Sept. 29, 2026
Lindsay Clancy Back In Court For First Time Since Mistrial; Will She Face Murder Charges Again?
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed Lindsay Clancy’s attorney, Kevin Reddington, has filed several motions for today’s hearing as we wait to hear whether prosecutors plan to retry Clancy for the strangling deaths of her three children. Reddington will first ask the judge to find Clancy not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility. The defense has also moved to dismiss the case on double jeopardy grounds, arguing the judge should not have declared a mistrial, but instead should have questioned the holdout juror or replaced him. Reddington has also requested additional information about the juror, including cellphone records and his confidential questionnaire, as the juror himself spoke out for the first time on Monday.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:02
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. It is Tuesday, September 29th, and this could be a decisive day in the case of Lindsey Clancy, who returns to court this morning for the first time since a mistrial was declared.
00:00:17
Speaker 2: And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ Robes.
00:00:20
Speaker 1: It's hard to... No, we're not overstating it. Today could kind of be it. We could get some.
00:00:27
Speaker 2: Answers, Robes, including... whether or not it's going to be another trial at all.
00:00:31
Speaker 3: That's right, and this is a big day for a number of reasons. Yes, we could find out whether or not the prosecutors choose to move forward with another trial, but we also could find out whether or not a mistrial could be, the judge could actually take the mistrial and decide to just throw out all.
00:00:53
Speaker 4: The charges, exonerate her. declare her not guilty.
00:00:57
Speaker 1: So what we're saying here, folks, is we could get some decisive rulings in court today.
00:01:03
Speaker 2: We circled this date.
00:01:04
Speaker 1: On the calendar, September 29th, because after the mistrial, the judge did declare that this was going to be the day that they discussed all of these matters, all of these motions, all of this that Kevin Reddington has been hooting and hollering about, wanting a Juror investigated, wanting a mistrial, talking about double jeopardy. Well, today is the day they're supposed to be back in court to discuss all this. And, Robes, there could be some decisions, and we know which direction this thing is ultimately going to go. I find it, Robes, after all we saw in six weeks of a trial, to think we're going to be back in the courtroom with, frankly... Nothing decided still. We're going to see Lindsay Clancy once again in court, and we have no idea of her fate, even though she's gone through one trial. That's remarkable what we're about to see this morning.
00:01:47
Speaker 3: It is, because not only will we hear from, yes, the defense and the prosecution and the judge, but we're also going to hear whether or not a judge is even going to consider Kevin Reddington's request that the holdout juror be investigated, that they single him out, look at his phone records... consider whether or not he actually applied the law to his decision. And look, it seems like there's a high bar for a judge to agree to investigate a sole juror.
00:02:19
Speaker 4: So there's so much at stake here.
00:02:21
Speaker 1: And folks will remember what certainly is at stake is the fate of Lindsay Clancy. Other people say what's at stake here is justice for three kids that she strangled. She, as you know, if you've been keeping up with this case, it's hard to not keep up with it, but she admitted to killing her three kids in January of 2023. She says postpartum psychosis is the reason for it. Jury deliberated for 38 plus hours and 11 to 1, they were deadlocked with this one holdout juror. He has since come under all kinds of scrutiny. Did he fill out his questionnaire correctly? Was he honest to the judge? Did he deliberate according to the law? All these things, Robes, he's essentially been attacked and he finally had to start recently defending himself in public and mainly saying get off my back i did my job i just didn't agree with.
00:03:12
Speaker 3: Y'all exactly and it's interesting because the foreperson who came forward initially after hours of deliberations The note said that this lone juror would not apply the law, that he had expressed doubt, but wouldn't apply the law of reason or the theory of reasonable doubt to his decision-making. And therefore he wasn't, he wasn't following basically the judge's instructions. The juror has come out since then, as you mentioned and said, uh, no, I never had doubts. I've always from the, the evidence that was presented in the courtroom and, I saw that evidence, and I deemed her.
00:03:53
Speaker 4: Guilty from the get-go. Zero doubt. Never had any reasonable doubt.
00:03:57
Speaker 1: So he's the guy that's pretty much been put on trial, and there is a public trial going on, yes, against Michael Desronville. He's come out and identified himself, the lone holdout juror, but there's a war of words going on between the attorneys for the juror and Kevin Reddington, Lindsey Clancy's attorney. We'll get into that, and this even plays into what we're going to see in court this morning. But what is to be considered of Essentially three motions being considered and three main questions. One, will the prosecutor seek retrial? We'll get that answer, hopefully, maybe. Kevin Reddington also wants the investigation that Roeb just mentioned and also to dismiss this case on double jeopardy grounds. Let's start with the retrial. The prosecutor's Roeb, I don't think they've even hinted, kind of, since the end of... They keep saying they want justice for the kids, but what does that look like?
00:04:45
Speaker 4: Correct.
00:04:45
Speaker 3: And so the options are to not bring any charges, to work out some sort of plea deal, or to bring lesser charges, or to retry the thing exactly the same way they initially presented it. And look, there's a lot of speculation out there because they have been tight-lipped.
00:05:09
Speaker 4: They have not said what they're going to do.
00:05:11
Speaker 3: Folks who know this prosecutor, who know this DA, say he isn't someone who tends to back down. There had been some war of words between him and Kevin Reddington as.
00:05:20
Speaker 4: Well in the hours or in the moments following the trial.
00:05:23
Speaker 3: So egos at play here.
00:05:25
Speaker 2: Come on, man.
00:05:26
Speaker 1: Don't make a decision based on you don't like Kevin Reddington and the way he gave you a verbal spanking in public.
00:05:33
Speaker 2: Fine.
00:05:33
Speaker 1: It's what you'd have to deal with. But he should not be making a decision based on that. But Roe was based on his own words. it'd be hard to back down from what you say you're going to do to all of a sudden say, you know what, never mind.
00:05:46
Speaker 2: That seems unlikely.
00:05:48
Speaker 4: It does seem unlikely.
00:05:49
Speaker 3: And most legal experts who are watching this case believe that the DA is going to bring the exact same charges and pursue another trial against Lindsay Clancy.
00:05:59
Speaker 4: But we shall see.
00:06:00
Speaker 1: The other option there, yes, is to seek a plea deal, which also seems unlikely. There's been no hint. Nothing has leaked or come out that these two sides are talking at all. And the way they talk in public, this is not how you talk to people that you're trying to make a deal with behind the scenes.
00:06:12
Speaker 3: Exactly. And Kevin, Kevin Reddington has said on the multiple interviews he's given since this trial, that there is no amount of jail time that he would consider for Lindsay Clancy. His only consideration would be if she were offered something that did not or did not have jail time associated with it.
00:06:32
Speaker 1: And those kinds of statements publicly, you, you kind of, You dig in now, and now you feel like you have to stand by this public statement you made.
00:06:40
Speaker 2: Yep.
00:06:40
Speaker 1: Hopefully they're doing the right thing for the kids, for Lindsay Clancy. But several motions. The three they're going after. One, Robes, has to do with an acquittal motion. They just want, or Kevin Rennington just wants, the judge to step in and say she's acquitted. There is not enough evidence here to convict this lady. She should have never been acquitted. So they call it a required finding of not guilty. That's one of the motions. He's asking the judge to flat out just say, she's been acquitted.
00:07:08
Speaker 2: Everybody go home.
00:07:10
Speaker 4: Highly unlikely.
00:07:11
Speaker 2: One might guess.
00:07:12
Speaker 1: The other one, Robes, is a double jeopardy motion he has in front of the judge. Now, this we're familiar with Ashley Judd's movie.
00:07:21
Speaker 3: Right.
00:07:21
Speaker 2: We need to go back and watch that. I haven't seen it in a while. Yes.
00:07:25
Speaker 4: Obviously, you cannot be charged.
00:07:27
Speaker 3: If you've been found not guilty, you can't be recharged for the same crime if a jury of your peers has found you not guilty.
00:07:34
Speaker 1: Man, what a scene at the end. You remember when she was in that office? Who was the guy that was tracking her down?
00:07:40
Speaker 2: Was it Tommy Lee?
00:07:42
Speaker 4: Tommy Lee Jones, yes.
00:07:44
Speaker 2: He was like, hey, knock yourself out. I can't do anything. And let her shoot her husband.
00:07:48
Speaker 4: Oh, my God.
00:07:49
Speaker 2: Anyway, I got sidetracked. But yes, we're familiar with double jeopardy. How does that apply in this case, though, Rhodes?
00:07:55
Speaker 4: I had to look it up. I was confused.
00:07:57
Speaker 3: But the claim is, tell me if I'm wrong, that basically because Kevin Reddington is asserting that that juror should have been removed because he didn't follow the law. If the judge had done that, removed him and put one of the alternates in place, the jury almost certainly.
00:08:12
Speaker 4: Would have come up with the not guilty verdict.
00:08:14
Speaker 3: So he's going saying that basically 10 out of the 11 jurors voted for not guilty. Therefore, She basically wasn't guilty because that other juror was null and void or something.
00:08:27
Speaker 4: I don't know how he's making that legal argument.
00:08:30
Speaker 1: If you take the black Catholic guy who didn't pay his rent, if you take him off the jury, put in somebody that I like, then she would have been not guilty.
00:08:40
Speaker 2: Therefore, it's double jeopardy.
00:08:42
Speaker 4: That seems like a huge stretch.
00:08:45
Speaker 1: Okay, if you think the first two were stretches, then this third one, this third motion, which is now up in the air, Robes, he has a motion in which he wants the judge to not just not just question the juror.
00:08:55
Speaker 2: He wants him to dig into this guy's.
00:08:57
Speaker 3: Full blown investigation into this juror. And yes, he wants him questioned. He wants his phone records subpoenaed to see if he was texting anyone. During the time, was it between 8.30 a.m. and 4.30 p.m. when he would have been deliberating?
00:09:12
Speaker 2: Specifically, the deliberation times.
00:09:14
Speaker 4: Because there are some allegations that he was on his phone when he shouldn't have been.
00:09:18
Speaker 2: That he was looking at it.
00:09:19
Speaker 1: Now, who said, did they say afterwards, right, in some of their interviews, the jurors, that he looked at his phone and he was looking or scrolling or doing something?
00:09:26
Speaker 3: So, yes, they want the phone records subpoenaed and they want to look into whether or not this juror lied on his questionnaire based on some of the allegations that were against him. He's never been convicted of any crime, but the question is, did he lie or falsify his questionnaire to be a juror?
00:09:47
Speaker 1: And the legal experts will tell you, even if he had, it doesn't mean, it's not grounds for the whole case to be thrown out. It's not even grounds for him necessarily to have been kicked off of the jury.
00:09:59
Speaker 2: He could be sanctioned.
00:10:00
Speaker 1: But this essentially it means nothing so we don't even know though Robes if this motion to investigate the juror will actually be discussed there's some back and forth and it's going on in public and we'll let you hear Kevin Reddington's statement but the attorney for Michael Desronville the holdout juror came out publicly and said, no, this motion has actually been adjourned, that they're not going to discuss this. This has been put off to the side. He made it sound as if, ha-ha, the court isn't even going to take this up. We have won this great victory. Kevin Reddington Robes put out a pretty scathing statement addressing this.
00:10:41
Speaker 2: Guy, Ed Pladsnick.
00:10:44
Speaker 4: Paltzik.
00:10:44
Speaker 1: Paltzik, you got it right. Ed Paltzik, who was representing... Michael Desronville. So this was his response to that, and that's why we don't know for sure whether or not the investigation of the juror is going to be discussed in court or not today.
00:10:58
Speaker 4: Yes, Kevin Reddington put this out.
00:11:01
Speaker 3: It has come to my attention that Ed Paltzik, the hoodie-wearing lawyer claiming to represent the obstructionist juror, has issued false and blatantly misleading statements regarding our motion to inquire. Chief among his fabrications is the absurd claim that this motion was adjourned by mutual agreement between the government and the defense. That is pure nonsense. Earlier today, both the government and I were contacted by a professional local attorney who represents Juror Doe. The attorney requested, as any qualified counsel would, adequate time to review our motion and reply. As is professional courtesy, both the government and I agreed to continue this specific motion.
00:11:45
Speaker 4: To a later date at their request.
00:11:49
Speaker 3: The motion remains active, fully alive, and is currently pending a ruling from Judge Sullivan. We will not allow a publicity seeking opportunist to twist simple courtroom courtesy into a victory that does not exist.
00:12:04
Speaker 1: It was even important to not even let him have a, A little bit of a win or the appearance of a win.
00:12:11
Speaker 2: So we got some egos flying around here.
00:12:15
Speaker 4: Absolutely.
00:12:16
Speaker 1: We got three little babies that we're trying to get justice for.
00:12:19
Speaker 2: A woman's health in the balance.
00:12:23
Speaker 1: And three men are arguing in court, excuse me, in public with egos about what we should do with her.
00:12:30
Speaker 4: Yes.
00:12:31
Speaker 1: That's exactly what's happening. And who won and who lost. How petty and silly and stupid and small is this? Okay, fine, I understand. But this was, we only put that in there, and I'm only saying, this is the point, Rob. Something seemed to be getting lost, and it seemed to be getting a little personal, and we started getting further away from, even focusing on Lindsey Clancy, people were pissed that not enough focus was put on the kids. So now we're getting even away from putting the focus on Lindsey Clancy. Now it's about which one of these dudes can win in public.
00:13:00
Speaker 4: It's so, yes, but doesn't it always come down to that? I feel like that's in politics, in life, and.
00:13:06
Speaker 3: Anytime it's about winning and losing, even divorce, it always gets ugly, especially when courtrooms are involved and lawyers get involved. And yes, Michael Desronville's attorney has certainly had a lot to say about Kevin Reddington as well.
00:13:20
Speaker 4: He's been making the rounds, or at least to Fox News.
00:13:23
Speaker 2: Yes, at least to Fox News. That's an important distinction to make. Stay here, though.
00:13:28
Speaker 1: We'll let you know what Michael Desronville's attorney has been saying that kind of really perpetuated, I guess we could say, this war of words. And we heard from the lone holdout juror in his own words, from his own mouth, and on camera.
00:13:44
Speaker 2: Stay here.
00:13:54
Speaker 4: Welcome back, everyone, to Amy and TJ. Yes, we are.
00:13:58
Speaker 3: Listening to the war of words going on between now Lindsay Clancy's attorney, Kevin Reddington, and the attorney for the holdout juror, Michael Desronville. Desronville's attorney has absolutely come out swinging against Kevin Reddington. He said, I believe that Kevin Reddington, ever since the moment he learned that Michael was not going to side with him, I believe that Kevin Reddington lost his mind. He's upset that he lost out on his legacy moment. He was one vote from winning a trial that would have been a capstone of his career, and he didn't get it, and he lost his mind because of it.
00:14:37
Speaker 1: Obviously, Kevin Reddington heard that It seems to be like, and he might have struck a nerve even, baby.
00:14:44
Speaker 4: That was a low blow.
00:14:45
Speaker 1: It was, and it might have been accurate. They're going after and poking each other in such a way that it's not necessary, it's not helpful.
00:14:53
Speaker 2: And you know what, Roelofs?
00:14:54
Speaker 1: It does not, didn't his attorney use the word incite? that Kevin Reddick is inciting people with a lot of his language. And I think both sides are kind of firing up people that didn't need to be fired up on two sides of this case.
00:15:06
Speaker 3: Yes, because people already feel pretty passionately about whether or not they believe Lindsay Clancy should be behind bars for the deaths, the strangling deaths of her three children. So look, Michael does Ronville. We haven't heard from him directly until now. He put out a video, gave it to Fox news.
00:15:23
Speaker 4: It's quick.
00:15:24
Speaker 3: It's a little bizarre, not really sure why he did this or what his intention was, but this is what he said. He said, I know the whole focus has been on me, but we want to reel everything back and put the focus on the three angels, the ones that can't speak for themselves, the ones that can't defend themselves, and the ones that can't fight the battles.
00:15:45
Speaker 4: And those are Cora, Dawson, and Callan. And that was it. So, I mean, look, that.
00:15:52
Speaker 2: Why he gave it to Fox News... why it was so short.
00:15:58
Speaker 1: It seemed hastily put together, and it didn't necessarily, Robes, have a message that was, I mean, he could have written that.
00:16:06
Speaker 2: Why did, I don't know. I don't know.
00:16:08
Speaker 3: I would have expected him to address some of the hate or some.
00:16:15
Speaker 4: Of the allegations that.
00:16:16
Speaker 3: Have been made about him by his fellow jurors. I would have thought he would have taken that moment, if he was going to speak to camera, to clear it up, but then again, He has said this entire time, and his attorney has said it as well, that he believed in his decision, in his verdict.
00:16:32
Speaker 4: He wanted Lindsay Clancy found guilty.
00:16:33
Speaker 3: He felt like she should be punished for the deaths of her children. And this perhaps is exactly his focus. And it's not about defending himself. It's not about setting the record straight. It's about putting the focus back on justice for those three little kids.
00:16:51
Speaker 2: Cora, Dawson, and Callen. Yes, let's not.
00:16:54
Speaker 1: Forget um we disagree sure what justice might look like for those kids but we we owe it to them to have a better debate than we're having and to treat each other and to speak to each other differently than we are so uh we will be watching that courtroom very very closely today you can expect updates from us on the feed today but we always appreciate you spending time with us i'm tj on behalf of my dear amy robach we will talk to you all soon
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. It is Tuesday, September 29th, and this could be a decisive day in the case of Lindsey Clancy, who returns to court this morning for the first time since a mistrial was declared.
00:00:17
Speaker 2: And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ Robes.
00:00:20
Speaker 1: It's hard to... No, we're not overstating it. Today could kind of be it. We could get some.
00:00:27
Speaker 2: Answers, Robes, including... whether or not it's going to be another trial at all.
00:00:31
Speaker 3: That's right, and this is a big day for a number of reasons. Yes, we could find out whether or not the prosecutors choose to move forward with another trial, but we also could find out whether or not a mistrial could be, the judge could actually take the mistrial and decide to just throw out all.
00:00:53
Speaker 4: The charges, exonerate her. declare her not guilty.
00:00:57
Speaker 1: So what we're saying here, folks, is we could get some decisive rulings in court today.
00:01:03
Speaker 2: We circled this date.
00:01:04
Speaker 1: On the calendar, September 29th, because after the mistrial, the judge did declare that this was going to be the day that they discussed all of these matters, all of these motions, all of this that Kevin Reddington has been hooting and hollering about, wanting a Juror investigated, wanting a mistrial, talking about double jeopardy. Well, today is the day they're supposed to be back in court to discuss all this. And, Robes, there could be some decisions, and we know which direction this thing is ultimately going to go. I find it, Robes, after all we saw in six weeks of a trial, to think we're going to be back in the courtroom with, frankly... Nothing decided still. We're going to see Lindsay Clancy once again in court, and we have no idea of her fate, even though she's gone through one trial. That's remarkable what we're about to see this morning.
00:01:47
Speaker 3: It is, because not only will we hear from, yes, the defense and the prosecution and the judge, but we're also going to hear whether or not a judge is even going to consider Kevin Reddington's request that the holdout juror be investigated, that they single him out, look at his phone records... consider whether or not he actually applied the law to his decision. And look, it seems like there's a high bar for a judge to agree to investigate a sole juror.
00:02:19
Speaker 4: So there's so much at stake here.
00:02:21
Speaker 1: And folks will remember what certainly is at stake is the fate of Lindsay Clancy. Other people say what's at stake here is justice for three kids that she strangled. She, as you know, if you've been keeping up with this case, it's hard to not keep up with it, but she admitted to killing her three kids in January of 2023. She says postpartum psychosis is the reason for it. Jury deliberated for 38 plus hours and 11 to 1, they were deadlocked with this one holdout juror. He has since come under all kinds of scrutiny. Did he fill out his questionnaire correctly? Was he honest to the judge? Did he deliberate according to the law? All these things, Robes, he's essentially been attacked and he finally had to start recently defending himself in public and mainly saying get off my back i did my job i just didn't agree with.
00:03:12
Speaker 3: Y'all exactly and it's interesting because the foreperson who came forward initially after hours of deliberations The note said that this lone juror would not apply the law, that he had expressed doubt, but wouldn't apply the law of reason or the theory of reasonable doubt to his decision-making. And therefore he wasn't, he wasn't following basically the judge's instructions. The juror has come out since then, as you mentioned and said, uh, no, I never had doubts. I've always from the, the evidence that was presented in the courtroom and, I saw that evidence, and I deemed her.
00:03:53
Speaker 4: Guilty from the get-go. Zero doubt. Never had any reasonable doubt.
00:03:57
Speaker 1: So he's the guy that's pretty much been put on trial, and there is a public trial going on, yes, against Michael Desronville. He's come out and identified himself, the lone holdout juror, but there's a war of words going on between the attorneys for the juror and Kevin Reddington, Lindsey Clancy's attorney. We'll get into that, and this even plays into what we're going to see in court this morning. But what is to be considered of Essentially three motions being considered and three main questions. One, will the prosecutor seek retrial? We'll get that answer, hopefully, maybe. Kevin Reddington also wants the investigation that Roeb just mentioned and also to dismiss this case on double jeopardy grounds. Let's start with the retrial. The prosecutor's Roeb, I don't think they've even hinted, kind of, since the end of... They keep saying they want justice for the kids, but what does that look like?
00:04:45
Speaker 4: Correct.
00:04:45
Speaker 3: And so the options are to not bring any charges, to work out some sort of plea deal, or to bring lesser charges, or to retry the thing exactly the same way they initially presented it. And look, there's a lot of speculation out there because they have been tight-lipped.
00:05:09
Speaker 4: They have not said what they're going to do.
00:05:11
Speaker 3: Folks who know this prosecutor, who know this DA, say he isn't someone who tends to back down. There had been some war of words between him and Kevin Reddington as.
00:05:20
Speaker 4: Well in the hours or in the moments following the trial.
00:05:23
Speaker 3: So egos at play here.
00:05:25
Speaker 2: Come on, man.
00:05:26
Speaker 1: Don't make a decision based on you don't like Kevin Reddington and the way he gave you a verbal spanking in public.
00:05:33
Speaker 2: Fine.
00:05:33
Speaker 1: It's what you'd have to deal with. But he should not be making a decision based on that. But Roe was based on his own words. it'd be hard to back down from what you say you're going to do to all of a sudden say, you know what, never mind.
00:05:46
Speaker 2: That seems unlikely.
00:05:48
Speaker 4: It does seem unlikely.
00:05:49
Speaker 3: And most legal experts who are watching this case believe that the DA is going to bring the exact same charges and pursue another trial against Lindsay Clancy.
00:05:59
Speaker 4: But we shall see.
00:06:00
Speaker 1: The other option there, yes, is to seek a plea deal, which also seems unlikely. There's been no hint. Nothing has leaked or come out that these two sides are talking at all. And the way they talk in public, this is not how you talk to people that you're trying to make a deal with behind the scenes.
00:06:12
Speaker 3: Exactly. And Kevin, Kevin Reddington has said on the multiple interviews he's given since this trial, that there is no amount of jail time that he would consider for Lindsay Clancy. His only consideration would be if she were offered something that did not or did not have jail time associated with it.
00:06:32
Speaker 1: And those kinds of statements publicly, you, you kind of, You dig in now, and now you feel like you have to stand by this public statement you made.
00:06:40
Speaker 2: Yep.
00:06:40
Speaker 1: Hopefully they're doing the right thing for the kids, for Lindsay Clancy. But several motions. The three they're going after. One, Robes, has to do with an acquittal motion. They just want, or Kevin Rennington just wants, the judge to step in and say she's acquitted. There is not enough evidence here to convict this lady. She should have never been acquitted. So they call it a required finding of not guilty. That's one of the motions. He's asking the judge to flat out just say, she's been acquitted.
00:07:08
Speaker 2: Everybody go home.
00:07:10
Speaker 4: Highly unlikely.
00:07:11
Speaker 2: One might guess.
00:07:12
Speaker 1: The other one, Robes, is a double jeopardy motion he has in front of the judge. Now, this we're familiar with Ashley Judd's movie.
00:07:21
Speaker 3: Right.
00:07:21
Speaker 2: We need to go back and watch that. I haven't seen it in a while. Yes.
00:07:25
Speaker 4: Obviously, you cannot be charged.
00:07:27
Speaker 3: If you've been found not guilty, you can't be recharged for the same crime if a jury of your peers has found you not guilty.
00:07:34
Speaker 1: Man, what a scene at the end. You remember when she was in that office? Who was the guy that was tracking her down?
00:07:40
Speaker 2: Was it Tommy Lee?
00:07:42
Speaker 4: Tommy Lee Jones, yes.
00:07:44
Speaker 2: He was like, hey, knock yourself out. I can't do anything. And let her shoot her husband.
00:07:48
Speaker 4: Oh, my God.
00:07:49
Speaker 2: Anyway, I got sidetracked. But yes, we're familiar with double jeopardy. How does that apply in this case, though, Rhodes?
00:07:55
Speaker 4: I had to look it up. I was confused.
00:07:57
Speaker 3: But the claim is, tell me if I'm wrong, that basically because Kevin Reddington is asserting that that juror should have been removed because he didn't follow the law. If the judge had done that, removed him and put one of the alternates in place, the jury almost certainly.
00:08:12
Speaker 4: Would have come up with the not guilty verdict.
00:08:14
Speaker 3: So he's going saying that basically 10 out of the 11 jurors voted for not guilty. Therefore, She basically wasn't guilty because that other juror was null and void or something.
00:08:27
Speaker 4: I don't know how he's making that legal argument.
00:08:30
Speaker 1: If you take the black Catholic guy who didn't pay his rent, if you take him off the jury, put in somebody that I like, then she would have been not guilty.
00:08:40
Speaker 2: Therefore, it's double jeopardy.
00:08:42
Speaker 4: That seems like a huge stretch.
00:08:45
Speaker 1: Okay, if you think the first two were stretches, then this third one, this third motion, which is now up in the air, Robes, he has a motion in which he wants the judge to not just not just question the juror.
00:08:55
Speaker 2: He wants him to dig into this guy's.
00:08:57
Speaker 3: Full blown investigation into this juror. And yes, he wants him questioned. He wants his phone records subpoenaed to see if he was texting anyone. During the time, was it between 8.30 a.m. and 4.30 p.m. when he would have been deliberating?
00:09:12
Speaker 2: Specifically, the deliberation times.
00:09:14
Speaker 4: Because there are some allegations that he was on his phone when he shouldn't have been.
00:09:18
Speaker 2: That he was looking at it.
00:09:19
Speaker 1: Now, who said, did they say afterwards, right, in some of their interviews, the jurors, that he looked at his phone and he was looking or scrolling or doing something?
00:09:26
Speaker 3: So, yes, they want the phone records subpoenaed and they want to look into whether or not this juror lied on his questionnaire based on some of the allegations that were against him. He's never been convicted of any crime, but the question is, did he lie or falsify his questionnaire to be a juror?
00:09:47
Speaker 1: And the legal experts will tell you, even if he had, it doesn't mean, it's not grounds for the whole case to be thrown out. It's not even grounds for him necessarily to have been kicked off of the jury.
00:09:59
Speaker 2: He could be sanctioned.
00:10:00
Speaker 1: But this essentially it means nothing so we don't even know though Robes if this motion to investigate the juror will actually be discussed there's some back and forth and it's going on in public and we'll let you hear Kevin Reddington's statement but the attorney for Michael Desronville the holdout juror came out publicly and said, no, this motion has actually been adjourned, that they're not going to discuss this. This has been put off to the side. He made it sound as if, ha-ha, the court isn't even going to take this up. We have won this great victory. Kevin Reddington Robes put out a pretty scathing statement addressing this.
00:10:41
Speaker 2: Guy, Ed Pladsnick.
00:10:44
Speaker 4: Paltzik.
00:10:44
Speaker 1: Paltzik, you got it right. Ed Paltzik, who was representing... Michael Desronville. So this was his response to that, and that's why we don't know for sure whether or not the investigation of the juror is going to be discussed in court or not today.
00:10:58
Speaker 4: Yes, Kevin Reddington put this out.
00:11:01
Speaker 3: It has come to my attention that Ed Paltzik, the hoodie-wearing lawyer claiming to represent the obstructionist juror, has issued false and blatantly misleading statements regarding our motion to inquire. Chief among his fabrications is the absurd claim that this motion was adjourned by mutual agreement between the government and the defense. That is pure nonsense. Earlier today, both the government and I were contacted by a professional local attorney who represents Juror Doe. The attorney requested, as any qualified counsel would, adequate time to review our motion and reply. As is professional courtesy, both the government and I agreed to continue this specific motion.
00:11:45
Speaker 4: To a later date at their request.
00:11:49
Speaker 3: The motion remains active, fully alive, and is currently pending a ruling from Judge Sullivan. We will not allow a publicity seeking opportunist to twist simple courtroom courtesy into a victory that does not exist.
00:12:04
Speaker 1: It was even important to not even let him have a, A little bit of a win or the appearance of a win.
00:12:11
Speaker 2: So we got some egos flying around here.
00:12:15
Speaker 4: Absolutely.
00:12:16
Speaker 1: We got three little babies that we're trying to get justice for.
00:12:19
Speaker 2: A woman's health in the balance.
00:12:23
Speaker 1: And three men are arguing in court, excuse me, in public with egos about what we should do with her.
00:12:30
Speaker 4: Yes.
00:12:31
Speaker 1: That's exactly what's happening. And who won and who lost. How petty and silly and stupid and small is this? Okay, fine, I understand. But this was, we only put that in there, and I'm only saying, this is the point, Rob. Something seemed to be getting lost, and it seemed to be getting a little personal, and we started getting further away from, even focusing on Lindsey Clancy, people were pissed that not enough focus was put on the kids. So now we're getting even away from putting the focus on Lindsey Clancy. Now it's about which one of these dudes can win in public.
00:13:00
Speaker 4: It's so, yes, but doesn't it always come down to that? I feel like that's in politics, in life, and.
00:13:06
Speaker 3: Anytime it's about winning and losing, even divorce, it always gets ugly, especially when courtrooms are involved and lawyers get involved. And yes, Michael Desronville's attorney has certainly had a lot to say about Kevin Reddington as well.
00:13:20
Speaker 4: He's been making the rounds, or at least to Fox News.
00:13:23
Speaker 2: Yes, at least to Fox News. That's an important distinction to make. Stay here, though.
00:13:28
Speaker 1: We'll let you know what Michael Desronville's attorney has been saying that kind of really perpetuated, I guess we could say, this war of words. And we heard from the lone holdout juror in his own words, from his own mouth, and on camera.
00:13:44
Speaker 2: Stay here.
00:13:54
Speaker 4: Welcome back, everyone, to Amy and TJ. Yes, we are.
00:13:58
Speaker 3: Listening to the war of words going on between now Lindsay Clancy's attorney, Kevin Reddington, and the attorney for the holdout juror, Michael Desronville. Desronville's attorney has absolutely come out swinging against Kevin Reddington. He said, I believe that Kevin Reddington, ever since the moment he learned that Michael was not going to side with him, I believe that Kevin Reddington lost his mind. He's upset that he lost out on his legacy moment. He was one vote from winning a trial that would have been a capstone of his career, and he didn't get it, and he lost his mind because of it.
00:14:37
Speaker 1: Obviously, Kevin Reddington heard that It seems to be like, and he might have struck a nerve even, baby.
00:14:44
Speaker 4: That was a low blow.
00:14:45
Speaker 1: It was, and it might have been accurate. They're going after and poking each other in such a way that it's not necessary, it's not helpful.
00:14:53
Speaker 2: And you know what, Roelofs?
00:14:54
Speaker 1: It does not, didn't his attorney use the word incite? that Kevin Reddick is inciting people with a lot of his language. And I think both sides are kind of firing up people that didn't need to be fired up on two sides of this case.
00:15:06
Speaker 3: Yes, because people already feel pretty passionately about whether or not they believe Lindsay Clancy should be behind bars for the deaths, the strangling deaths of her three children. So look, Michael does Ronville. We haven't heard from him directly until now. He put out a video, gave it to Fox news.
00:15:23
Speaker 4: It's quick.
00:15:24
Speaker 3: It's a little bizarre, not really sure why he did this or what his intention was, but this is what he said. He said, I know the whole focus has been on me, but we want to reel everything back and put the focus on the three angels, the ones that can't speak for themselves, the ones that can't defend themselves, and the ones that can't fight the battles.
00:15:45
Speaker 4: And those are Cora, Dawson, and Callan. And that was it. So, I mean, look, that.
00:15:52
Speaker 2: Why he gave it to Fox News... why it was so short.
00:15:58
Speaker 1: It seemed hastily put together, and it didn't necessarily, Robes, have a message that was, I mean, he could have written that.
00:16:06
Speaker 2: Why did, I don't know. I don't know.
00:16:08
Speaker 3: I would have expected him to address some of the hate or some.
00:16:15
Speaker 4: Of the allegations that.
00:16:16
Speaker 3: Have been made about him by his fellow jurors. I would have thought he would have taken that moment, if he was going to speak to camera, to clear it up, but then again, He has said this entire time, and his attorney has said it as well, that he believed in his decision, in his verdict.
00:16:32
Speaker 4: He wanted Lindsay Clancy found guilty.
00:16:33
Speaker 3: He felt like she should be punished for the deaths of her children. And this perhaps is exactly his focus. And it's not about defending himself. It's not about setting the record straight. It's about putting the focus back on justice for those three little kids.
00:16:51
Speaker 2: Cora, Dawson, and Callen. Yes, let's not.
00:16:54
Speaker 1: Forget um we disagree sure what justice might look like for those kids but we we owe it to them to have a better debate than we're having and to treat each other and to speak to each other differently than we are so uh we will be watching that courtroom very very closely today you can expect updates from us on the feed today but we always appreciate you spending time with us i'm tj on behalf of my dear amy robach we will talk to you all soon