kids didn't have any idea what she was doing. And that face staring at us is just eerie and disturbing and should be nowhere near fresh air for decades and decades and decades. Like, I don't know what's going to happen if they cut a deal. And I think this guy, Tim Cruz, well, he does have he's a politician at some level.

2:26:34Dave Aronberg:You know, you get elected as DA and now he's got a constituency and he's going to have to answer to them. But I do think he gets that. Like if you work in this line of business, John, as a DA, you see terrible people and terrible crimes all the time. And when one stands out like this one does, I don't think you roll over that easily on, okay, you'll go to the mental institution, especially in Massachusetts, especially there, where I'll bet you she's got a very good chance of getting out within the next 10 years. I would agree with that. And she certainly won in the court of public opinion. And I don't, do we credit Kevin Reddington with that?

2:27:17Or is there more? Is there more? Why did she put in so handily in the court of public opinion in a case where people are so eager to forget that there are three dead children that I can't, I could cry. If I were capable of crying, Megan, I would cry over this case. because it's that it's I mean, it just it gets inside me to think of the last moments of these children knowing full well that the person who gave them life was strangling the last breath out of them. And that's why I hope this D.A. does not roll over. I don't know if there's going to be a middle ground. But I and, you know, at this point, I don't know how he got elected the first time if he's a Republican over there, but that should be the least of his concerns.

2:28:01He needs justice for these three and we cannot send a message that just having postpartum anything is licensed to do horrific things it's not no of course it's not and this just this note just came

2:28:17Dave Aronberg:from cnn per a producer who was in the courtroom while the judge was uh speaking to the jury declaring a mistrial there was one female juror that was nodding her head no is it a nod when you go side to side. I think it's a shake. Yeah. I think a nod is only up and down. Don't you agree? If I say she nodded. Yeah, that's up and down. Yeah. Okay. So anyway, just a point of clarity. One female juror was shaking. I'll change it. Her head. No. Another female juror was clenching her hands into fists. One female juror would not even open her eyes. Phil, these women were very invested in getting the not guilty by reason of insanity.

2:29:01Dave Aronberg:They've been working for almost... They do not want to hear that mistrial. They've been working at it a month and a half, and they know the mistrial means that some other jury is going to go through it again. Look, the reason, and to what Jonna was just saying, the reason why she won sort of in the court of opinion, I just got a text message from a woman that I know and who herself suffered postpartum mental illness, or mental, I wouldn't say mental illness, but certainly severe postpartum depression, okay? She says, I'm not justifying her behavior in any way, but she was failed so many times along the way, and the jury listened to every single piece of the trial.

2:29:41And I think there's a lot of truth in that. I mean, it's obvious to me that the health care system did fail Lindsay Clancy, but it fails women all the time. And so there are literally thousands and thousands or millions of people who have, you know, the same mental health challenges, right, that Lindsey Clancy went through. And so this is why women can identify with him because they've been through it. They've been to the doctors that ignored what they were saying. They've been to health care providers who gave them the wrong drug and gave them the wrong diagnosis or just said, oh, it'll pass and you should still go back to work after a week or two, even though that you've got serious postpartum issues to deal with.

2:30:31And so millions of women around the world and certainly around the country, they can empathize with the struggle that she went through, even if they don't necessarily want to justify what she did to her children.

2:30:45Dave Aronberg:I get it, but it's not about them. It's not about them. It's about Lindsay Clancy. And if you read her little note on her iPhone, you know, that she posted about her struggle with the drug. I took, I think it was Zoloft, 25 milligrams, just as instructed. And then I was supposed to go up to 50 and I did, and I was having complications. And she took me off that and she put me on two other drugs to get me through the weaning period. It's like, it's modern pharmacology and modern psychiatry combined. This is, you go to a psychiatrist, it's like going to a surgeon and saying, gee, you know, something's really wrong with my hip.

2:31:20Dave Aronberg:Guess what he's gonna do? Guess what he's gonna propose? And if you go to a psychiatrist and say like, I'm severely depressed and I can't sleep, they're definitely gonna start prescribing you drugs, which is why you should consider a psychologist who doesn't have prescribing powers. But anyway, it just reads like somebody who, you know, got churned and burned through the psychiatric health system the way. Yeah, many, many people who go for help do, but they don't kill their children. They don't kill their children. Lindsay Clancy is special in that way. And there's a reason for that. Like there's, there's something wrong with her beyond postpartum.

2:31:59Dave Aronberg:There is, there's something wrong with this woman. And I don't think she should be on the street. I don't think she should be on the street for decades at a minimum. And I'm very worried that some woke Massachusetts medical staff is going to say, oh, you know, she's in a wheelchair and she's got severe postpartum and oh, she she doesn't belong here. And before you know it, she's going to be back out on the street with those police and fire. OK, I think that's it. Right. That's that's it. So, OK, that's where we leave it today, you guys, we don't know when they're officially going to announce whether there's a retrial, but we are told there's a September 29th hearing set in the case.

2:32:41Dave Aronberg:And we believe by then the prosecutor has to make his announcement on whether, you know, what he's going to do and why. And then that'll be a very interesting decision. But I just think if there's any practical takeaway here, I really think it's not about the medical system needs to do better. Yes. But pharmacology, psychology fucking sucks. And it's been doing what it's been doing to us all, male and female, for a long time. It's really about the individuals around her, in my view. You know, when she was deteriorating, that husband, I don't blame Patrick Clancy exactly for this. It's Lindsay Clancy's fault.

2:33:20Dave Aronberg:But that husband needed to be far more active in keeping her the hell away from the children until he knew she was well. That is a husband's job and it's a father's job. And Lindsay Clancy's mother should have been far more interventional on it too. I know generally when you have an adult child, you try not to control their decisions, but she had asked her mother for help. She had said, I'm spiraling, I'm decompensating. The mother too could have insisted that this woman be hospitalized, inpatient until she was better. I think they had the means for that. they weren't rich, but I think they would have had the means for it.

2:33:59Dave Aronberg:And I do see this as a failure first and foremost of the people around Lindsay Clancy who were supposed to love her and the people around the children who were supposed to love and look out for them. You know, those three kids were Patrick Clancy's actual dependents. He had not only a moral, religious, ethical, but a legal duty to look out for them. And he failed. Was it as bad as what Lindsay did? Obviously not, but he failed in his duty. And I'll bet you it keeps him up at night because not just because of the horrific end they met, but because of what he failed to do. So there's any warning in here.

2:34:33Dave Aronberg:I think it's for those who are around around a mentally unwell person to take this very, very seriously. And we protect the most vulnerable among us, even if it hurts the feelings of or possibly even sets back the recovery of the grown up who is the threat. Also, the second takeaway is MK True Crime is amazing. They've gotten to know all the lawyers on MK True Crime, except for Ashley. We haven't seen Ashley in our travails over these past two days, but she's delightful and the woman we have to thank for the end of Fannie Willis's prosecution against Trump. That's how Phil and I first became friends.

2:35:10Dave Aronberg:So check out MK True Crime. Go now while you're thinking about it. On your podcast, you go to that little purple button on your iPhone or whatever it is if If you have the other and you go into the podcast thing and then you hit search and type in MK true crime. If you just subscribe to that, you'll subscribe to all their shows and you go on YouTube and do the same. It would help them out and you will never miss a moment of their very sparkling special legal coverage. It's fun and it's insightful and it's educational. Thank you for the shout out about MK true crime. We are very close to our first 100 ,000 subscribers on YouTube.

2:35:44And so we want to ask your audience to hit that subscribe button, but also listen on the podcast. Put you over the top. Yeah, I've got to listen to the podcast, too. And so we are very close to 100 ,000. So if your audience, your YouTube audience, could come check us out, we would be ever grateful. I think that we have a good lineup. We have three excellent shows. Four days a week, you get new episodes. And so it's really good true crime content. And the thing that sets us apart and makes us different from our friends at Court TV or Law and Crime or all the other great places where you can go to get true crime content as well, we are seven practicing lawyers.

2:36:22And so we try to bring these cases to the audience with that perspective. And so these are our friends. Everybody else that does true crimes are not necessarily our competitors. There's plenty of space to take in all this content, but we do it a little differently. And so that's why I want everybody to check us out because I think they'll learn a lot.

2:36:43Dave Aronberg:I couldn't agree more. Very well said. Ashley's been on trial, which is the only reason it's Ashley merchant. I should point out, we've had Ashley Banfield who's not a lawyer, but a lovely person and a great reporter. So yes, we'll get Ashley on as well and check it out. Support all the gang at MK true crime so they can keep doing this and entertaining us and informing us for years to come. All the best guys. Great to see you. Thanks for everything. Happy labor. Same to you. Yeah, you too. Have a great Labor Day weekend. And thanks to all of you who have been listening today and yesterday. I hope you all have a great Labor Day weekend as well.

2:37:15Dave Aronberg:And now I am going to finish that workout. I am going to put the hair back into the ponytail. And I am going to try to enjoy the weekend. Although we have to start on our, got to get a couple of episodes in the bank for next week's MK Confidential. I believe what we've settled on is we're going to do a four episode case next week so that my team can breathe a little over Labor Day weekend. Um, but we will resume on Tuesday night. So fear not, we've got you covered. There are two more weeks of MK confidential, and then we will be meeting and deciding and then announcing what its next iteration will be taking your thoughts and suggestions.

2:37:57Dave Aronberg:Megan at Megan Kelly.com. Lots of love. We'll see you next week. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.

2:38:32Why choose just a few looks? With our prices, just get them all. Burlington. Deals. Brands. Wow. Hey, Chicagoland. The Wayfair store is in your neighborhood at Edens Plaza and Wilmette. Finally, you can feel the fabric, sit on the sectionals, and even open the refrigerators. Plus, our in-store designers will help you bring it all together with free one-on-one design support for any project on any budget. Yep, we said free. Oh, and did we mention the cafe? So what are you waiting for? Come see all that's in store. Visit the Wayfair store today at Edens Plaza in Wilmette. Wayfair, every style, every home.