One Lindsay Clancy Juror Set Off What Fight?

0:00This is Hidden Tillers Live with Tony Brusky and Robin Dree. Here we are, the Lindsey Clancy verdict. We may actually get it within the hour officially. We will go to that if they get back into the courtroom to deliver that verdict. Kevin Reddington here at the very last moment decided to appear to opt for what I would call the physical challenge, if you will, like double dare. And we actually believe we have some footage of him right now on the court steps. This is Kevin Reddington. He is partaking in the physical challenge at the moment trying to get the document up to the court house steps as quickly as he pos- he's on the hamster wheel right now. And there we go. He's got the document.

1:00Mark Summers is there cheering him on. And there he goes. He's got it to the court house. Look at that. Kevin Reddington, hoop a fire for the complete. There we go. There we go. Bring a fire. Bring a fire. It looks like he has succeeded in his double dare challenge there. I was surprised to he opted for the physical challenge at the end. It's kind of what it feels like though quite honestly. It's like I'll give you an hour, run to this other building and get this fire. I mean, we're in 2026 and we operate, you know, like we were pre-fax machine in so many ways. And it seems it's almost a reflection of also how we understand mental health and how the state of Massachusetts has processed this case. I was presented this case almost as if it's in that same sort of error. Robin Drake, retired FBI Special Agent. And chief of the counter intelligence behavioral analysis program with us this morning is always.

2:03Do you feel the same? I mean, it does. It almost feels like, you know, maybe some things need a little updating here on how we handle things in such archaic fashion. You know, yes and no. I don't say yes and no because yes, it needs updating Tony. But the thing that really struck me, I mean, watching him again, you know, put the emotions as I know we have a lot of divided people in the country on this one. Put the emotions of what you think about the case aside a second. When I watched him as they're about, as the judge is about to call in the jury and declare a mistrial, I'm watching it live like we all were. And he stands up on his last adjeffert to call for a stay and watching him fight to the last breath. I had to look it up. I mean, I got it on my AI right here. What the hell he was doing. Yeah. I mean, it brought, I get, I get misty thinking about it and not because of the case, although that's important, mostly important because of the mental health challenges, women everything. But when you see a human being fighting so hard, so relentlessly with every ounce of

3:07his soul to exhaust every single last thing, I say to my kids all the time, when you throw everything on the kitchen table and you gave everything you complete all and there's everything, every option you've ever could do is exhausted. The outcome is what it is. And just knowing that he tried this hard with everything in his soul to do all he could for Lindsey, for the client in very obviously for something he believes so deeply in, it really is awe inspiring. What his action is just awe inspiring. So it's been a snip snap back and forth up and down, especially now, we've had all the leakage about what it looks like what the verdict was. It's been, it's been, this case has been long, it's been exhausting, I think psychologically and emotionally for a lot of people, but it ain't just a point in the last couple of hours, there's no doubt. It really has, yeah, I mean, it's just been, it's been a roller coaster. Did better understand what exactly is going on here. This is how I'm understanding it. The Clancy jury, the Clancy jury just told Judge Sullivan for the third time they cannot

4:14and will not reach a unanimous verdict. And they use the term with a heavy heart, I thought that was interesting. After seven days and more than 36 hours in Sullivan said he had no choice but to declare a hung jury mistrial defense attorney Kevin Reddington stopped him. Reddington has been arguing since yesterday that this is not a true deadlock that 11 jurors are ready to acquit on lack of criminal responsibility in one hold out, acknowledging doubt about, acknowledging doubt, but refuses to apply it to the verdict, which Reddington says is a refusal to follow the judge's reasonable doubt instruction Sullivan refused to remove that jurors. So Reddington has asked for a brief stay, meaning basically press pause for a second. The judge was about to bring the jury back in to declare the mistrial. Reddington said, wait one second for that stay to file an emergency chapter, two, 11 section

5:17three petition, which of course we all know what that is. With a single justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, what it is, it's a rarely used mid trial appeal that lets the high court step in if they believe a defendant's constitutional rights are being violated and a later appeal would be worthless. So Sullivan gave him one hour. That's where we got to the physical challenge and he's out there on the court steps going through the hamster wheel and jumping through the hoops of fire. The mistrial is unpause. If the SJC does nothing, the trial ends with no verdict and the prosecutor's decide whether to retry her then if they intervene, this jury stays a little bit longer. But the clock is ticking. It's been roughly about an hour now since, sorry, roughly about 40 minutes now, since that happened in the courtroom and the judge gave Reddington about 60 minutes to come

6:19back with whatever he's filing. So we'll see. Yeah, and it was also interesting, Tony, I'm actually looking up right now because I was watching live. I wasn't ready to take notes. But he did mention, again, he's throwing everything he can at this. I'm trying to get his exact wording here and what he might be trying to do with it also. He did bring up Lindsey Bean and a wheelchair and American Disabilities Act. I wonder if that's actually going to be part of his appeal to a Supreme Court justice in the state saying that this one holdout, maybe he might try to claim, again, pure conjecture. I'm throwing this on the screen because I'm not quite sure what he's going for about maybe that way he was prejudiced because of her disability. I mean, that's where I kind of took it as a possibility of him being able to remove that juror from that possibility as well. I don't know. So who knows, but it was definitely a last minute, last minute stay to see what else

7:21he can do. And just talk about the thing that strikes behaviors like me and how I frame this entire thing from the get go is all the relationship involved. And we saw the relationships of Lindsey's parents, co-workers, family, even ex-husband. All these people vouching for her as a mother, as a wife and all these things along the way. And then we see Reddington's behavior in the courtroom as well. His complete vestiture in her holding her hand, comforting her as she's completely losing it. And then when the judge says, all right, I'll do this, but you got to do it fast. And he's trying not to look at his watch and insinuate that we got a long weekend because of Labor Day weekend. But he was and Reddington, the fact that Reddington says I can get this done in an hour demonstrates the depth of relationships he has, be able to pick up a phone to a Supreme Court justice and get things done. So again, the things that solve the greatest challenges that we face in life is trust and healthy relationships and he's got them.

8:21Yeah, I mean, he does. I mean, it's really going, this is one of those cases where we've been talking with a lot of very good attorneys who know their stuff. And even then, I mean, it's amazing what levers can exist in the law. Because it's like, well, what are the possibilities here? And everybody says, well, it's going to be this, we're going to be that. And also, Reddington's like, wait a second, I got this little card I can pull out. I didn't think you had that. Like, nobody know you can even like the, this man knows the law well. This man is who you want in your corner. If you're faced with something like Lindsey Clancy is facing. Let's talk about the actual issues. I'm sorry, I hate to interrupt you. I misspoke a little bit because when I looked it up, here's what it looks like he's going for on mentioning her disability. Because he brought up the Karen Reed case and being able to, and Karen Reed being able to sit retrial, he's claiming that because of Lindsey's disability, her ability to sit retrial is greatly reduced.

9:22And it's, and so that's one of the things he's throwing in there as well. That's why. Okay. So, extra weight for consideration with the judge. I want to talk about really kind of some of the bricks of this case, the foundation of it of how we got here. Now we always hear about the lone holdout. It's in movies sometimes, the 12 angry men, sure, the one that's going to hold out to the end for justice. But let's be right. When someone digs their heels in that case, this heavy, I mean, how often is a genuine principle? I mean, to that person, they believe it is to everybody else, it's grandstanding. I guess, you know, it's, it's, it's only grandstanding when you don't agree with it. But how often is a genuine versus a ego trip from someone who wanted the main character to be them in a national trial? I mean, I, I really wonder about that when you have a situation like this and one person

10:24is still digging in. What, you know, how do you get to the bottom of it? It is one of the flaws of our system, but it is a system that we use to, to try and deliver justice here in our country, but it certainly is not without its, its flaws or the ability for people to hijack it if they so, so choose. So time is a teller of that one, being that, you know, was this person holding out for principle? Is it because, you know, beyond reasonable doubt is very personally subjective? And so you can give the greatest jury instructions in the world, but your interpretation from your context is very subjective. And so they're holding out, they're holding to their principles of what they think is reasonable doubt as defined by the judge. And that's how our system works. And I will, I have respect for the person that's doing this. If it's done for that reason, and what I mean by time will tell, if now after the trial, all of a sudden that one lone juror publishes a book, the one lone juror, well, you knew

11:25it was for celebrity notoriety. So really, that's why I say time will tell in this one because this is how our system works. And that's why it's got to be unanimous, got to be, but again, when you're dealing with 12 from your reference, 12 angry people, and on such a divisive case when it comes to the complication, again, there's very few states that have the law written this way that made it this complicated to try to understand with the burden being on the prosecution. Any other state, well, I think there's four. It definitely wouldn't have gone to trial. And then the majority of the other ones, the burden's on the defense to prove it. And this one, the burden is on the prosecution. Again, I'm not the loyal and not the legal type, but again, this case would not be getting the attention it otherwise would have somewhere else. But again, it's how the system works. Yeah, I mean, it really is. And that's the thing we have to remember here is it is the prosecution that is supposed to be proving this beyond a reasonable doubt. It's their burden to prove that Lindsey Clancy was in her right mind, not the opposite

12:28way around, which is a bit of a different goal post to be going through here. And if you're sitting in that room and you've been staring at autopsy photos of three little kids for weeks, you're emotionally drained. You're trapped with people who see the world maybe completely differently. At least some of them, it seems there's some there's some conflict going on here. I mean, how fast does a jury room stop debating the evidence and just devolve into screaming matches, tears and hostility when emotions are running this high. And do you ever get to a resolution without without someone, I mean, essentially violating the rules because jury rules are confusing. The judgement for roughly an hour the other day with some of those rules. And I mean, if you're just listening to them as a lay person, which most of us are, they do seem confusing. I would venture to argue that they are flat out conflicting in some ways where it talks

13:33about your convictions, but follow the letter of the law. Well, a conviction is not exactly a letter of the law. It's an opinion. A conviction, but you're supposed to follow that super strong while at the same time take the law into account. Do we need to do better? Again, I mean, I feel like every time we get to some of these steps in our law and our cases that we follow, we operate in such almost bizarre old school pageantry. The only thing we're missing are the wigs that they still wear in Canada and other countries. It's like, at what point do we go, okay, let's update, we can do better. We're not in 1622 now. It just feels like we still operate under a very different set of reasoning when it comes to this stuff. It's such an interesting word saying we could do better because better becomes subjective as well. Out of all the toning out of all cases we've covered in the last four years together, I think this has been done the best.

14:33It really do. In a sense that we're not seeing misdeeds by anyone on any side really. We're seeing the criminal justice play out. We're seeing a defense attorney working his ass off to serve his client and not just serve his client, but uphold the constitution with every nook and cranny he knows from his 50 years of experience of doing this, being very highly decorated and not just that, but he believes in his client's innocence. Well, innocence not being criminally responsible is a better way to put it because he knows that she killed her kids. Now can the criminal justice always be improved? Absolutely. That's why we're human beings because the greatest thing that makes a society function is self-correcting documents and self-correcting procedures because that shows that we're learning and evolving. It's when things lock down like people that form cults based off of doctrine that they say is not correct, but over time in thousands of years, those ones get scary because we do

15:35learn, we do evolve and do get better on things. It'll be really interesting legally. That's why next week it'll be interesting to get Bob's and Eric's opinion on where they saw maybe legal things that could be approved upon. But that being said, the system worked. I mean, and it's work in this case. I know I personally have the outcome I was hoping for and still hope for. You don't want it to have to go to retrial for all the reason it looks like Reddington is battling for. But at the same time, it gives you faith that at least it's a system that is functioning. The hardest part of this entire system is jury selection. It takes a lot of questioning by both prosecution and defense to go through the jury questionnaire to go through all the possible candidates. They have, I can't remember the exact number, they have that they can actually dismiss outright if they're not, if they can't conform to what the law is or the judge can do it. If they said they can't conform to the law and the jury instructions. According to the foreman, the foreman's the one, as I know, that's one of the questions

16:37then chat, who said that they couldn't conform to the jury instructions or to the judges' instructions. I believe it was a foreman that said that when they put the note up to the judge and that's the thing for dismissal. But before the fact, not during the fact. And the judges fall in the law. He's actually, as much as Reddy tends trying to browbeat him on certain things, the judges actually fall in the law. Everything is such a gray area. I mean, I think that's what it means. You would be in subjectiveness, yeah. Well, and it's so stupid because it's like this is supposed to be an area where it's a little more black and white where we can get somewhere. And it's like, okay, well, they're not following the law. If that's how we're going to, it's that one person is going to interpret it. That person is saying, no, I'm following my convictions. I'm just giving my two-sensor. This is not what they're saying verbatim or anything. But I would imagine that's probably what they would argue if they're not. I'm following the law according to how I interpret it, as I'm guessing how that person is thinking.

17:39And look, I mean, if you listen to the jury instructions, it probably is right to a certain extent. Because it gets into that gray area where there is a conflict in there about your convictions in following them versus the law or that they somehow magically line up. It just, it doesn't make a lot of sense. And then it invites areas like this where someone's going to interpret it the way they're going to interpret it. And they'll, I can't get involved on either side, says the judge, and you're right, you shouldn't get involved on either side and say this is right or this is wrong. But we don't really have much of a mechanism in place other than strong suggestions, it seems, when someone does refuse to actually follow the letter of the law, or maybe we need a clear rules or something going, I don't know the answer to this question. I don't either, because you know, so always, one thing to remember with human beings, if we're thinking really hard about it and we're on the outside, imagine how hard inside that jury room they're thinking about it.

18:40And you imagine how hard these people want to go home, especially if it's the numbers that they're saying it is, it's 11 against one. And you know, and from what I understand, from my self-reported on the news, the, the foreman is very well educated individual, so you know, I can only imagine the amount of persuasion, influence, anything they're trying to do to argue the point of why this is, this is not, this is, this is a reasonable doubt, you know, because that's all they have to have, and they cannot make a budge. And so you know, I had to tell you, at this point, the judge's words probably mean not even close to what those 11 people in their battle in against them inside that jury room, because can you imagine this person, the amount of brow beating they're getting in there, and day in and day out, hour after hour? And so now here, and this is where, if they're not doing it for a book deal, if they're not doing it for a look of me moment, I'm hoping it's not the case. Right. And, but if, if that's the case, if they're doing

19:42it because they're convictions, here's what, because here's what goes through my moment, my head, in moments like this, where you're battling against the tide, you play the tape forward. And in that case, this individual has their own convictions and understanding what that term means, and they're saying to themselves, I have to live not in the moment, not because I want to go home for the Liberty Week and not because I disagree with 11 people, I have to live the rest of my life with this decision that is very, very important. And for the rest of my life, not this moment, this is what I decide I'm going, I'm choosing to live with, not because of a moment, moment of notoriety, but because this is what I believe. Me personally, I don't like this. I want it done, I want it over and I don't understand why they see that there is, that there isn't reasonable doubt, but that's me. And so if it's not for a moment of notoriety, I do have respect for the fact that they're probably playing that tape forward as disappointed as it is in the moment. It's such a fallible system. It is, and I mean, it makes you wonder a little bit, like, should we,

20:50and I'm not saying this, like, lightly, I'm not even suggesting we should do, but I do wonder if at some point in time, it will be erased either here or in other places with AI. I do wonder, where are you thinking about that? Where something could be more looked at from a truly balanced, follow the rules, here's how the law is interpreted, but again, even AI, I mean, that's the thing. I mean, you can do, I experiment with it all the time. You can create two, you can tell to the exact same thing on two different threads, and you may get two totally different outputs. It can be just as fallible as human beings. But in terms of weighing things, it certainly could be a lot more of a balanced thing to look at at cases than the prism of whoever had several weeks to give up to sit here. I actually thought long and hard about that one as well, Tony, because AI does, at least as of today, it seems to be objective with

21:54its analysis of things. I use it all the time when we're doing our case prep during our show. I use it all the time for doing research, and I wouldn't see, especially in the near future, us for Linkwishing, our assessment of another human being, tool machine. Now, I mean, Kevin Reddington is doing the obstacle course right now to run and get that thing over there. But what AI coming into it, I think, will be long gone. Here's what I could say, it could actually help, because this is what I've done throughout it, because for me, maintaining objectivity, maintaining critical thinking, it's like the other day when we're talking to Coffin Defer, and I completely, and we both are, and so is Todd and Lisa, 180% completely opposite of the interpretation. So what I do is, I set up a criteria, I have a protocol that I actually have in place to ensure my objectivity, to ensure my critical thinking, and to ensure I don't have confirmation bias at the best we can as human beings. And so, when take, the juries would have, and it's an interesting thought experiment, the juries would have the

22:58ability to take in all that data they've been presented in that jury room, and then have it objectively analyzed and assessed, and then presented to them in any way they want it for that human connection, that human interpretation, that to me would be an crystallized you all. Basically, could they use it as a tool? Could they use it as a calculator on a math test? Where I use it. Where essentially, it's the word calculator as I've been saying for so long, where, okay, I'm going to use the harness, the power of this, to help me better contextualize what just happened in front of me, but then you're going to get into the issue of, well, how it was contextualized, it was swayed more than, I mean, I know there's a whole argument we could go down that road with your thoughts in the comments section on Substack and YouTube as we continue here to wait for a Lindsey Clancy verdict and what a trial it very much looks like it's going to end in a hung jury unless something amazing happens in the next few moments, your thoughts on all of this on Substack and YouTube, the links are in the description.

24:07This is Drew Crime Coverage from Tony Briewski and the Hidden Killers Podcast.