Nov. 2, 2026
UPDATE: Lindsay Clancy Hearing Ends After Three Heated Hours With NO Answers
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed Fiery and frustrated Lindsay Clancy defense attorney, Kevin Reddington asked the judge today: “Why do we not know if the next trial is going to be murder in the first degree or a lesser charge or no charge?” It’s a question many are asking and the hope is it will be answered two weeks from today, when the judge claims he will rule on several motions and the prosecution will land on it’s next steps. There was also a concern presented by the defense, pushing for a spring retrial of Lindsay Clancy, to ensure Judge William Sullivan can see this case to the end, before he might retire.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:02
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks.
00:00:02
Speaker 2: It is Monday, November 2nd, and same old story, same old song, same old Kevin Reddington in today's much-awaited Lindsay Clancy Hearing.
00:00:14
Speaker 1: And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ.
00:00:17
Speaker 2: I say same old, same old, Rose, because same old kick in the can, down the road, we didn't get a whole lot of answers, and we saw Kevin Reddington be Kevin Reddington.
00:00:26
Speaker 3: Yes, this hearing has been described as a heated, nearly three-hour session of nothing. Basically, there were no rulings.
00:00:36
Speaker 1: Hey, who did that? That was pretty good.
00:00:37
Speaker 3: No decisions. That was my synopsis of all the different.
00:00:41
Speaker 1: Headlines I saw.
00:00:43
Speaker 3: Yeah, because, yeah, things got a little loud, a little contentious, and yet what actually happened?
00:00:52
Speaker 1: What was supposed to happen, right, Robes?
00:00:54
Speaker 2: We went into this thinking we were going to get the answers to some very big questions. A motion on whether or not to dismiss the case. A motion on whether... Oh, yeah, a decision on when a new trial was going to come. We certainly thought we were going to get that. What answer, tell me please, dear lady, did we get today? Answer to something.
00:01:13
Speaker 3: The answer was, we'll let you know in two weeks. Nice. About all of the above. And yes, I think the big, obviously, the big question... most folks were hoping to have answered was whether or not the prosecution was going to seek a new trial and if they were seeking a new trial, what specific charges Lindsay Clancy would be facing. Now, the way it's been phrased, prosecutors have indicated that they will seek to retry Clancy, but without any specifics. We don't know what the new trial will look like. We don't know what charges she may be facing. We don't know when this supposed trial may take place. We don't know pretty much anything.
00:02:02
Speaker 1: Okay.
00:02:02
Speaker 2: Do we, is your understanding that the judge, he gave one ruling actually before this, uh, date to date about the juror, the holdout juror gave it ahead of time before today's hearing. Is it possible that, that we will get anything from him before this next scheduled hearing, or we really can expect this time, don't expect anything until the 16th.
00:02:24
Speaker 3: The way it was left, it seems as though we will have to wait until November 16th before we hear anything specific about what happens next. But we did hear, and look, we listened to a large portion of this. And Kevin Reddington, we know he's abrasive. We know he is, some might say, obnoxious. There's a lot of.
00:02:46
Speaker 1: Arrogant, rude, a lot of stuff they've been dealing with. Yes.
00:02:48
Speaker 3: But he was kind of extra on all of the above today.
00:02:51
Speaker 1: Yeah, he was, baby.
00:02:53
Speaker 2: I didn't... There are times he seemed to be abrasive on behalf of his client, for the sake of his client, fighting for his client. This felt like he was fighting personalities, fighting people, fighting egos, like you said, Robe. This felt different today. He was flat-out rude to the judge, to the point that if the judge held him in contempt, I would have said, okay, that was well-deserved. Robes, he was combative. The judge at one point said, let me stop you right there. And he tells the judge, no, you're not, and continues to talk over the judge. Judge says, yes, I'm going to stop you because, no, I'm not going to stop. He went, Robes, it wasn't abrasive today. It wasn't for his client today.
00:03:31
Speaker 1: It was rude today.
00:03:32
Speaker 3: Disrespectful.
00:03:33
Speaker 1: It was disrespectful to the hearing. Yes, that's a good way to put it.
00:03:37
Speaker 3: Look, it's been noted throughout this that there is obviouslyâ a relationship between Kevin Reddington and the judge that goes back for years because no other way would a defense attorney get away with the dynamic that is clearly going on between the judge and Kevin Reddington unless they had history, they had some sort of shared respect or trust that the other was doing what they needed to do And there were no hard feelings. I have to think that that's the case because Kevin Reddington feels so comfortable in being what seems or sounds to those of us from the outside looking in to be wildly disrespectful and inappropriate. And yet somehow it doesn't seem to ruffle the judge's feathers that much, which is a little surprising.
00:04:32
Speaker 1: Maybe that's just the judge's temperament.
00:04:34
Speaker 2: He's kept his cool for the most part in all the weeks and weeks we have watched him.
00:04:37
Speaker 1: Today, I guess the first.
00:04:40
Speaker 2: argument on what was the first motion babe was it the um the double jeopardy one what was the first motion that kevin reddington didn't argue what was that.
00:04:48
Speaker 3: One uh well yes they were the other attorney.
00:04:51
Speaker 2: What was that the first guy that got up and made an argument it wasn't reddington it was somebody on the he brought in for his team to make the argument on one of the motions right what i'm saying is the thing started out rather very much legalese and boring It was people making their presentations, this guy from the defense, another attorney that was brought in to handle one particular part of it.
00:05:11
Speaker 3: He was brought in to discuss whether or not there should have been an investigation. They still are asking for an investigation. The judge had already denied a separate hearing on the holdout juror, but they were still advocating for an investigation into the juror lying on hisâ they claim lying on his juror formâ And wanting that investigation to continue as it pertains, yes, to their double jeopardy claim. Because their basis in this double jeopardy claim for their dismissal request is that the judge improperly decided that this juror didn't need to be held accountable or investigated further for misrepresenting himself on this juror questionnaire, basically.
00:06:00
Speaker 1: So, what I'm saying, they started out, Robes. We were... We were looking at it and going, wow, this is going to be a long, drawn-out, very boring hearing. Fine.
00:06:11
Speaker 2: But then they got through the first round, and the next round belonged to Kevin Reddington. And he got a robe and just went off. And he just went after the judge. He went after, he had to even be corrected at one point on how he was referring to the attorney. He was telling her what to do and how to talk and when to talk. And she wanted to go to a sidebar. He answered her, no, we're not going to do that.
00:06:35
Speaker 1: It was a little... How did you phrase it at the beginning?
00:06:38
Speaker 2: Even for him, it was a little much or went too far.
00:06:40
Speaker 1: Yeah. However you said it, babe, it was... It was a lot today.
00:06:43
Speaker 3: It was extra. I mean, there was a moment of levity where the judge was like the side bar instead of the side bar, because that's what they had been doing so often during the trial in their Boston accent. So he made a joke to kind of lean in on the are the side bar. That was the only time anybody was laughing because the rest of the time it was tense. I mean, Kevin Reddington. was visibly frustrated that the prosecutors would not get specific. They would not get specific on what charges that they planned to bring against Lindsay Clancy. And Kevin Reddington, I have a quote from him saying, why do we not know if the next trial is going to be murder in the first degree or Or a lesser charge? Or no charge? And yes, he was fiery today. But that was a question I agree. How do we not already know the answer to that yet?
00:07:45
Speaker 2: Why do they need to show their hand? Let the judge rule on whether or not something can go forward. What's the point if he's going to say this mistrial or grant a motion for all this? Okay, we'll wait until you're done and then we'll get our ducks in a row.
00:07:58
Speaker 3: Yeah, why are we arguing? I agree on this. on this point with kevin reddington why are we arguing over a trial date or whether or not we should set when now the judge wanted to set a trial date true back in september but why would we even set a trial date if we don't even know for sure whether or not the prosecution is moving forward with charges because they won't say i feel like that's.
00:08:23
Speaker 2: Bizarre did you get the sense that this judge is leaning one way or another.
00:08:28
Speaker 3: No, I feel like he's actually been, maybe that is the sign of a really good judge, or maybe he's led the, I don't know, I do feel like he's given a lot of leeway, a lot of rope to Kevin Reddington. It does seem a little chaotic. It doesn't feel like he's got his court under his, I don't want to say under his jurisdiction or under his authority, but under his timeline. He can't get them on his timeline. And it does seem like he's trying, but not quite hard enough. And so look, Kevin Reddington was also arguing to the judge for reduced charges as an alternative to dropping the charges altogether, because he's trying to get, look, I understand it from his perspective. He's trying to defend his client. He doesn't know what he's defending her against right now. He doesn't know what this new trial is actually going to be. So he's trying to say, okay, fine. We don't know what the charge is going to be. How about you reduce the charges as an alternative to dropping them? And then we can just get a bench trial instead of a jury trial. He's just like, I think the defense is looking for a way forward and the prosecution is just not offering it. At what point do they have to force the prosecution's hand?
00:09:44
Speaker 2: Why is my argument? What do they have to reveal? Because at this point, We aren't done with the first trial, so why should they make a move about a second one?
00:09:58
Speaker 3: Right?
00:09:58
Speaker 2: Kevin Reddington is the one. keeping the first trial alive by I want you to go after this juror. I want you to give me a mistrial. I want you to declare the double jeopardy. He's still we're still arguing over the first one.
00:10:11
Speaker 3: OK, so then that puts the onus on the judge. The judge needs to make these rulings first. on these motions that have been before the court for more than several, several, several weeks now. So why is the judge not ruling on any of this yet?
00:10:25
Speaker 2: Because I think this judge has been trying to be as lenient as he can to all sides. I'm trying to be, he's giving them grace for every, remember that last minute appeal? He gave them an hour to go appeal to the, right? He has been doing everything and bending over backwards. But why in God's name have you the prosecutor say, yeah, I'm going to try you for manslaughter. What is he going to do immediately, Kevin Reddington? Drop all the motions and then go attack manslaughter. Oh, I can deal with this. Let's negotiate this thing out. He's going to change strategy. So let's get past this.
00:10:57
Speaker 1: And then see what happens.
00:10:58
Speaker 3: All right.
00:10:58
Speaker 1: I see the prosecution.
00:10:59
Speaker 3: All right, fine. So it's on the judge then. The motions for the judge to consider. The motion to dismiss the case. It was presented. Still no ruling. The defense requesting that the judge investigate the loan holdout juror in the original trial. Pending. The prosecutor requesting that gag order to limit what can be said to the media about the case. Pending. So... Truly, it looks like what we established today is that the judge has some decisions to make. And when we get those, maybe we'll get what happens next. So when we come back, we are going to tell you what we are expecting now, two weeks from today at this November 16th hearing. Welcome back, everyone, to Amy and TJ. I started to laugh a little bit because I was trying to find a way to sum up how you would describe the hearing, this big hearing we've all been anticipating for weeks now. A fiery dud? maybe.
00:12:03
Speaker 1: A fiery dud.
00:12:05
Speaker 3: A fiery dud. It had a lot of fireworks, but there was no conclusion. There was no, what do they call it at the end when you've got your finale? There was no ending. It's just a dot, dot, dot.
00:12:17
Speaker 1: It wasn't satisfactory.
00:12:18
Speaker 3: It was not satisfactory. Okay, so November 16th. Remember when we told you guys at the end of September? November 2nd.
00:12:25
Speaker 1: That's the day. It's going to be the day.
00:12:27
Speaker 3: We're going to know. We're going to see the charges.
00:12:29
Speaker 1: That's it.
00:12:29
Speaker 3: We're going to know when the next trial is. We're going to get it Nope. All right, so now it's November 16th. Allegedly, on November 16th, we're going to get a retrial date if the judge does not dismiss the charges. What do you think the chances of that are?
00:12:46
Speaker 1: Don't think that's happening.
00:12:47
Speaker 3: Same.
00:12:47
Speaker 1: Of course not.
00:12:48
Speaker 3: Okay, so we're pretty much all in agreement that that would be a, well, there's always a chance, but a snowball's chance in hell, that the judge is going to dismiss the charges based on double jeopardy, which basically would mean he would have to rule against himself. Which seems highly unlikely.
00:13:06
Speaker 1: That seems like a stretch.
00:13:07
Speaker 2: They're essentially arguing that if you kick this guy off and put somebody else on, then that person would have would have voted with the others.
00:13:16
Speaker 1: And therefore. That's a. acquittal and she shouldn't be tried again.
00:13:21
Speaker 3: You're having a hard time even saying it out loud because it's such a ridiculous notion.
00:13:25
Speaker 2: I guess it's some legal notion. Did I write this down today? It was the best thing I had heard all day. He did not refuse to deliberate. He refused to agree. That's why we're here. Not because the juror refused to deliberate, but because he refused to agree. That is why we're here having this argument right now and that is not what The law says we should be here doing it.
00:13:52
Speaker 3: Okay, so then why can't the judge just go ahead and make a decision? Why extend this beyond hearing after hearing? Pretty much every legal expert I have not read or seen or heard one legal expert saying that Kevin Reddington has a legal leg to stand on with this one.
00:14:12
Speaker 1: Okay, that's fair. That's fair. I haven't either. I haven't heard anybody making those arguments.
00:14:16
Speaker 3: And if that's the case, why then, in God's name, did the judge not just go ahead and make a ruling?
00:14:22
Speaker 1: Being thorough, baby. He's being thorough. He doesn't want this to be appealed and make a mistake or whatever.
00:14:27
Speaker 3: It will be appealed, no matter what.
00:14:28
Speaker 1: He's going through the process. He's going through the process. But appeal what? There's nothing to appeal.
00:14:33
Speaker 2: After this, you're going to appeal to the Supreme Court of the state that this guy didn't know.
00:14:38
Speaker 1: They're not going to mess with this. So he's doing what he's supposed to do.
00:14:42
Speaker 2: And we have heard what? Throwing anything at the wall, see what sticks.
00:14:46
Speaker 1: Hail Mary.
00:14:47
Speaker 2: That's how a lot of legal experts are describing what Kevin Reddington is doing.
00:14:51
Speaker 1: And he should, on behalf of his client.
00:14:53
Speaker 3: Sure. Okay, so November 16th.
00:14:56
Speaker 1: Yes, that's going to be it.
00:14:57
Speaker 3: We're going to get the retrial date.
00:14:59
Speaker 1: That's going to be it.
00:15:00
Speaker 3: Then the judge also said on November 16th.
00:15:03
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm listening.
00:15:03
Speaker 3: He is going to deliberate on the presented motions. He is going to make a decision. We are going to hear his rulings, we think. on what the defense and the prosecution presented today. Again, the defense, that dismissal, double jeopardy, and the prosecution wants a gag order. And the defense also wants the investigation into the jurors. Presumably, in two weeks, the judge is going to make all of his rulings. He's going to set a trial date. And then Kevin Reddington, I don't know, I thought this was interesting, put out this other notion of his concerns. because Judge Sullivan made a suggestion that a new trial could occur, and he actually put a date to it, March of 2027. So he said this, and I thought this was interesting. Kevin Reddington said he was concerned that Judge Sullivan will somehow retire between now and then. Don't know if Kevin Reddington knows something we don't know, but he actually said, I want a trial, and I want it with you, and I want it this spring. So look, it does seem like these two do have history, do have a friendship, and he may know, and so now there's this big push that Kevin wants it in the spring, and the judge said he can envision it happening in March, but it does kind of feel like we're up against some sort of timeline that Kevin Reddington put out there that it, I mean, look, William Sullivan, Looks like he's of the age where a judge might retire.
00:16:46
Speaker 1: He still looks younger than Reddington. He looks good.
00:16:48
Speaker 3: Yeah, you're right.
00:16:49
Speaker 1: He does. He does, right?
00:16:50
Speaker 3: He does.
00:16:51
Speaker 1: But look, I don't know.
00:16:53
Speaker 3: I don't know. I mean, my father was forced to retire from his private company at 65 when he looked like he was about 55. So I don't know. Judges can, I guess, choose when they feel like the time is right. But there was some, I don't know why Reddington brought that up on the record in court today, really kind of pushing that he wanted, okay, if we're going to go to trial again, this is funny because this is the same Kevin Reddington who said he couldn't prosecute or couldn't defend Lindsey Clancy until the summer. Suddenly now he's on board for a March retrial. So I think they may know something we don't know about someone's potential retirement date.
00:17:30
Speaker 1: That's interesting.
00:17:32
Speaker 3: Can you imagine starting.
00:17:33
Speaker 1: That that's factoring in?
00:17:34
Speaker 3: From ground zero or from stage one with a new judge, that would just be overwhelming.
00:17:38
Speaker 1: You know what? I hadn't thought about this until now. But I don't know.
00:17:43
Speaker 2: Do you need a new judge, a new set of eyes and ears and mind on handling that courtroom and things that happen? Or do you need a guy that's familiar with both parties, knows how to handle them, knows the families and all this at this point?
00:17:56
Speaker 1: I don't know. What's the better way to go?
00:17:59
Speaker 3: We've watched this trial, I would say, more than most times. I think short of being in the courtroom each and every day, we have as much knowledge and experience with this case as just about anybody else. And I will say from the experience I've had sitting in courtrooms that Judge William Sullivan was one of the most measured, fair judges I have seen in any trial.
00:18:23
Speaker 1: He was good. He was really good.
00:18:26
Speaker 2: Give him credit. There's been a few that we absolutely love. And give this guy credit, babe.
00:18:33
Speaker 1: You're right. You're absolutely right. You never get a sense that he's on one side or the other at all.
00:18:39
Speaker 3: I never did. And he stood up to Kevin Reddington, but not in a combative way, in a way that actually brought the temperature down. I never saw him escalate anything.
00:18:50
Speaker 1: You know, it takes a lot.
00:18:51
Speaker 2: He was a guy who was willing to let, all right, I'm going to let you have this one, Kevin. Like he didn't have to get into an ego battle with him because he could shut him down anytime he really wanted to.
00:19:00
Speaker 1: He's the judge.
00:19:01
Speaker 2: But he let him have his moments, let him go off anytime at times. That was, yeah, it would be a shame if he wasn't a part of this moving forward, I would think.
00:19:10
Speaker 3: I would think it would be absolutely to the detriment of the outcome if you had to start over from the beginning. So, look, we shall see. We can only tell you what we've been told. And we're being told in two weeks we'll know more. So we'll let you all know because obviously this is just captivated. this country's attention and we will stay on top of it. We always appreciate you listening to us, everyone. I'm Amy Robach alongside TJ Holmes. We'll talk to you soon.
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks.
00:00:02
Speaker 2: It is Monday, November 2nd, and same old story, same old song, same old Kevin Reddington in today's much-awaited Lindsay Clancy Hearing.
00:00:14
Speaker 1: And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ.
00:00:17
Speaker 2: I say same old, same old, Rose, because same old kick in the can, down the road, we didn't get a whole lot of answers, and we saw Kevin Reddington be Kevin Reddington.
00:00:26
Speaker 3: Yes, this hearing has been described as a heated, nearly three-hour session of nothing. Basically, there were no rulings.
00:00:36
Speaker 1: Hey, who did that? That was pretty good.
00:00:37
Speaker 3: No decisions. That was my synopsis of all the different.
00:00:41
Speaker 1: Headlines I saw.
00:00:43
Speaker 3: Yeah, because, yeah, things got a little loud, a little contentious, and yet what actually happened?
00:00:52
Speaker 1: What was supposed to happen, right, Robes?
00:00:54
Speaker 2: We went into this thinking we were going to get the answers to some very big questions. A motion on whether or not to dismiss the case. A motion on whether... Oh, yeah, a decision on when a new trial was going to come. We certainly thought we were going to get that. What answer, tell me please, dear lady, did we get today? Answer to something.
00:01:13
Speaker 3: The answer was, we'll let you know in two weeks. Nice. About all of the above. And yes, I think the big, obviously, the big question... most folks were hoping to have answered was whether or not the prosecution was going to seek a new trial and if they were seeking a new trial, what specific charges Lindsay Clancy would be facing. Now, the way it's been phrased, prosecutors have indicated that they will seek to retry Clancy, but without any specifics. We don't know what the new trial will look like. We don't know what charges she may be facing. We don't know when this supposed trial may take place. We don't know pretty much anything.
00:02:02
Speaker 1: Okay.
00:02:02
Speaker 2: Do we, is your understanding that the judge, he gave one ruling actually before this, uh, date to date about the juror, the holdout juror gave it ahead of time before today's hearing. Is it possible that, that we will get anything from him before this next scheduled hearing, or we really can expect this time, don't expect anything until the 16th.
00:02:24
Speaker 3: The way it was left, it seems as though we will have to wait until November 16th before we hear anything specific about what happens next. But we did hear, and look, we listened to a large portion of this. And Kevin Reddington, we know he's abrasive. We know he is, some might say, obnoxious. There's a lot of.
00:02:46
Speaker 1: Arrogant, rude, a lot of stuff they've been dealing with. Yes.
00:02:48
Speaker 3: But he was kind of extra on all of the above today.
00:02:51
Speaker 1: Yeah, he was, baby.
00:02:53
Speaker 2: I didn't... There are times he seemed to be abrasive on behalf of his client, for the sake of his client, fighting for his client. This felt like he was fighting personalities, fighting people, fighting egos, like you said, Robe. This felt different today. He was flat-out rude to the judge, to the point that if the judge held him in contempt, I would have said, okay, that was well-deserved. Robes, he was combative. The judge at one point said, let me stop you right there. And he tells the judge, no, you're not, and continues to talk over the judge. Judge says, yes, I'm going to stop you because, no, I'm not going to stop. He went, Robes, it wasn't abrasive today. It wasn't for his client today.
00:03:31
Speaker 1: It was rude today.
00:03:32
Speaker 3: Disrespectful.
00:03:33
Speaker 1: It was disrespectful to the hearing. Yes, that's a good way to put it.
00:03:37
Speaker 3: Look, it's been noted throughout this that there is obviouslyâ a relationship between Kevin Reddington and the judge that goes back for years because no other way would a defense attorney get away with the dynamic that is clearly going on between the judge and Kevin Reddington unless they had history, they had some sort of shared respect or trust that the other was doing what they needed to do And there were no hard feelings. I have to think that that's the case because Kevin Reddington feels so comfortable in being what seems or sounds to those of us from the outside looking in to be wildly disrespectful and inappropriate. And yet somehow it doesn't seem to ruffle the judge's feathers that much, which is a little surprising.
00:04:32
Speaker 1: Maybe that's just the judge's temperament.
00:04:34
Speaker 2: He's kept his cool for the most part in all the weeks and weeks we have watched him.
00:04:37
Speaker 1: Today, I guess the first.
00:04:40
Speaker 2: argument on what was the first motion babe was it the um the double jeopardy one what was the first motion that kevin reddington didn't argue what was that.
00:04:48
Speaker 3: One uh well yes they were the other attorney.
00:04:51
Speaker 2: What was that the first guy that got up and made an argument it wasn't reddington it was somebody on the he brought in for his team to make the argument on one of the motions right what i'm saying is the thing started out rather very much legalese and boring It was people making their presentations, this guy from the defense, another attorney that was brought in to handle one particular part of it.
00:05:11
Speaker 3: He was brought in to discuss whether or not there should have been an investigation. They still are asking for an investigation. The judge had already denied a separate hearing on the holdout juror, but they were still advocating for an investigation into the juror lying on hisâ they claim lying on his juror formâ And wanting that investigation to continue as it pertains, yes, to their double jeopardy claim. Because their basis in this double jeopardy claim for their dismissal request is that the judge improperly decided that this juror didn't need to be held accountable or investigated further for misrepresenting himself on this juror questionnaire, basically.
00:06:00
Speaker 1: So, what I'm saying, they started out, Robes. We were... We were looking at it and going, wow, this is going to be a long, drawn-out, very boring hearing. Fine.
00:06:11
Speaker 2: But then they got through the first round, and the next round belonged to Kevin Reddington. And he got a robe and just went off. And he just went after the judge. He went after, he had to even be corrected at one point on how he was referring to the attorney. He was telling her what to do and how to talk and when to talk. And she wanted to go to a sidebar. He answered her, no, we're not going to do that.
00:06:35
Speaker 1: It was a little... How did you phrase it at the beginning?
00:06:38
Speaker 2: Even for him, it was a little much or went too far.
00:06:40
Speaker 1: Yeah. However you said it, babe, it was... It was a lot today.
00:06:43
Speaker 3: It was extra. I mean, there was a moment of levity where the judge was like the side bar instead of the side bar, because that's what they had been doing so often during the trial in their Boston accent. So he made a joke to kind of lean in on the are the side bar. That was the only time anybody was laughing because the rest of the time it was tense. I mean, Kevin Reddington. was visibly frustrated that the prosecutors would not get specific. They would not get specific on what charges that they planned to bring against Lindsay Clancy. And Kevin Reddington, I have a quote from him saying, why do we not know if the next trial is going to be murder in the first degree or Or a lesser charge? Or no charge? And yes, he was fiery today. But that was a question I agree. How do we not already know the answer to that yet?
00:07:45
Speaker 2: Why do they need to show their hand? Let the judge rule on whether or not something can go forward. What's the point if he's going to say this mistrial or grant a motion for all this? Okay, we'll wait until you're done and then we'll get our ducks in a row.
00:07:58
Speaker 3: Yeah, why are we arguing? I agree on this. on this point with kevin reddington why are we arguing over a trial date or whether or not we should set when now the judge wanted to set a trial date true back in september but why would we even set a trial date if we don't even know for sure whether or not the prosecution is moving forward with charges because they won't say i feel like that's.
00:08:23
Speaker 2: Bizarre did you get the sense that this judge is leaning one way or another.
00:08:28
Speaker 3: No, I feel like he's actually been, maybe that is the sign of a really good judge, or maybe he's led the, I don't know, I do feel like he's given a lot of leeway, a lot of rope to Kevin Reddington. It does seem a little chaotic. It doesn't feel like he's got his court under his, I don't want to say under his jurisdiction or under his authority, but under his timeline. He can't get them on his timeline. And it does seem like he's trying, but not quite hard enough. And so look, Kevin Reddington was also arguing to the judge for reduced charges as an alternative to dropping the charges altogether, because he's trying to get, look, I understand it from his perspective. He's trying to defend his client. He doesn't know what he's defending her against right now. He doesn't know what this new trial is actually going to be. So he's trying to say, okay, fine. We don't know what the charge is going to be. How about you reduce the charges as an alternative to dropping them? And then we can just get a bench trial instead of a jury trial. He's just like, I think the defense is looking for a way forward and the prosecution is just not offering it. At what point do they have to force the prosecution's hand?
00:09:44
Speaker 2: Why is my argument? What do they have to reveal? Because at this point, We aren't done with the first trial, so why should they make a move about a second one?
00:09:58
Speaker 3: Right?
00:09:58
Speaker 2: Kevin Reddington is the one. keeping the first trial alive by I want you to go after this juror. I want you to give me a mistrial. I want you to declare the double jeopardy. He's still we're still arguing over the first one.
00:10:11
Speaker 3: OK, so then that puts the onus on the judge. The judge needs to make these rulings first. on these motions that have been before the court for more than several, several, several weeks now. So why is the judge not ruling on any of this yet?
00:10:25
Speaker 2: Because I think this judge has been trying to be as lenient as he can to all sides. I'm trying to be, he's giving them grace for every, remember that last minute appeal? He gave them an hour to go appeal to the, right? He has been doing everything and bending over backwards. But why in God's name have you the prosecutor say, yeah, I'm going to try you for manslaughter. What is he going to do immediately, Kevin Reddington? Drop all the motions and then go attack manslaughter. Oh, I can deal with this. Let's negotiate this thing out. He's going to change strategy. So let's get past this.
00:10:57
Speaker 1: And then see what happens.
00:10:58
Speaker 3: All right.
00:10:58
Speaker 1: I see the prosecution.
00:10:59
Speaker 3: All right, fine. So it's on the judge then. The motions for the judge to consider. The motion to dismiss the case. It was presented. Still no ruling. The defense requesting that the judge investigate the loan holdout juror in the original trial. Pending. The prosecutor requesting that gag order to limit what can be said to the media about the case. Pending. So... Truly, it looks like what we established today is that the judge has some decisions to make. And when we get those, maybe we'll get what happens next. So when we come back, we are going to tell you what we are expecting now, two weeks from today at this November 16th hearing. Welcome back, everyone, to Amy and TJ. I started to laugh a little bit because I was trying to find a way to sum up how you would describe the hearing, this big hearing we've all been anticipating for weeks now. A fiery dud? maybe.
00:12:03
Speaker 1: A fiery dud.
00:12:05
Speaker 3: A fiery dud. It had a lot of fireworks, but there was no conclusion. There was no, what do they call it at the end when you've got your finale? There was no ending. It's just a dot, dot, dot.
00:12:17
Speaker 1: It wasn't satisfactory.
00:12:18
Speaker 3: It was not satisfactory. Okay, so November 16th. Remember when we told you guys at the end of September? November 2nd.
00:12:25
Speaker 1: That's the day. It's going to be the day.
00:12:27
Speaker 3: We're going to know. We're going to see the charges.
00:12:29
Speaker 1: That's it.
00:12:29
Speaker 3: We're going to know when the next trial is. We're going to get it Nope. All right, so now it's November 16th. Allegedly, on November 16th, we're going to get a retrial date if the judge does not dismiss the charges. What do you think the chances of that are?
00:12:46
Speaker 1: Don't think that's happening.
00:12:47
Speaker 3: Same.
00:12:47
Speaker 1: Of course not.
00:12:48
Speaker 3: Okay, so we're pretty much all in agreement that that would be a, well, there's always a chance, but a snowball's chance in hell, that the judge is going to dismiss the charges based on double jeopardy, which basically would mean he would have to rule against himself. Which seems highly unlikely.
00:13:06
Speaker 1: That seems like a stretch.
00:13:07
Speaker 2: They're essentially arguing that if you kick this guy off and put somebody else on, then that person would have would have voted with the others.
00:13:16
Speaker 1: And therefore. That's a. acquittal and she shouldn't be tried again.
00:13:21
Speaker 3: You're having a hard time even saying it out loud because it's such a ridiculous notion.
00:13:25
Speaker 2: I guess it's some legal notion. Did I write this down today? It was the best thing I had heard all day. He did not refuse to deliberate. He refused to agree. That's why we're here. Not because the juror refused to deliberate, but because he refused to agree. That is why we're here having this argument right now and that is not what The law says we should be here doing it.
00:13:52
Speaker 3: Okay, so then why can't the judge just go ahead and make a decision? Why extend this beyond hearing after hearing? Pretty much every legal expert I have not read or seen or heard one legal expert saying that Kevin Reddington has a legal leg to stand on with this one.
00:14:12
Speaker 1: Okay, that's fair. That's fair. I haven't either. I haven't heard anybody making those arguments.
00:14:16
Speaker 3: And if that's the case, why then, in God's name, did the judge not just go ahead and make a ruling?
00:14:22
Speaker 1: Being thorough, baby. He's being thorough. He doesn't want this to be appealed and make a mistake or whatever.
00:14:27
Speaker 3: It will be appealed, no matter what.
00:14:28
Speaker 1: He's going through the process. He's going through the process. But appeal what? There's nothing to appeal.
00:14:33
Speaker 2: After this, you're going to appeal to the Supreme Court of the state that this guy didn't know.
00:14:38
Speaker 1: They're not going to mess with this. So he's doing what he's supposed to do.
00:14:42
Speaker 2: And we have heard what? Throwing anything at the wall, see what sticks.
00:14:46
Speaker 1: Hail Mary.
00:14:47
Speaker 2: That's how a lot of legal experts are describing what Kevin Reddington is doing.
00:14:51
Speaker 1: And he should, on behalf of his client.
00:14:53
Speaker 3: Sure. Okay, so November 16th.
00:14:56
Speaker 1: Yes, that's going to be it.
00:14:57
Speaker 3: We're going to get the retrial date.
00:14:59
Speaker 1: That's going to be it.
00:15:00
Speaker 3: Then the judge also said on November 16th.
00:15:03
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm listening.
00:15:03
Speaker 3: He is going to deliberate on the presented motions. He is going to make a decision. We are going to hear his rulings, we think. on what the defense and the prosecution presented today. Again, the defense, that dismissal, double jeopardy, and the prosecution wants a gag order. And the defense also wants the investigation into the jurors. Presumably, in two weeks, the judge is going to make all of his rulings. He's going to set a trial date. And then Kevin Reddington, I don't know, I thought this was interesting, put out this other notion of his concerns. because Judge Sullivan made a suggestion that a new trial could occur, and he actually put a date to it, March of 2027. So he said this, and I thought this was interesting. Kevin Reddington said he was concerned that Judge Sullivan will somehow retire between now and then. Don't know if Kevin Reddington knows something we don't know, but he actually said, I want a trial, and I want it with you, and I want it this spring. So look, it does seem like these two do have history, do have a friendship, and he may know, and so now there's this big push that Kevin wants it in the spring, and the judge said he can envision it happening in March, but it does kind of feel like we're up against some sort of timeline that Kevin Reddington put out there that it, I mean, look, William Sullivan, Looks like he's of the age where a judge might retire.
00:16:46
Speaker 1: He still looks younger than Reddington. He looks good.
00:16:48
Speaker 3: Yeah, you're right.
00:16:49
Speaker 1: He does. He does, right?
00:16:50
Speaker 3: He does.
00:16:51
Speaker 1: But look, I don't know.
00:16:53
Speaker 3: I don't know. I mean, my father was forced to retire from his private company at 65 when he looked like he was about 55. So I don't know. Judges can, I guess, choose when they feel like the time is right. But there was some, I don't know why Reddington brought that up on the record in court today, really kind of pushing that he wanted, okay, if we're going to go to trial again, this is funny because this is the same Kevin Reddington who said he couldn't prosecute or couldn't defend Lindsey Clancy until the summer. Suddenly now he's on board for a March retrial. So I think they may know something we don't know about someone's potential retirement date.
00:17:30
Speaker 1: That's interesting.
00:17:32
Speaker 3: Can you imagine starting.
00:17:33
Speaker 1: That that's factoring in?
00:17:34
Speaker 3: From ground zero or from stage one with a new judge, that would just be overwhelming.
00:17:38
Speaker 1: You know what? I hadn't thought about this until now. But I don't know.
00:17:43
Speaker 2: Do you need a new judge, a new set of eyes and ears and mind on handling that courtroom and things that happen? Or do you need a guy that's familiar with both parties, knows how to handle them, knows the families and all this at this point?
00:17:56
Speaker 1: I don't know. What's the better way to go?
00:17:59
Speaker 3: We've watched this trial, I would say, more than most times. I think short of being in the courtroom each and every day, we have as much knowledge and experience with this case as just about anybody else. And I will say from the experience I've had sitting in courtrooms that Judge William Sullivan was one of the most measured, fair judges I have seen in any trial.
00:18:23
Speaker 1: He was good. He was really good.
00:18:26
Speaker 2: Give him credit. There's been a few that we absolutely love. And give this guy credit, babe.
00:18:33
Speaker 1: You're right. You're absolutely right. You never get a sense that he's on one side or the other at all.
00:18:39
Speaker 3: I never did. And he stood up to Kevin Reddington, but not in a combative way, in a way that actually brought the temperature down. I never saw him escalate anything.
00:18:50
Speaker 1: You know, it takes a lot.
00:18:51
Speaker 2: He was a guy who was willing to let, all right, I'm going to let you have this one, Kevin. Like he didn't have to get into an ego battle with him because he could shut him down anytime he really wanted to.
00:19:00
Speaker 1: He's the judge.
00:19:01
Speaker 2: But he let him have his moments, let him go off anytime at times. That was, yeah, it would be a shame if he wasn't a part of this moving forward, I would think.
00:19:10
Speaker 3: I would think it would be absolutely to the detriment of the outcome if you had to start over from the beginning. So, look, we shall see. We can only tell you what we've been told. And we're being told in two weeks we'll know more. So we'll let you all know because obviously this is just captivated. this country's attention and we will stay on top of it. We always appreciate you listening to us, everyone. I'm Amy Robach alongside TJ Holmes. We'll talk to you soon.