Sept. 2, 2026
**NOW** Killer Mom Trial VERDICT WATCH: Judge Issues Last Ditch “Tuey Rodriguez” Charge After Jury Reports 2nd Deadlock
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed The jury came back from lunch with another note, letting the judge know they remain deadlocked and cannot reach a verdict. The judge issued his second and final instruction to the jury, reading from what’s known as the “Tuey Rodriguez” charge, encouraging jurors to reconsider their positions. It’s a controversial tool that is allowed under Massachusetts state law, but it remains to be seen just how effective it will be, with jurors deliberating now for more than 27 hours over the past five days.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:02
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. It is Wednesday, September 2nd, and we have another breaking update in the Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial. The jury has sent another note. It was the same as the last one. We are deadlocked. And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. Robes, they're deadlocked. He did send them back just like he did last time, but this time, Robes, he did what we have been talking about for days he might do.
00:00:27
Speaker 2: That's right. This is basically his last resort, so to speak. And it's called in the state of Massachusetts, the Tui Rodriguez charge, which is an official way to encourage the jury to reevaluate individually where they stand and to consider where their fellow jurors are and see if there is a bridge.
00:00:51
Speaker 1: Okay, so what's the nickname? I forgot the nickname again.
00:00:54
Speaker 2: The dynamite?
00:00:55
Speaker 1: The dynamite charge is what they call this. In other places, in most places, you hear it referred to often as the Allen charge, but this is what they call it in their state. Robes, it is controversial because it can be seen as essentially telling the jury, go back in there and be open to changing your mind.
00:01:10
Speaker 2: Right, but the alternative is to... Declare a mistrial to force the prosecution to decide whether or not to retry the case and then to bring back all the witnesses, all the experts, find a new jury. Not only is expensive and time consuming, but this one especially is just so emotionally weighted. The idea of it is just, yeah, it's emotionally heavy. overwhelming to even consider.
00:01:41
Speaker 1: Nobody wants to run this back. So it's in everybody's interest here. And you want to make sure that the jury has, there's value to their time. There is a result here. Robes, this is looking more and more likely. I mean, Robes, I guess it's possible, but we've been listening to the debate on the outside and we just assume, Robes, they don't have to be watching coverage. These people walked into that jury room with a variety of experiences, just like the rest of the country, that's informing their opinion about this case. This is probably the only likely outcome, baby, is a mistrial.
00:02:16
Speaker 2: Right. I mean, I keep looking, even just an hour or so ago, I keep looking at the comments on some of our episodes, and truly people are split down the middle. And they're very much on their side of things. Like, they're absolute. It's not... I can see what you're saying. And I thought this, but after listening to your episode, now I think this. No, no, no, no, no. The comments are resolute. People have formed opinions and they're unwilling to change them because they're rooted in something deeply personal. And that is where this particular case just gets so complicated.
00:02:53
Speaker 1: And Robes, these are human beings.
00:02:56
Speaker 2: They are.
00:02:56
Speaker 1: And right now they're exhausted. And they have looked at more of this stuff and listened to more of it than anybody has. And we've listened to almost all of it. And they still, Robes, they take this home with them at night. So at this hour, so help me, Robes, this just happened within minutes of us hopping on and recording. They gave them this Tui Rodriguez charge, sent them back in. At that point, Robes, they had finished lunch. They came out. So what's the total number, do we think, at this point of jury deliberation?
00:03:25
Speaker 2: I believe they have deliberated just over 27 hours, if my math is correct. If they started the day right at about 23, which is what I think most news outlets were reporting, they deliberated again basically from 9 to 1, took a lunch, came back. So we're looking at around 27 hours. That is, Robes....
00:03:46
Speaker 1: And we've been watching coverage. Thank you, Boston 25 News, for your live feed, Court TV, AP live feed, all of you all. We've been watching all of you. Law and crime, we've got feeds up everywhere in the house.
00:04:00
Speaker 2: We really do. We have TVs in every room because we love movies. We love news. We love to consume all of that. So, yes, there was a point where I was laughing as I'm walking through the apartment. Every single room has the jury feed. from a different organization up on the screen.
00:04:20
Speaker 1: The state seal for Massachusetts has been playing very prominently in this house.
00:04:24
Speaker 2: It's going to burn on our TV screen. You know when you have too much of one thing just standing there, like you can actually see it? We might have a Massachusetts court seal burned on our LED screens.
00:04:36
Speaker 1: So we've been keeping a close eye here. So the court TV, I was going to say, one of the feeds we've been watching, their reporters inside said immediately, that when this news was given to the jury, that they looked frustrated, visibly frustrated as to what they're reporting. That would make sense. But that at least was the observation from the court TV folks.
00:04:59
Speaker 2: I wish we just knew what the split was. Is it 6-6? Is it 8-4? Is it 10-2? You know, how close are they? And are there just people who are digging their heels in, and it's only a handful, but they're refusing to budge.
00:05:16
Speaker 1: And it could be one, baby.
00:05:17
Speaker 2: And it could be one. They're not allowed, correct, to give any indication to the judge about how far apart they are or how divided they are?
00:05:27
Speaker 1: Yes, they are, because I've seen notes before, haven't we, babe? I've seen notes where one individual is called out for their behavior in the room. So, yes, they've identified. Now, could they come out and say, George, oh, George, Judge, we're at 10 to 2 and got these two idiots. We're never going to be able to. Will he have to read that in court? Is that illegal for us to know the split? I'm thinking about picking a new pope. If there was a way to do it like the conclave and just give us some smoke to let us know. We just took a vote. And this color means this. I just would love to know what's happening.
00:06:03
Speaker 2: I would so appreciate that. That would be so helpful. And I just feel like for all parties involved, wouldn't it be good to know? And if I were a juror in that room, I would want people to know on the outside how far apart we were or how close we were so they could just give me some breathing room. Here's where we are, people. Leave us alone. I would actually want the information to go out so I would feel less pressure. But maybe that's just me.
00:06:28
Speaker 1: Maybe it could be 6-6 in there.
00:06:29
Speaker 2: It could be. I'm telling you, go look at our comments. It's jaw-dropping. It's pretty much 50-50.
00:06:37
Speaker 1: Wow.
00:06:38
Speaker 2: Because I was looking to see if there was any consensus. I was like, wow, it's like every other one. Guilty. Not guilty. Guilty. I can't believe you think she shouldn't serve time. I wouldn't consider manslaughter because that means the judge, and I think the judge is good friends with Kevin Reddington, and I think the judge won't give her any time. So therefore, I would never vote for manslaughter. I mean, I am literally seeing this comment after comment after comment.
00:07:01
Speaker 1: You read more stuff than I do, so I'll ask you just a general idea if you have one. But it sounds like what you're describing is you're either all this or all that. That's not really a manslaughter or in-between compromise crowd.
00:07:16
Speaker 2: I haven't seen people.
00:07:17
Speaker 1: It's just she needs to get off because of insanity or she needs first degree.
00:07:21
Speaker 2: Yes, and the people who have railed against manslaughter, more than one person has pointed to the fact that they feel like the judge is on the defense's side and wouldn't give her any jail time. And that's why they couldn't be on board with manslaughter because they truly believe she needs to go to prison. That's the problem.
00:07:42
Speaker 1: It's so interesting. There's no room for compromise. There's no middle to us. We're just absolute. There is a world, Robes, where she comes just short of being criminally, fully criminally responsible. But she did have some help. Would she have ever killed her kids, babe, if she wasn't mentally ill.
00:08:03
Speaker 2: No.
00:08:04
Speaker 1: Okay, no.
00:08:04
Speaker 2: I feel very strongly and I feel there are people who are online though who say she had borderline personality disorder and all she cared about was herself. Like people are diagnosing her from their armchairs and saying she's actually evil. So I don't think you can convince people otherwise. And there could be people who feel the same way on that jury.
00:08:25
Speaker 1: We'll do this tomorrow if this thing still goes. Maybe we should do that, babe. You take one position, I'll take one. And if somebody, and we'll just pretend, you're somebody that's in the camp of absolutely never will I vote to convict this woman of anything. And it's my job to try to convince you out of that. What will I say to someone? And then do it on the flip side. I don't even know where to start. If somebody was looking at me and saying, no way, I would say, okay. listen to this, this, this, this, and this, and it might change your mind.
00:09:01
Speaker 2: I don't think a man could convince a woman who's had a baby who feels strongly based on personal experience.
00:09:07
Speaker 1: Of anything, actually.
00:09:08
Speaker 2: I don't think so. And I think you might agree.
00:09:12
Speaker 1: You just named all the types of women dudes know not to mess with.
00:09:17
Speaker 2: So yeah, I do. I find it fascinating because I think what we're seeing in the outside world is exactly what's likely playing out inside that deliberation room.
00:09:27
Speaker 1: Jesus Christ, many robes. Well, folks, we mentioned this Allen charge. Again, if you've watched any trials over the years, you've heard that. But the Allen charge is called the Tui Rodriguez charge in Massachusetts. So stay here. If you thought they were frustrated and confused and not sure what to do before, we're going to tell you and give you some of the exact language from this Tui Rodriguez charge and see if you can figure out what they're supposed to do now.
00:10:03
Speaker 2: Welcome back everyone to Amy and TJ. We have some of the exact language that the judge just read aloud to these jurors who have now spent 27 hours and counting frustrated as hell i think that's safe to assume based on the looks on their faces according to reporters and just the mere fact that they have spent that much time in a room where they cannot agree on what to do that is like a version of hell i think for most people it's hard enough you and i get into an argument it's just one-on-one and I can't make you see things my way, and you can't make me see things your way. We've had those problems. I think every couple has. And how emotionally exhausted are you after just a 30-minute frustrating conversation where we cannot get each other to understand each other?
00:10:55
Speaker 1: See, I thought you went too far when you said it sounded like a form of hell. And then I considered the size of the room that you and I, the studio, we're currently sitting in, and then I imagined... closing that door behind you, and sitting in here for 28 hours arguing with you.
00:11:13
Speaker 2: Yes, and me trying to convince you to see things my way.
00:11:17
Speaker 1: And vice versa.
00:11:17
Speaker 2: And you trying to convince me to see things your way.
00:11:19
Speaker 1: 28 hours in this room of doing that.
00:11:21
Speaker 2: I don't think we last more than 45 minutes in a heavy discussion and we need a break.
00:11:25
Speaker 1: 28 hours.
00:11:26
Speaker 2: And now you've got strangers who you have nothing invested. You want to probably throw pie in their face because you're so frustrated. You don't have an incentive to... to try and figure it out or to work together because you don't care about the other people. And probably at this point, half of them never want to see each other's faces again. That's my guess. I'm like trying to imagine. Think about conflict.
00:11:47
Speaker 1: You sound like you're frustrated.
00:11:48
Speaker 2: Well, I'm frustrated for them because I just know how hard conflict is. And especially when you care so deeply, obviously they do because they've sat in that courtroom for so long and they so badly want to be carriers of justice. They want to be a part of the process that actually ends with a verdict. So I feel like that it is a version of hell.
00:12:11
Speaker 1: Well, folks, and again, we've been talking about this charge, right? This Tui Rodriguez charge, Allen charge, aka. But they don't know a lot about it. They don't know the law, and this instruction is going to come from them, from the judge. So they don't know this whole backstory and a little history, and most Americans don't know it. And he comes out, Robes, and he doesn't say, what I'm going to do now is read this thing. And what it's for is they have this in place in case jurors ever get deadlocked.
00:12:41
Speaker 2: No, no, no, no.
00:12:42
Speaker 1: He says, understand you're deadlocked. So what I'm going to do now is I'm going to give you this instruction. He just starts reading it. And Robes, as you're listening to it, they have a copy of it. But as you listen, you're trying to piece together what exactly it is they're trying to instruct you to do. So here are some of the main parts, and this is verbatim really what he read to them in the court today.
00:13:04
Speaker 2: You must examine the issues. You have to decide with candor and with a proper regard and respect for each other's opinions. You should consider that it is desirable that the case be decided. You should consider... that you have been selected in the same manner and from the same source as any future jury would be. There is no reason to suppose that the case will ever be submitted to 12 persons who are more intelligent, more impartial, or more competent to decide it than you are, or that more or clearer evidence will be produced on one side or the other. With all of this in mind, it is your duty to decide this case if you can do so conscientiously. Is that it?
00:13:50
Speaker 1: Pretty clear?
00:13:51
Speaker 2: Yeah, because I think maybe it might be human nature to think, man, let some other jury take this because maybe they'll have more reasonable people. Maybe they'll have smarter people. And maybe if we let it go and they retry it, they'll have better evidence or better experts. I actually think that is a helpful thing to remind the jury not to consider when they're ready to throw in the towel.
00:14:14
Speaker 1: All right, and it goes on.
00:14:16
Speaker 2: If you are left in doubt as to any essential element... The defendant is entitled to the benefit of that doubt and must be acquitted. In conferring together, you ought to give proper respect to each other's opinions and listen with an open mind to each other's arguments. Where there is disagreement, those jurors who are for acquittal should consider whether a doubt in their own mind is a reasonable one. Right. ought seriously to ask themselves whether they may not reasonably doubt the correctness of their judgment if it is not shared by other members of the jury. They should ask themselves whether they should distrust the weight or adequacy of the evidence if it has failed to convince the minds of their fellow jurors.
00:15:19
Speaker 1: You might be wrong. Aren't they saying you might be the outsider?
00:15:23
Speaker 2: And I think part of the problem is, though, they're asking you to operate on this premise that the people who you're disagreeing with are as smart as you are. And I just don't think most people are going to be able to do that. Because when you think you're right, you think someone else is an idiot. So I do appreciate that they're saying, imagine that that person is as smart as you are. And now try to operate with that idea in your head, because I'm sure... We all think, what an idiot. How could they possibly think that?
00:15:51
Speaker 1: They just don't know.
00:15:52
Speaker 2: They're just ignorant. That's what we do. We probably do that when we disagree with someone. Instead of being willing, we dismiss them because we think they're less than or don't have. They just don't understand.
00:16:05
Speaker 1: They don't get it.
00:16:06
Speaker 2: So I think the charge actually is really quite good, but I just wonder how effective it is. I don't know. Obviously, it's in place or it exists because it has worked in the past. And I guess it's fair we can hope that it could work again now, but I don't know.
00:16:26
Speaker 1: The part here, Robes, it's blatant. I wish they would just say it. But if you are for acquittal, you should consider whether a doubt in your mind is reasonable if it's making no impression on the minds of your other jurors. Like the thing you're thinking is reasonable. You're sitting over in the corner by yourself with this reasonable doubt with the other 11. Why aren't they flinching at the same thing you're flinching at? This is why it's so controversial. It's almost giving you the okay or the pressure. There's some fine line here. I'm not making some legal argument, but it is quite controversial giving jurors this instruction because it'd be controversial. Who knows what the count is?
00:17:07
Speaker 2: Yeah, we don't know what the count is, so it's hard to know.
00:17:10
Speaker 1: But what if she's one away from being convicted or one away from being acquitted and this charge now pushes that one over the top? Is that fair? Is that okay? If she had an advocate in there for her that was going to keep her out of prison, that ends up getting convinced by this Allen charge.
00:17:24
Speaker 2: But the alternative is that it's a hung jury and then there is no outcome and she ends up just staying right where she is.
00:17:30
Speaker 1: For life in prison is the other option. Oh, right. Correct.
00:17:34
Speaker 2: But no, what I'm saying is a mistrial results in things staying the same. Well, yes, they may retry it. Yes, they may negotiate. But until those decisions are made and another jury gets to look at it or they negotiate between, like you're basically essentially just keeping things as is.
00:17:52
Speaker 1: But I'm saying you're keeping, but by having, but it's making, it's changing the outcome of a trial. It's changing the outcome potentially. I'm just pointing out the reason why I'm not taking this particular case. Yes, Robes, if you're one away from a conviction or whatever else, if justice is that close and this pushes this over the edge one way or another, is that fair?
00:18:14
Speaker 2: And also, I understand why it's controversial on its face, but I also understand why it's necessary. And I just feel like I don't think it's ever a bad thing to have anyone in any discussion or argument or conflict to actually take a moment and truly ask yourself, what am I basing this on? Am I basing this on something inside of me, an emotion I have inside of me, an experience I'm looking at it through? Is there a way in which I can remove myself from my personal lens and actually look at it from the other perspective? I don't ever think that's a bad thing in any conversation, in any conflict. So I do think that Look, if it gets them to find a way to reach a consensus, amen. But it's just hard to know.
00:19:08
Speaker 1: How it makes an impression, I just, I got no problem with it. I just, I can see why. I can see why. And you don't know the breakup. You don't know the racial breakup. You don't know the economic disparities in there to where who is.
00:19:24
Speaker 2: Yes, the prosecution played on the fact that she had all means... available to her. She was a woman of means. She was a woman who went to a country club. She was a woman who ordered takeout. She was a woman who didn't have to work. She was a woman who had a nanny. Yeah, they did a good job of potentially pitting people against her.
00:19:42
Speaker 1: I never thought about the things that attorneys think about with a charge like this. I never think that.
00:19:49
Speaker 2: Democrats.
00:19:50
Speaker 1: can play a role because who's in charge in there? If the dynamics on the outside play out in there, then who will feel like they're not in as strong of a position? Who will feel like they can speak up? Who thinks they need to go along with the group? Who could feel intimidated even in that room? This stuff... We're now at this. It's now come to this, Robes. What's the count again? I keep asking you about the hours.
00:20:12
Speaker 2: I think we're 27 going to 28. Look, if they go like yesterday, I don't know. They just got the 2E Rodriguez charge at 2-ish Eastern time.
00:20:24
Speaker 1: 2.30 Eastern time.
00:20:27
Speaker 2: So they've been deliberating for another 30 minutes to say they're getting close to 28 hours. But how much longer are they going to go today?
00:20:33
Speaker 1: They've been going until 4 every day.
00:20:35
Speaker 2: That's supposed to be it.
00:20:37
Speaker 1: 3.30, 3.45.
00:20:37
Speaker 2: And so, look, are they only going to go for another hour and a half after that TUI charge and then come back again tomorrow morning? My God.
00:20:45
Speaker 1: Before day six. Folks, stay close. We've done about three episodes today. We didn't expect it. Because of what's happening with this jury. So we are keeping a very close eye on all those feeds. Thank you to all those networks and all those reporters in there who are keeping us informed. We thank you so we can keep our audience informed. So, folks, we appreciate you staying with us. We'll talk to you soon.
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. It is Wednesday, September 2nd, and we have another breaking update in the Lindsay Clancy triple murder trial. The jury has sent another note. It was the same as the last one. We are deadlocked. And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. Robes, they're deadlocked. He did send them back just like he did last time, but this time, Robes, he did what we have been talking about for days he might do.
00:00:27
Speaker 2: That's right. This is basically his last resort, so to speak. And it's called in the state of Massachusetts, the Tui Rodriguez charge, which is an official way to encourage the jury to reevaluate individually where they stand and to consider where their fellow jurors are and see if there is a bridge.
00:00:51
Speaker 1: Okay, so what's the nickname? I forgot the nickname again.
00:00:54
Speaker 2: The dynamite?
00:00:55
Speaker 1: The dynamite charge is what they call this. In other places, in most places, you hear it referred to often as the Allen charge, but this is what they call it in their state. Robes, it is controversial because it can be seen as essentially telling the jury, go back in there and be open to changing your mind.
00:01:10
Speaker 2: Right, but the alternative is to... Declare a mistrial to force the prosecution to decide whether or not to retry the case and then to bring back all the witnesses, all the experts, find a new jury. Not only is expensive and time consuming, but this one especially is just so emotionally weighted. The idea of it is just, yeah, it's emotionally heavy. overwhelming to even consider.
00:01:41
Speaker 1: Nobody wants to run this back. So it's in everybody's interest here. And you want to make sure that the jury has, there's value to their time. There is a result here. Robes, this is looking more and more likely. I mean, Robes, I guess it's possible, but we've been listening to the debate on the outside and we just assume, Robes, they don't have to be watching coverage. These people walked into that jury room with a variety of experiences, just like the rest of the country, that's informing their opinion about this case. This is probably the only likely outcome, baby, is a mistrial.
00:02:16
Speaker 2: Right. I mean, I keep looking, even just an hour or so ago, I keep looking at the comments on some of our episodes, and truly people are split down the middle. And they're very much on their side of things. Like, they're absolute. It's not... I can see what you're saying. And I thought this, but after listening to your episode, now I think this. No, no, no, no, no. The comments are resolute. People have formed opinions and they're unwilling to change them because they're rooted in something deeply personal. And that is where this particular case just gets so complicated.
00:02:53
Speaker 1: And Robes, these are human beings.
00:02:56
Speaker 2: They are.
00:02:56
Speaker 1: And right now they're exhausted. And they have looked at more of this stuff and listened to more of it than anybody has. And we've listened to almost all of it. And they still, Robes, they take this home with them at night. So at this hour, so help me, Robes, this just happened within minutes of us hopping on and recording. They gave them this Tui Rodriguez charge, sent them back in. At that point, Robes, they had finished lunch. They came out. So what's the total number, do we think, at this point of jury deliberation?
00:03:25
Speaker 2: I believe they have deliberated just over 27 hours, if my math is correct. If they started the day right at about 23, which is what I think most news outlets were reporting, they deliberated again basically from 9 to 1, took a lunch, came back. So we're looking at around 27 hours. That is, Robes....
00:03:46
Speaker 1: And we've been watching coverage. Thank you, Boston 25 News, for your live feed, Court TV, AP live feed, all of you all. We've been watching all of you. Law and crime, we've got feeds up everywhere in the house.
00:04:00
Speaker 2: We really do. We have TVs in every room because we love movies. We love news. We love to consume all of that. So, yes, there was a point where I was laughing as I'm walking through the apartment. Every single room has the jury feed. from a different organization up on the screen.
00:04:20
Speaker 1: The state seal for Massachusetts has been playing very prominently in this house.
00:04:24
Speaker 2: It's going to burn on our TV screen. You know when you have too much of one thing just standing there, like you can actually see it? We might have a Massachusetts court seal burned on our LED screens.
00:04:36
Speaker 1: So we've been keeping a close eye here. So the court TV, I was going to say, one of the feeds we've been watching, their reporters inside said immediately, that when this news was given to the jury, that they looked frustrated, visibly frustrated as to what they're reporting. That would make sense. But that at least was the observation from the court TV folks.
00:04:59
Speaker 2: I wish we just knew what the split was. Is it 6-6? Is it 8-4? Is it 10-2? You know, how close are they? And are there just people who are digging their heels in, and it's only a handful, but they're refusing to budge.
00:05:16
Speaker 1: And it could be one, baby.
00:05:17
Speaker 2: And it could be one. They're not allowed, correct, to give any indication to the judge about how far apart they are or how divided they are?
00:05:27
Speaker 1: Yes, they are, because I've seen notes before, haven't we, babe? I've seen notes where one individual is called out for their behavior in the room. So, yes, they've identified. Now, could they come out and say, George, oh, George, Judge, we're at 10 to 2 and got these two idiots. We're never going to be able to. Will he have to read that in court? Is that illegal for us to know the split? I'm thinking about picking a new pope. If there was a way to do it like the conclave and just give us some smoke to let us know. We just took a vote. And this color means this. I just would love to know what's happening.
00:06:03
Speaker 2: I would so appreciate that. That would be so helpful. And I just feel like for all parties involved, wouldn't it be good to know? And if I were a juror in that room, I would want people to know on the outside how far apart we were or how close we were so they could just give me some breathing room. Here's where we are, people. Leave us alone. I would actually want the information to go out so I would feel less pressure. But maybe that's just me.
00:06:28
Speaker 1: Maybe it could be 6-6 in there.
00:06:29
Speaker 2: It could be. I'm telling you, go look at our comments. It's jaw-dropping. It's pretty much 50-50.
00:06:37
Speaker 1: Wow.
00:06:38
Speaker 2: Because I was looking to see if there was any consensus. I was like, wow, it's like every other one. Guilty. Not guilty. Guilty. I can't believe you think she shouldn't serve time. I wouldn't consider manslaughter because that means the judge, and I think the judge is good friends with Kevin Reddington, and I think the judge won't give her any time. So therefore, I would never vote for manslaughter. I mean, I am literally seeing this comment after comment after comment.
00:07:01
Speaker 1: You read more stuff than I do, so I'll ask you just a general idea if you have one. But it sounds like what you're describing is you're either all this or all that. That's not really a manslaughter or in-between compromise crowd.
00:07:16
Speaker 2: I haven't seen people.
00:07:17
Speaker 1: It's just she needs to get off because of insanity or she needs first degree.
00:07:21
Speaker 2: Yes, and the people who have railed against manslaughter, more than one person has pointed to the fact that they feel like the judge is on the defense's side and wouldn't give her any jail time. And that's why they couldn't be on board with manslaughter because they truly believe she needs to go to prison. That's the problem.
00:07:42
Speaker 1: It's so interesting. There's no room for compromise. There's no middle to us. We're just absolute. There is a world, Robes, where she comes just short of being criminally, fully criminally responsible. But she did have some help. Would she have ever killed her kids, babe, if she wasn't mentally ill.
00:08:03
Speaker 2: No.
00:08:04
Speaker 1: Okay, no.
00:08:04
Speaker 2: I feel very strongly and I feel there are people who are online though who say she had borderline personality disorder and all she cared about was herself. Like people are diagnosing her from their armchairs and saying she's actually evil. So I don't think you can convince people otherwise. And there could be people who feel the same way on that jury.
00:08:25
Speaker 1: We'll do this tomorrow if this thing still goes. Maybe we should do that, babe. You take one position, I'll take one. And if somebody, and we'll just pretend, you're somebody that's in the camp of absolutely never will I vote to convict this woman of anything. And it's my job to try to convince you out of that. What will I say to someone? And then do it on the flip side. I don't even know where to start. If somebody was looking at me and saying, no way, I would say, okay. listen to this, this, this, this, and this, and it might change your mind.
00:09:01
Speaker 2: I don't think a man could convince a woman who's had a baby who feels strongly based on personal experience.
00:09:07
Speaker 1: Of anything, actually.
00:09:08
Speaker 2: I don't think so. And I think you might agree.
00:09:12
Speaker 1: You just named all the types of women dudes know not to mess with.
00:09:17
Speaker 2: So yeah, I do. I find it fascinating because I think what we're seeing in the outside world is exactly what's likely playing out inside that deliberation room.
00:09:27
Speaker 1: Jesus Christ, many robes. Well, folks, we mentioned this Allen charge. Again, if you've watched any trials over the years, you've heard that. But the Allen charge is called the Tui Rodriguez charge in Massachusetts. So stay here. If you thought they were frustrated and confused and not sure what to do before, we're going to tell you and give you some of the exact language from this Tui Rodriguez charge and see if you can figure out what they're supposed to do now.
00:10:03
Speaker 2: Welcome back everyone to Amy and TJ. We have some of the exact language that the judge just read aloud to these jurors who have now spent 27 hours and counting frustrated as hell i think that's safe to assume based on the looks on their faces according to reporters and just the mere fact that they have spent that much time in a room where they cannot agree on what to do that is like a version of hell i think for most people it's hard enough you and i get into an argument it's just one-on-one and I can't make you see things my way, and you can't make me see things your way. We've had those problems. I think every couple has. And how emotionally exhausted are you after just a 30-minute frustrating conversation where we cannot get each other to understand each other?
00:10:55
Speaker 1: See, I thought you went too far when you said it sounded like a form of hell. And then I considered the size of the room that you and I, the studio, we're currently sitting in, and then I imagined... closing that door behind you, and sitting in here for 28 hours arguing with you.
00:11:13
Speaker 2: Yes, and me trying to convince you to see things my way.
00:11:17
Speaker 1: And vice versa.
00:11:17
Speaker 2: And you trying to convince me to see things your way.
00:11:19
Speaker 1: 28 hours in this room of doing that.
00:11:21
Speaker 2: I don't think we last more than 45 minutes in a heavy discussion and we need a break.
00:11:25
Speaker 1: 28 hours.
00:11:26
Speaker 2: And now you've got strangers who you have nothing invested. You want to probably throw pie in their face because you're so frustrated. You don't have an incentive to... to try and figure it out or to work together because you don't care about the other people. And probably at this point, half of them never want to see each other's faces again. That's my guess. I'm like trying to imagine. Think about conflict.
00:11:47
Speaker 1: You sound like you're frustrated.
00:11:48
Speaker 2: Well, I'm frustrated for them because I just know how hard conflict is. And especially when you care so deeply, obviously they do because they've sat in that courtroom for so long and they so badly want to be carriers of justice. They want to be a part of the process that actually ends with a verdict. So I feel like that it is a version of hell.
00:12:11
Speaker 1: Well, folks, and again, we've been talking about this charge, right? This Tui Rodriguez charge, Allen charge, aka. But they don't know a lot about it. They don't know the law, and this instruction is going to come from them, from the judge. So they don't know this whole backstory and a little history, and most Americans don't know it. And he comes out, Robes, and he doesn't say, what I'm going to do now is read this thing. And what it's for is they have this in place in case jurors ever get deadlocked.
00:12:41
Speaker 2: No, no, no, no.
00:12:42
Speaker 1: He says, understand you're deadlocked. So what I'm going to do now is I'm going to give you this instruction. He just starts reading it. And Robes, as you're listening to it, they have a copy of it. But as you listen, you're trying to piece together what exactly it is they're trying to instruct you to do. So here are some of the main parts, and this is verbatim really what he read to them in the court today.
00:13:04
Speaker 2: You must examine the issues. You have to decide with candor and with a proper regard and respect for each other's opinions. You should consider that it is desirable that the case be decided. You should consider... that you have been selected in the same manner and from the same source as any future jury would be. There is no reason to suppose that the case will ever be submitted to 12 persons who are more intelligent, more impartial, or more competent to decide it than you are, or that more or clearer evidence will be produced on one side or the other. With all of this in mind, it is your duty to decide this case if you can do so conscientiously. Is that it?
00:13:50
Speaker 1: Pretty clear?
00:13:51
Speaker 2: Yeah, because I think maybe it might be human nature to think, man, let some other jury take this because maybe they'll have more reasonable people. Maybe they'll have smarter people. And maybe if we let it go and they retry it, they'll have better evidence or better experts. I actually think that is a helpful thing to remind the jury not to consider when they're ready to throw in the towel.
00:14:14
Speaker 1: All right, and it goes on.
00:14:16
Speaker 2: If you are left in doubt as to any essential element... The defendant is entitled to the benefit of that doubt and must be acquitted. In conferring together, you ought to give proper respect to each other's opinions and listen with an open mind to each other's arguments. Where there is disagreement, those jurors who are for acquittal should consider whether a doubt in their own mind is a reasonable one. Right. ought seriously to ask themselves whether they may not reasonably doubt the correctness of their judgment if it is not shared by other members of the jury. They should ask themselves whether they should distrust the weight or adequacy of the evidence if it has failed to convince the minds of their fellow jurors.
00:15:19
Speaker 1: You might be wrong. Aren't they saying you might be the outsider?
00:15:23
Speaker 2: And I think part of the problem is, though, they're asking you to operate on this premise that the people who you're disagreeing with are as smart as you are. And I just don't think most people are going to be able to do that. Because when you think you're right, you think someone else is an idiot. So I do appreciate that they're saying, imagine that that person is as smart as you are. And now try to operate with that idea in your head, because I'm sure... We all think, what an idiot. How could they possibly think that?
00:15:51
Speaker 1: They just don't know.
00:15:52
Speaker 2: They're just ignorant. That's what we do. We probably do that when we disagree with someone. Instead of being willing, we dismiss them because we think they're less than or don't have. They just don't understand.
00:16:05
Speaker 1: They don't get it.
00:16:06
Speaker 2: So I think the charge actually is really quite good, but I just wonder how effective it is. I don't know. Obviously, it's in place or it exists because it has worked in the past. And I guess it's fair we can hope that it could work again now, but I don't know.
00:16:26
Speaker 1: The part here, Robes, it's blatant. I wish they would just say it. But if you are for acquittal, you should consider whether a doubt in your mind is reasonable if it's making no impression on the minds of your other jurors. Like the thing you're thinking is reasonable. You're sitting over in the corner by yourself with this reasonable doubt with the other 11. Why aren't they flinching at the same thing you're flinching at? This is why it's so controversial. It's almost giving you the okay or the pressure. There's some fine line here. I'm not making some legal argument, but it is quite controversial giving jurors this instruction because it'd be controversial. Who knows what the count is?
00:17:07
Speaker 2: Yeah, we don't know what the count is, so it's hard to know.
00:17:10
Speaker 1: But what if she's one away from being convicted or one away from being acquitted and this charge now pushes that one over the top? Is that fair? Is that okay? If she had an advocate in there for her that was going to keep her out of prison, that ends up getting convinced by this Allen charge.
00:17:24
Speaker 2: But the alternative is that it's a hung jury and then there is no outcome and she ends up just staying right where she is.
00:17:30
Speaker 1: For life in prison is the other option. Oh, right. Correct.
00:17:34
Speaker 2: But no, what I'm saying is a mistrial results in things staying the same. Well, yes, they may retry it. Yes, they may negotiate. But until those decisions are made and another jury gets to look at it or they negotiate between, like you're basically essentially just keeping things as is.
00:17:52
Speaker 1: But I'm saying you're keeping, but by having, but it's making, it's changing the outcome of a trial. It's changing the outcome potentially. I'm just pointing out the reason why I'm not taking this particular case. Yes, Robes, if you're one away from a conviction or whatever else, if justice is that close and this pushes this over the edge one way or another, is that fair?
00:18:14
Speaker 2: And also, I understand why it's controversial on its face, but I also understand why it's necessary. And I just feel like I don't think it's ever a bad thing to have anyone in any discussion or argument or conflict to actually take a moment and truly ask yourself, what am I basing this on? Am I basing this on something inside of me, an emotion I have inside of me, an experience I'm looking at it through? Is there a way in which I can remove myself from my personal lens and actually look at it from the other perspective? I don't ever think that's a bad thing in any conversation, in any conflict. So I do think that Look, if it gets them to find a way to reach a consensus, amen. But it's just hard to know.
00:19:08
Speaker 1: How it makes an impression, I just, I got no problem with it. I just, I can see why. I can see why. And you don't know the breakup. You don't know the racial breakup. You don't know the economic disparities in there to where who is.
00:19:24
Speaker 2: Yes, the prosecution played on the fact that she had all means... available to her. She was a woman of means. She was a woman who went to a country club. She was a woman who ordered takeout. She was a woman who didn't have to work. She was a woman who had a nanny. Yeah, they did a good job of potentially pitting people against her.
00:19:42
Speaker 1: I never thought about the things that attorneys think about with a charge like this. I never think that.
00:19:49
Speaker 2: Democrats.
00:19:50
Speaker 1: can play a role because who's in charge in there? If the dynamics on the outside play out in there, then who will feel like they're not in as strong of a position? Who will feel like they can speak up? Who thinks they need to go along with the group? Who could feel intimidated even in that room? This stuff... We're now at this. It's now come to this, Robes. What's the count again? I keep asking you about the hours.
00:20:12
Speaker 2: I think we're 27 going to 28. Look, if they go like yesterday, I don't know. They just got the 2E Rodriguez charge at 2-ish Eastern time.
00:20:24
Speaker 1: 2.30 Eastern time.
00:20:27
Speaker 2: So they've been deliberating for another 30 minutes to say they're getting close to 28 hours. But how much longer are they going to go today?
00:20:33
Speaker 1: They've been going until 4 every day.
00:20:35
Speaker 2: That's supposed to be it.
00:20:37
Speaker 1: 3.30, 3.45.
00:20:37
Speaker 2: And so, look, are they only going to go for another hour and a half after that TUI charge and then come back again tomorrow morning? My God.
00:20:45
Speaker 1: Before day six. Folks, stay close. We've done about three episodes today. We didn't expect it. Because of what's happening with this jury. So we are keeping a very close eye on all those feeds. Thank you to all those networks and all those reporters in there who are keeping us informed. We thank you so we can keep our audience informed. So, folks, we appreciate you staying with us. We'll talk to you soon.