Do Clancy jurors forecast the end of impartial jury trials

0:00[♪ terrified music playing in the streets of Stanford Music Playing Azure hot drowned in a curse edge. Hello, everyone, and thanks for joining me again. I'm Dr. Steve Littulip, and you are listening to Unity Without Compromise. Those of you who do listen to me regularly, you know that I don't just jump on all the hot topics. I like to let them kind of play out, settle down, and filter, and just observe what's happening,

1:07observe the response, the reactions of people, and then kind of analyze it. And that's what I plan to do today, although this is still a hot topic. I think the issue right now before us that pertains to the good of our country is this issue of the strength and the benefit of jury trials. And the question I put before you today is very simple. Do the Clancy jurors, the Lindsay Clancy jurors, do they spell the end of unanimous verdicts? Because we've been seeing day after day this play out, the trial has been concluded, closing arguments have been heard, and now comes the jury's time to act as judged, to come up with a verdict that is just and righteous and unbiased. And that is not a real easy thing to do, especially when we come to the junction where psychiatric illness, mental illness,

2:16intersex, criminal activity. So the big question everyone has is not did Lindsay Clancy murder her three little children by strangulation. That is just a sudden done fact and Lindsay actually confessed to that. She said, yes, I did kill them, but her her defendant attorneys are trying to say that she was not in her right mind. And of course, how do you define that? It's a very difficult thing. But I want to really talk about the impact of jury trials today because jury trials are a legal right that have been established by our nation's founders to ensure that if we are charged with a crime, we simply get a fair and an unbiased trial by our peers, by people just like us who go about living and working and doing our thing every day.

3:23And we want a trial by fair jurors simply because we want protection from a government that tends to be high handed much of the time. And we're seeing a lot of that right now. We have never seen so much conflict, I believe, at least since the Civil War days, where our country is polarized. And so when you get this polarity of our entire nation, obviously that's going to play into a jury system that supposedly draws jurors from a random pool, a random selection of people who are then chosen to sit on a jury, which consists of 12 members for a murder trial. So where are we at with this? Well, you know, the process is simple enough. The Constitution guarantees us a right to a jury trial, especially for capital punishment, capital offenses.

4:31And that's a very simple process to understand. But what may once have been considered an impartial trial by normal citizens can no longer be taken for granted. And I think you get that. You understand that because we are just living in crazy times. That's what everybody says. I would more suggest that we are living in evil times, but we've always been living in evil times and crazy times. Maybe we're getting more exposure to it. I don't know. But evil seems to be very predominant in our time, and particularly with these unfashionable murders that we are beholding in our society. Not just from the criminal invaders, but from what you would think would be the least likely to be murderers, women, mothers of children.

5:34Now, mothers, women were created with a genetic makeup such that they are natural nurturers. That is what a woman is. And of course, you can argue that. And if you're a women's liver, you know, you might dispute that. You might hate me for saying that. But it's just the fact that we are genetically programmed to actually play out certain roles in society and family, in the church, and God has laid down those rules. But we don't always like to hear those rules or abide by them. So, once public peers are all seemingly searching for some kind of a new normal, and there's a reason for that. The reason is that we have forsaken the old standard. The old fashioned, some people would say, standard of right and wrong. And now that is very arbitrary because everybody wants to have their own truth.

6:35Everybody wants to be their own judge of what is right and what is wrong. And all that results from that sort of thing is chaos. So, who can define what is normal? Well, society has always defined that. And we've gotten some pretty crazy definitions of normal, depending on what backwards country or forward country you might come from. But to define normal is a very difficult process. And the process of jury trials has actually evolved much since the 18th century when they were initiated in this country. And we now are exposed to new precedents that are still being established in the new age of psychotherapeutic medications, a weaponized DOJ, and a new relative morality based on WIM and circumstance rather than based on moral

7:39absolutes. Now, that has very strong implications with regard to jury trials. So, this thesis is being tested repeatedly in recent times. This thesis of having a fair and unbiased jury trial is being tested right now in a very special way and most strikingly by the trial of Lindsay Clancy. So, are we going to end up with a hung jury? As I am speaking right now, we are still seeing a lot of deliberating going on and so far, no success of having unanimity among the jurors, which is something we must have for a murder trial. So, after much deliberation and a weekend to ponder the evidence, and then back they come for

8:40another week, Lindsay's jurors decided that the murderer is not guilty by reason of temporary insanity. If they actually decide that, now I'm saying hypothetically here because we don't have the final outcome at the time that I am recording. But if that's what they are struggling with, that itself raises a huge problem. Think about the impact that this verdict is going to have on future murder cases. And already, we are seeing kind of copycat murders taking place. And I think we're going to see a lot more of them. Think of the new questions that it will raise, will transgenders be able to declare a hormonal psychosis because they, you know, the sex hormones, they can drive you crazy. Anybody, any woman knows that who's going through the paramanopausal phase,

9:45for example, that's the word they use. I feel like I'm going crazy. I treated a lot of women who shared those feelings with me. But none of them actually were mass murderers or killed their children. So the question now, in this case with Lindsey Clancy, is, will post-partum psychosis become the new scapegoat for female killers? And the real question is, does Clancy have post-partum psychosis? Well, I'll just tell you this, the short answer is no. Absolutely not. She may have had a severe post-partum depression, but eight months out from her last delivery, uh-uh, that just does not happen. We don't see it. But will post-partum psychosis now be grasped at by anybody, any woman who kills her child? And will the slippery slope lead to post-manopausal hormone replacement therapy?

10:45Psychosis claims, and that can continue on down the slippery slope. That may lead to male hormone psychosis via testosterone therapy, right? You can drag this on and on and on. But what does the Clancy jury trial teach us? That's what I want to get at today. The general assumptions about a jury trial, and you can look this up on constitutionus.com. Number one, a jury trial is a fair way to decide guilt or innocence. Now these are, remember, general assumptions. In a Christian society, this statement might be true, but in modern America, I would suggest it is purely whimsical. You never know what you're going to get for a jury. And I'll get into that a little bit more, uh, in more depth. Is jury selection, uh, the same in a blue and a red state? And what exactly is the jury selection process? Is it fair? Is it biased? Are the rules of jury selection

11:51determined by the each state? And so how much variation do you get from state to state? Number two, on general assumptions, juries are an important part of the American legal system. But are they still important? Are they still legitimate and valid? What's hard to say? We actually have no statistics that I know of to assess the validity of jury decisions. Number three, jury trials protect the rights of the accused. That's what they're supposed to do. Protect from whom? Well, maybe from a biased judge who decides what evidence is allowed in court, for example. And we've seen a lot of that recently. Who controls or influences the jurors? Supposedly, we're supposed to have an unbiased jury, right? But let me tell you, they are all influenced and particularly in this day and age. Anyone on social media is not going to be naive to any case that comes up.

12:58But the evidence shows quite clearly that jurors are not rational and that's concerning. Number four, juries help ensure that justice is served. Hmm, do they? What would clansies three children say about that right now? Right? As so many people are defending mom for strangling them. And there's a lot of other cases going on. And I am amazed at how many people support the murderers? How do juries ensure justice? Well, it depends on their internal standard of right and wrong. It depends on each jurors' conscience and on their courage to stand rightly for justice. But if the standard is flawed, then conscience is perverted and injustice often prevails. Even brutal murders are justified and called good when that happens.

14:03Recently, we heard of a young woman saying, you know, I got an abortion because I love my baby. And she went on to, and just those words are crazy, but she went on to try to defend herself. She was hammered for it on social media. She said, and I could not see a better way to love my baby and to protect my baby from a childhood in a world that would not be kind to it. I could not. I knew that whatever protection I could give my baby was most likely going to be insufficient because of the circumstances of that pregnancy. Wow. She murdered her baby and says, that was a loving act. I killed my baby because I loved her. Wow. How do you justify that? How do you rationalize that? Is this the new maternal instinct? Think about how many women and men

15:03would actually sympathize with this murderer in our society. Think about how many such women would actually defend a mother who premeditatedly methodically strangled to death her three little children. Of the 12 women and a plantse's juror panel or excuse me, nine women, how many of them were of the same mindset of thinking, yeah, I'll do my kid a favor, I'll kill them. Well, we're seeing it and there's a lot more women than and perhaps some men that you might, you wouldn't expect it, you know, how much might they influence other jurors, by the way, to secure a just verdict? If this is what the jury consists of, these kind of people, remember, fancy confessed to these murders. She planned it out. She was fully aware of what she was doing and she was very coherent and organized in everything she did in planning this event,

16:12in sending her husband out of the house on an errand and then a second errand and in choosing an ordered sequence and murdering her kids. You know, this was not a psychotic event. It was not a lapse of mental cohesion. Well, finally, another general assumption is that jury trials are important and important check on government power. And I'm beginning to question that a little bit because, you know, take any one of these assumptions, which of them are really legitimate? Well, it depends for one thing, how are the jurors selected? A lot of people may not understand that. And then, once they are selected, supposedly the selection is random. Okay, they take them from a general public database, a pool and they say, okay, let's all gather all these and say, show up for court and then we'll question you as we select our jury members. Well, how are they coached? One of the

17:14actual rules of the game, in other words, and what final instructions are they given by the judge and do these instructions, misguide or bias them? You know, consider, for example, an Obama or a Biden selected judge versus a Trump appointed judge. You see, the judges can have bias and since they have control of the court and they call it my court, well, you know, they can be very powerful and swaying of the jurors who are acting as judge, compositely. So it raises the question of fairness. Well, there's a lot of variables who ends up on a jury panel. Are they Democrats versus Maga? Because, you know, you can be sure that both sides want to know the answer to that question. And what is their age? What is their experience? What are their biases? And how much of these actually explored

18:17and searched out? Are they Christian versus Muslim? How many male versus female? The Clancy trial had 75% female, 25% male, nine and three, right? What are their education levels? What are their professions or trades? There's just a lot of variables here and then consider also their life circumstances, family backgrounds. It's kind of a hit or miss deal when you really look at it, especially in a compromised judicial system that we have today. We can see that fairness can never be guaranteed, not 100%, but 75%. I don't know. See, if we're trying to protect the rights of the accused, how far do we go? We see a lot of overprotection of criminals. Look at all the

19:18criminals being released into the streets these days. The more heinous the crimes, the more apt they are to go free. You do some little petty theft and you might go to jail for years, but if you kill someone, rape someone, you can be out on the street the next day, especially if you are in illegal alien and criminal. So we see a lot of overprotection of the criminals and underprotection of the victims, even in jury trials. I find an example that we witnessed some years ago was the OJ Simpson trial, where Simpson was acquitted in murders of a sex wife, Nicole Brown and her new boyfriend, Ron Goldman. But four months later, he was found to be responsible for their deaths and in a serving time anyways. But two different juries, two different locations, two different judges, and two different outcomes. And that's a problem. Supposedly, most blacks thought that OJ was innocent

20:24and that's another problem. Most whites felt that he was guilty. At least that's the way the narrative goes. But so much for blind justice. We have a real hard time actually securing blind justice, where there is an absence, complete absence of biases. It just doesn't happen because we're all human. But so much for the protected rights of the accused as well. Well, the matter is now settled for OJ. He died and he's in God's hands. So the final verdict from God is the one that really counts. But the question we have to ask is do we really want justice or do we just want our version of how things should play out in court? And that's what we are seeing in the Elinsey Clancy trial. How many people in the public jury pool really want justice? Well, that is what's

21:27being played out in the last year with all these moms who have been murdering their kids and there's Christian Bass who allegedly shot and killed her one year old daughter, Carmen DeGrague who murdered a 17 month old daughter. And on and on it goes Priethasani, Priethar Sini, Natarajan killed her son, five and seven years old. Selena Muey tried to kill her son. He survived. Diane Colum suffocated her four year old son, Jalinda Smith killed five year old son. The body was found in a trash bag. Marisol Flores killed her newborn baby right after birth a few minutes earlier and it would have been just an abortion and that would have been perfectly okay because it's now fully legal to massages it. And then there's Andrea Foss who killed her three year old son tried to kill her two year old and on and on it goes. I can read off a bunch of these people. What is going to happen

22:31to all of these women killing their children and why all of a sudden is this so rampant? And I would suggest that perhaps this Clancy trial is going to have serious consequences. Will they all these people will they plea postpartum psychosis or is everyone just crazy? And therefore all murder is now excusable. Will they all plead insanity to excuse their alleged actions? How far does this insanity or psychosis plea hold water? That's what I'm wondering. That's what's really on trial in all of these cases. It depends on the psychiatrist many times because they have a great influence on the jury. But you know with all the support that these women murders are getting right now you just

23:33have to ask why is this happening? And yeah people come out with a lot of speculation. Is it the slippery slope of immorality at work? Well very likely it could be what's the difference between killing a baby in the womb at 12 weeks versus 40 weeks? None. Absolutely none. You have two innocent human beings in both cases. What's the difference between killing a 40 week old gestation baby in the uterus versus killing it a few minutes later after it's born after which time it's considered genocide or excuse me you know just infanticide where you're just killing a live baby. Well they're both alive. They're just living in a different place. There is no difference. And what's the difference between killing a newborn baby and an eight month old baby as Clancy did. There's no difference whatsoever. And as I said don't call it postpartum depression at eight months.

24:39I did obstetrics. I practiced obstetrics for a good number of years and I never saw postpartum depression beyond two or three months. But think of all the differences of opinion on these scenarios that a jury has to hear in face. That does not favor justice. An immoral society is going to produce immoral jurors and that's what makes me question whether a jury trial can even be fair any longer in this day and age. I really don't know if it is possible. Because if you have immoral jurors that's going to lead to toxic injustice regardless of what is legal, lawful or morally right in the eyes of God. They don't seem to care.

25:43And that's where we are at right now in America. So you know for a murder conviction a jury has to come to a unanimous decision. Now in a polarized country like we have you would expect to have someone of a polarized random jury pool to select jurors from. So the jurors in the Clancy case have been deliberating now for days, multiple days. And my guess is that nobody wants to budge. I think there are opposing views on this that are almost theological for the jurors. They will not compromise their own values. They have already decided in their minds. And of course that's going to lead to a hung jury. And will another trial fix the problem? Well, I don't think that is likely

26:45to happen because you just start over with the same exact process. But I want to really take a look at this in a little bit more detail. And I want to really emphasize the fact that when we're talking about deciding a case of life or death, say in the death penalty case or life imprisonment without parole, that's a pretty hefty decision to be a judge of and asking just regular citizens to be the judge in such cases. I recognize that that is a very weighty decision because we have to live with the decision that we would make as a juror. But we also have to consider the victims. And the family of the victims. Where is their justice? And how far do we bend the rules for them? Well, I'll get into this a little bit deeper after I take a short pause. Have you been looking for

27:46a healthy snack from the go? Well, not all energy bars are soft and sugary. Bear bars are a crunchy, savory bar made from just six simple natural ingredients. Bear bars are plant-based, organic, gluten-free, contained six grams of protein and are low temperature dried for a unique crunch. Most energy bars are based on chocolate or fruit and are held together with syrups or sweeteners to learn more. Just visit bearbar.com slash out loud. Are you tired of struggling with low energy? We get it. That's why we created organic energy juice. In just one minute, you'll have clean, natural energy all day and never struggle with low energy again. And it tastes amazing. And there's no toxic chemicals or stimulants that make you crash. You shouldn't have to struggle with low energy and with organic energy juice, you won't. If you're struggling with low energy, then buying organic energy juice is the right decision. With our double your money back guarantee,

28:49there is zero risk to try it. Go to chemicalfreebody.com, Fordslash out loud for an exclusive discount. That's chemicalfreebody.com, Fordslash out loud. You wouldn't go a day without brushing your teeth or washing your hands. What about washing your nose? I mean, your nose does filter the air you breathe. Air loaded with bacteria, viruses, and irritants. Make nasal hygiene part of your routine with clear. No messy bottles to fill, no drowning sensation. Clear as a natural drug-free saline with the added benefit of xylitol, which blocks bacterial and viral adhesion. Available in stores and online at clear.com. That is x-lear.com. Are you struggling with thinning hair? Try roots from the wellness company. This Dr. formulated non-oily hydrogel uses seven powerful peptides and key nutrients to nourish your scalp and support visibly thicker healthier hair. Visit twc.healthfordslashout loud. Use code out loud for 20% after your first order. That is twc.healthfordslashout loud.

30:09Track record prompting question is Google and untrustworthy player in the AI race. Now is our time, my fellow Americans, America out loud.News, Liberty, and Justice for all. Okay, back at it. This Dr. Steve Littulo, thanks for joining me on YouTube without compromise today. I want to give a shout out to our sponsors. You know, we do appreciate them and I'd like to encourage you to check out America out loud.shop and use the code out loud because you can get some pretty good discounts on some good products that will promote good health. I also want to refer you to

31:09America out loud.News because you're going to just hear some fantastic people who are speaking on their radio programs, bringing forth a lot of good facts and truth from a Christian and from a conservative perspective and they are different by the way, but you're going to get some good discussion on how we can move forward as a nation and hopefully stand up to preserve our country and everything that makes America great. That is what we want and that includes Liberty and Justice for all. It's much harder to achieve these days because the melting pot most certainly feels like it's boiling over with all kinds of craziness. I would also encourage you. You hear me talking a lot on this program about the Almighty Standard. We have to have a standard of truth. I would encourage you

32:12to check out my book Unity without compromise, a biblical basis for Christian union because we have to be unified without compromising the truth and that is found in scripture. So this book just deals with issues pertaining to sound Bible interpretation and it's a whole lot easier than you might think. So please check out my book Unity without compromise. You can get that through the bookstore on America out loud, Amazon and other places as well. I've written a book pain-free and living again. How to heal? Fibromyalgia, IBS, migraines and other mystery pain syndromes. This is groundbreaking. They don't want you to get this information. If you go online, they'll just tell you that your fibromyalgia is incurable. That's a bunch of nonsense and I want you to know that. If you read the book, I think you'll be impressed and I think you'll understand what condition you really have

33:14and how you can effectively treat it and make it disappear forever. So I really encourage you to read pain-free and living again as well. Well today I have been discussing the question of whether or not juries are still function. Meaning can we come to a unanimous decision as a jury with people who are so polarized drawn from our polarized society? It's becoming an issue and I think that the clancy jurors are possibly revealing this to us in a very special way. It's going to have a lot of impact. The issue is can we discern feelings versus facts and can we put aside our feelings that when we are specifically talking about whether or not we can justify a murder because of

34:15psychosis or other mental illness. Now we do it daily. Don't misunderstand me. We do this daily. But notice the trend in women since this is a women's issue with mothers killing their children. We see fewer women are turning to the Christian faith right now and that's concerning. A lot of younger men are returning to the church being converted to Christ according to biblical principles. But we also see that more women are sexually abusing children. We see them as teachers. Many teachers are being convicted of child molestation in schools having sex with younger kids underage kids and it's becoming ever more prevalent and more women are involved in violent crimes. We also see more women murdering their own children and this is just an atrocity that is hard to

35:21wrap my head around for me because I mean they're doing it by killing their babies in the womb and it does seem that it's getting easier to kill them anytime afterwards. We do see abortion rates are climbing right now despite the elimination of Roe v. Wade and you know this is reasons for that. But anyone who is willing to abort their child in the womb nowadays knowing full well that this is a living human being in the uterus well they have no respect for innocent human life and that shades everything for them. It puts just a dark veil over them. I mean think about what that means. These women with this mindset are teaching our young children in schools. They are nurses and they are doctors, they are lawyers, police officers, CEOs, politicians and even preachers

36:29and church leaders against biblical teaching if you will dare to be honest. And they all feel utterly justified in their actions. Why is that? Because they have no true standard of right and wrong. The current image being portrayed is that motherhood is a curse and it is anything but that if you will live according to biblical principles. The argument right now before us and the Clancy trial is that a mother has every right to murder her children. What else could she have done? Said one kind of collegeist. And a female jury is likely to declare this murderer innocent. How ironic is that?

37:30It goes against everything that motherhood stands for. When you think of mother, think of your own mother. I think of nurturing gentleness, love and protection. Physical emotional spiritual nourishment came from my mother. And what we're seeing here is truly demonic. It is evil. Have you watched Lindsay Clancy's face in court? She has no emotion on that face at all. But I read in her eyes that she is fully coherent and aware of what she has done. And I believe that's why she tried to kill herself. She knew what she did was evil and there would be consequences. But what do her facial expressions say about her emotions? Well, they're absent. And I do have sympathy for this woman. I truly do. But despite whatever sympathy we can

38:40muster up for her, it does not override the fact that she chose to strangle with her own hands, wrap those exercise band cords around her children's necks one by one sequentially and put them under forever. So don't think I'm heartless toward Lindsay. I feel horribly for this woman. She obviously had to felt some kind of strong emotions to commit such a heinous act of strangling her own precious children. Three of them. She also attempted suicide and failed. And now she has to live with herself with full awareness of what she has done. What I wonder is will it torment her? Or will it matter nothing to her? I don't know. But either way, I do sympathize with her.

39:49But you know, we live in this new age of social isolation, even though we may be around people all day long, we still feel isolated and I believe this is promulgated. It's put forth by social media, which is itself an irony and oxymoron. But we have to ask ourselves, who exactly is the public American citizen anymore? And how are juries selected? And how has jury selection evolved? And can you trust a jury these days? Would you want to have a trial by jury? Because this risk associated with that. And that is what this case is proving with Lindsey Clancy. Now let's just pretend you are a juror. And you have to, you're told you must evaluate just the facts and ignore public opinion altogether. Just ignore it. And try to get rid of your own biases.

40:54But doing that, how would you personally judge Clancy? Would you say she is guilty of murder? We know she committed a murder. No doubt about that. She did the act. That is not an issue. But is she guilty or not? Well, if you check out the Clancy murders, murders timeline, wow. It is detailed. It is well thought out and really well planned. And I'm going to post this timeline when I write the article for this program because I want you to see this. When you follow all of the little details of how these murders unfolded, you swiftly realize that you need not be a psychiatrist to realize this evil act was a premeditated, coherent, well planned, and skillfully executed, triple murder. No evidence whatsoever reveals psychotic behavior.

42:00There's none there. And this is just factual evidence. Lindsay Clancy is guilty of first degree murder. She deserves the death penalty in my opinion based on the biblical standard. But Mazda chooses to send the death penalty back in 1984. So the worst that Lindsay Clancy is going to get is life in prison without an opportunity for parole. So justice will not prevail in her lifetime. That's what I believe. But eventually it will prevail. And that's the sad part about it. Not just for Clancy, but for every single one of us. And we'll be judged for what we think, what we say, and how we live, how we act. That really soberes my mind. It does. But you know, I'm asking myself, all right, what lessons can we learn from the Clancy case?

43:03Well, number one is that objective justice may be on an obtainable in a jury trial. I don't feel so confident anymore that a jury trial would yield a just verdict. If logic and reason and the law and morality and Christian faith have no bearing on deciding right and wrong, then keep me as far away from a jury trial as you can. Because jury trials should be obsolete if that's the case. Secondly, a second lesson, the so-called frauds of feelings, they seek a lawless society. That's the only conclusion I can come to. Murder is the latest addition to the list of defensible actions. If it feels right, do it. If you're having a bad day, snuff someone. If you don't like what someone stands for,

44:06or what they represent, who they represent, then kill their highest representative, right? That's what Luigi Manjani did. And they'll make you a folk hero. And from these people come the jury members, some of them at least. If someone tells you that your sexual perversion is sinful, just snuff them. Just say, hey, I'm tired of hearing it. I'm going to go kill them, like Tyler Robinson did, right? And they'll say many people will say that Charlie Kirk deserved it. Hey, he was bad-mouthing Tyler Robinson, saying that what he's doing is lifestyle was long, right or wrong. Woo-hoo, that's pretty judgmental. Kill him. A third lesson is that motherhood seems now to be declared a failed institution. And that's a wretched lie. Their in is the root of female mental instability. And if you read

45:13the statistics nowadays, the younger female population is mentally unstable, at least half of them. They are depressed, they're anxious, they're suicidal, they're just not stable. And it's because they believe that motherhood is a failed institution and they don't want to be a part of a failing team. Well, that's the problem. If you're young children act their age, which they're going to do, and they depend on you for emotional support, physical support, and you're tired because your careerism is wearing heavy on you, and it leaves no time for motherhood. Well, something's got to give, right? And isn't that what Lanzi Clancy is saying? Something's got to give. And it sure ain't going to be my career. So it's no surprise that one half of all your young females are psych cases. Their anxious, depressed, fatigued, feeling guilty, fearful, they're inadequate, they're lonely,

46:18they're disconnected, even with their spouses. There is no psychiatric medication that can fix this kind of a problem. As Lanzi Clancy demonstrated. Maybe another lesson is that jury selection is, I mean, how do they decide nine women and three men on the Clancy jury? Was that something that the judge decided? I'm not sure on that. But what criteria did they use? And how sound are those criteria? Well, so says the US Constitution.net. US Constitution.net. I look at this, says, whoa, it is a mix of logistics, psychology, and constitutional law. This is what pertains to jury selection. It goes on to say, and it matters because the Constitution

47:19promises more than just a jury. It promises a jury that is impartial, chosen through a system that cannot be skewed by race, sex, or other forbidden shortcuts. End quote. Well, if we got nine women and three men on a case like Clancy's, is that random? Well, it doesn't sound like it. When you evaluate the randomness of the selection process for a jury, I'll throw another quote at you, professional jury consultants, psychologists, sociologists, and communication experts, advise attorneys on which jurors to strike based on, listen closely, demographic profiles, body language, questionnaire responses, and big one here,

48:24social media research. They will check you out. Who are you? Do you ever comment on social media? Well, so much for random selection, I can feel pretty confident. I will never, never be selected for a jury. So, you know, I guess I could look at the bright side and say, hey, at least I'm out of that duty. But is that random and is that fair? No, I would suggest it's not. I'm a citizen like everyone else. And so I ask, what exactly is going to be the impact of this Lindsay Clancy trial? Because we've yet to see the outcome. But with what we've seen so far, with the fact that a jury is struggling to call her guilty of murdering her three children, that says a lot. What I would suspect is that it's going to create a further divide among women and between

49:28men and women, and even in the nation, it's going to further polarize us because you think one way or the other. And this divide isn't just a battle between good and evil, but also between objectivity and subjectivity. Now, that takes a rational mind to sort those out. It's going to be a divide between rational and irrational thinking and between foolishness and wisdom. You know, I, and on a very practical level, I would suspect that this is going to change the dating guidelines. Hey, you know, before we go on a date, what do you think about Lindsay Clancy? I mean, if you're a man, would you date a woman who believes that Clancy is an innocent murderer? Think about that. And if you say, yes, I'd suggest, you know, that's pretty messed up.

50:34But also, there's other cases you've got to think of. We saw the first COVID-related psychosis defense. And this woman who killed a one-year-old little girl, she drowned her, precious bland. She chose not to have a jury trial. And maybe because the judge hinted, you know, that you're going to get a better deal from me. But this judge says that the only reasonable explanation, his words, the only reasonable explanation for precious bland drowning her child is psychosis due to a COVID-19 infection. Can you believe that? She declined a jury trial in favor of a verdict from Circuit Judge Miguel de la O. Not guilty by means of insanity. I mean, really? Who are you kidding? What kind of a judge is this? How many murders will this judgment inspire by his verdict?

51:36So that's what I want to know. You know, just tell them you're crazy or you are on a medication, a psych medication, right? Or you were sick. Oh, I had COVID-19. I mean, they're still saying, oh, we're getting COVID-19 infections, even though it's seven years later, practically, from on the first cases showed up in the United States. No, I think the virus has meditated several times. But a cold or flu that justifies murder of a one-year-old baby, give me a break. This guy needs to be disbarred. You know what this what this is doing? It's a slippery slope. What's coming next? At one point, are we going to be able to say, I did it for my physical or mental health. I had to kill my children because they were driving me crazy. Now, I homeschool my grandchildren and sometimes guess what? They drive me crazy. But I love them. I just love them and I love teaching them and I love the challenges

52:43of trying to reach little minds and educate them in really good ways. But you know, what's happening is that we are murdering civilized society, making justice rare and elusive in our country. So what do we conclude about the Nancy or the Clancy jury and the Clancy trials? What is going to happen? Well, to be fair and impartial, rather, to prosecutor and defense. A jury has to listen to the facts and put aside feelings. Feelings, you know, our own personal feelings, protesters feelings, and even the victims' families' feelings. But don't take what is called facts for granted because everyone knows how skewed fact-checking can be. We've seen that. Over and again, jurors have to weigh all the actual

53:46evidence based on plain truth. And then jurors must know and understand the law clearly. And then they have to accept the law. The judge then has a duty to give jurors clear guidance on the law so that jurors can support the Constitution and fulfill their duty as impartial judges. In this trial, the Clancy trial, the judge just recently brought forth the two-year-old Rodriguez charge saying, look, this is what your duty is. And a juror's first duty is to decide the case in harmony based on personal convictions, but also keeping an open mind and respecting others' opinions and realizing that absolute certainty in any case is rare. You can never be 100 percent certain, but oftentimes you can be very, very close to 100 percent certain. But unfortunately,

54:49the jury has become the weakest link in American society today. Why is that? That particularly as it pertains to murder trials? Because many jurors, many American citizens, have disavowed the Constitution to permit all kinds of lawlessness in its place. Now, that's a problem. In a murder trial, a jury is no better than its weakest juror. Without unanimous consent, you have a mistrial, and then the process starts all over again. How do you become an authentic juror? There's only one way. You have to allow the Bible to serve as your internal standard, because that's where every just law originates. It comes from God's universal laws. And that is our only hope of securing true justice. Otherwise, your supposed impartiality as a

55:55juror is going to be compromised. Serving justice is the process of seeking and applying fairness, truth, honesty, accountability, and do retribution when found guilty. This applies not only to Supreme Court justices and federal and district judges, court judges, but it applies equally to every citizen of the United States. The best citizens know the Bible and live by it. And that's what makes a genuine American. Thanks so much for joining me today. On YouTube without compromise, have a great week. lashes.