The Megyn Kelly Show - The Judge DEMANDS Lindsay Clancy Jury Keep Deliberating and Refuses to Dismiss One Holdout

Episode Date: September 4, 2026

Megyn Kelly covers the breaking news as the Lindsay Clancy jury begins day 7 of deliberations. The judge in the case refuses to dismiss the one holdout juror despite the defense's objections. Phil Holloway, Jonna Spilbor and Matt Murphy, all hosts on the MK True Crime channel, join to react.  Find ALL MK True Crime shows here:Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/mk-true-crime/id1829831499Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4o80I2RSC2NvY51TIaKkJWYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@MKTrueCrime?sub_confirmation=1  Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms:YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShowFind out more information at:https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show, live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at New East. Hey, everyone, I'm Megan Kelly. Welcome to the Megan Kelly show. We are coming to you live to cover the dramatic developments in the 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 four persons 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. It's important to point out we do not know for sure which way the jury is leaning. Neither does the judge, the prosecution, or defense. We believe. We haven't seen the actual note, but nothing communicated in court yesterday would suggest the jury has in any way tipped its hand as to which way any 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 At 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. After 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 that. I appreciate I appreciate the fact, Your Honor, that you're allowing us to be heard in public rather than at the sidebar. The juror, 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. And I suggest respectfully that the soft instruction that you gave them saying at the sidebar, can you listen to the law as I instruct you, does not focus on the issue. It is 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 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 courts 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. It's such a mystery because he wants that juror gone, but we do not know that this juror is for the prosecution. We don't know whether he's against Lindsay Clancy. How is Kevin Reddington so sure that this juror needs to go? What if that juror is the loan holdout for his side? This dominated much of our discussion yesterday when this news broke, and I have to tell you, I'm no more clear on it this morning than I was yesterday.

Judge Sullivan refused to bounce the juror calling this a sensitive undertaking, and it is indeed, and noting that the jurors had individually affirmed to him that they could follow his instructions. Kevin Reddington later telling lawyers that this morning, is after court in a scrum yesterday, saying that this morning at 9 a.m. any minute now, Judge Sullivan will conduct an inquiry into this holdout juror. How is that going to go? Is this juror going to be questioned 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 file folder from yesterday that I brought with me down here. Thank you. So let's talk about it as we await the court happenings. Can we see the feed, please, as we're awaiting what's happening in court? As soon as something happens there, we're going to, oh, there's no feed. Okay, so they haven't even put up the feed. So when we get the feed, we'll put it on the board. Make sure you see it as we see it. 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 and we have a few different shows on that channel all about true crime all about the day's legal cases and we have the best in the business hosting those shows

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 somebody who's dug their heels in, apparently. But you're right, Megan. It's a bit of a gamble by Kevin Redington. He doesn't know. He thinks that they're going his way.

I think he's probably right, but we can't see the jurors. So we're 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. 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 foredire each individual juror and you ask if they'll go back.

Right? And one thing that is interesting, Megan, is Massachusetts has a law that you can only, 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 Mr. Hall declared. But it's a lot of pressure. And by the way, that weak instruction that Kevin Redington 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. Coma if you had the opportunity to review that note. Yes, Your Honor. All right. Defendant, you had an opportunity. Yes, Your Honor.

All right. And 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. Thank you, Your Honor. I apologize for my voice. So Commonwealth's suggestion is that the jurors be instructed to return to the deliberations

without any further instruction of order. The basis for that request is Commonwealth versus Ronke, 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 dire hearing regarding that. We don't have any of those circumstances here. There's no indication of a lack of impartiality or bias or extraneous influence and no indication of inability to deliberate, in fact, if delistances 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 Kamal's position, especially considering the fact that Your Honor voir dire at each of the jurors yesterday and they all said that they could follow your instructions. So when you couple that with the requirements of Ronke,

I don't think an individual voir dire is necessary. If Your Honor does determine to do one, we would just ask along the lines of all the case law in this area, Ronky, 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 interrupt and remind the juror that we're not to get into that and that questioning be ceased of the juror unless he or she indicates that there is a personal problem unrelated to the case of the relationships. All right, thank you. Defendant? Thank 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 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 jurors' position regarding their review of their oath and how they should apply their oath.

In other words, if it's personal to this individual, which I believe it is, based on the first question that you had. And I have never seen a situation like this where a foreperson on the jury is so courageous as to speak on behalf of 11 jurors and indicate that 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. 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. That 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 they it clearly 11 to 1 and this person will not apply reasonable doubt to the evidence to return a not guilty verdict um i would ask that the court would

and i know it's awkward i'm familiar with the law i know that we we try to protect and preserve the sanctity if you will of the jury we don't want to invade their deliberations we want to keep that private, obviously that's a good thing to do. But when you have a situation where you have not one but two notes that clearly indicates that this individual has acknowledged doubt, but refuses to apply it to the verdict. He is, as the law states, he is not being honest with you at the sidebar. I would go so far as to reluctantly say that the individual has made a false statement under oath to this court. There has to be an issue that is not arising out of deliberations

in the facts of this case. But the individual is refusing to apply your instructions on proof beyond a reasonable doubt to allow that jury to return a verdict of not guilty. If I mean, 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 party

disagrees disagree on what is reasonable doubt or what doubt is and how it should be applied. And we are in no position to judge if the 11 are right or the one 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, is 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, sensitive undertaking fraught with potential error. It's to be done only in special circumstances with special precautions. A judge must take the utmost caution to

avoid invading the province of the jury. That's what I'm concerned with in this at this point. And as 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 has says acknowledged doubt but refuses to apply it to the verdict. Well, the instruction that the SJC has suggested, has seen

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

not be able to continue deliberating as some of the other cases talk about so so for reasons of for that I'm not going to do a further inquiry of this juror over the defendant's objection. And at that point, my inclination would be to bring the jury back. 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. and remind them of that. So with that, I would you want to apologize, 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. Well, 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. Sure. First of all, you acknowledge is that I have an objection which I appreciate.

And I do have an objection. And I am again citing Article 12, Sixth Amendment, the United States Constitution. This is, 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.

I understand of 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 four person is going to feel that that is some type of that she violated something and might feel that your honor is kind of coming down on her and not to do that. And I think it's too delicate right now a situation. And in addition, and finally, I would ask that you not just give them, as I described it yesterday, a soft inquiry where 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? You did it yesterday, you did it soft, you didn't do it forcefully, and I'm asking me to do it forciful. What do you want me to do? I want to get a brass band.

I read the instruction as written by the SJC. The fact that I perhaps didn't give it my full inflection, I'm sorry about 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. The issue is this juror will not, according to that note, apply the law of reasonable doubt. And that's why I've requested, you know what I've requested, so I know my objection. But just in case the record's correct, I am specifically not glossing over this issue.

I have thought about this issue long and hard. I know the definitive Jax, 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. It 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. But so with that, we'll bring the jury back in. And I'll ask the questions. I'll give those kind of that instruction and we'll send it back out. All right, bringing the jury in.

We'll get a break. Wow. Wow. As he brings the jury back in, let's talk. And then we can go back 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. That'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 used the pronoun he, was questioned yesterday. But Kevin Redington 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 he said what would you like me do to do call in a brass band um he didn't appreciate that and you always know as counsel when you're out on a thin read and you've gone out too far the judge will slap you and you got to back up a little so it doesn't look like this judge is going to do jana 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

It takes almost an act of God, I think, to remove a juror under this situation. And the judge doesn't think it requires that level of judicial scrutiny under the circumstances. And at the risk of being odd woman out, and I'm okay with that, God knows I've done that for my entire career. I am still not convinced you can beat me up if you want to that the fact that a juror has expressed doubt means that that juror is wholeheartedly on. Kevin Reddington side. He maybe this juror is having doubt, but doesn't know whether how to define reasonable. He's not on Kevin Reddington side versus all. He's on that 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 in that no we did not know about. They 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.

And 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 will 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 so it's you know it might be a situation where um redington 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 is one of the things that concerns me Matt I'll stand by the judge is back standby from any source about this case that would affect your ability to be fair and impartial juror the 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 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. You should consider all of my instructions as a whole. You may not ignore any instruction or give special attention to any one instruction. You must follow the law as I give it to you whether you agree with it or not. The law that I'm instructing you on is the law that's been established by our legislature and our 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. Court, all right. Matt, is he to, yeah, okay, so the jury's 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 an accused 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. But this juror doesn't know. So it's like it's intimidation outside the presence of that juror. If I were his lawyer just watching this whole thing, I'd be very angry that my client is, trying to do his civic duty, almost guaranteed 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 as 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 Redington 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. I'm sick of listening to the guy, to be honest with you. And one of the things that's frustrating to me right now, and I'm sorry, it's early morning. I'm jet lagging. But, You know, these prosecutors need to counter punch that stuff. You know, they need to be on their feet.

Some outrageous thing to say. This guy has, he's done his jury duty. Reasonable doubt, just for the viewer, a lot of people think that that's any doubt or prove to 100% certainty. The language of the law in Massachusetts is the same as California. That's anything relating to human affairs is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. That's been the law only for about the last 500 years. You can't know anything with 100% certainty unless you witness it yourself, in which case,

you're in the witness box, not a juror. So it is perfectly okay to have to have doubt and not be violating the law, but saying that the doubt is not reasonable or doesn't rise to the level, that you're going to acquit. That is, that that's 500 years of precedent. That's perfectly okay. And for a defense lawyer, an officer of the court to stand up for somebody that's given his time, sworn and worked very hard with his fellow jurors, to accuse him of committing perjury in open court when the entire world is watching, I think it's irresponsible. I think especially when you've got that lunatic out there with their camera the other day, taking pictures of all these people.

That's, I'd be, I'm pissed right now, Megan, listening to that. It's not, it's not okay to do that. And he needs to freaking, he needs to shift down. He is zealously advocating for his client, but to accuse a juror of a crime under these circumstances, I believe is vastly improper. And I, look, I wish we had, honestly, I wish you had stronger prosecutors who were counterpunching that nonsense because you shouldn't be

doing that on this case. It's not right. It's not fair. And frankly, John, we should also not know that it's a male juror. We shouldn't know anything about Kevin Reddington is the one revealing all these details. You notice. The judge didn't reveal that. The prosecution didn't reveal that. Kevin Reddington is the one who got up there and said it was a he and threatened him with, I mean, as of committing a felony. Yep. And is jumping up and down about getting the this guy bounced for where is he getting Kevin Reddington? I believe he made a false statement to you under oath. He won't apply your instructions.

And then the prosecutor prosecutor got up and said that that note did not indicate that this juror is lying to the court. The four person suggested he's not following the law unreasonable doubt, which is why the judge then re-read the law on reasonable doubt. But what we clearly have here is just a disagreement between the 11 and the one. And it seems to me that Kevin Reddington and arguably the other 11, or at least the four person, are trying to strong arm the one into just going along with it so they can get out of there by saying, oh, he's violating the law. That's true. And think about this also. There are only three men on the jury. So it's not going to be hard to figure out, you know, any, me, any, money mo.

Which one, Kevin Reddington. Oh, and Jonna. Let me just add to that. There's a John DePretro show. He's been in the court for this trial. He tweeted out, pretty sure we know which juror it is. He has his head up. He seems confident.

He's not going to be coerced by the defense. That's this guy's taken. Excuse me. And also, let me clarify what I meant earlier because I'm not convinced that the 11, that this jury is on Kevin Reddington side, only because when they talk about the context of the note, like Matt said, this person indicated they have doubt. But they didn't say what level.

of doubt. Is they have beyond all doubt, are they trying to use that standard, which is not the standard, or do they have reasonable doubt, but they're not going to apply it? So there's still some things that are unclear about the nature of this very terse note. So I'm not 100% convinced that this jury is going to come back with a defense verdict if they are able to, quote unquote, strong arm this one holdout. I get that, you know, the tea leaves kind of indicate that. that, but I'm not 100% in my gut on that end. That's all I meant to say earlier. I got it.

That makes sense. What they said in court, Reddington said, this juror has made statements acknowledge. He was quoting the note or paraphrasing. This juror has made statements acknowledging doubt, but will not apply it to the facts or to the verdict. I can't remember how that went. And then he went out to say, this juror lied to you, judge. He said he would be able to apply the law to the fact.

he won't apply the reasonable doubt standard to these facts. Then he revealed there were two notes. That's also something we didn't know. In two notes, they say he's acknowledged doubt but refuses to apply it to the verdict. I believe he's made a false statement under oath to you. He won't apply your instructions. And then the judge said, this juror in a note yesterday has acknowledged doubt but refuses to apply it to the verdict. So that's about as much as we know.

Here, just for the audience, just tuning in, is the contentious exchange between Kevin Reddington and Judge Sullivan on this holdout juror. I would ask that you not just give them, as I described it yesterday, a soft inquiry where 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 day yesterday, didn't I? Yes.

You did it yesterday, you did it soft, you didn't do it forcefully, and I'm asking me to do it for me. What do you want me to do? I want to get a brass band. I read the instruction as written by the SJC. The fact that I perhaps didn't give it my full inflection, I'm sorry about 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.

The issue is this, this judge. 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 it just, just in case the record, I am specifically not glossing over this issue. I have thought about this issue long and hard. I know the defendant objects, but the characterization

that I'm glossing over it, trust me, that's not the situation. He said he'd give the jury the instructions again, or not, he wasn't going to reread the reasonable doubt instruction, but just remind them to follow the instructions with more pizzazz, Phil. This judge is trying to avoid committing reversible error. But the biggest danger zone for him in reversible error is to bounce the juror. The judge is not going to bounce the jury. He's made that clear this morning without more. Like if another note comes back, suggesting he's gotten more egregious.

in his alleged refusal to follow the reasonable doubt standard. Okay, maybe we'll have to, you know, go there. But what it seems to me is this jury is sick and tired of this guy holding out saying he doesn't have reasonable doubt. Or maybe to John's point, maybe he's holding out saying he does have reasonable doubt. But this juror is holding on to his own version of what a reasonable doubt is, having heard the standard. And he's allowed to do that. Yeah, he's allowed to have his own personal convictions. And, you know, if he's not going to be, if he's not certain that his doubts rise to the level of reasonable doubt, pardon me, then he's absolutely deliberating the way we would want them to.

But a couple of points here to something John just said, she's not sure that the jury is leaning towards not guilty. Y'all can please correct me if I'm wrong. But I think I heard, whether it was Redington or the judge or maybe both, you know, they didn't exactly read verbatim the note or notes, but they did read from them apparently. And I thought I heard one of them say that the juror was refusing to acquit or something along those lines. And the other point that I want to make is when the jurors were brought in yesterday to the sidebar and the judge questioned them, individually. We don't know what they were asked, and we certainly don't know how this one particular juror answered. So Reddington has accused him of making a false statement, but I'm going to reserve judgment on Reddington's claim because I don't know what the juror said to the judge when they

were at the bench. So it's kind of hard for me to evaluate whether or not the juror made a false statement if I don't know what the statement was. So Reddington was there. He was privy to it. I wasn't. So I would have to reserve judgment on whether or not he went too far in accusing someone of lying. I do acknowledge that it's a, you know, it's a big claim. And to make it in open court is not something that should be done lightly for sure. But I just don't know what was said. So I don't think we can, we can comment on whether or not it was a lie. I didn't hear the judge or Reddington say anything about acquittal.

And either. We can go back and listen to it. I'm looking at all my notes of what he said. So first, first we had the prosecutor say, the instruction to the jurors to return to deliberation is what's needed. We don't need further questioning of the jurors. And then you had, then she said there's no inability to deliberate.

There's only disagreement. The defense stood up and said, any defendant is entitled to jurors who are true to their oath. If one juror is refusing to follow instructions for personal reasons, which I believe is what's happening. Then we have a problem. I've never seen a situation like this, he said, where a juror has made statements acknowledging doubt,

but will not apply it to the facts. That's when we first had the light bulb moment of, okay, the note was more specific than we knew. Then he said, this juror lied to you. He said he would be able to apply the law to the facts. He won't apply the reasonable doubt standard to these facts. There were two notes. He's acknowledged doubt, but refuses to apply it to the verdict. I believe he made a false statement under oath to you. He won't apply your instructions.

The prosecutor. The note did not indicate that he was lying to the court. The foreperson said he's not following the law. The judge, special circumstances only come when, you can only discharge a juror for special circumstances. Only for reasons personal to this juror can he be discharged. I see no reason for additional questioning and then acknowledged that the note yesterday reflected the juror has acknowledged doubt but refuses to apply it to the verdict. The note did not indicate that he refuses to follow the law. I asked each juror, can you follow the instructions? And they all said yes. And then they had their little fight over what he should say when the jury came back in.

That's where I think we are. But I wonder if you have any thoughts on, Jana, the threat that was made by Kevin Reddington to the juror, the one holdout juror, openly accusing him of committing a crime. You know, the fact that the juror wasn't privy to the threat and that Kevin Reddington didn't go so far as to, I think he actually said, I'm not going to say the number. Somebody I could be imagining that at this point might save Kevin Reddington from some other civil liability down the road for basically outing a juror that he obviously believes is the reason why he's not getting a defense verdict or hasn't gotten one thus far. When we actually do not know, we do not know. We do not know what is going on in that jury room. And the note, I don't think was indicative of it either. If it were,

this judge would not have just made the decision that he made. And that was, thank you very much, Mr. Reddington, but I'm going to leave the jury alone. I'm going to let them continue to do their job. I think the judge who individually questioned all 12 would know better than any of us and anybody watching this trial whether or not this juror's conduct rises to the level of we need to do something so severe as to discharge him. So once again, I'll go back on what I was alluding to yesterday, not alluding to, I was flat out saying it. Kevin Redington knows how to play for the camera. He knows how to put on the show. This is part of it. That's not bad lawyering. That's good lawyering, but it's not going to change what's happening in that jury room.

The truth is, though, Matt, if the jury is split 11-1 and they come back in an hour and say, we're hopelessly deadlocked, and the judge declares a mistrial, we will know within an hour what the split was. I mean, we will have confirmation that it was 11 for Lindsay Clancy and one for the prosecution. We think one of those jurors is probably going to talk. And when that happens, if it really is 11 for Clancy and one for the prosecution, she and Kevin Reddington are in a much better position than they were before this trial started. I mean, this prosecutor who is fighting, we should note,

because this prosecutor has the same interpretation that Kevin Reddington does, that this juror is good for the prosecution and bad for the defense. But the prosecution is going to have a serious decision to make, knowing that they fought their hardest. And at best, we think, they've persuaded one juror, like one. So what does that tell us? Where did we go from there? Well, hopefully they negotiate a settlement here.

And we don't get through another trial. And I say hopefully for everybody, for the defendant in this case, and also for the confident wealth in Massachusetts. I don't know. I don't know what happens. I don't know what happened behind the scenes. That's what they should do, Megan. If it's 11 to 1, if it's 11 to 1, the court also has the option of exercising discretion,

although they rarely do that after our jury hangs once, even if it's just, if it's 11 to 1. And we all have stories over the course of our career of juries coming back 11 to 1 one way, and then they either acquit or convict the next trial around. It's just, you know, it's tough to say. I've been advocating, if that happens, for the elected DA to sit down with Reddington and see if they can find some middle ground. and put this whole thing behind Lindsay Clancy and all the rest of us. I for one, I won't mind not having to listen.

How, Phil, will the enormous media scrutiny on the case affect the DA's willingness to do that? Well, I think he's getting it on two different sides, right? He's got people who see this as the murder of three children, and there's very good reason for him to think that. And then you've got people that believe that this one was suffering from postpartum to the point that it was actual psychosis. not just depression and that under Massachusetts law, she shouldn't be criminally responsible. And that's one of the reasons why it's not a surprise this jury's hanging because there's good arguments and good facts and support of both positions on this. So I think that he'll get it from both sides no matter what he does.

And that's why you get paid the big bucks as an elected DA. Yeah, now it's the time for the DA to call into that courtroom and or go in there and talk to his prosecutors and say, look, if it's 11 to one against us, We have no reason to think that it's going to be better next time if we try the case. My friend Doug Weinstein posts on Twitter. He's a lawyer, I know. He said it would be smart for them to go ahead and tell the judge that they will accept an 11-person verdict, which would be presumably not guilty by reason of insanity,

and send her on off to the mental health system. That would be something that they could do. Wait, what? That's a thing? Oh, yeah, they can agree to it. the prosecution would say that? The prosecution, look, if it's 11 to 1, there's no reason to think they're going to get a more favorable outcome next time. It's just going to cost them a lot more time and a lot more money.

It might make sense them to just go ahead and agree to take a verdict with the 11 that they've got and have the judge sent her on her way to the mental health system. And there's no reason to think, I can see it in the comments now. People are going to tell me, well, she can be out next week. but there's no reason to think that she would not be held for a significant period of time. My experience with these things is that when people have committed crimes, particularly serious and high-profile crimes, and they are mentally ill and they maybe get acquitted based on that, they aren't released from the hospital anytime soon. The people who make the decision on when to release someone from this psychiatric system, so to speak,

they look at it more like prosecutors and they want to err on the side of safety and caution. And so she probably would be there for a long time. I keep thinking about John Hinkley, who shot President Reagan. And arguably he had recovered and he had been basically brought to a place in terms of his mental health where he could function well on the outside. But they kept him and they kept him and they kept on keeping him for a long time, probably longer than was medically necessary. And I think she would be kept for a long time as well.

I mean, John Hinkley was just on our show. I interviewed him about a month and a half ago. He's he is out. He's back out. He's got his freedom again, which is, you know, what concerns a lot of people. We talked about the case of Constance Fisher on this program last week,

who killed her three kids up in Maine. she drowned all three of them. They were almost exactly the same ages as these kids. She went to the mental institution. She was deemed well enough to leave the mental institution. Not that long after. I don't know how long it was, but it was a relatively short period of time. She went back to her same husband, Carl, who she'd been married to and had the three kids with.

They had three more children, and she drowned them too. She did it again. So there are some disturbing precedence of these mental institutions. Let's face it, looking at a young mother in a wheelchair very differently than they would look at Phil Holloway if he strangled three children. And, you know, seriously. And like going soft on her, she's 36 years old. I had a child when I was 42. Just saying like, this is, we are playing with fire here.

You know, John, this is like, this is no joke where she winds up. And this is one of the reasons why I very much think it should be a jail cell. I wholeheartedly agree. I'm wondering what her mental state is now because she's been in some sort of psychiatric care since she was arrested, basically. So is she quote unquote saying now? I mean, she doesn't open her mouth in the trial. She doesn't have to open her mouth in trial, you know, but for crying some tears. I get it.

So we don't even know. We don't know how close she is to, quote, unquote, being well and how soon she would be released if she is not guilty by reason of insanity, the Massachusetts equivalent of that. And that is scary because, Megan, here's one of the reasons why I am all for a conviction in this case is I don't want Lindsay Clancy's verdict to be the reason why women all across the country mistakenly believe that a case of postpart depression gives you license to kill your kids or anybody else. And I'm afraid by the pink shirts that that is a real possibility. They don't understand the law and that scares the hell out of me. I totally agree with you. This is my concern too.

I mean, it is no accident that right after that woman killed the 32-year-old Bank of America executive who also was a new mom, the nutcase who killed her by stabbing in Times Square days ago, what happened when the press got to that nutcase's brother? He said, oh, she was suffering from postpartum and bipolar. Meanwhile, her kids are in their 20s, okay? But I don't think it's any accident. He threw those two terms out to be like, and now, like, I do not want to see a rash of women who hurt or kill their children throwing out the Lindsay Clancy, a post-part, like, Matt, you know better than anybody here on this panel or in America

that crazy people kill others all the time and are not able to afford themselves of an insanity defense. Because what we all understand colloquially as he's nuts or she's nuts doesn't necessarily mean legally. They will be excused for the conduct. That's what this whole.

cases about. Pretty much everybody who commits serial murder is nuts, but that's not the end of the inquiry. Well, yeah, people in their right minds tend not to kill each other, right? And that goes back 200,000 years. And you can make that argument, absolutely, Megan, you can make that argument for anybody, virtually any murder case. There's some DSM diagnosis you could give them that you could say they're nuts. They're not playing with the full deck, whatever clever euphemism we want to use. question here is was she so psychotic at the time that either she didn't understand right from wrong when she killed her kids or she knew right from wrong but could not conform her own actions to what is required under the law? That's Massachusetts law, right? But you're

right. Look, I agree with both you and John on this. It's like what kind of precedent does this set not legally as much as just in the minds of every like every loony person out there who may have some homicidal ideation and want to kill people, does this become the next big excuse? And I'm with you guys. I worry about that on a case like this. And the shocking pink shirts and all that stuff. And, you know, yeah, it's, I don't know, I think the world gets a little crazier every day. But this case is, I don't know, I just wish we had better lawyers on the prosecution side, to be honest.

And I don't want to be unfair. I just, I keep, they should be punching Kevin Redington. be counterpunching in these arguments far more effectively than they are. And I wish we had some that. Yes. So I know. No, we can't have Matt Murphy everywhere, unfortunately. He can only be in one place at one time. But I mean, you know what? I took the Massachusetts bar and passed it when I took the New York bar. Maybe I will hang out a shingle and go volunteer to step into the DA's office. If I ever were to go back to the practice of law, it definitely would be on the prosecution side. All right. So listen, nothing's happening right now. I think you tell me, Phil, but I think the real question we're dealing with at the moment is how long until they give up? And it doesn't seem like this juror is going to give in. I could be wrong. So either he gives in and we get a probably not guilty by reason of mental defect. And she goes to the mental institution or he doesn't give in. We have a hung jury and they come back into the court and announce that within some period of time.

what would you guess? Well, it's 10 a.m. and they've been back now about 30 minutes, and so their free lunch that they get every day is coming up soon. So the traditional wisdom amongst lawyers is like, you know, the jury on the day they reach a verdict. They're going to get their lunch first, and then they'll give you their verdict. So I do think it's going to be, you know, after the noon hour, I think sometime later today, we're going to get a verdict. I think that the instructions the judge gave yesterday, combined with what he said today, gives the 11 people that are, I guess, apparently voting not guilty by reason of insanity, it will give them some leverage to use to remind this other individual what reasonable doubt is and perhaps convince him to come over to their side. Now, I could very well be wrong, but one way or another, it's going to be over today. I think if they give it a few more hours and the person does not budge, they're likely to send the judge a note, says, look, now we are definitely hopelessly deadlocked.

And then the judge is stuck. He cannot send them back, at least not against their will, to deliberate a third time and would have no choice but to declare a mistrial. All right. Don't go far because I think we're going to be back together shortly as soon as we hear from this jury again. There's zero chance this jury wants this thing to go. into Labor Day weekend. I mean zero. So our only real question is, is that guy sitting there like this? I've made up my mind. I'm good. Or does he go through the motions of I had a doubt. It doesn't rise to the level of reasonable. I'm listening. Does he do the show trial of I've listened to the judge's instructions. I heard what he said on reasonable doubt. I do have a moral certainty that she committed this crime and that she knew what she was. We have no idea. I hope we find out all.

the deeds later, but in the meantime, we remain on verdict watch. Guys, thank you all so much for coming on. Love you. You guys, check out M.K. True Crime, our channel, you go on the podcast button. You type in MK. True Crime, and you can get all of my panelist shows, MK.Tru Crime, positively legal, and in the well where Matt and Mark Garrague's partner on a great show talking about all these issues. For now, we sign off, and we will see you again later when there's news.

Thanks for listening to the Megan Kelly show. No BS. No Agenda. and no fear.