Sept. 4, 2026
**NOW** Killer Mom Trial: Judge Tells Defense “I’m Not An Actor” Before Deliberations
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed Before jurors began deliberating again this morning, things got heated once again between Lindsay Clancy’s attorney Kevin Reddington and Judge Sullivan. Reddington wanted the holdout juror to be questioned in open court, but the judge ultimately denied his request, saying there was no indication the juror has refused to deliberate or follow the law. Reddington then accused the judge of softly, glossing over his instructions to the jury, and that’s when Sullivan fired back, defending himself. The judge ultimately gave new, slightly more forceful instructions to jurors before sending them back to deliberations.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:02
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks.
00:00:02
Speaker 2: It is Friday, September 4th, and we are off and running in the Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial. The morning gets starts with some explosive back and forth, including from the judge who has to tell Kevin Reddington, I'm not an actor. And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ Rose. Let's give everybody this update, what we're expecting versus what we just got. Yes.
00:00:28
Speaker 1: So we heard from Kevin Reddington, Lindsey Clancy's attorney yesterday, saying that he wanted an inquiry and that there was going to be an inquiry.
00:00:38
Speaker 2: Yes.
00:00:38
Speaker 1: Into this identified juror who has been singled out as the holdout juror. because he believes that this juror has not been following the law, that he has not been following the instructions of the judge. And we say he because we heard Kevin Reddington say he. And so there was a debate before the jurors were brought in with the prosecution and the defense asking the judge to formally question this juror in the middle of the courtroom, in front of everybody.
00:01:14
Speaker 3: And the prosecution didn't want it to happen. The defense did. And there was some blowback between the judge and Kevin Reddington.
00:01:21
Speaker 2: Yeah, and so they had this out in court. Everybody made their argument. Brobes, if you have it in front of you, cool, but I have the note they sent. It was essentially them saying that one juror has made statements acknowledging doubt but refuses to apply it to the verdict as the law states. Essentially suggesting this person is not following the judge's instructions or following the law. Reddington is taking that, Robes, to mean this person is not doing what you're saying they should do. They came in here yesterday and took an oath when you asked them all. He flat out accused this person of lying to the court under oath. But that's a big deal.
00:01:58
Speaker 3: Yes, he said this juror.
00:02:00
Speaker 1: Blatantly lied to your face, Judge, because if he said, yes, I can follow instructions, he's lying to you because the foreperson was brave enough to send this note saying that this juror acknowledged doubt but refused to apply that to his verdict.
00:02:19
Speaker 2: Okay, so, argument from the prosecution. We've had issue with the prosecution before. This made a lot of sense to me, did it not? They cited another case, and it made clear this has to be a case where a juror has given an indication of bias, of bias of some kind, of influence, or can't stay because of some personal reason. This said, the note indicates a disagreement about how to weigh evidence. That's a deliberation. Rosemary, she said that, I'm like, oh yeah, that's That's true. You're following the law, but maybe you are having a difference of opinion about how to weigh it. That is a deliberation. She was short and sweet and to the point, and I thought she made good points. And then your boy Reddington got up and... went off.
00:03:04
Speaker 1: Yes, because, yes, the judge basically said that he believed that exactly what the prosecution said, that this was not an issue of impartiality or bias or something illegal. This instead was something that had to do with just a disagreement.
00:03:23
Speaker 2: But before he got up there, Reddington was able to make his argument. And this is where Robes, he was He was laying in to this juror, and he did use he. I don't know if that was just a slip or an accident, if he meant to do that. Robes, he said clearly this is a person. This dude thinks he's won this case if he can just get this one juror to act right. He sounds as confident as anything. Reddington is fighting as hard as we've seen him in this case.
00:03:50
Speaker 1: Yes.
00:03:50
Speaker 2: Right now.
00:03:50
Speaker 1: And he accused the judge of softly... suggesting basically that the jurors apply the law. He said he glossed over the main points and that certainly set off the judge who said, I'm not an actor, as you pointed out at the beginning. And he said, what do you want me to do? Bring in a brass band? That's how contentious it got. It got sarcastic and voices were raised and things got a little heated.
00:04:18
Speaker 2: And he kept pleading with the judge to bring this person in and even use the word, I know this could be awkward. This could be awkward to have to do. But he is flat out saying that this person is doing something wrong, is violating law, and is now even perjured. He is heaping everything on this one person and making them, I don't know how this does and works for appeals, Robes, but he is now putting the court in a position to go on the record and say there's evidence this person has lied and they're not applying the law and they violated an oath and you're letting them stay here. And judge my client. And it just happens to be the person that's keeping my client from getting a proper verdict. Robson, it wasn't a mistake he used the word. brave talking about the poor person.
00:05:07
Speaker 3: Oh, absolutely.
00:05:08
Speaker 2: I think that was for the cameras.
00:05:09
Speaker 3: Oh, 100%. We've known from the beginning that Kevin Reddington, we've watched him. He is a performer. He knows exactly what he's doing. He chooses his words carefully.
00:05:19
Speaker 1: He chooses his moments very strategically so that he imparts a feeling to everyone watching. He knows he has an audience of, I don't even know, but thousands around the country who are watching this, not just in this courtroom. He is talking to everyone who is watching this courtroom closely.
00:05:39
Speaker 2: Um, he's made it, that made it almost a, a moral and emotional issue. Like we have a champion in there for Lindsay Clancy. They were brave enough. I do. I think that was, that was more of than for the courts appetite. I think that was, he said that to everybody else. So, um, Robes, the judge was pretty quick. I think we were prepared this morning. We said, wow, how long is this going to take? This took 20, 25 minutes. The judge did not seem, Robes, really to entertain much of the argument for bringing this juror in.
00:06:16
Speaker 1: No, he has been consistent, and he has made it very clear. He made it clear yesterday when Kevin Reddington brought this up that he was not going to single out this juror, that he was not going to bring this.
00:06:29
Speaker 3: Juror back into the courtroom. So it's interesting.
00:06:32
Speaker 1: Kevin Reddington, it seemed yesterday, was very confident that it was going to happen, and the judge pretty quickly shut it down and said that he would not further question this juror And he made it very clear that he does not believe that this juror has refused to.
00:06:47
Speaker 3: Follow the law.
00:06:48
Speaker 2: Reading the note carefully and strictly, the note does not indicate that this is a person who has refused to follow the law. They're now trying to make sense of every little word in the note. But, Roe, does this make sense to you? I mean, it kind of just does. And, again, you've been giving me a hard time because I've been taking up for this juror, whoever this person is. But you have the right to have your own opinion and you have your right to see the evidence differently and you have your right to even interpret reasonable doubt differently, even if there are 11 other people who are on the same team. Yeah.
00:07:24
Speaker 1: And it was interesting because the prosecution also asked something of the judge. She asked the judge to please let the foreperson know. to please not include the count, basically where they are in deliberations, that that isn't something that we should be getting information about and to please remind her not to include that.
00:07:47
Speaker 3: In future notes.
00:07:47
Speaker 1: And it was interesting to see Kevin Reddington fight back and.
00:07:50
Speaker 3: Say, well, we don't, because basically he knows, he knows.
00:07:53
Speaker 1: This foreperson is on the side of not guilty, or at least I think it's fair to assume that.
00:07:58
Speaker 3: So he didn't want to make her feel like she had done anything wrong.
00:08:01
Speaker 1: So he was asking the judge, please, please, please don't scold her in the sense that you would tell her not to do that again to imply that she did something wrong. Please don't do that because he doesn't want to upset or instill any fear in this woman who he believes.
00:08:15
Speaker 3: Is on his side.
00:08:16
Speaker 2: We heard clearly what he said. Be nice to my girl. Exactly.
00:08:21
Speaker 3: Yes, a.k.a. please, please, we want to keep her on our side.
00:08:25
Speaker 2: Is there no.
00:08:28
Speaker 2: Realm of possibility of someone anywhere discussing robes, that it's 11-1 the other way?
00:08:34
Speaker 3: No.
00:08:35
Speaker 2: There's not 11 for manslaughter. That's the compromise, right?
00:08:41
Speaker 1: Look, all I can tell you is every single... Reaction from the defense and the prosecution implies that it's 11 to 1, not guilty.
00:08:50
Speaker 2: Okay, but manslaughter would count because it doesn't mean she's automatically going to prison.
00:08:54
Speaker 1: Maybe the one is okay with the manslaughter and maybe the 11 don't want manslaughter. Maybe they only want not guilty by reason of insanity and maybe he's okay with manslaughter and they're not.
00:09:03
Speaker 3: We don't know what he's... digging his heels in for? What does he want? What is his verdict? We don't know if it's first degree, second degree, or manslaughter.
00:09:12
Speaker 2: But I guess it's weird that we automatically all go to not guilty by reason of insanity. Why can't there be 11 people in there saying manslaughter? We agree on manslaughter. That seems like an easier thing to get 11 people to agree to in this case.
00:09:23
Speaker 1: I can't answer why everyone thinks it's not guilty, but Kevin Reddington 100% believes it's not guilty.
00:09:32
Speaker 3: That's where the 11 are.
00:09:33
Speaker 2: But no, no. 11 for manslaughter, that's good for him as well. Is it not?
00:09:37
Speaker 1: Yes.
00:09:37
Speaker 3: I mean, it's certainly better than first or second degree.
00:09:39
Speaker 1: Yes.
00:09:39
Speaker 2: Anything's better than that. But manslaughter means he could sentence her to just a state prison.
00:09:44
Speaker 1: Yes.
00:09:45
Speaker 2: Without jail time.
00:09:45
Speaker 1: Yes.
00:09:46
Speaker 2: Oh, my goodness gracious. But stay here, folks. We'll remind you of the official count, where we are right now in the hours and what just happened. Again, we are watching all this stuff live and bringing it to you, but we will tell you what just happened with the jury, what the judge has now told us. told them to do for today.
00:10:10
Speaker 1: Welcome back everyone to amy and tj so yes there was a lot of back and forth about what the judge should tell these jurors before they return to the deliberation room Without that aforementioned identified juror being questioned, he is now going back with the 11 others. So all 12 of them are officially deliberating once again. But the judge said to the jurors as they headed back to follow the law as I give it to you, whether.
00:10:40
Speaker 3: You agree with it or not.
00:10:42
Speaker 1: And that was something Kevin Reddington wanted him to put in there to be a little bit more forceful in how he put it, saying you might not like the law, you might not want to apply it because you have your own personal opinions, but you have to follow it no matter whether or not you agree with it. That was a little bit stronger language than he used yesterday.
00:11:06
Speaker 2: Stronger language. It's just, that was a, it didn't really get heated. But this was probably some of the most personality we've seen from Judge Sullivan, right? I thought it was hilarious.
00:11:18
Speaker 3: When he said, what do you want me to do, bring in a brass band?
00:11:20
Speaker 2: It was hilarious.
00:11:22
Speaker 3: That was so colloquial in him.
00:11:25
Speaker 2: But this was one of the times where you do sit back and go, well, Reddington, what do you want him to do? Because the law says you have to instruct them with these words. doesn't say you have to whisper them or shout them or say them forcefully. You're just supposed to read it and that's supposed to be it for whatever reason. And the judge put this on the record. The idea of glossing over? He made sure it was on the record. Just that is not a correct characterization of what I did.
00:11:52
Speaker 1: I didn't gloss anything over. I read it directly from the statute.
00:11:57
Speaker 2: And he's defended himself, Robes. He said, I have thought about this and thought about it. I think he might even made a mention to outside the courtroom and the time he spends. Yeah, he didn't take too kindly to that. But what does Reddington want to do? Yell at the jurors.
00:12:10
Speaker 3: Well, it's funny because you know what it says to me?
00:12:12
Speaker 2: No.
00:12:13
Speaker 1: That Reddington and Judge Sullivan are close. Ain't no way an attorney feels that comfortable speaking that way to a judge unless they go way back. So you do see that there must be some level, some foundation of respect or friendship at least or friendship I was going to say enough past experiences together that they know each other's personalities. And yes, it might get a little heated, but they're going to be able to go out for a beer later. That's how I took it. And it did speak to a level of comfort. You don't speak to people like that unless you.
00:12:51
Speaker 3: Have a level of comfort.
00:12:52
Speaker 2: I liked that because the judge, I never found him that he actually got upset, but he was animated. He was funny on this one. I'm not an actor, but you changed my inflection. What do you want me to do? He was, it was how he did it. So that was a interesting moment, but they're back in there. I'm sorry. How many times?
00:13:09
Speaker 3: Right behind.
00:13:09
Speaker 1: We've got court TV has a wonderful, as we're recording this, the jurors have officially been deliberating for 36 hours for 33 minutes and 30 seconds. As I said, it's changing. But to think that after all the jurors basically told on the one juror, the juror knows that he's being spoken directly to as the judge reissues these instructions.
00:13:34
Speaker 3: I just wonder what it's like now, given all of that. Is the tension increased?
00:13:41
Speaker 1: Has it been released a little because now everyone knows what's going on? And how in the heck are they going to try and figure this out? And how long is it going to take them?
00:13:50
Speaker 2: Go today, yeah.
00:13:51
Speaker 1: Are they going to try and see if they can come to an agreement?
00:13:56
Speaker 2: This is up on screen now. We didn't plan. We had a fun debate earlier. We didn't plan on having. There's one holdout juror. They say one is not going along with the 11. And you and I were going back and forth. You think it's a man or you think it's a woman. Now, I'm not sure where we ended up. We both landed on what?
00:14:13
Speaker 3: I absolutely thought it was a man.
00:14:15
Speaker 2: A man. So it was an interesting back and forth. And sure enough, Reddington just said, and I don't know if it was just a slip or he was being accurate, but he let us know the sex of the one holdout.
00:14:25
Speaker 3: Yes, he said he. And I looked at you and I was like, head nod. Yeah, it was a he. Because no, we went back and forth on it. It didn't make sense to me.
00:14:36
Speaker 1: Women, yes, I know we get a bad rap for turning our backs on one another and coming down hard on each other, but we oftentimes will coalesce in a way because we understand, we have each other's backs in that way. And so it was hard for me to imagine that one woman would go against eight and just stand firm against three men. Like that just doesn't seem like, something a woman would do. Maybe an older woman, maybe a woman who feels very strong in her convictions, but it seemed much more likely that a man would.
00:15:05
Speaker 3: Be willing to do that.
00:15:06
Speaker 2: So we started clowning and talking this thing through and who is more likely to look at nine women and say, nope, y'all are wrong.
00:15:14
Speaker 1: A man.
00:15:15
Speaker 2: Who is going to say, ain't no way I'm going to go along with what you women want me to do. A man. Yeah. Once we started talking it through. All right.
00:15:23
Speaker 3: So now the waiting continues.
00:15:25
Speaker 1: But now it's even more interesting because it's just now that we have a little bit more idea of what is going on or at least what the numbers are.
00:15:33
Speaker 3: This could be anyone's guess.
00:15:35
Speaker 1: And in terms of timing, we just know that it's Friday and it's Labor Day weekend and they have every incentive to figure this out.
00:15:43
Speaker 3: So we will.
00:15:44
Speaker 1: Stay watching that courtroom for you. We always appreciate you listening to us. I'm Amy Robach alongside TJ Holmes.
00:15:51
Speaker 3: We will talk very, very soon.
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks.
00:00:02
Speaker 2: It is Friday, September 4th, and we are off and running in the Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial. The morning gets starts with some explosive back and forth, including from the judge who has to tell Kevin Reddington, I'm not an actor. And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ Rose. Let's give everybody this update, what we're expecting versus what we just got. Yes.
00:00:28
Speaker 1: So we heard from Kevin Reddington, Lindsey Clancy's attorney yesterday, saying that he wanted an inquiry and that there was going to be an inquiry.
00:00:38
Speaker 2: Yes.
00:00:38
Speaker 1: Into this identified juror who has been singled out as the holdout juror. because he believes that this juror has not been following the law, that he has not been following the instructions of the judge. And we say he because we heard Kevin Reddington say he. And so there was a debate before the jurors were brought in with the prosecution and the defense asking the judge to formally question this juror in the middle of the courtroom, in front of everybody.
00:01:14
Speaker 3: And the prosecution didn't want it to happen. The defense did. And there was some blowback between the judge and Kevin Reddington.
00:01:21
Speaker 2: Yeah, and so they had this out in court. Everybody made their argument. Brobes, if you have it in front of you, cool, but I have the note they sent. It was essentially them saying that one juror has made statements acknowledging doubt but refuses to apply it to the verdict as the law states. Essentially suggesting this person is not following the judge's instructions or following the law. Reddington is taking that, Robes, to mean this person is not doing what you're saying they should do. They came in here yesterday and took an oath when you asked them all. He flat out accused this person of lying to the court under oath. But that's a big deal.
00:01:58
Speaker 3: Yes, he said this juror.
00:02:00
Speaker 1: Blatantly lied to your face, Judge, because if he said, yes, I can follow instructions, he's lying to you because the foreperson was brave enough to send this note saying that this juror acknowledged doubt but refused to apply that to his verdict.
00:02:19
Speaker 2: Okay, so, argument from the prosecution. We've had issue with the prosecution before. This made a lot of sense to me, did it not? They cited another case, and it made clear this has to be a case where a juror has given an indication of bias, of bias of some kind, of influence, or can't stay because of some personal reason. This said, the note indicates a disagreement about how to weigh evidence. That's a deliberation. Rosemary, she said that, I'm like, oh yeah, that's That's true. You're following the law, but maybe you are having a difference of opinion about how to weigh it. That is a deliberation. She was short and sweet and to the point, and I thought she made good points. And then your boy Reddington got up and... went off.
00:03:04
Speaker 1: Yes, because, yes, the judge basically said that he believed that exactly what the prosecution said, that this was not an issue of impartiality or bias or something illegal. This instead was something that had to do with just a disagreement.
00:03:23
Speaker 2: But before he got up there, Reddington was able to make his argument. And this is where Robes, he was He was laying in to this juror, and he did use he. I don't know if that was just a slip or an accident, if he meant to do that. Robes, he said clearly this is a person. This dude thinks he's won this case if he can just get this one juror to act right. He sounds as confident as anything. Reddington is fighting as hard as we've seen him in this case.
00:03:50
Speaker 1: Yes.
00:03:50
Speaker 2: Right now.
00:03:50
Speaker 1: And he accused the judge of softly... suggesting basically that the jurors apply the law. He said he glossed over the main points and that certainly set off the judge who said, I'm not an actor, as you pointed out at the beginning. And he said, what do you want me to do? Bring in a brass band? That's how contentious it got. It got sarcastic and voices were raised and things got a little heated.
00:04:18
Speaker 2: And he kept pleading with the judge to bring this person in and even use the word, I know this could be awkward. This could be awkward to have to do. But he is flat out saying that this person is doing something wrong, is violating law, and is now even perjured. He is heaping everything on this one person and making them, I don't know how this does and works for appeals, Robes, but he is now putting the court in a position to go on the record and say there's evidence this person has lied and they're not applying the law and they violated an oath and you're letting them stay here. And judge my client. And it just happens to be the person that's keeping my client from getting a proper verdict. Robson, it wasn't a mistake he used the word. brave talking about the poor person.
00:05:07
Speaker 3: Oh, absolutely.
00:05:08
Speaker 2: I think that was for the cameras.
00:05:09
Speaker 3: Oh, 100%. We've known from the beginning that Kevin Reddington, we've watched him. He is a performer. He knows exactly what he's doing. He chooses his words carefully.
00:05:19
Speaker 1: He chooses his moments very strategically so that he imparts a feeling to everyone watching. He knows he has an audience of, I don't even know, but thousands around the country who are watching this, not just in this courtroom. He is talking to everyone who is watching this courtroom closely.
00:05:39
Speaker 2: Um, he's made it, that made it almost a, a moral and emotional issue. Like we have a champion in there for Lindsay Clancy. They were brave enough. I do. I think that was, that was more of than for the courts appetite. I think that was, he said that to everybody else. So, um, Robes, the judge was pretty quick. I think we were prepared this morning. We said, wow, how long is this going to take? This took 20, 25 minutes. The judge did not seem, Robes, really to entertain much of the argument for bringing this juror in.
00:06:16
Speaker 1: No, he has been consistent, and he has made it very clear. He made it clear yesterday when Kevin Reddington brought this up that he was not going to single out this juror, that he was not going to bring this.
00:06:29
Speaker 3: Juror back into the courtroom. So it's interesting.
00:06:32
Speaker 1: Kevin Reddington, it seemed yesterday, was very confident that it was going to happen, and the judge pretty quickly shut it down and said that he would not further question this juror And he made it very clear that he does not believe that this juror has refused to.
00:06:47
Speaker 3: Follow the law.
00:06:48
Speaker 2: Reading the note carefully and strictly, the note does not indicate that this is a person who has refused to follow the law. They're now trying to make sense of every little word in the note. But, Roe, does this make sense to you? I mean, it kind of just does. And, again, you've been giving me a hard time because I've been taking up for this juror, whoever this person is. But you have the right to have your own opinion and you have your right to see the evidence differently and you have your right to even interpret reasonable doubt differently, even if there are 11 other people who are on the same team. Yeah.
00:07:24
Speaker 1: And it was interesting because the prosecution also asked something of the judge. She asked the judge to please let the foreperson know. to please not include the count, basically where they are in deliberations, that that isn't something that we should be getting information about and to please remind her not to include that.
00:07:47
Speaker 3: In future notes.
00:07:47
Speaker 1: And it was interesting to see Kevin Reddington fight back and.
00:07:50
Speaker 3: Say, well, we don't, because basically he knows, he knows.
00:07:53
Speaker 1: This foreperson is on the side of not guilty, or at least I think it's fair to assume that.
00:07:58
Speaker 3: So he didn't want to make her feel like she had done anything wrong.
00:08:01
Speaker 1: So he was asking the judge, please, please, please don't scold her in the sense that you would tell her not to do that again to imply that she did something wrong. Please don't do that because he doesn't want to upset or instill any fear in this woman who he believes.
00:08:15
Speaker 3: Is on his side.
00:08:16
Speaker 2: We heard clearly what he said. Be nice to my girl. Exactly.
00:08:21
Speaker 3: Yes, a.k.a. please, please, we want to keep her on our side.
00:08:25
Speaker 2: Is there no.
00:08:28
Speaker 2: Realm of possibility of someone anywhere discussing robes, that it's 11-1 the other way?
00:08:34
Speaker 3: No.
00:08:35
Speaker 2: There's not 11 for manslaughter. That's the compromise, right?
00:08:41
Speaker 1: Look, all I can tell you is every single... Reaction from the defense and the prosecution implies that it's 11 to 1, not guilty.
00:08:50
Speaker 2: Okay, but manslaughter would count because it doesn't mean she's automatically going to prison.
00:08:54
Speaker 1: Maybe the one is okay with the manslaughter and maybe the 11 don't want manslaughter. Maybe they only want not guilty by reason of insanity and maybe he's okay with manslaughter and they're not.
00:09:03
Speaker 3: We don't know what he's... digging his heels in for? What does he want? What is his verdict? We don't know if it's first degree, second degree, or manslaughter.
00:09:12
Speaker 2: But I guess it's weird that we automatically all go to not guilty by reason of insanity. Why can't there be 11 people in there saying manslaughter? We agree on manslaughter. That seems like an easier thing to get 11 people to agree to in this case.
00:09:23
Speaker 1: I can't answer why everyone thinks it's not guilty, but Kevin Reddington 100% believes it's not guilty.
00:09:32
Speaker 3: That's where the 11 are.
00:09:33
Speaker 2: But no, no. 11 for manslaughter, that's good for him as well. Is it not?
00:09:37
Speaker 1: Yes.
00:09:37
Speaker 3: I mean, it's certainly better than first or second degree.
00:09:39
Speaker 1: Yes.
00:09:39
Speaker 2: Anything's better than that. But manslaughter means he could sentence her to just a state prison.
00:09:44
Speaker 1: Yes.
00:09:45
Speaker 2: Without jail time.
00:09:45
Speaker 1: Yes.
00:09:46
Speaker 2: Oh, my goodness gracious. But stay here, folks. We'll remind you of the official count, where we are right now in the hours and what just happened. Again, we are watching all this stuff live and bringing it to you, but we will tell you what just happened with the jury, what the judge has now told us. told them to do for today.
00:10:10
Speaker 1: Welcome back everyone to amy and tj so yes there was a lot of back and forth about what the judge should tell these jurors before they return to the deliberation room Without that aforementioned identified juror being questioned, he is now going back with the 11 others. So all 12 of them are officially deliberating once again. But the judge said to the jurors as they headed back to follow the law as I give it to you, whether.
00:10:40
Speaker 3: You agree with it or not.
00:10:42
Speaker 1: And that was something Kevin Reddington wanted him to put in there to be a little bit more forceful in how he put it, saying you might not like the law, you might not want to apply it because you have your own personal opinions, but you have to follow it no matter whether or not you agree with it. That was a little bit stronger language than he used yesterday.
00:11:06
Speaker 2: Stronger language. It's just, that was a, it didn't really get heated. But this was probably some of the most personality we've seen from Judge Sullivan, right? I thought it was hilarious.
00:11:18
Speaker 3: When he said, what do you want me to do, bring in a brass band?
00:11:20
Speaker 2: It was hilarious.
00:11:22
Speaker 3: That was so colloquial in him.
00:11:25
Speaker 2: But this was one of the times where you do sit back and go, well, Reddington, what do you want him to do? Because the law says you have to instruct them with these words. doesn't say you have to whisper them or shout them or say them forcefully. You're just supposed to read it and that's supposed to be it for whatever reason. And the judge put this on the record. The idea of glossing over? He made sure it was on the record. Just that is not a correct characterization of what I did.
00:11:52
Speaker 1: I didn't gloss anything over. I read it directly from the statute.
00:11:57
Speaker 2: And he's defended himself, Robes. He said, I have thought about this and thought about it. I think he might even made a mention to outside the courtroom and the time he spends. Yeah, he didn't take too kindly to that. But what does Reddington want to do? Yell at the jurors.
00:12:10
Speaker 3: Well, it's funny because you know what it says to me?
00:12:12
Speaker 2: No.
00:12:13
Speaker 1: That Reddington and Judge Sullivan are close. Ain't no way an attorney feels that comfortable speaking that way to a judge unless they go way back. So you do see that there must be some level, some foundation of respect or friendship at least or friendship I was going to say enough past experiences together that they know each other's personalities. And yes, it might get a little heated, but they're going to be able to go out for a beer later. That's how I took it. And it did speak to a level of comfort. You don't speak to people like that unless you.
00:12:51
Speaker 3: Have a level of comfort.
00:12:52
Speaker 2: I liked that because the judge, I never found him that he actually got upset, but he was animated. He was funny on this one. I'm not an actor, but you changed my inflection. What do you want me to do? He was, it was how he did it. So that was a interesting moment, but they're back in there. I'm sorry. How many times?
00:13:09
Speaker 3: Right behind.
00:13:09
Speaker 1: We've got court TV has a wonderful, as we're recording this, the jurors have officially been deliberating for 36 hours for 33 minutes and 30 seconds. As I said, it's changing. But to think that after all the jurors basically told on the one juror, the juror knows that he's being spoken directly to as the judge reissues these instructions.
00:13:34
Speaker 3: I just wonder what it's like now, given all of that. Is the tension increased?
00:13:41
Speaker 1: Has it been released a little because now everyone knows what's going on? And how in the heck are they going to try and figure this out? And how long is it going to take them?
00:13:50
Speaker 2: Go today, yeah.
00:13:51
Speaker 1: Are they going to try and see if they can come to an agreement?
00:13:56
Speaker 2: This is up on screen now. We didn't plan. We had a fun debate earlier. We didn't plan on having. There's one holdout juror. They say one is not going along with the 11. And you and I were going back and forth. You think it's a man or you think it's a woman. Now, I'm not sure where we ended up. We both landed on what?
00:14:13
Speaker 3: I absolutely thought it was a man.
00:14:15
Speaker 2: A man. So it was an interesting back and forth. And sure enough, Reddington just said, and I don't know if it was just a slip or he was being accurate, but he let us know the sex of the one holdout.
00:14:25
Speaker 3: Yes, he said he. And I looked at you and I was like, head nod. Yeah, it was a he. Because no, we went back and forth on it. It didn't make sense to me.
00:14:36
Speaker 1: Women, yes, I know we get a bad rap for turning our backs on one another and coming down hard on each other, but we oftentimes will coalesce in a way because we understand, we have each other's backs in that way. And so it was hard for me to imagine that one woman would go against eight and just stand firm against three men. Like that just doesn't seem like, something a woman would do. Maybe an older woman, maybe a woman who feels very strong in her convictions, but it seemed much more likely that a man would.
00:15:05
Speaker 3: Be willing to do that.
00:15:06
Speaker 2: So we started clowning and talking this thing through and who is more likely to look at nine women and say, nope, y'all are wrong.
00:15:14
Speaker 1: A man.
00:15:15
Speaker 2: Who is going to say, ain't no way I'm going to go along with what you women want me to do. A man. Yeah. Once we started talking it through. All right.
00:15:23
Speaker 3: So now the waiting continues.
00:15:25
Speaker 1: But now it's even more interesting because it's just now that we have a little bit more idea of what is going on or at least what the numbers are.
00:15:33
Speaker 3: This could be anyone's guess.
00:15:35
Speaker 1: And in terms of timing, we just know that it's Friday and it's Labor Day weekend and they have every incentive to figure this out.
00:15:43
Speaker 3: So we will.
00:15:44
Speaker 1: Stay watching that courtroom for you. We always appreciate you listening to us. I'm Amy Robach alongside TJ Holmes.
00:15:51
Speaker 3: We will talk very, very soon.