Sept. 3, 2026
**BREAKING** Killer Mom Trial: A New Note, Drama in Jury Room, Yelling in the Courtroom, & a Motion to REMOVE a Juror
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed A dramatic turn of events in the Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial. There was a heated sidebar between the attorneys, the judge and Lindsay Clancy after the jury sent a note saying one juror has refused to follow the judge’s instructions on reasonable doubt. The judge called in each juror, one by one, asked them a question and then read aloud instructions for evaluating reasonable doubt. That wasn’t enough for defense attorney Kevin Reddington who filed a motion to have that one juror removed. The judge denied his motion and sent the jury back to deliberate.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:02
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. It is Thursday, September 3rd, and it has been an interesting and intense breaking news hour, really, in the Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial. Welcome, everybody, to this breaking news episode in which Robes... There have been a lot of developments, and we've been watching this courtroom for the past hour. Bottom line, there is a motion right now to remove a juror. Let's get going on this stuff, Robes. Where do you want to start?
00:00:28
Speaker 2: I mean, from the beginning, I guess, because we got word just a short while ago that the jury had sent a note. And we were told pretty quickly that it was not a verdict, but it was unclear. A lot of folks thought that note was going to say that they were at an impasse.
00:00:45
Speaker 1: And I have right. That was around 2.30 Eastern time. 2.30 Eastern time, right?
00:00:49
Speaker 2: Correct. And so we're waiting, we're waiting, and all of a sudden the judge brings the attorneys, both the defense and the prosecution, up for a sidebar. And we were getting real-time information from reporters who were in the courtroom because the pool camera was not obviously on the sidebar. But we got word that Kevin Reddington, Lindsey Clancy's defense attorney, was so angry, slamming down paperwork, at one point even threw it on the floor. Tempers were flaring and we couldn't figure out what was going on.
00:01:21
Speaker 1: And it took a while because, yes, then thank you to those reporters. What's her name? Gillespie from Law and Crime and working with Court TV. You essentially have people in there have to relay it to a producer who has to relay it to an anchor on TV who has to relay it to us as viewers. And now we're relaying it to you. This is how we were getting all this information. But yes, Robes, what you described, they describe an all-out brawl. Yes, at a sidebar. Tempers flaring. In front of people in the court. We can't see it as the public because it's a sidebar. But everybody in the court saw this. Voices were getting raised. Now, the next thing that we said, what the hell? Kevin Reddington goes over and gets Lindsay Clancy and rolls her in her wheelchair over to the judge. What the actual hell?
00:02:01
Speaker 2: Yes. So then we see... The judge calls in the jury one by one, swears them in, asks a question, and this is all taking place within a foot of Lindsay Clancy. So these jurors who have been separated from her, they've seen her in court, are now literally at an arm's length from her, which is highly unusual. And we are seeing them being asked a question, and we got word that they were watching the jury one by one answer his question, yes. And so thenâ Brought them all in.
00:02:36
Speaker 1: Did he do all the alternates as well?
00:02:39
Speaker 2: All 16 jurors, the 12 jurors who were deliberating and the four alternates. And then he comes into court. The cameras pull out. We get audio. And the judge starts talking to the jury about reasonable doubt. What is reasonable doubt? And he goes and reissues his orders on what to consider. He says, what is proof beyond a reasonable doubt?
00:03:05
Speaker 1: And I have it here. It is actually specific language. I'm not going to read the whole thing.
00:03:09
Speaker 2: It's loud.
00:03:09
Speaker 1: But proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is an instruction. It says, this instruction must be given verbatim. This is Massachusetts law. So to give them clarity, he had to go through and explain. It's very much legalese. He didn't just say, hey, guys, think about that.
00:03:21
Speaker 2: No, no.
00:03:22
Speaker 1: It's a very specific thing that he had to read to them. Takes a little while. Long. He reads it. Robes and... Sends them back to do their work. Now, at this point, they only got half hour left in their day. based on how they have only been going till 4 o'clock. We'll see how long. But he sends them back. But they weren't done.
00:03:39
Speaker 2: Right. He says, resume your deliberations. And I think he ended with, it's not enough for the Commonwealth to present a probability or even a strong probability. It has to be beyond a reasonable doubt. So he has them go resume their deliberations. The jury leaves. He calls another sidebar. And we are all left to be thinking, what the heck is going on, and then the camera pulls out and Kevin Reddington is at the microphone.
00:04:04
Speaker 1: The second, this next sad bar didn't take as long. So we thought that we're going to come back and yes, court's going to be in recess. When I saw him walk to that podium, nothing in front of him and just put both of his hands on it and lean forward, adjusted the mic. I said, what the actual hell? And sure enough, Kevin Reddington went as Kevin Reddington as we've seen him do. Robes, he is wildly upset because apparently this note from the juror, the jury has to do with one juror, they are saying, that refuses to follow the law and follow the judge's instruction. That was the note. So how did the judge resolve this? He said by bringing them in one by one, putting them under oath. Can you follow my instructions? Can you follow the law? Yes.
00:04:52
Speaker 2: Yes.
00:04:53
Speaker 1: Did this 12, 16 times, whatever, with everybody. That was not enough for Kevin Reddington.
00:04:58
Speaker 2: No, Kevin Reddington said that is not sufficient. And he actually, on the record, filed a motion to remove that juror who refuses to listen to the law. And he said, I want to formally file a motion to remove that juror. And so the judge allowed the prosecution to say what they thought. Interestingly enough, the prosecution said, we're okay. that you asked each juror if they could follow the law. That is sufficient for us. We have no objection.
00:05:28
Speaker 1: He objected to what he called in the judge's face a soft instruction. You gave a soft instruction that was not good enough. He said, Robes, if we come back here in a half hour and there's a mistrial because of what you've just done.
00:05:44
Speaker 2: He did.
00:05:45
Speaker 1: He said it.
00:05:46
Speaker 2: He was angry. He was fired up. And he basically said, yes, in 30 minutes, if we have a mistrial, basically it's on you, judge, because that juror should be removed. Now, the judge in response to him said that discharging a deliberating juror who said that they can follow the law and his instructions under oath is a quote unquote sensitive undertaking. And he said he didn't feel it was proper to side with one side or the other, meaning he's saying it's not okay for me to side with one juror or to side with 11 jurors. They all individually should be held with equal respect. But you can imagine now, and I guess it makes sense now, why Kevin Reddington was so upset to think that one juror is holding up a verdict. And we always were wondering, what is the breakdown? What is the split? It seems like after today or after these last few minutes, we know what the split is. 11 to 1.
00:06:41
Speaker 1: Okay. Robes. Is it? I'm just, okay, we've heard a lot. And folks, watch three different channels of legal analysts, Every single one of them is going to give you a different answer to what they know for sure is going on.
00:06:57
Speaker 2: Oh, it was hilarious. As we were watching this all take place, everyone was trying to guess why the judge would be calling up the jurors individually and asking them a question. People were saying he was in dangerous territory by doing so because you should only address the jurors as a whole, as a body, to individually question them while they're in the middle of deliberations. is legally dangerous in terms of any grounds for appeal going forward. But no one knew what was actually happening until we actually heard the scenario that I don't think one person and all the lingual analysts that we heard trying to guess what was going on, no one even came close.
00:07:39
Speaker 1: As close as they got was someone said, this looks like something happened in the jury room.
00:07:45
Speaker 2: Some sort of jury misconduct.
00:07:46
Speaker 1: Something happened in the jury room. Is it one person and the one vote? Or it could be just one person refusing to participate fully in conversation. Which is it? I don't know. And how can they make a determination? We decide that this one person isn't following the law, like you said. We decide this one person isn't following your instruction. We the majority in here? Ropes, this is fascinating. I don't have a great handle on if it's 11 to 1.
00:08:13
Speaker 2: I've never seen anything like this in my life.
00:08:16
Speaker 1: Let's go with the 11 to 1, though, just as an assumption. Which way? 11 to 1 where?
00:08:23
Speaker 2: 11 to 1 for what? Okay, but I'm curious.
00:08:27
Speaker 1: Yes.
00:08:28
Speaker 2: This is about reasonable doubt. Why was the prosecution so okay to leave that jury, or sorry, leave that juror on the jury? And why was the defense so upset about leaving that one juror on the jury?
00:08:43
Speaker 1: Okay, let's break that down a little bit. All right. So why would Kevin Reddington be so upset? He wants this person removed that... may mean he thinks the 11 are on his team?
00:08:54
Speaker 2: Correct. Okay. And the prosecution obviously thinks the same thing.
00:08:58
Speaker 1: They think the 11 are on their team. Is that really the case?
00:09:01
Speaker 2: Oh, no. I think the prosecution thinks it's 11 to 1.
00:09:03
Speaker 1: They want the mistrial. Yes.
00:09:06
Speaker 2: They'll take it.
00:09:06
Speaker 1: There it is.
00:09:07
Speaker 2: Yes. They believe the holdout is the holdout for not guilty.
00:09:12
Speaker 1: Yes.
00:09:12
Speaker 2: So if the prosecution thought this was going to upend a guilty verdict, they would be slamming down paperwork, too.
00:09:20
Speaker 1: But how can he, is he just assuming? He's assuming it's in his favor? He's assuming he's probably did a better job of convincing 11 people in that room than the prosecutors have convincing 11 people in that room?
00:09:31
Speaker 2: I would just say there's a reason why the prosecution thinks one way and the defense thinks the other.
00:09:36
Speaker 1: The what they described, we couldn't see it, but we could see it. It was weird to hear people describe how he was behaving and the back and forth with him and the judge. And we could see it in our minds because we've seen him perform the past five weeks.
00:09:53
Speaker 2: That's right. We even heard one legal commentator say, well, if I ever do anything wrong in the state of Massachusetts. I know who I want defending me. Because if nothing else, he was passionately and rigorously defending. defending his client in that.
00:10:09
Speaker 1: Moment yes but we also saw something today that we haven't seen a lot of in that courtroom over the past several weeks we'll explain that also we'll tell you about the other things other happenings other things we observed in the court during what was an extraordinary few minutes.
00:10:33
Speaker 2: Welcome back to Amy and TJ, a breaking edition. This has been a heck of a last few minutes in a Massachusetts courtroom after waiting for hours and hours and thinking, any moment now, we're going to get a note from the jury, we're going to hear from the jury, and all of a sudden, nothing went as planned or nothing went as expected. Because instead of having the jury come back in and either say they were at an impasse or offer a verdict, we got.
00:11:01
Speaker 2: A completely different string of events that took place in this courtroom involving even watching Lindsay Clancy being rolled up to the judge's area.
00:11:13
Speaker 1: To the sidebar.
00:11:13
Speaker 2: Right in front of all of the jurors. I have never seen a defendant charged with murder being brought face-to-face to the jurors.
00:11:25
Speaker 1: Is that not some type of... Well, does that not make a juror feel some kind of way? Should they be in that type of proximity to someone who killed three kids and they're sitting in there judging her? That would just be kind of eerie, you would think.
00:11:38
Speaker 2: I have never in my life seen anything like it. And look, even when you saw, I don't say saw, we didn't see, but when reporters were telling us that they saw Kevin Reddington yelling, that tempers were flaring, that he threw first this stack of papers on the table and then eventually threw them on the ground. There were folks who were saying he is risking contempt of court at this point. I mean, he was outraged and he was not afraid to show it in front of a court, a packed courtroom full of people.
00:12:09
Speaker 1: Yeah, this was a jam packed court at this moment. And they're sticking around because as of this moment, they only have a short time left. They've been leaving at four o'clock Eastern time every day. They've asked to leave early a couple times, but Robes, this will only be a few more minutes. What is it like in that room now? Robes, they're telling on each other? Robes, this has got to be, they want to get this over with. But this is a serious matter now, Robes. We are how many hours? Tell me the hours.
00:12:38
Speaker 2: 36 hours, I believe, is the count right now that this jury has been investigating. I don't want to say fighting, but negotiating probably very emotionally with one another. And I think it's fair to say that is what was going on because for them to actually send this note to the judge telling on one person saying one juror will not follow your instructions.
00:13:01
Speaker 1: 36 hours over six days. And the defense just made a motion to remove a juror. That is really serious evidence. And a reminder, folks, if one juror gets pulled, they have to start deliberations over.
00:13:22
Speaker 2: That is why they have four alternates in the courtroom. They've been in a different room waiting to see if their services may be needed. And it looks like, I'm curious, in 30 minutes, if they come back with a verdict, does that verdict stand no matter what?
00:13:44
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, he's going to appeal it, obviously, whatever it is. I mean, if it doesn't go Reddington's way.
00:13:50
Speaker 2: Obviously, if it doesn't go Reddington's way, but I'm talking about the prosecution. Could anyone, could the prosecution, could someone call into question what the judge decided to do or perhaps even not to do? Obviously, the defense is 100% going to use this as grounds of an appeal for any kind of guilty verdict.
00:14:09
Speaker 1: Can't try her again.
00:14:10
Speaker 2: It's done.
00:14:12
Speaker 1: Yeah, you've got no options. You can't try again.
00:14:14
Speaker 2: So the prosecution, that's why it leads me to believe there's some reason why both the prosecution and the defense believe that this one juror, this one juror, this holdout that, quote, refuses to listen to the law or to follow the judge's instructions is the person who is refusing to go along with a not guilty verdict.
00:14:33
Speaker 1: Folks, keep an eye on the feed because we are expecting something else from this court, from this judge, from this jury, possibly... In just the next little bit, we appreciate you sticking around with us. We are keeping a close eye on it. Keep a close eye on our feed. I'm TJ. That's Robes. We'll talk to you soon.
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. It is Thursday, September 3rd, and it has been an interesting and intense breaking news hour, really, in the Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial. Welcome, everybody, to this breaking news episode in which Robes... There have been a lot of developments, and we've been watching this courtroom for the past hour. Bottom line, there is a motion right now to remove a juror. Let's get going on this stuff, Robes. Where do you want to start?
00:00:28
Speaker 2: I mean, from the beginning, I guess, because we got word just a short while ago that the jury had sent a note. And we were told pretty quickly that it was not a verdict, but it was unclear. A lot of folks thought that note was going to say that they were at an impasse.
00:00:45
Speaker 1: And I have right. That was around 2.30 Eastern time. 2.30 Eastern time, right?
00:00:49
Speaker 2: Correct. And so we're waiting, we're waiting, and all of a sudden the judge brings the attorneys, both the defense and the prosecution, up for a sidebar. And we were getting real-time information from reporters who were in the courtroom because the pool camera was not obviously on the sidebar. But we got word that Kevin Reddington, Lindsey Clancy's defense attorney, was so angry, slamming down paperwork, at one point even threw it on the floor. Tempers were flaring and we couldn't figure out what was going on.
00:01:21
Speaker 1: And it took a while because, yes, then thank you to those reporters. What's her name? Gillespie from Law and Crime and working with Court TV. You essentially have people in there have to relay it to a producer who has to relay it to an anchor on TV who has to relay it to us as viewers. And now we're relaying it to you. This is how we were getting all this information. But yes, Robes, what you described, they describe an all-out brawl. Yes, at a sidebar. Tempers flaring. In front of people in the court. We can't see it as the public because it's a sidebar. But everybody in the court saw this. Voices were getting raised. Now, the next thing that we said, what the hell? Kevin Reddington goes over and gets Lindsay Clancy and rolls her in her wheelchair over to the judge. What the actual hell?
00:02:01
Speaker 2: Yes. So then we see... The judge calls in the jury one by one, swears them in, asks a question, and this is all taking place within a foot of Lindsay Clancy. So these jurors who have been separated from her, they've seen her in court, are now literally at an arm's length from her, which is highly unusual. And we are seeing them being asked a question, and we got word that they were watching the jury one by one answer his question, yes. And so thenâ Brought them all in.
00:02:36
Speaker 1: Did he do all the alternates as well?
00:02:39
Speaker 2: All 16 jurors, the 12 jurors who were deliberating and the four alternates. And then he comes into court. The cameras pull out. We get audio. And the judge starts talking to the jury about reasonable doubt. What is reasonable doubt? And he goes and reissues his orders on what to consider. He says, what is proof beyond a reasonable doubt?
00:03:05
Speaker 1: And I have it here. It is actually specific language. I'm not going to read the whole thing.
00:03:09
Speaker 2: It's loud.
00:03:09
Speaker 1: But proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is an instruction. It says, this instruction must be given verbatim. This is Massachusetts law. So to give them clarity, he had to go through and explain. It's very much legalese. He didn't just say, hey, guys, think about that.
00:03:21
Speaker 2: No, no.
00:03:22
Speaker 1: It's a very specific thing that he had to read to them. Takes a little while. Long. He reads it. Robes and... Sends them back to do their work. Now, at this point, they only got half hour left in their day. based on how they have only been going till 4 o'clock. We'll see how long. But he sends them back. But they weren't done.
00:03:39
Speaker 2: Right. He says, resume your deliberations. And I think he ended with, it's not enough for the Commonwealth to present a probability or even a strong probability. It has to be beyond a reasonable doubt. So he has them go resume their deliberations. The jury leaves. He calls another sidebar. And we are all left to be thinking, what the heck is going on, and then the camera pulls out and Kevin Reddington is at the microphone.
00:04:04
Speaker 1: The second, this next sad bar didn't take as long. So we thought that we're going to come back and yes, court's going to be in recess. When I saw him walk to that podium, nothing in front of him and just put both of his hands on it and lean forward, adjusted the mic. I said, what the actual hell? And sure enough, Kevin Reddington went as Kevin Reddington as we've seen him do. Robes, he is wildly upset because apparently this note from the juror, the jury has to do with one juror, they are saying, that refuses to follow the law and follow the judge's instruction. That was the note. So how did the judge resolve this? He said by bringing them in one by one, putting them under oath. Can you follow my instructions? Can you follow the law? Yes.
00:04:52
Speaker 2: Yes.
00:04:53
Speaker 1: Did this 12, 16 times, whatever, with everybody. That was not enough for Kevin Reddington.
00:04:58
Speaker 2: No, Kevin Reddington said that is not sufficient. And he actually, on the record, filed a motion to remove that juror who refuses to listen to the law. And he said, I want to formally file a motion to remove that juror. And so the judge allowed the prosecution to say what they thought. Interestingly enough, the prosecution said, we're okay. that you asked each juror if they could follow the law. That is sufficient for us. We have no objection.
00:05:28
Speaker 1: He objected to what he called in the judge's face a soft instruction. You gave a soft instruction that was not good enough. He said, Robes, if we come back here in a half hour and there's a mistrial because of what you've just done.
00:05:44
Speaker 2: He did.
00:05:45
Speaker 1: He said it.
00:05:46
Speaker 2: He was angry. He was fired up. And he basically said, yes, in 30 minutes, if we have a mistrial, basically it's on you, judge, because that juror should be removed. Now, the judge in response to him said that discharging a deliberating juror who said that they can follow the law and his instructions under oath is a quote unquote sensitive undertaking. And he said he didn't feel it was proper to side with one side or the other, meaning he's saying it's not okay for me to side with one juror or to side with 11 jurors. They all individually should be held with equal respect. But you can imagine now, and I guess it makes sense now, why Kevin Reddington was so upset to think that one juror is holding up a verdict. And we always were wondering, what is the breakdown? What is the split? It seems like after today or after these last few minutes, we know what the split is. 11 to 1.
00:06:41
Speaker 1: Okay. Robes. Is it? I'm just, okay, we've heard a lot. And folks, watch three different channels of legal analysts, Every single one of them is going to give you a different answer to what they know for sure is going on.
00:06:57
Speaker 2: Oh, it was hilarious. As we were watching this all take place, everyone was trying to guess why the judge would be calling up the jurors individually and asking them a question. People were saying he was in dangerous territory by doing so because you should only address the jurors as a whole, as a body, to individually question them while they're in the middle of deliberations. is legally dangerous in terms of any grounds for appeal going forward. But no one knew what was actually happening until we actually heard the scenario that I don't think one person and all the lingual analysts that we heard trying to guess what was going on, no one even came close.
00:07:39
Speaker 1: As close as they got was someone said, this looks like something happened in the jury room.
00:07:45
Speaker 2: Some sort of jury misconduct.
00:07:46
Speaker 1: Something happened in the jury room. Is it one person and the one vote? Or it could be just one person refusing to participate fully in conversation. Which is it? I don't know. And how can they make a determination? We decide that this one person isn't following the law, like you said. We decide this one person isn't following your instruction. We the majority in here? Ropes, this is fascinating. I don't have a great handle on if it's 11 to 1.
00:08:13
Speaker 2: I've never seen anything like this in my life.
00:08:16
Speaker 1: Let's go with the 11 to 1, though, just as an assumption. Which way? 11 to 1 where?
00:08:23
Speaker 2: 11 to 1 for what? Okay, but I'm curious.
00:08:27
Speaker 1: Yes.
00:08:28
Speaker 2: This is about reasonable doubt. Why was the prosecution so okay to leave that jury, or sorry, leave that juror on the jury? And why was the defense so upset about leaving that one juror on the jury?
00:08:43
Speaker 1: Okay, let's break that down a little bit. All right. So why would Kevin Reddington be so upset? He wants this person removed that... may mean he thinks the 11 are on his team?
00:08:54
Speaker 2: Correct. Okay. And the prosecution obviously thinks the same thing.
00:08:58
Speaker 1: They think the 11 are on their team. Is that really the case?
00:09:01
Speaker 2: Oh, no. I think the prosecution thinks it's 11 to 1.
00:09:03
Speaker 1: They want the mistrial. Yes.
00:09:06
Speaker 2: They'll take it.
00:09:06
Speaker 1: There it is.
00:09:07
Speaker 2: Yes. They believe the holdout is the holdout for not guilty.
00:09:12
Speaker 1: Yes.
00:09:12
Speaker 2: So if the prosecution thought this was going to upend a guilty verdict, they would be slamming down paperwork, too.
00:09:20
Speaker 1: But how can he, is he just assuming? He's assuming it's in his favor? He's assuming he's probably did a better job of convincing 11 people in that room than the prosecutors have convincing 11 people in that room?
00:09:31
Speaker 2: I would just say there's a reason why the prosecution thinks one way and the defense thinks the other.
00:09:36
Speaker 1: The what they described, we couldn't see it, but we could see it. It was weird to hear people describe how he was behaving and the back and forth with him and the judge. And we could see it in our minds because we've seen him perform the past five weeks.
00:09:53
Speaker 2: That's right. We even heard one legal commentator say, well, if I ever do anything wrong in the state of Massachusetts. I know who I want defending me. Because if nothing else, he was passionately and rigorously defending. defending his client in that.
00:10:09
Speaker 1: Moment yes but we also saw something today that we haven't seen a lot of in that courtroom over the past several weeks we'll explain that also we'll tell you about the other things other happenings other things we observed in the court during what was an extraordinary few minutes.
00:10:33
Speaker 2: Welcome back to Amy and TJ, a breaking edition. This has been a heck of a last few minutes in a Massachusetts courtroom after waiting for hours and hours and thinking, any moment now, we're going to get a note from the jury, we're going to hear from the jury, and all of a sudden, nothing went as planned or nothing went as expected. Because instead of having the jury come back in and either say they were at an impasse or offer a verdict, we got.
00:11:01
Speaker 2: A completely different string of events that took place in this courtroom involving even watching Lindsay Clancy being rolled up to the judge's area.
00:11:13
Speaker 1: To the sidebar.
00:11:13
Speaker 2: Right in front of all of the jurors. I have never seen a defendant charged with murder being brought face-to-face to the jurors.
00:11:25
Speaker 1: Is that not some type of... Well, does that not make a juror feel some kind of way? Should they be in that type of proximity to someone who killed three kids and they're sitting in there judging her? That would just be kind of eerie, you would think.
00:11:38
Speaker 2: I have never in my life seen anything like it. And look, even when you saw, I don't say saw, we didn't see, but when reporters were telling us that they saw Kevin Reddington yelling, that tempers were flaring, that he threw first this stack of papers on the table and then eventually threw them on the ground. There were folks who were saying he is risking contempt of court at this point. I mean, he was outraged and he was not afraid to show it in front of a court, a packed courtroom full of people.
00:12:09
Speaker 1: Yeah, this was a jam packed court at this moment. And they're sticking around because as of this moment, they only have a short time left. They've been leaving at four o'clock Eastern time every day. They've asked to leave early a couple times, but Robes, this will only be a few more minutes. What is it like in that room now? Robes, they're telling on each other? Robes, this has got to be, they want to get this over with. But this is a serious matter now, Robes. We are how many hours? Tell me the hours.
00:12:38
Speaker 2: 36 hours, I believe, is the count right now that this jury has been investigating. I don't want to say fighting, but negotiating probably very emotionally with one another. And I think it's fair to say that is what was going on because for them to actually send this note to the judge telling on one person saying one juror will not follow your instructions.
00:13:01
Speaker 1: 36 hours over six days. And the defense just made a motion to remove a juror. That is really serious evidence. And a reminder, folks, if one juror gets pulled, they have to start deliberations over.
00:13:22
Speaker 2: That is why they have four alternates in the courtroom. They've been in a different room waiting to see if their services may be needed. And it looks like, I'm curious, in 30 minutes, if they come back with a verdict, does that verdict stand no matter what?
00:13:44
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, he's going to appeal it, obviously, whatever it is. I mean, if it doesn't go Reddington's way.
00:13:50
Speaker 2: Obviously, if it doesn't go Reddington's way, but I'm talking about the prosecution. Could anyone, could the prosecution, could someone call into question what the judge decided to do or perhaps even not to do? Obviously, the defense is 100% going to use this as grounds of an appeal for any kind of guilty verdict.
00:14:09
Speaker 1: Can't try her again.
00:14:10
Speaker 2: It's done.
00:14:12
Speaker 1: Yeah, you've got no options. You can't try again.
00:14:14
Speaker 2: So the prosecution, that's why it leads me to believe there's some reason why both the prosecution and the defense believe that this one juror, this one juror, this holdout that, quote, refuses to listen to the law or to follow the judge's instructions is the person who is refusing to go along with a not guilty verdict.
00:14:33
Speaker 1: Folks, keep an eye on the feed because we are expecting something else from this court, from this judge, from this jury, possibly... In just the next little bit, we appreciate you sticking around with us. We are keeping a close eye on it. Keep a close eye on our feed. I'm TJ. That's Robes. We'll talk to you soon.