Sept. 29, 2026
BREAKING: Lindsay Clancy Will Be Retried; Judge Pushes for New Trial Date
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed While no date has been set yet for the retrial of Lindsay Clancy, the prosecution acknowledged it is moving forward with its case against the mom accused of strangling her three young children to death. Clancy’s defense attorney surprised the court, making an argument that the case against her should be thrown out because there is no actual evidence she killed her children. The judge plans to rule on several motions presented by the prosecution, defense, a media organization and the holdout juror in early November.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:09
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks.
00:00:10
Speaker 2: It is Tuesday, September 29th, and a breaking news update. Lindsey Clancy is going to be retried. And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ Rose. All eyes were on this September 29th hearing. A lot was being considered, but bottom line here, this is where we're supposed to learn what was going to happen moving forward.
00:00:32
Speaker 1: There is no plea deal.
00:00:33
Speaker 2: And Robes, they are moving forward, even talking about dates for another trial.
00:00:38
Speaker 3: Although both the prosecution and Lindsey Clancy's defense attorneys did not want to talk dates.
00:00:44
Speaker 1: It was the judge.
00:00:45
Speaker 3: He wanted to put this trial on the calendar. We should say retrial on the calendar. And both sides pushed back pretty strongly.
00:00:54
Speaker 1: Much to his annoyance. Yes.
00:00:56
Speaker 3: The next hearing, which is in November, they'll then potentially put a an actual trial date on the calendar.
00:01:03
Speaker 2: Okay, but this is a big, Robes, we were, this is a big day. First time she is back in a courtroom since the mistrial was declared. Robes, there was a motion to dismiss, a motion having to do with double jeopardy, a motion having to do with inquiry about the juror, a motion having to do with unredacted notes from sidebars.
00:01:21
Speaker 1: All of that to be considered today, and we got answers to, what of it? None of it.
00:01:26
Speaker 3: None of it.
00:01:27
Speaker 1: Not a lick of it.
00:01:28
Speaker 3: So, but we did hear the defense- argue that there is no evidence against Lindsay Clancy that she murdered her children. This was a big old jaw dropper today. No one was expecting to hear Kevin Reddington go there.
00:01:47
Speaker 2: So, yes, that was Kevin Reddington was the first up to make arguments in court today. But the judge was setting this up. There were several lawyers actually in this courtroom. And a reminder, this is the hearing. It's supposed to be a status hearing where we're Biggest question is whether or not they are going to retry Lindsay Clancy. But a whole lot of motions were to be discussed. And several other attorneys actually were in the courtroom because there was an attorney for a news organization that was hoping to get some unredacted notes.
00:02:15
Speaker 1: There was an attorney for the.
00:02:17
Speaker 2: Holdout juror who also had something to say in court having to do with the motion to get him questions.
00:02:24
Speaker 1: All right.
00:02:24
Speaker 2: So that sets up the showdown. That was supposed to be happening in court. But the first one, Robes, they call it the motion for acknowledgement of dismissal. What was the correct legal term they kept using? Required finding.
00:02:39
Speaker 1: Required finding. That's what it is.
00:02:40
Speaker 2: Required finding, which is essentially arguing there was insufficient evidence to find her guilty of the crime of which she.
00:02:48
Speaker 1: Is being accused. Robes?
00:02:51
Speaker 2: We were scratching our heads and looking at each other saying, what is he talking about? What is he saying? And it wasn't just us. Robes, what the actual hell? And that was the response from the prosecution as well.
00:03:04
Speaker 3: Yes, Kevin Reddington actually, honestly, went through almost point by point the points that internet sleuths have been making as to why they don't think Lindsay Clancy killed her children.
00:03:18
Speaker 1: The same.
00:03:20
Speaker 3: Conspiracy theorists who then pointed the finger at Patrick Clancy. They make several points. They talk about the timeline. They talk about her body temperature. They talk about the shoes Patrick Clancy was wearing or not wearing. Kevin Reddington went through all of those points in defense of Lindsay Clancy and accusing the prosecution of never actually proving that Lindsay Clancy killed her children.
00:03:45
Speaker 2: He stood up there and said the police did not do an investigation. They immediately just thought she was the killer. Didn't look into all this other evidence. They didn't look into that. And Robes made the point that Lindsay Clancy didn't remember any of this stuff. She was actually told this story. So for all she knows, Robes, he stood up there as a defense attorney at trial. Saying, there's no evidence my client killed these three kids. Forget the psychosis stuff. Again, folks, you are hearing us correctly. And if you're confused, we were as well. He's making an argument. There's no evidence she strangled the kids. There's no evidence.
00:04:27
Speaker 1: What? Babe, he also.
00:04:30
Speaker 3: And this is where I thought, my God, is he actually suggesting someone else, a.k.a. Patrick Clancy, had something to do with this? He talked about how there was no, if she had actually sliced her throat and then had to walk over to the window, there would have been blood and her footprints would have been in the blood and it would have been smeared across the floor. He talked about these pills that were supposedly crushed and taken. Where were the items to crush the pills with? How come police never tested or never found any residue? I mean, he was implying that she could have been drugged and she could have been pushed.
00:05:03
Speaker 1: Out the window.
00:05:04
Speaker 3: I mean, he was absolutely suggesting that any of that was possible.
00:05:11
Speaker 2: Robes, we were confused, but we were validated when the prosecution got up and made the argument. And the first thing out of her mouth was, We are hearing this for the first time.
00:05:25
Speaker 1: What? She actually, I think.
00:05:27
Speaker 2: She genuinely might have been taken off guard by this. He's standing up there making an argument that, Robes, she didn't do the thing. There's no evidence of her doing the thing that we spent six weeks admitting that she did. Remember, she admits she did it. Kevin Reddington admits she did it. There's no argument against that. So today he made the opposite argument.
00:05:52
Speaker 1: She seemed baffled too.
00:05:55
Speaker 3: We were all confused by it. And yes, because clearly anyone who sat through the trial knew that Kevin Reddington multiple times fully admitted to the jury in court records that his client doesn't deny killing the children.
00:06:10
Speaker 2: Even to the point of his own annoyance. He was like, can we get through this stuff? Because we'll admit to all this. We don't have to go through it.
00:06:15
Speaker 1: Even to that point. saying, you don't have to prove the case. We're admitting the case. So she was confused.
00:06:23
Speaker 2: She called it, he's making a, quote, laughable argument to suggest there's not enough evidence to prove she committed the crime. Roach, he called it a disingenuous misinterpretation of the evidence today.
00:06:35
Speaker 3: I do think that was the fair and accurate way to depict what we saw.
00:06:38
Speaker 1: So it was some legal technique he was using.
00:06:41
Speaker 2: He needed to do that, I suppose, Roach, to get it on the record or to make But the judge sat through the same trial we all sat through.
00:06:49
Speaker 1: He knows that's not a good argument.
00:06:51
Speaker 3: He knows this is the first time Kevin Reddington has ever even gone there or even attempted to use that argument and has plenty of times in court on the record said the exact opposite.
00:07:02
Speaker 1: Okay, so that was the first motion.
00:07:04
Speaker 2: The judge, we heard him say this a lot, I will take it under advisement, meaning he did not rule on anything today from the bench. Another motion, Robes, the back and forth here, I don't know why it's so important, the defense. There was another, I can't remember his name, Michael Weinberg, I believe, another lawyer helped or was sitting there at the table with Kevin Reddington today, and he made a couple of arguments, and the one he did argue, Robes, had to do with They want the unredacted notes from the sidebars on those days during jury deliberation.
00:07:39
Speaker 1: When they all had to be brought in. They want all of those notes, Robes.
00:07:44
Speaker 3: And so, yes, the judge said he would not rule on that. And I don't know. I don't know where the public's right to know and transparency is. where that boundary is and where the privacy or there needs to be some understood protection allowed in these sidebars.
00:08:02
Speaker 2: This is one where the prosecution made a really strong rebuttal to this.
00:08:07
Speaker 1: Like, are you kidding me?
00:08:08
Speaker 2: We can't have, who in the Commonwealth is going to now want to serve on a jury again if they end up being a holdout, the holdout, and Every note I wrote, everything everybody in the deliberation room said about me to the judge is going to get exposed and put out there. She made some really good points on why this is dangerous. This should not, under any circumstance.
00:08:30
Speaker 1: Be done.
00:08:30
Speaker 3: Yeah, and the judge, again, said he was going to consider it, but it would be such a high bar. It would be hard to imagine.
00:08:37
Speaker 1: This is a tough one. You and I have talked about this.
00:08:40
Speaker 2: What if it was 11 to 1, but everybody voting guilty for something? 11 to 1 guilty. And maybe that's a murder that everybody thinks that person is guilty. And in the one holdout, the one holdout in Robes, they put your address out there.
00:08:58
Speaker 3: Yes.
00:08:58
Speaker 2: All these details and everything about you comes out. She made a very good point on that one.
00:09:02
Speaker 1: Yes.
00:09:03
Speaker 3: And you'd said something very similar to that. She actually gave that exact scenario in court today and said, yes, this is not tenable. Certainly. I mean, imagine any one of us who have been called to jury duty. The idea that if you disagree with the majority, you could be singled out and doxxed and harassed and threatened.
00:09:21
Speaker 1: We already don't want to serve.
00:09:23
Speaker 3: It already is an inconvenience to actually think that it now could be. you know, actually jeopardizing your freedom or your peace, no thank you.
00:09:33
Speaker 2: Yes, fair enough. I want to ask you about, you know what, I'm going to skip that part. Actually, we'll do that one last. Kevin Rennington, I know you noticed, he did some name dropping in court today. Don't know if, I think it was by design, but we will get into that in just a second. But, Rose, November 2nd is a big day because everything we thought was going to be decided today.
00:09:58
Speaker 1: Yeah, the can got kicked down. the road.
00:10:00
Speaker 2: Robes, nothing was decided today, but the headline of the big information is they are moving forward with another trial for her.
00:10:07
Speaker 3: Yes. And that November 2nd, they will hopefully hear what the judge's rulings are. And they still have some points to argue back and forth about several of these motions. So this is kicking the can down the road a bit. But the big I think aha will be this this trial date that we will get by then because the judge was antsy, wanted it done today. You could tell he was kind of taking a deep breath and compromising to postpone it to November 2nd.
00:10:31
Speaker 1: But he won't let it slide.
00:10:32
Speaker 2: You know, that's a good way to put it. The judge was antsy. He was saying, come on, guys. There were several times that he pounded on that table.
00:10:41
Speaker 3: He did.
00:10:42
Speaker 1: And he's almost desperate, like, dude, come on.
00:10:46
Speaker 2: And he actually, and this was funny, and some of this got personal, but it was a rare moment of levity in that courtroom where Kevin Reddington is pushing back on a trial date.
00:10:59
Speaker 1: Judge said, aren't you the one? That was outside the courthouse saying, I could do this again next week?
00:11:05
Speaker 3: Yes. That was quite funny, and Kevin Reddington had to laugh. But then he did make an announcement. He said, I wouldn't be able to try this case until June.
00:11:15
Speaker 1: Just so you know. He added, just so you know.
00:11:17
Speaker 3: Just so you know.
00:11:18
Speaker 1: So what are we supposed to do with that? Are you serious?
00:11:20
Speaker 3: There's going to be nothing speedy about this retrial. All right.
00:11:23
Speaker 1: Well, stay with us here, folks. Yes.
00:11:27
Speaker 2: Kevin Reddington dropped a few names in court today. People have nothing to do with this case, but happen to be in the Republican Party. We'll explain, and you tell us what you think of it.
00:11:41
Speaker 4: All right, we continue here on Amy and TJ.
00:11:52
Speaker 1: Breaking update we just wanted to pass along.
00:11:53
Speaker 2: Today was a date a lot of people were keeping an eye on on that calendar, and now in that courtroom, Lindsey Clancy. it appears, is going to be going to trial again. The prosecution saying they are moving forward with planning, and even trial dates were discussed, so that is the big headline. Several other things, though, Robes, are not going to be addressed just yet, including the possible dismissal, the double jeopardy, the questioning of the juror. The judge said, take all that stuff under advisement, and we'll get you an answer about that later. However, Robes, and this has been a part of, and this was, oh, shnikey, I didn't even mention Robes. There is, was it just this morning or last night, the prosecution put in a motion for a damn gag order.
00:12:36
Speaker 3: Yes.
00:12:37
Speaker 1: I forgot about that. Yeah, so it was funny.
00:12:39
Speaker 3: At one point, the defense wasn't prepared to argue because the prosecution dropped that little bomb last night. Another of the motions, the prosecution says the same thing about the defense. And then in one of the other motions, the judge said, I'm not ready. To hear this case.
00:12:52
Speaker 1: He just saw it at 5 a.m.
00:12:54
Speaker 3: Right. Each one of the sides said that they had just received the last minute motion. So, yes, that was another one we forgot to mention.
00:13:01
Speaker 2: But they are they want everybody to shut up. Robes, they are tired of some of the comments and things being said. Even Kevin Reddington, do you see how much he was defending himself? There at the end, he said, I'm tired of everybody telling me I'm, what was that line he used?
00:13:17
Speaker 3: Well, persecuted. He didn't like hearing that the holdout juror, as he likes to call him, the obstructionist juror, was basically complaining via his attorney about being persecuted. And he was like, I don't want to hear about being persecuted, and then started making himself the victim.
00:13:31
Speaker 2: Yeah, a lot of this stuff got a little petty. It's clear that everybody in there is Watching the headlines and reading... The comments. And yeah, and seeing the stuff on Twitter and everywhere. Rose, they are keenly aware of all this stuff. That the judge was aware of that clip in which Kevin Reddington said, yeah, I can do this next week.
00:13:51
Speaker 3: Right. They're all watching. They're all clocking. And look, some of them have received death threats. People do take this very seriously. They are extremely passionate about this. And yes, Kevin Reddington talked about how his... name was in people's mouths he didn't want them to be in, basically, or he didn't want it to be in.
00:14:09
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, we had thought he had might, maybe he thought it was a strategy to go, to try to get some kind of a help from Donald.
00:14:17
Speaker 1: Trump, from President Trump in this case.
00:14:19
Speaker 2: Obviously, Trump can't pardon you from state charges, but he could have some influence. So publicly, at least, Robes in the trial, and it looked like Kevin Reddington was going to be out there. He was really campaigning almost. Today, it didn't sound that way.
00:14:31
Speaker 3: No. Yeah, this is when he said, I'm so tired of hearing persecutions. I'm doing all these horrible things to this juror. I filed one motion and said nothing. Every comment I have made has been in reaction to people from Donald Trump on down to Nancy Mace down to Senator Ted Cruz calling for her execution. I have responded to these outlandish comments.
00:14:54
Speaker 1: At least twice, and it.
00:14:56
Speaker 2: Might have been the third time he used Donald Trump's name, but he used it in opposition.
00:15:00
Speaker 4: Correct.
00:15:01
Speaker 2: He used it to challenge him in some way. That's maybe a part of a strategy as well. He knows Trump doesn't like to be poked.
00:15:09
Speaker 1: He doesn't.
00:15:10
Speaker 2: So if he gives Trump an opportunity to make a comment back, if he keeps the name in the headlines, if he keeps Clancy on people's minds, Who knows? But it seemed intentional today to publicly.
00:15:21
Speaker 3: Oh, to drop those names. He knows exactly what he's doing. He knows the headlines that that will make. And yes, he is potentially going to get some reaction from the big dog himself.
00:15:31
Speaker 1: From the big dog himself.
00:15:33
Speaker 3: Wow.
00:15:33
Speaker 2: And we're on that colloquial note. Folks, I just wanted to give you the update. It was a big one, but more answers to come. But November 2nd. Oh, this is that's a month plus away. This story continues, folks. We always appreciate you being along with us. I'm TJ Holmes. On behalf of my dear Amy Robach, we'll talk to you all soon.
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks.
00:00:10
Speaker 2: It is Tuesday, September 29th, and a breaking news update. Lindsey Clancy is going to be retried. And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ Rose. All eyes were on this September 29th hearing. A lot was being considered, but bottom line here, this is where we're supposed to learn what was going to happen moving forward.
00:00:32
Speaker 1: There is no plea deal.
00:00:33
Speaker 2: And Robes, they are moving forward, even talking about dates for another trial.
00:00:38
Speaker 3: Although both the prosecution and Lindsey Clancy's defense attorneys did not want to talk dates.
00:00:44
Speaker 1: It was the judge.
00:00:45
Speaker 3: He wanted to put this trial on the calendar. We should say retrial on the calendar. And both sides pushed back pretty strongly.
00:00:54
Speaker 1: Much to his annoyance. Yes.
00:00:56
Speaker 3: The next hearing, which is in November, they'll then potentially put a an actual trial date on the calendar.
00:01:03
Speaker 2: Okay, but this is a big, Robes, we were, this is a big day. First time she is back in a courtroom since the mistrial was declared. Robes, there was a motion to dismiss, a motion having to do with double jeopardy, a motion having to do with inquiry about the juror, a motion having to do with unredacted notes from sidebars.
00:01:21
Speaker 1: All of that to be considered today, and we got answers to, what of it? None of it.
00:01:26
Speaker 3: None of it.
00:01:27
Speaker 1: Not a lick of it.
00:01:28
Speaker 3: So, but we did hear the defense- argue that there is no evidence against Lindsay Clancy that she murdered her children. This was a big old jaw dropper today. No one was expecting to hear Kevin Reddington go there.
00:01:47
Speaker 2: So, yes, that was Kevin Reddington was the first up to make arguments in court today. But the judge was setting this up. There were several lawyers actually in this courtroom. And a reminder, this is the hearing. It's supposed to be a status hearing where we're Biggest question is whether or not they are going to retry Lindsay Clancy. But a whole lot of motions were to be discussed. And several other attorneys actually were in the courtroom because there was an attorney for a news organization that was hoping to get some unredacted notes.
00:02:15
Speaker 1: There was an attorney for the.
00:02:17
Speaker 2: Holdout juror who also had something to say in court having to do with the motion to get him questions.
00:02:24
Speaker 1: All right.
00:02:24
Speaker 2: So that sets up the showdown. That was supposed to be happening in court. But the first one, Robes, they call it the motion for acknowledgement of dismissal. What was the correct legal term they kept using? Required finding.
00:02:39
Speaker 1: Required finding. That's what it is.
00:02:40
Speaker 2: Required finding, which is essentially arguing there was insufficient evidence to find her guilty of the crime of which she.
00:02:48
Speaker 1: Is being accused. Robes?
00:02:51
Speaker 2: We were scratching our heads and looking at each other saying, what is he talking about? What is he saying? And it wasn't just us. Robes, what the actual hell? And that was the response from the prosecution as well.
00:03:04
Speaker 3: Yes, Kevin Reddington actually, honestly, went through almost point by point the points that internet sleuths have been making as to why they don't think Lindsay Clancy killed her children.
00:03:18
Speaker 1: The same.
00:03:20
Speaker 3: Conspiracy theorists who then pointed the finger at Patrick Clancy. They make several points. They talk about the timeline. They talk about her body temperature. They talk about the shoes Patrick Clancy was wearing or not wearing. Kevin Reddington went through all of those points in defense of Lindsay Clancy and accusing the prosecution of never actually proving that Lindsay Clancy killed her children.
00:03:45
Speaker 2: He stood up there and said the police did not do an investigation. They immediately just thought she was the killer. Didn't look into all this other evidence. They didn't look into that. And Robes made the point that Lindsay Clancy didn't remember any of this stuff. She was actually told this story. So for all she knows, Robes, he stood up there as a defense attorney at trial. Saying, there's no evidence my client killed these three kids. Forget the psychosis stuff. Again, folks, you are hearing us correctly. And if you're confused, we were as well. He's making an argument. There's no evidence she strangled the kids. There's no evidence.
00:04:27
Speaker 1: What? Babe, he also.
00:04:30
Speaker 3: And this is where I thought, my God, is he actually suggesting someone else, a.k.a. Patrick Clancy, had something to do with this? He talked about how there was no, if she had actually sliced her throat and then had to walk over to the window, there would have been blood and her footprints would have been in the blood and it would have been smeared across the floor. He talked about these pills that were supposedly crushed and taken. Where were the items to crush the pills with? How come police never tested or never found any residue? I mean, he was implying that she could have been drugged and she could have been pushed.
00:05:03
Speaker 1: Out the window.
00:05:04
Speaker 3: I mean, he was absolutely suggesting that any of that was possible.
00:05:11
Speaker 2: Robes, we were confused, but we were validated when the prosecution got up and made the argument. And the first thing out of her mouth was, We are hearing this for the first time.
00:05:25
Speaker 1: What? She actually, I think.
00:05:27
Speaker 2: She genuinely might have been taken off guard by this. He's standing up there making an argument that, Robes, she didn't do the thing. There's no evidence of her doing the thing that we spent six weeks admitting that she did. Remember, she admits she did it. Kevin Reddington admits she did it. There's no argument against that. So today he made the opposite argument.
00:05:52
Speaker 1: She seemed baffled too.
00:05:55
Speaker 3: We were all confused by it. And yes, because clearly anyone who sat through the trial knew that Kevin Reddington multiple times fully admitted to the jury in court records that his client doesn't deny killing the children.
00:06:10
Speaker 2: Even to the point of his own annoyance. He was like, can we get through this stuff? Because we'll admit to all this. We don't have to go through it.
00:06:15
Speaker 1: Even to that point. saying, you don't have to prove the case. We're admitting the case. So she was confused.
00:06:23
Speaker 2: She called it, he's making a, quote, laughable argument to suggest there's not enough evidence to prove she committed the crime. Roach, he called it a disingenuous misinterpretation of the evidence today.
00:06:35
Speaker 3: I do think that was the fair and accurate way to depict what we saw.
00:06:38
Speaker 1: So it was some legal technique he was using.
00:06:41
Speaker 2: He needed to do that, I suppose, Roach, to get it on the record or to make But the judge sat through the same trial we all sat through.
00:06:49
Speaker 1: He knows that's not a good argument.
00:06:51
Speaker 3: He knows this is the first time Kevin Reddington has ever even gone there or even attempted to use that argument and has plenty of times in court on the record said the exact opposite.
00:07:02
Speaker 1: Okay, so that was the first motion.
00:07:04
Speaker 2: The judge, we heard him say this a lot, I will take it under advisement, meaning he did not rule on anything today from the bench. Another motion, Robes, the back and forth here, I don't know why it's so important, the defense. There was another, I can't remember his name, Michael Weinberg, I believe, another lawyer helped or was sitting there at the table with Kevin Reddington today, and he made a couple of arguments, and the one he did argue, Robes, had to do with They want the unredacted notes from the sidebars on those days during jury deliberation.
00:07:39
Speaker 1: When they all had to be brought in. They want all of those notes, Robes.
00:07:44
Speaker 3: And so, yes, the judge said he would not rule on that. And I don't know. I don't know where the public's right to know and transparency is. where that boundary is and where the privacy or there needs to be some understood protection allowed in these sidebars.
00:08:02
Speaker 2: This is one where the prosecution made a really strong rebuttal to this.
00:08:07
Speaker 1: Like, are you kidding me?
00:08:08
Speaker 2: We can't have, who in the Commonwealth is going to now want to serve on a jury again if they end up being a holdout, the holdout, and Every note I wrote, everything everybody in the deliberation room said about me to the judge is going to get exposed and put out there. She made some really good points on why this is dangerous. This should not, under any circumstance.
00:08:30
Speaker 1: Be done.
00:08:30
Speaker 3: Yeah, and the judge, again, said he was going to consider it, but it would be such a high bar. It would be hard to imagine.
00:08:37
Speaker 1: This is a tough one. You and I have talked about this.
00:08:40
Speaker 2: What if it was 11 to 1, but everybody voting guilty for something? 11 to 1 guilty. And maybe that's a murder that everybody thinks that person is guilty. And in the one holdout, the one holdout in Robes, they put your address out there.
00:08:58
Speaker 3: Yes.
00:08:58
Speaker 2: All these details and everything about you comes out. She made a very good point on that one.
00:09:02
Speaker 1: Yes.
00:09:03
Speaker 3: And you'd said something very similar to that. She actually gave that exact scenario in court today and said, yes, this is not tenable. Certainly. I mean, imagine any one of us who have been called to jury duty. The idea that if you disagree with the majority, you could be singled out and doxxed and harassed and threatened.
00:09:21
Speaker 1: We already don't want to serve.
00:09:23
Speaker 3: It already is an inconvenience to actually think that it now could be. you know, actually jeopardizing your freedom or your peace, no thank you.
00:09:33
Speaker 2: Yes, fair enough. I want to ask you about, you know what, I'm going to skip that part. Actually, we'll do that one last. Kevin Rennington, I know you noticed, he did some name dropping in court today. Don't know if, I think it was by design, but we will get into that in just a second. But, Rose, November 2nd is a big day because everything we thought was going to be decided today.
00:09:58
Speaker 1: Yeah, the can got kicked down. the road.
00:10:00
Speaker 2: Robes, nothing was decided today, but the headline of the big information is they are moving forward with another trial for her.
00:10:07
Speaker 3: Yes. And that November 2nd, they will hopefully hear what the judge's rulings are. And they still have some points to argue back and forth about several of these motions. So this is kicking the can down the road a bit. But the big I think aha will be this this trial date that we will get by then because the judge was antsy, wanted it done today. You could tell he was kind of taking a deep breath and compromising to postpone it to November 2nd.
00:10:31
Speaker 1: But he won't let it slide.
00:10:32
Speaker 2: You know, that's a good way to put it. The judge was antsy. He was saying, come on, guys. There were several times that he pounded on that table.
00:10:41
Speaker 3: He did.
00:10:42
Speaker 1: And he's almost desperate, like, dude, come on.
00:10:46
Speaker 2: And he actually, and this was funny, and some of this got personal, but it was a rare moment of levity in that courtroom where Kevin Reddington is pushing back on a trial date.
00:10:59
Speaker 1: Judge said, aren't you the one? That was outside the courthouse saying, I could do this again next week?
00:11:05
Speaker 3: Yes. That was quite funny, and Kevin Reddington had to laugh. But then he did make an announcement. He said, I wouldn't be able to try this case until June.
00:11:15
Speaker 1: Just so you know. He added, just so you know.
00:11:17
Speaker 3: Just so you know.
00:11:18
Speaker 1: So what are we supposed to do with that? Are you serious?
00:11:20
Speaker 3: There's going to be nothing speedy about this retrial. All right.
00:11:23
Speaker 1: Well, stay with us here, folks. Yes.
00:11:27
Speaker 2: Kevin Reddington dropped a few names in court today. People have nothing to do with this case, but happen to be in the Republican Party. We'll explain, and you tell us what you think of it.
00:11:41
Speaker 4: All right, we continue here on Amy and TJ.
00:11:52
Speaker 1: Breaking update we just wanted to pass along.
00:11:53
Speaker 2: Today was a date a lot of people were keeping an eye on on that calendar, and now in that courtroom, Lindsey Clancy. it appears, is going to be going to trial again. The prosecution saying they are moving forward with planning, and even trial dates were discussed, so that is the big headline. Several other things, though, Robes, are not going to be addressed just yet, including the possible dismissal, the double jeopardy, the questioning of the juror. The judge said, take all that stuff under advisement, and we'll get you an answer about that later. However, Robes, and this has been a part of, and this was, oh, shnikey, I didn't even mention Robes. There is, was it just this morning or last night, the prosecution put in a motion for a damn gag order.
00:12:36
Speaker 3: Yes.
00:12:37
Speaker 1: I forgot about that. Yeah, so it was funny.
00:12:39
Speaker 3: At one point, the defense wasn't prepared to argue because the prosecution dropped that little bomb last night. Another of the motions, the prosecution says the same thing about the defense. And then in one of the other motions, the judge said, I'm not ready. To hear this case.
00:12:52
Speaker 1: He just saw it at 5 a.m.
00:12:54
Speaker 3: Right. Each one of the sides said that they had just received the last minute motion. So, yes, that was another one we forgot to mention.
00:13:01
Speaker 2: But they are they want everybody to shut up. Robes, they are tired of some of the comments and things being said. Even Kevin Reddington, do you see how much he was defending himself? There at the end, he said, I'm tired of everybody telling me I'm, what was that line he used?
00:13:17
Speaker 3: Well, persecuted. He didn't like hearing that the holdout juror, as he likes to call him, the obstructionist juror, was basically complaining via his attorney about being persecuted. And he was like, I don't want to hear about being persecuted, and then started making himself the victim.
00:13:31
Speaker 2: Yeah, a lot of this stuff got a little petty. It's clear that everybody in there is Watching the headlines and reading... The comments. And yeah, and seeing the stuff on Twitter and everywhere. Rose, they are keenly aware of all this stuff. That the judge was aware of that clip in which Kevin Reddington said, yeah, I can do this next week.
00:13:51
Speaker 3: Right. They're all watching. They're all clocking. And look, some of them have received death threats. People do take this very seriously. They are extremely passionate about this. And yes, Kevin Reddington talked about how his... name was in people's mouths he didn't want them to be in, basically, or he didn't want it to be in.
00:14:09
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, we had thought he had might, maybe he thought it was a strategy to go, to try to get some kind of a help from Donald.
00:14:17
Speaker 1: Trump, from President Trump in this case.
00:14:19
Speaker 2: Obviously, Trump can't pardon you from state charges, but he could have some influence. So publicly, at least, Robes in the trial, and it looked like Kevin Reddington was going to be out there. He was really campaigning almost. Today, it didn't sound that way.
00:14:31
Speaker 3: No. Yeah, this is when he said, I'm so tired of hearing persecutions. I'm doing all these horrible things to this juror. I filed one motion and said nothing. Every comment I have made has been in reaction to people from Donald Trump on down to Nancy Mace down to Senator Ted Cruz calling for her execution. I have responded to these outlandish comments.
00:14:54
Speaker 1: At least twice, and it.
00:14:56
Speaker 2: Might have been the third time he used Donald Trump's name, but he used it in opposition.
00:15:00
Speaker 4: Correct.
00:15:01
Speaker 2: He used it to challenge him in some way. That's maybe a part of a strategy as well. He knows Trump doesn't like to be poked.
00:15:09
Speaker 1: He doesn't.
00:15:10
Speaker 2: So if he gives Trump an opportunity to make a comment back, if he keeps the name in the headlines, if he keeps Clancy on people's minds, Who knows? But it seemed intentional today to publicly.
00:15:21
Speaker 3: Oh, to drop those names. He knows exactly what he's doing. He knows the headlines that that will make. And yes, he is potentially going to get some reaction from the big dog himself.
00:15:31
Speaker 1: From the big dog himself.
00:15:33
Speaker 3: Wow.
00:15:33
Speaker 2: And we're on that colloquial note. Folks, I just wanted to give you the update. It was a big one, but more answers to come. But November 2nd. Oh, this is that's a month plus away. This story continues, folks. We always appreciate you being along with us. I'm TJ Holmes. On behalf of my dear Amy Robach, we'll talk to you all soon.