Lindsay Clancy SHOWDOWN Pops Off Over New Trial

I'm going to stop you right there. >> No, you're not going to stop me. >> Well, no, you I am. >> No, you're not going. >> Because All right, then this hearing's, you know, because there's no need to. bring out that juror's name. >> You know what? It's the only answer. You. know what? >> I am not looking for 15 minutes of fame. in this case. What the Commonwealth. wants is justice for Cora, Dawson, and. Callan. >> Yep, Lindsay Clancy was back in a. courtroom today, and there are major. questions on the table, including will. she go on trial again for the alleged.

murder of her three young children. There was a lot that happened in that. courtroom. We're going to show you. clips, and we're bringing on Sierra. Gillespie, who was in that courtroom, so. we can do a play-by-play of everything. that went down. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law & Crime. I'm Jesse. Weber. Is Lindsay Clancy going to be tried. again for the alleged murder of her. children? That is the question. That is. the question that we are trying to get. to the bottom of based on what happened. in court today. It just wrapped up, and.

we're going to bring on Law & Crime. reporter, host of Scandal, Sierra. Gillespie. She was in that courtroom. She's going to give us a play-by-play. But, I want to set the stage for what. just happened in court, and I have. clips, by the way, from what happened. there, too. But, Clancy, as you know, is. accused of strangling to death her three. young children, 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson, 8-month-old Callan. This is all in their family home back in. January of 2023. She went on trial a few. months ago. She was facing three counts. of first-degree murder under two. different theories. One was that she.

acted with deliberate premeditation, or. she committed murder through extreme. atrocity or cruelty. And she could have. also been found guilty of second-degree. murder, intentional killing, or. manslaughter, recklessness, right? Now, the prosecution argued that she. knowingly and consciously chose to kill. her kids, and highlighted her allegedly. not telling medical personnel about the. thoughts that she had of harming her. kids, allegedly sending her then. husband, Patrick, out of the house, looking how far he would be away so she. could do this, claiming the evidence.

showed she already killed her kids when. she spoke to Patrick on the phone. But, the defense, they didn't object that she. killed her kids. No, her attorney, Kevin. Reddington, said she was severely. mentally ill, suffering from postpartum. psychosis, that she wasn't in her right. mind, that she was failed by healthcare. professionals, that ultimately she. couldn't distinguish between right or. wrong, or couldn't conform her behavior. to the law, that it was out of her. control. And also highlighting how she. tried to kill herself after. Now, in the.

end, the jury was deadlocked after 7. days of deliberations, and the judge. declared a mistrial. So, we come to find. out that there was this one lone holdout. juror who refused to find Clancy not. guilty, believing that she committed. premeditated murder. Now, the juror did. an interview relatively recently, as. well as several other jurors. They did. interviews. But, remember, this trial. was back in September. The question that. we have had ever since has been, will. Lindsay Clancy be retried, and for what? Will prosecutors go forward with.

first-degree murder again? If you had. all these other jurors, 11 seemingly. ready to find her not guilty? And then. again, when you heard the statements. from prosecutors in the aftermath, it. seemed like they believe this was. nothing less than first-degree. premeditated murder. Well, Clancy's. defense team filed a motion to dismiss. the charges, and they did that on. grounds of double jeopardy, that you. can't be tried for the same crime twice. The theory is predicated on the argument. that the judge should not have declared. a mistrial, but rather, the judge should.

have investigated the holdout juror and. potentially replace them because of. allegations that he wasn't following the. law on reasonable doubt. This was based. on a jury note, or jury notes during. deliberations. And the prosecution. fought back against that, arguing double. jeopardy doesn't apply because there was. no verdict, there was no adjudication. You can retry someone when there's no. verdict. And the prosecution argued in a. recent motion that there was no need to. further question the holdout juror, that. that would have improperly interfered. with the deliberations, which is not.

something that the court is not supposed. to do. Now, the judge in this case, Judge William Sullivan, has yet to rule. on that motion. I should also tell you. that in terms of what to expect with the. retrial, the district attorney, Tim. Cruz, hasn't revealed what exactly they. plan to do with Clancy. All we knew. leading up to this hearing was, based on. a motion last week, is that they intend. to quote pursue justice. So, Clancy remains at Tewksbury Hospital. She's been there since 2023. She's. paralyzed, by the way, from this. apparent suicide attempt, jumping out.

the window after she killed the kids. So, it brings us to today. What happened. in that Plymouth court? Was the double. jeopardy argument heard? What about a. new trial? Also, apparently, there's. another issue, the prosecution's motion. to prevent attorneys from speaking about. the case. Interesting, considering how. high-profile this case has been, how. vocal people have been about it both. outside the courthouse and online. So, let's talk about what happened in court. There were cameras, so we have some. clips we want to show you, and then I'm. going to bring on Sierra Gillespie. So, first thing that we have to get into is.

the defense's motion to dismiss. Now, here is another one of Lindsay Clancy's. defense attorneys. This is Martin. Weinberg, explaining a bit about that. motion to dismiss and what the court. needed to do, based on the jury notes. about a again, a juror, the holdout. juror, maybe not following the law on. reasonable doubt. Namely, that there. needed to be a further investigation, further questioning of the jurors, and. making the argument that there wasn't a. manifest necessity, legal term of art,

manifest necessity to declare a. mistrial. >> We respectfully contend that these notes. that were written on behalf of the jury. called into question whether or not the. jury trial right that Ms. Clancy was. entitled to of 12 jurors deliberating in. good faith and following the law was or. was not being complied with by the jury. in the secrecy of its deliberations. Inextricably intertwined with that is.

the second constitutional right, that. being the double jeopardy right, That. being that a citizen charged with a. crime particularly one carrying with it. the gravity of first of the murder. charge in this case. should not be subjected to the perils. and burdens of a second trial. unless there was manifest necessity that. made. mistrial declaration an imperative. rather than something discretionary.

To just summarize, you know, the. contentions in the motion to dismiss and. I know your honor is refuted and we've. both sides have given your honor. an enormous amount of reading because. there's been lots of SJC decisions and. federal circuit court decisions that. have addressed the circumstances. when voir dires should occur, when. discharges of jurors should occur, and.

when instead deliberation should stop. First we, you know, we contend based on. these juror notes but again respectfully. that they do not unambiguously support. the proposition that all 12 jurors were. deliberating and following the your. honor's instructions. That at minimum these notes required a. probing voir dire. That that voir dire. would have included, should have. included a determination whether or not.

the 12th juror was deliberating in good. faith, whether they intended to follow. the law, whether they could intend to. follow the law beyond a reasonable. doubt. >> And this is a key point. Okay, this is. when the judge, Judge Sullivan, jumped. in. >> Didn't I do that? >> Well, respect. >> Didn't I bring Didn't I do a voir dire? Didn't I bring jurors in? Didn't I swear. them in? Didn't I ask each individual. one, not just that one juror because we.

didn't want to Certainly as you know as. you stated the the the concern for. coercion is something I have to worry. about. But But I I I. So you say I should have done it a. second time? >> Not to not to not to simply echo the. single question, Judge, but respectfully. to make a probing voir dire that would. have, for instance, your match Judge. Tatman's voir dire that cited in the. Williams case, which the Commonwealth. featured in its brief, which is to try. to get to the bottom of why a jury.

foreperson is writing notes that say a. member of the jury is unable to follow. the instructions. And that a single question that led to. the adoption, you know, an assurance by. all 12 jurors is simply constitutionally. insufficient. to probe what was going on in that jury. room. >> I got thick skin, right? I have no. problems. I understand what this case is. what these motions are about. Um I'm.

fine with that. I understand the. argument. I've made those before. Um so. so I I I understand that. >> So. let me let me go on if I can. to, you know, what defense the federal. constitutional law requires, which was. not really provided to Your Honor in the. heat of battle. And uh what it does is it puts a heavy. burden. on the prosecutor who four times. objected to any voir dire. It's the prosecutor that had an. obligation when the.

when there was such close nexus between. the the ev- the issues that were be-. being addressed about do I voir dire the. juror, what do I instruct them on, was. going to lead to a decision whether or. not there was manifest necessity for a. declaration of a mistrial because absent. a probing voir dire, Your Honor had no. predicate to discharge the juror. You. had no. knowledge as to what caused this juror.

to be unwilling to follow the. instructions if in fact foreperson's. noticed to be facially exected. And you know, there was a potential. here, a viable alternative, which is a probing voir dire could have. disclosed that the juror wasn't. following the instructions. 11 jurors. might have said that, even if a 12th. juror said, "No, I was following them.". And then, your honor would have probed. and asked about, you know, whether they.

could follow them, um whether beyond a reasonable doubt was. a legal instruction that caused any. discomfort to a juror. Your honor then. would have had a a record to make. credibility findings whether the jury. foreperson, other jurors were being. correct in their concerns that were. represented by these two notes. But, the. burden was not on the defense to justify. the voir dire. The burden was on the. prosecutor. >> And Weinberg went on more about the. burden on the prosecution, double.

jeopardy, that the state with all its. resources should not be allowed to make. repeated efforts to convict someone, that you're subjecting these individuals. to extreme anxiety and the insecurity. about, you know, these charges hanging. over their heads. How a viable. alternative here was a more probing voir. dire questioning of the jurors to see. whether this juror was not deliberating. consistent with the judge's. instructions, that the reasons this. juror might have done it were personal. rather than just the internal chemistry.

of jury deliberations, that an option. would have been to discharge this juror, continue deliberations with an alternate. juror, and also attacked the. Commonwealth's arguments. Speaking of. which, let's talk about it. The. Commonwealth goes up. So, here's. prosecutor Jennifer Sprague. >> A deadlocked jury has historically been. um the traditional example of when. manifest necessity requires a mistrial. And a mistrial when the jury is. deadlocked um is entrusted to the sound. discretion of the trial judge. And sound.

discretion is determined by two factors, um giving counsel a full opportunity to. be heard, and carefully exploring all. viable alternatives at the time, um. which the court did over and over again. every time a note came out, every time. the issues were raised. Um, they were the reason the discretion is. given to the court is as defense counsel. stated and as the judge Your Honor. acknowledged, um, is to prevent coercive measures um, from occurring from forcing a verdict,

especially in the sensitive area of a. lone holdout juror. And what doesn't. matter whether the juror is a lone. holdout for guilty or not guilty, the. same reasoning is applied. Um, the same. protection uh, for that lone holdout. juror and their opinions um, should be. protected. Now, the two notes. written by the four person claiming that. one juror wasn't applying the law. regarding reasonable doubt, um,

is basically writing what what was. happening in their opinion. And it. suggested a disagreement about the. weight of the evidence, how to apply the. law, how to to um, compare the law to. the evidence and judge the evidence that. was before them. And that's clearly all. part of deliberation. And. who was right in the interpretation of. the evidence and and deciding whether. there was doubt or reasonable doubt, that's for the jury to decide, not for. us to decide, not for the court to.

decide. Um, there was no indication in. these notes that there was an issue. personal to that one juror. Um, there. was nothing about the issue having to do. um, with something that was only solely. happening within or to that juror. It was clearly. a note or multiple notes detailing that. there was an issue regarding. deliberation. And she basically goes on. to say that further voir dire wasn't. necessary. There was no evidence in the.

notes of bias or pressure or extraneous. information coming in to affect the. deliberations and that any interviews to. the media that any member of the jury. did, it's irrelevant. It's irrelevant. All that you have to look at is what was. happening at the trial at that time and. how there was a manifest necessity. determined by the court to declare a. mistrial. That all the statements that. they made in the media, they're not. under oath, doesn't matter. And Sprig. really highlights how you want to avoid.

pressuring a lone dissenting juror. You. do not want the court to interfere with. the jury deliberation process. And she. even argued, what would have been a. single question that wouldn't have. gotten into the deliberative process. You know, cuz if the court says, how are. you applying the facts? Which facts are. you disagreeing with? Who's right? Is. the lone juror right or the others. right? You want to avoid creating a. coercive environment. So, they argued. the defense motion should be denied. And. Weinberg gave a brief rebuttal. Okay.

The judge basically said, going to take. it under advisement and see where it. goes from there. Okay. Now, I want to go. into the second motion. And this is. about the defense's motion to preserve. records on this lone holdout juror, okay? Juror Doe. And prosecutor Jennifer. Sprig briefly said, motion should be. denied. It's missing exhibits. How this. material that the defense wants to use, it can't be used for a motion to. dismiss. Okay. This is where defense. attorney Kevin Reddington comes in.

>> Well, here we are, huh? Round two. You know, we all like to think that. in this country when someone is charged. with a crime, they're entitled to a fair. trial. We like to think that you're. entitled to a. fair jury. We like to think that you're. entitled to. fair application of the law. We don't. want to pretend that a judge is the guy. hiding behind the curtain like in The. Wizard of Oz. We want to have fairness.

is what we want. And this young lady. came into this courtroom back in July. and we picked the jury. And the jury sat. for about 7 weeks. And they deliberated for about a week. And when you have jurors, you expect that the jurors are going to. be honest in their disclosure. to the court. of their background. You expect that the.

jurors are going to disclose any issues. that may compromise their ability, if. you will, to be fair and impartial. You don't bring. your background. into a jury room and suppress it. as was done in this case. This. gentleman, Mr. De Rionneville, >> You know, I'm going to I'm going to stop. you right there. >> No, you're not going to stop me. >> Well, no, you I am. >> No, you're not. >> Because All right, then this hearing's, you know, because there's no need to.

bring out that juror's name. >> He's already admitted to that. >> You know what? That's through the. internet. That's through other people. There's no need here in this courtroom. to use that Everyone else has referred. to him either as juror adult, and if you. want to refer to him, that's the way. he's to be referred. That's all. >> He's got more face time than I do. >> Well, that's, you know, that's But. that's not through this. any rulings I've made. >> And and and his attorney from Houston is. sitting in the back. >> Well, that's great, too. But, you know,

just let's We we don't need this. Just. >> Okay, fine. Let me continue. >> All right. >> with what was not given to you at the. time the jury form was submitted because. I know in your rulings, you say that anything that came. subsequent that was discovered. subsequent, such as the juror who. indicated that this individual. was on his cell phone. He was scrolling. through his cell phone.

I know that you are very familiar with. the superior court rule. that requires a superior court judge. to instruct the jury. that they are not to have cell phones or. electronic devices in the jury room or. during the trial. They are not. to use cell phone devices to research. either the law or the facts of the case. You have evidence. that this individual was researching.

filicide. He was researching altruistic. filicide. His podcast representative. indicated on his podcast after he had. pandered to him and requested, "Please. call me. Please call me and I'll put you. on my podcast.". He indicates that he told him that he. had to look up these terms. Now, I'm not aware of jurors being allowed to. have cell phones in their jury room.

How that happened in this case, I don't. know. It was discovered because the. other juror. made the statement. And perhaps you were. as shocked as I was. to determine that this juror in this. case after 7 weeks of trial had cell. phones away looking at it. Whether it's. him, whether it's all of them, it's a concern and a significant one. Granted, discovered after the mistrial, but doesn't that give you pause?

>> And then there's this whole back and. forth about this lone holdout juror's. alleged criminal record and how much. Reddington can actually talk about this. in a public forum because the. prosecution didn't want this in public. They wanted this discussed in closed. chambers or a sidebar. And then there's. a discussion about how the juror. questionnaire form, it's asking if. you've, you know, had a a conviction of. some kind and then the Kevin Reddington. seems to refer to the lone holdout. juror's abuse prevention order, that he.

didn't disclose that, that he didn't. disclose an arrest. And the judge even. got involved and said, "Sustain. Move. on." cuz he didn't want a lot of this. information seemingly on the public. record. And eventually they go to a. sidebar. They come back. They talk about. submitting exhibits. And then the. Commonwealth comes up. And they. basically say, "Look, this should be denied on its face. All. of this information, even if it's. accurate, was discovered after the. mistrial was declared. It's not relevant. to the motion to dismiss on double.

jeopardy grounds that you're opening the. door. If you're going to start looking. at the statements of this juror, well, look at all the statements of all the. other jurors that gave interviews after. the fact. Do we want to be doing that? No. The prosecution's arguing that. extrajudicial statements after the. trial, after the mistrial, they're. irrelevant. That's it. Then a lawyer for. this lone holdout juror comes up, notes. that he didn't want to even serve on. this jury, but he was impaneled, and the. defense agreed to impanel him on the. jury. And she says, "All this is about. is the defense attacking him, saying.

that he just didn't vote the way the. defense wanted. That's all that this. is." Now, I'm going to say this. You. know how Maurice is telling you about. the dangers of this world and all these. stories that I cover? How about this? Did you know that data brokers collect, sell, and publish your personal. information on sites all across the. internet? Yeah, they gather all kinds of. information like your date of birth, your shopping habits, your social. security number, your phone number. But. here's the thing, with Incogni, they. remove your data on autopilot from over. 420 broker sites when you sign up. And.

with an unlimited plan, their exposure. scanner gathers your personal data and. puts it all in one place where you can. decide what's removed, which means you. don't have to go looking around for all. the places your data's hiding. Incogni. also gives you an overview of the. removal process, allowing you to dig. deeper into each site request. Look, I'll tell you, shocking, shocking to. find out all these databases that had my. information. The good news is Incogni. was taking them down within days. They. can harm you if they can't find you. Use. code sidebar at the link below and get.

60% off an annual plan. That is. incogni.com/sidebar. Okay, now we have the final argument of. the day, and this focused on the. Commonwealth's motion to bar, preclude, prevent prejudicial statements by. defense counsel to the public. Because. as you know, Kevin Redington has been. quite vocal throughout this high-profile. case advocating for his client, expressing his opinions on how things. have been handled both inside and. outside the courtroom. But now the. prosecution wants to put an end to it.

and they argue that it interferes with. the criminal proceedings. I mean at the. very least you can make the argument. that does this interfere with the. ability to get a fair and impartial. jury. And especially they seem to. highlight Redington's statements. following the mistrial. So here's how. this went down in court beginning with. the Commonwealth attorney, the. prosecutor Jennifer Sprague. >> What we saw at times during the course. of this trial and after were statements. calculated to affect the public. perception of this case.

Statements targeted at the juror. where defense counsel said that the. other jurors were robbed by that holdout. juror, that he hopes that person can sleep well. at night. Statements personalizing the. relationship he has with the defendant. saying that she's like a daughter to. him. Statements. asking for a presidential pardon even. though that's not possible. Statements. asking for the president to call the. district attorney to pressure him. to not retry this case. And when asked.

if those. that request was inappropriate, his. response was I don't care. And then also statements about your. honor. When asked about your mandatory. retirement approaching, he said I'm. going to try to hire him and see if. he'll come work for me. No, Sully is a. great guy. He was a wonderful defense. attorney before he became a judge. Statements like this. are calculated to affect the jury's. perception of the case. and the fairness of the system, fairness. of the judge presiding over the case,

and they're just inappropriate. because as stated in In re Cobb. quote, if a if judicial system is to. operate fairly, rationally, and. impartially as it must. and if the administration of justice is. to proceed in an orderly manner, judges. and attorneys alike must act with. responsibility towards those principles. I am not looking for 15 minutes of fame. in this case. What the Commonwealth. wants is justice for Cora, Dawson, and. Callan.

>> And Sprague said that the defense argued. those concerns were speculative because. there's no new trial date set. But she. argues that the public won't simply. ignore those statements as the legal. proceedings continue. People that could. potentially be on the jury in the future. can still hear what attorneys are saying. to the public. And the Commonwealth. argues that we haven't made any. inflammatory or prejudicial statements. to the public. So we'll gladly accept. the gag order on our side, too, if the. judge sees fit. Then it was attorney. Laura McConnell's turn to get on the. podium for the defense. And she argued.

that the Commonwealth failed to meet the. legal standard to justify what we call. in the law a prior restraint on speech. So you're talking First Amendment, right? So only Reddington's alleged. statements to the public to infer that. any potential prospective juror has been. exposed or affected by these statements, but the case as a whole is completely up. in the air. That it possibly you won't. have another trial. So how can anyone. know if this would impact anything? >> Let's keep in mind this is not a case.

where Ms. Clancy has been going out and. doing press conferences and interviews. He is not only her attorney, but he's. her voice, too. So not only are we. infringing on attorney Reddington's. First Amendment right, we're also. infringing on my client's First. Amendment right here in order to defend. herself. The government spoke about how. it's it's important to have an. uh. a fair trial for both sides. By. entering this supposed order that the. government is seeking, it would effectively prejudice the.

defense to inevitably have an unfair. trial as attorney Reddington wouldn't be. able to respond to inquiries in the. public. Part of the issue with the publicity in. this case, too, and I think it's. important, is the attorney's ability to. be able to speak to what is actually. occurring in the case relative to. hearings and things of that nature. because it actually sometimes defrays. the public frenzy that occurs when you. know, things get carried out of you. know, out of court and you know, through. all of that. Their proposed order also. just does not remotely tie to anything.

relative to you know any discharge. jurors their attorneys and their. ability to speak which I think is. largely why we are here today is what is. actually occurring outside the courtroom. and not by counsel in this matter. So your honor with that I would say that. I do not believe the government has has. met their burden at all to justify a. prior restraint. and that your honor would not be able to. make findings of fact. There has.

been no retrial date. There's no jury to. be impaneled. We don't even know if and. when the jury is going to be impaneled. and more importantly whether or not any. prospective juror has actually been. exposed or affected to that to the point. where they would be unable to set that. aside and rule favorably on this matter. >> Judge Sullivan decided to take this. motion also under advisement, didn't. make a decision and then we get to the. final order of business figuring out a. potential schedule if a retrial were to.

take place. Now the Commonwealth wants a. hearing to find out the judge's ruling. on all those outstanding motions. including the motion to dismiss and how. the attorneys plan to proceed before. settling on an official trial date. But. look, they have made it clear that they. plan to retry the case though the. details remain unclear depending on how. these motions play out, what the charges. exactly would be and defense attorney. Reddington got back on the podium to. respond and here's how that went. >> 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? To suggest that they need to find out. what you're going to do on these motions. and if there're going to be any appeals. assuming that they're denied. is specious. They don't need to wait for. that to determine if they're going to. take a run at her again on first degree.

I have to know. logistically if it's going to be. triple homicide first degree. or something else. There are a number of things that come. to play, not the least of which are. witnesses, trial preparation, uh the elephant in the room is your. retirement. And I will tell you right now that I. would prefer. that you. be the trial judge. You sat through 7. weeks of this trial.

You know the witnesses, you know their. demeanor, you know the evidence, you. know the facts. And obviously you bring it great. experience to the bench. And I. I have no problem with that. And I And I. would want your honor to be the trial. judge in this case. But I also know. that the time, unfortunately, is is is coming. quickly upon us. I would also represent. that from a. tactical. standpoint on this case,

after confirming with. my client, regardless of what your order is. on the double jeopardy motion to. dismiss, there will be no appeal that. would delay. a trial. We would if. counsel feels it, which I do, and I know. Mr. Weinberg does, that it's very very. meritorious issue, we would still. pursue, but we don't have to have a. stay. We can still have the matter. proceed to trial.

So, the ball. is in Mr. Cruz's court. And to spin everyone. in the breeze with family, emotional, everyone was affected by this case, whether or not it would be trial. counsel, whether or not it would be. stenographers, the clerk, the court. officers, your honor, me, everyone was. affected by this case. And I'm sure it affected Mr. Cruz.

And unfortunately, he stands alone to. make that decision. And to suggest. that we need to kick the can. and get a trial assignment date. which in my opinion would effectively. remove you from the mix as far as being. a trial judge in this case. On the reason ostensibly that there may. very well be an appeal and we have to. see what's going to happen on the. appeal. I am not. going to have this woman sit. incarcerated for the next year or two or.

three. I want a trial and I want it with. you and I want it this spring. >> So based on the judge's response, he's. seemingly aiming for a hypothetical. trial date set for March. However, a. hearing is set for November 16th to rule. on the defense's motion to dismiss and. depending on that ruling, it could. become a trial assignment hearing where. an official trial date is then picked. So on that point, we'll have to wait and. see how everything unfolds, but I want. to get different perspective right now. I want to talk about what we didn't see,

what we missed, perspective from. somebody who was inside that courtroom, also outside the courtroom cuz I. understand there was some comments that. were made after this hearing. Now before. I bring in our special guest to talk all. about what happened in the courtroom, obviously we're kind of limited on. everything we can show you in the. Lindsay Clancy case. I mean, you know, we don't have 7 hours to do this. episode, but what we do have is the case. file section on the Law Crime Plus app. for all these big stories cuz what we do. is we open up the evidence vault so you. can inspect things like the raw body cam.

footage, the 911 calls, the crime scene. photos, the full trial tapes, all first. hand. Plus you get ad-free streaming of. all your favorite Law Crime and Court TV. shows. And for a limited time, we've got. a special offer with my promo code. sidefall. You get 25% off an annual Law. Crime Plus subscription and enjoy a full. year of true crime commercial free. That's just $44.99 for the entire year. So go to lawcrimeplus.com. and subscribe today. Okay, let's jump. back into this. Okay, so with that in. mind, let me bring on Sierra Gillespie, host of Scandal, Law Crime's.

correspondent who was in that courtroom. Uh Sierra, thank you so much for coming. on. Really appreciate it. I mean, we. were showing clips of what was going on. in court, but obviously we didn't get. the full picture cuz you were in there. Before I even talk about that, can we. just talk for a second about what. happened outside of court? Like I think. what happened outside of court after. this hearing is pretty significant on. multiple levels, right? >> Oh, yeah. This was a very interesting. group of people. I mean, I've been here.

really from the start. Obviously, we've. seen our ups and downs as far as. supporters or protesters here. But this. morning there was one person who stood. out to me in particular wearing pink. On. the back of her jacket it said F, the. real word though, F the DA. Clearly a. Lindsay Clancy supporter. And when. Lindsay was when she arrived here early. this morning, this person ran over to. the van, was making hearts with her. hands, screaming in support of Lindsay. So that's how it started, okay? Then we. went through the hearing. She was in the. hearing kind of hanging on Kevin.

Redington's every word. And there's one. person who really stood out to me, but. honestly there was probably about 10 or. 15 total in pink, an army of pink in. support of Lindsay Clancy. So when DA. Tim Cruz walks out from the doors right. behind me, by the way, he's walking. toward the parking lot, he's mobbed by. reporters who are asking questions and. these Lindsay Clancy supporters who are. screaming at him and saying, "Say the. names of the children. You don't even. know their names." Uh. kind of demeaning him about his height. and his appearance and really just.

yelling at him about the potential. retrial of Lindsay Clancy. It definitely. was tense here. He didn't say much. He. just walked to his car and left, but. there was a lot of emotions outside from. the supporters. >> And the attorney or attorneys that. represent, you know, this juror, uh. juror Doe, they were also there. And I. was just looking at clips on social. media. Were they being like harassed. outside the courthouse, too? >> So there were two of the attorneys, correct. One spoke with us, Heather.

O'Connor. She was very polite. She's a. local attorney to here in Massachusetts. Very polite, answered our questions. I. didn't see any sort of tiff or anything. going on with the supporters there. But. the other attorney, this is the attorney. who Kevin Reddington called out in the. hearing. He said he's a podcast lawyer. in the back row from Houston. Um also. has been kind of involved tangentially. with the Nolan Wells case, too. Now, this attorney, they did get in kind of a. bit of a tiff. And it almost was. performative, in my opinion, Jesse, because the people in the pink are.

screaming at him. Once again, say the. names of the children. You don't even. know their names. And this other. attorney, he just basically was like, "This is what we're dealing with, people. This is what happens." I don't. know what that really means in reference. to representing the lone holdout juror. But, they definitely did go after him, as well. >> I want to go with what happened in the. hearing, cuz there's a little bit of. like what's said and what's not said. Do you get the sense that the. prosecutors are going to retry this case.

and retry Lindsay Clancy on first-degree. murder charges? >> Oh, that's the million-dollar question, Jesse, because today we did get one. tiny, tiny answer in that the. Commonwealth says we are going to retry. Lindsay Clancy. They didn't specify, though. Obviously, Kevin Reddington had. his qualms with that, saying, "Is it. going to be first-degree, second-degree? What What are we looking at here?" And. honestly, if you've been in a courtroom, which I know you have, Jesse, for our. viewers, too, you can sometimes just.

feel things in a courtroom that you. might not be able to pick up on a live. stream. Or if you're there interviewing. the attorneys, you just kind of can pick. up on things. And honestly, what people. here are saying, the reporters as we're. waiting for Kevin Reddington, kind of. speaking to each other, it does kind of. seem like they're going to lean toward. first-degree murder. Now, this is just. speculation. I don't know. I do know. that Reddington has said, "If we go. second-degree, he definitely wants to. move forward with a bench trial," which. could be positive for Lindsay Clancy. But, it does kind of seem like it might.

be a first-degree murder retrial. >> And bench trial, of course, in front of. the judge, Judge Sullivan. And again, we're waiting for a lot of his rulings. on this. Um. and and and I I I to say, I'm watching. this happen. I'm curious you being. inside the courtroom. Does it seem that Judge Sullivan is more. inclined to deny the defense's motion to. dismiss the charges on double jeopardy. grounds? He seemed skeptical in my. opinion of their argument. It seemed. also skeptical of the argument that he.

didn't do enough, that he didn't do. enough of an investigation of this lone. holdout juror and what was happening in. the jury deliberation room. Remember, we. talked about it, how it was argued by. the prosecutors, how they felt that if. there was more the judge did that could. have been an improper interference in. the jury deliberation process. But, it. seemed to me, even though he's taking it. under advisement, you've been covering. this case, you were in that courtroom. Does it seem more likely than not that. he is going to deny that motion, which.

would ultimately now rest with the. prosecutors to retry Lindsey Clancy? >> If I'm looking in my crystal ball, Jesse, I will guess that Judge William. Sullivan will deny this motion. And I'll. tell you why. It's It's because it's a. complicated argument, right? I mean, it's all about the manifest necessity. Was it absolutely required that the the. judge declare a mistrial at that moment? And the defense is saying, "It's not. It. wasn't a requirement. Basically, Judge. Sullivan, what you should have done is. had more probing voir dire at the time. Maybe you should have even replaced this.

holdout juror with one of the six. alternates that we had. And at that. point, we could have, you know, had some. sort of verdict here. So, thus, to retry. Lindsey Clancy would then be a violation. of double jeopardy." And I will tell you. that during uh. Weinburg's argument about all of this, Judge Sullivan interrupted him and said, "Hold on. Hold on. I did do that. Remember? Remember when I was there and. I was questioning them? I pulled them. all aside. I didn't just question the. holdout. I questioned every single. member of the jury. And I think it's.

really tricky for Sullivan because you. can't push the boundaries too far. He. can't ask specific questions about what. was going on in the deliberation room. I. mean, it's simply not allowed. So, he. doesn't want to overstep. He's trying to. kind of follow the rules there. And so, I really do think that he will deny this. motion ultimately. A decent argument by. the defense, but. I don't know, kind of grasping at straws. in my opinion. >> And by the way, the DA was there, right? DA Cruz, he was in the courtroom for all. this? >> Yes. Yeah, he is in the front row. He. was there listening to all of it.

>> Mhm. Any sign anything that he gave away. indicate what their mindset is, how. they're interpreting this, where they. might go? Did he say anything at any. point? >> It's so interesting. Tim Cruz to me has. such a good poker face. I mean, he's. pleasant whenever I've seen him, like a. "Hi, how are you?" whatever, but hardly. anything after that. So, throughout the. entire hearing, he's pretty stone-faced. I mean, he's paying attention, he's. following along, um but not really. emotional even when Redington points. back at him and says, "Tim Cruz in the. front row." I mean, he he really does.

like to point out to people in the. gallery, I'll tell you that. Tim Cruz, not much emotion there. He did come out. after, of course we talked about that. kind of scuffle with Lindsey Clancy. supporters yelling at him. He didn't say. really anything. All he said is, "November 16th, you're going to know. more. November 16th, I'm going to talk. more." So, I guess we once again have to. wait until November 16th. >> It was also fiery in that courtroom. We. showed a clip of it between Kevin. Redington and the judge. I sometimes. forget you have an attorney talking to. the judge in this way, but you know, even Redington at one point when he was.

referring to. attorney Sprague, he's like, "Yeah, I. know I call her Jen Sprague, but you. know, we've known each other for a long. time." It seems like he and the judge. have known each other for quite some. time. I mean, but there was that, you. know, kind of tense moment about how. much they could reveal about this. holdout juror and his alleged criminal. history. What was it like in the. courtroom for that? >> Oh, I mean, in my opinion, Redington. always wants everything to be discussed. in open court. And honestly, he's no. stranger to the media. He seemingly.

loves to be in front of the camera. because he does talk to us. He's pretty. straightforward and honest for the most. part. He likes to talk to us. And so, it. makes sense that he wants this to be in. open court. The other side of things, the Commonwealth, they wanted this to be. discussed in sidebar to protect the. privacy of this juror. It's kind of. interesting because his name is out. there. I believe we've have reported it. too because it has been widely reported. It was mentioned very, very briefly. today in court and Judge Sullivan shut. it down right away. We don't want to say. that. We don't want to talk about it. But what I will say is it definitely was. tense in that moment because Redington.

is very fiery about this issue with this. holdout juror. And it makes sense, right? I mean, they were one away from. having an acquittal. It makes sense that. he would be have a vested interest in. this additional juror, this lone juror I. should say. Um it definitely was tense. in that moment. I'm unclear how Judge. Sullivan's going to react or how he's. going to rule on it, but again, another. tense moment in the courtroom. >> For what we couldn't see, who else was. in the courtroom? Was there anybody from. Lindsay Clancy's family? I don't believe.

Patrick was there. I mean, was there. anybody there, you know, for the. children? Anybody there in support of. her other than, you know, essentially strangers who were there in. support of her? Was there anybody else. in the courtroom that you noted? I know. there was a large media presence as. well. >> Yeah, it's so interesting, Jesse. You're. right. The people to support Lindsay. really were her supporters, strangers, as you said. And I think that just shows. the vast range that this case has made. that so many people have vested interest. in it. But for people who actually do. know Lindsay, both of her parents were.

there. They were there every single day. of the trial. They've been here every. hearing that I've seen. So her parents. are there. Her civil attorney, I only. saw one of the two. Again, it was a. really packed courtroom, so perhaps I. just wasn't able to completely see, but. one of her civil attorneys We also saw. Patrick Redington. Let me be specific. Redington was there. This is Kevin. Redington's son. Patrick Clancy though, he was not in the courtroom. And again, I haven't seen him in the courtroom. The. only time he was there was when he had. to take the stand. He has been nowhere. near this Plymouth County Courthouse. besides that.

>> And I know there's a separate civil. lawsuit that's happening as well and. becomes a question, right, Sierra, of. Kevin Redington took issue before. today's day, before today's hearing about whether or. not his client is going to be compelled. to testify in that civil case and he. doesn't want that happening. >> Yeah, this is something that happened. last week when Patrick Clancy's team was. in person in Dedham Superior Court, which some of you I'm sure remember from. the Karen Read case. That's where that. was being argued and discussed. Now, Patrick Clancy was not there, but at the.

time his attorney said something like. Lindsay Clancy will likely testify about. homicidal ideations. Now, Reddington for. his part, I got a text at like 8:00 p.m. that night from his PR and it was a. pretty strongly worded statement saying, "No one speaks for Lindsay Clancy except. for me and her team. She never had these. homicidal ideations. We have no plans. for her to testify." So, that's what he. was saying that we probably wouldn't. hear from Lindsay, at least if. Reddington has the last word. >> Sierra, look, this is we're going to.

wait. We're going to see what happens. later in the month. Um I mean, this is. an excellent analysis that you had based. on what we're seeing. I I agree that I. think this is probably going to. continue. I don't think the judge is. going to dismiss it. Um and we'll see if. the prosecution moves forward with. first-degree murder in what capacity, but um it it was an interesting day, to. say the least. And Sierra Gillespie, excellent reporting. I want everybody to. check you out on Scandal. You're. terrific. Thank you so much for taking. the time, as always. >> Yeah, thanks for having me, Jesse.

>> And that's all we have for you right now. here on Sidebar, everybody. Thank you so. much for joining us. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next time.