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

0:00All of us strands are in real danger and whatever it is, it's closing in. It started with just a few lost hairs here and there, but now more and more of us are disappearing every day. But listen, we think we have a plan, a way to stop the shedding. Pantene Abundant and Strong. Go now, it's not too late. Pantene Abundant and Strong. It's a three-step system that reduces hair loss by 85%. Only the strongest will survive the shedding. 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.

0:39Plus, 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 and Wilmette. Way fair, every style, every home. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at New East.

1:12Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show. We are coming to you live to cover the dramatic developments in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial this morning, where a verdict may now hinge on a single holdout juror, and what's going to happen to that juror, we do not know. Reporting to you from the beach where I was planning on a more casual day. Okay, the jury is about to be brought into the courtroom, which we will take live. You won't miss it. But first, let's get you up to speed on yesterday's dramatic developments. It started around 3 p.m. The jury foreperson sending a note to the court indicating that one juror is refusing, allegedly, to follow the judge's instructions on the legal standard for reasonable doubt.

1:54It's important to point out we do not know for sure which way the jury is leaning. Neither does the judge, the prosecution, or defense. We believe. We haven't seen the actual note, but nothing communicated in court yesterday would suggest the jury has in any way tipped its hand as to which way any number of them might be leaning. Judge William Sullivan immediately calling a sidebar, which was not shown in the live court feed. Per courtroom reporters inside the courtroom, Lindsay Clancy's attorney, Kevin Reddington, was seen slamming down paperwork and reacting with physical anger. At times, Judge Sullivan was heard raising his voice.

2:34At one point, Reddington was said to have put his head in his hands out of frustration, and there was another moment where Lindsay Clancy herself was wheeled over to the sidebar, up to the judge's bench, to participate in the discussion. In the end, Judge Sullivan individually questioned the jurors. We believe that the questions were, can you be fair? Can you follow the law? Very generic stuff. And then he reread to them in open court, this part we heard, his instructions on reasonable doubt, the ones he'd already read prior to their deliberation. And he sent the jurors back to resume deliberations.

3:10After the jury left the courtroom, Kevin Reddington stood up again and asked the judge to remove the juror, who's allegedly refusing to follow the instructions on reasonable doubt, arguing that the person was not properly applying the law and even taking shots at the judge himself. Thank you, Your Honor. I appreciate that. I appreciate the fact, Your Honor, that you're allowing us to be heard in public rather than at the sidebar. The court has an instruction from the foreperson of that juror that's been working for a week now saying that there's one juror who refuses to listen to the law that you've given him or her on reasonable doubt.

3:52And I suggest respectfully that the soft instruction that you gave them saying at the sidebar, can you listen to the law as I instruct you, does not focus on the issue. The question is not sufficient enough. It does not allow any foundation for a motion to remove the juror who refuses to accept your instructions on the law on reasonable doubt. And if we come back here in a half an hour with a mistrial because of a juror that has just spurned the instructions of this court, it's a shame. It's a real shame. And that's why I object to the court's ruling. I request that we have further inquiry. I request that my motion is to remove this juror that refuses to listen to your instruction on reasonable doubt.

4:45it's such a mystery because he wants that juror gone but we do not know that this juror is for the prosecution we don't know whether he's against lindsey clancy how is kevin reddington so sure that this juror needs to go what if that juror is the lone holdout for his side this dominated much of our discussion yesterday when this news broke. And I have to tell you, I'm no, I'm no more clear on it this morning than I was yesterday. Judge Sullivan refused to bounce the juror, calling this a sensitive undertaking. And it is indeed. And noting that the jurors had individually affirmed to him that they could follow his instructions.

5:30Kevin Reddington later telling lawyers that this morning, this is after court in a scrum yesterday, saying that this morning at 9 a.m. any minute now, Judge Sullivan will conduct an inquiry into this holdout juror. How's that going to go? Is this juror going to be questioned in open court? Reddington said it is expected to happen in open court, not at a sidebar. I mean, that seems impossible. But in fact, Reddington this morning filing motion asking the court to end all sidebars for the remainder of the trial. I mean, that would be, hi, you can bring it to me. Thank you. I'm getting my, getting my, getting my file folder from yesterday that I brought with me down here.

6:13Thank you. So let's talk about it as we await the court happenings. Can we see the feed please? As we're awaiting what's happening in court, as soon as something happens there, we're going to, oh, there's no feed. Okay. So they haven't even put up the feed. So when we get the feed, We'll put it on the board. Make sure you see it as we see it, and then we'll analyze it together. Joining me now for all of that, Phil Holloway. He is host of the MK True Crime Show. We have an MK True Crime podcast channel. And basically, the way that works is you go out on your phone, you hit podcasts, and you type in MK True Crime.

6:46And we have a few different shows on that channel all about true crime, all about the day's legal cases. And we have the best in the business hosting those shows. shows Phil is one of the co-hosts of the signature show which is called MK true crime having had a day now to reflect or a night Matt Murphy I'll start with you any further thoughts on what's actually happening well we've got we've got somebody who's dug their heels in apparently um but you're right Megan uh it's a bit of a gamble by Kevin Reddington he doesn't know he thinks that they're going his way I think he's probably right but we can't see the jurors so we were really kind of operating in a vacuum and it's always reading tea leaves trying to figure out what a jury is thinking i don't think the judge is going to do any of those things that he's asking i don't think the judge should do any of the things that he's asking that the jurors if you deliberate and you're talking about it it's kind of tough to say when somebody is or is not subjectively applying a particular instruction or law so there must be something behind that But the judge did exactly what he should have done, and that is you voir dire each individual juror, and you ask if they'll go back, right?

7:59And one thing that is interesting, Megan, is Massachusetts has a law that a judge can only send a jury back twice. And then if the jury wants to hang, the court cannot order them to continue to deliberate. So if this person holds out for the rest of the day, I think that we're in a situation that we're probably going to see a mistrial declared. But it's a lot of pressure. And by the way, that weak instruction that Kevin Reddington is talking about isn't weak at all. Excuse me, Matt. They're going live in the court. Let's listen. We put over to today to address it. Come up. You had the opportunity to review that note.

8:32Yes, Your Honor. All right. I defend it. You had the opportunity. Yes, Your Honor. All right. And so So I will hear from the parties as to how each party suggests or requests I deal with that note. So I want to hear from the Commonwealth first.

8:58Thank you, Your Honor. I apologize for my voice. So, the commonwealth's suggestion is that the jurors be instructed to return to the deliberations without any further instruction or. The basis for that request is Commonwealth versus Ronchi, R-O-N-C-H-I 491 Mass 284 from 2023. In that case, it's a similar situation where it's reported one juror is having issues with the other jurors, and it says in that case where reliable information comes to a judge suggesting a lack of impartiality, bias, extraneous influence or inability to deliberate that there should be an individual voir d 'erre hearing regarding that.

9:42We don't have any of those circumstances here. There's no indication of a lack of impartiality or bias or extraneous influence and no indication of inability to deliberate. In fact, they've deliberated for a very long time in this case and very conscientiously. So what we have here is a note that indicates a disagreement about how to weigh the evidence and that's deliberation. So it's the Commonwealth's position, especially considering the fact that Your Honor voir dare each of the jurors yesterday and they all said that they could follow your instructions. So when you couple that with the requirements of Ronke, I don't think an individual voir dare is necessary.

10:18If Your Honor does determine to do one, we would just ask along the lines of all the of case law in this area, Ronke, Williams, Torres, the whole string of cases, that the juror be instructed not to comment on the deliberations, and that the juror be told that he or she cannot be discharged unless a personal problem unrelated to their relationship with the jurors or their views on the case, and that any attempt or any comments by the juror that tend to get into deliberations that your honor to interrupt and remind the juror that we're not to get into that and that questioning be ceased of the juror unless he or she indicates that there is a personal problem unrelated to the case or the relationships.

11:04All right, thank you. Defendant.

11:10Thank you very much, Your Honor. Appreciate the opportunity to argue this to you. A couple of points that occur to me. First of all, as your Honor is well aware, a defendant, any defendant in this courtroom or any courtroom in our country, is entitled to have a juror who is true to their oath, who will agree that they will apply the facts as they determine them to be, proven beyond a reasonable doubt to the law or as given to them by you as a judge or any other judge. if a jury consists of people and there's one person who is refusing to actually apply the law to the facts as determined for reasons that are not arising out of the case but are personal to the juror's position regarding their review of their oath and how they should apply their oath.

12:10In other words, if it's personal to this individual, which I believe it is, based on the first question that you had. And I have never seen a situation like this where a foreperson on the jury is so courageous as to speak on behalf of 11 jurors and indicate the juror number, which I will not mention, and I quote, has made statements acknowledging doubt, but refuses to apply it to the verdict as the law states. Clearly, Judge, we have a person who, under their oath, stood in front of you yesterday when you did the individual voir dire, and according to this information, under oath, looked you in the eye and lied.

13:07That juror told you that he would be able to apply the law to the facts as you asked him. And based on this note from this juror, it clearly and unequivocally indicates that it clearly 11 to 1. And this person will not apply reasonable doubt to the evidence to return a not guilty verdict. But I would ask that the court would, and I know it's awkward. I'm familiar with the law. I know that we try to protect and preserve the sanctity, if you will, of the jury. We don't want to invade their deliberations. We want to keep that private. Obviously, that's a good thing to do. But when you have a situation where you have not one but two notes that clearly indicates that this individual has acknowledged doubt, but refuses to apply it to the verdict.

14:04As the law states, he is not being honest with you at the sidebar. I would go so far as to reluctantly say that the individual has made a false statement under oath to this court. There has to be an issue that is not arising out of deliberations and the facts of this case. but the individual is refusing to apply your instructions on proof beyond a reasonable doubt to allow that jury to return a verdict of not guilty. If I may, Your Honor, I just wanted to put on the record that the note does not indicate that this juror lied to Your Honor when responding. The note indicates that the parties disagree on what is reasonable doubt or what doubt is and how it should be applied.

14:52And we are in no position to judge if the 11 are right or the 1 is right. But there's no indication that the juror is intentionally trying to mislead the court or lie to the court. All right. Thank you. Well, as all three counsel are aware, the case law spells out kind of the concerns that everybody has in a situation like this, where it says the discharge of a deliberating juror is sensitive undertaking, fraught with potential error. it's to be done only in special circumstances, with special precautions. A judge must take the utmost caution to avoid invading the province of the jury. That's what I'm concerned with at this point.

15:34And even under the statute, during deliberations, a juror properly may be discharged only for reasons personal to that juror, having nothing whatsoever to do, nothing whatever, I'm sorry, to do with the issues of the case or with the jurors' relationship with their fellow jurors. In this case here, I see no showing of the need for an inquiry of this particular juror. The note that we were referring to, the one from late yesterday afternoon, indicates that the juror says acknowledge doubt but refuses to apply it to the verdict. Well, the instruction that the SJC has suggested we give in regards to reasonable doubt and that both parties agreed to, says that reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt.

16:27And so in reading that note carefully and strictly in the way that I have to before I possibly invade the province of the jury, that note does not indicate that this is a person who has refused to follow the law. And in addition, as the parties recognized yesterday, we brought all the jurors in, including the juror who is at issue here. And I asked whether or not those jurors could follow the instructions, including the instruction I just referred to. And all the jurors indicated that they could. But this is not a case that there's any indication that the juror has refused to deliberate or has any reason has indicated that they would not follow the law or that they're physically suffering or there's no note from the juror that indicates that the juror cannot or will will not be able to continue deliberating as some of the other cases talk about.

17:37So for reasons for that, I'm not going to do a further inquiry of this juror over the defendant's objection. And at that point, my inclination would be to bring the jury back. My thought would be though to remind them that it's their duty to accept the law as I give it to them. And that they have to follow that law. I think this is what I told them a week ago. They have to follow it whether they like it or not. So I'm going to give them that instruction and remind them of that. So with that. Go ahead. I was just going to ask that the court also instruct the jurors or remind them that any future notes should not contain information about deliberation.

18:29Well, here's what I was going to say. If there's any notes or any future notes, if there are any, you should refrain from detailing any of the actual deliberations and do not indicate where they stand numerically. A couple of things. First of all, I want to acknowledge that I have an objection, which I appreciate, and I do have an objection, and I am again citing Article 12, Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This goes beyond Massachusetts law. This is constitutional. It's a structural, I suggest respectfully, defect in the procedure that we're engaged in. We're elevating form over substance, and that's Your Honor's ruling.

19:04I understand. I've objected. But I would ask that you not instruct the jury that they cannot indicate anything. And I understand why traditionally we tell jurors, don't let us know what your division is or what your split is. But in this case, I'm concerned that if you do that, that foreperson is going to feel that that is some type of that she violated something and might feel that your honor is kind of coming down on her and not to do that. And I think it's too delicate right now a situation. And in addition, and finally, I would ask that you not just give them, as I described it yesterday, a soft inquiry.

19:42Will you listen to my instructions? I would ask that you specifically direct their attention to proof beyond a reasonable doubt and re-instruct them on that forcefully. I think I did it yesterday, didn't I? Yes. You did it yesterday. You did it soft. You didn't do it forcefully. And I'm asking maybe do it forcefully. What do you want me to do? Get a brass band? I read the instruction as written by the SJC. The fact that I perhaps didn't give it my full inflection, I'm sorry about that. I'm not an actor. I've just given the instructions. Well, my point, Judge, simply is that you're kind of glossing over the issue.

20:23The issue is this juror will not, according to that note, apply the law of reasonable doubt. And that's why I've requested, you know what I've requested, so I know my objection. But just in case the record is clear, I am specifically not glossing over this issue. I have thought about this issue. I know the defendant objects, but the characterization that I'm glossing over it, trust me, that's not the situation. I've been thinking about this for quite a while. So that's what I'm going to do. I'm going to just give that instruction, as I said, that they have to follow my instructions. I'm not going to reiterate the reasonable doubt at this point.

21:11it may come to that again as we go through it. And I'll try and give this with more pizzazz than I gave yesterday, I suppose. So with that, we'll bring the jury back in, and I'll ask the questions. I'll give those kind of that instruction, and then we'll send it back out. All right, bringing the jury in. We'll get a break. Wow. Wow. as he brings the jury back in, let's talk and then we can go back if there's action in the courtroom. But there you have it. The answer to our mystery right there. The note from the jurors from the foreperson said that there is a juror who has acknowledged doubt but refuses to apply it to the verdict.

21:59That's why Kevin Reddington was so sure that the one holdout was against him and why the prosecution is arguing that that juror should not be bounced. And overall, what we heard today is Kevin Reddington also accusing the juror of lying to the court when he, they use the pronoun he, was questioned yesterday. But Kevin Reddington lost for now. His push to have the judge bounce the juror, do additional questioning of the juror in court and so on, was rejected and he pushed it to the point where the judge got pissed. You heard there at the end, you didn't give the reasonable doubt instruction forcefully enough.

22:41He said, what would you like me to do? Call in a brass band? He didn't appreciate that. And you always know as counsel, when you're out on a thin reed and you've gone out too far, the judge will slap you and you got to back up a little. So it doesn't look like this judge is going to do, Johnna what what Kevin Reddington wants him to do. He's gotten all he's going to get. The judge is doing the right thing, though, Megan, because it is it is a major I don't know. It takes almost an act of God, I think, to remove a juror under this situation. And the judge doesn't think it requires that level of, you know, judicial scrutiny under the circumstances and And at the risk of being odd woman out, and I'm OK with that, God knows I've done that for my entire career.

23:28I am still not convinced you can beat me up if you want to, that the fact that a juror has expressed doubt means that that juror is wholeheartedly on Kevin Reddington's side. Maybe this juror is having doubt, but doesn't know whether how to define reasonable. He's not on Kevin Reddington's side. Versus all. He's on the theory is he's on the prosecution side that he that the other jurors are complaining he and they do know which they also revealed that the note the gender revealed which juror it is. They used his juror number and also revealed the split. So there was a lot that no, we did not know about.

24:07They said who it was, the juror number. It's a man. And what the split was, 11-1. But that doesn't and said he has acknowledged doubt that this juror has acknowledged doubt, but refuses to apply it to the verdict. So, Phil, it is it is somebody who is refusing to go along with 11 others who appear to be ready to side with Lindsay Clancy. That's that's what we just learned. Yeah. And if I can take just a quick minute to gloat, I said this yesterday. I said when they went to the sidebar before we had any argument in the courtroom, they all went to sidebar and they spent several minutes there before they brought the jurors in for a little questioning at the judge's bench.

24:51And my prediction, my sense yesterday was there's a lot more in that note. There's something in that note that tells Reddington that, you know, this juror needs to go because it is, you know, it's so close to him getting the verdict that he wants, which is going to be not guilty by reason of insanity. And so it now makes perfectly good sense to that. We can understand why he wanted an alternate juror. But the thing about an alternate juror, you know, we don't know how that person might go because the deliberations would have to start all over again. And you add another person in there, does that person then try to, you know, does that person want to vote guilty and bring some of the others over to his or her side?

25:33So it's, you know, it might be a situation where Reddington needs to stick with the devil you know, so to speak, versus the devil you don't know. and rely on this judge's instructions. He's about to remind them again that they must acquit a defendant if they have reasonable doubt. And so I think that given these two sets of instructions now, that might just be enough to budge that juror off of his position, because now we do know it's a he. So I think we're getting very close. Here's one of the things that concerns me, Matt. Oh, stand by, the judge is back. Stand by. from any source about this case that would affect your ability to be fair and impartial juror.

26:20The last of these questions is, is there any other serious matter or concern bearing on your service as a juror in this case that anybody needs to bring to my attention at this time? No, it's not. Thank you. All right. So I did get the note yesterday. And one thing I would say, if there are any notes in the future, and I'm not saying there are, but if there are, just don't make sure we don't put down where everybody is numerically. Okay, but what I wanted to do was give you, go over one thing. I wanted to remind you, as I instructed you earlier, it's your duty as jurors to accept the law as I stated to you.

26:57You should consider all of my instructions as a whole. You may not ignore any instruction or give special attention to any one instruction. You must follow the law as I give it to you, whether you agree with it or not. The law that I'm instructing you on is the law that's been established by our legislature and our appellate courts. And it applies to everyone. And you must apply the law as I have instructed you. And you have a copy of the instructions that I gave you. You should still have them back there with the jury room. And with that, you may now resume your deliberations. All right. Sure, just wait a minute.

27:41Matt, is he? Yeah. OK, so the jury is going back to deliberate. So the judge saying you must follow the law, whether you agree with it or not, and making sure the jurors had no personal issues that would prevent that. And they you heard the jury say, you know, we're good. Here's one thing that jumped out at me, Matt. you had defense counsel stand up in open court and accuse a juror of lying under oath to the court, which, I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but would be a crime in and of itself to lie under oath. And is this juror now potentially exposed in a way someone needs to tell him about? Like, this is I think that's juror intimidation by Kevin Reddington.

28:23But this juror doesn't know. So it's like it's intimidation outside the presence of that juror. If I were his lawyer just watching this whole thing, I'd be very angry that my client is trying to do his civic duty, almost guaranteed he'd rather be doing something else these past two months, and just got accused in open court of lying under oath, which is a crime. Yeah, I'm not his lawyer, and that makes me angry, to be honest with you. I saw John's reaction. That's an outrageous thing to say. And look, Kevin Reddington has done a very good job defending his client. But over and over in this trial, Megan, he just pushes a little too far for me.