00:00:01
Speaker 1: It's Nightside with Dan Ray on WBZ, Boston's news radio.
00:00:07
Speaker 2: What a great hour with Robert Siciliano, who is a cybersecurity expert, not just for companies, but for you. And you might want to think about his book, The Strategic Human Firewall. There's so much information that we all need to know to get through this jungle of a cyber world out there. And there was so much information there that if you missed it, Or if you didn't jot things down, you're going to want to listen again. You can listen again at DiceSideOnDemand.com. And don't forget also about the iHeartRadio app. It's free, and that way you can listen anywhere. Well, big doings in the Clancy trial today. It did not resolve itself, but it presented us with a cliffhanger. It's kind of unprecedented, and we are very fortunate to have Dean Michael Quine, Dean of the Massachusetts School of Law, with us to chat about it. Before we get into that, school must be, has started up, so you must be pretty busy today.
00:01:10
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, no, it's been a busy couple weeks. We started two weeks ago, and between the trial and school and all the rest, it's been very hectic, but, you know, this is the type of thing that you live for, right, is that You want to be able to educate students and you want to be able to educate the public with respect to really significant legal issues and mental health issues that are examined in this Clancy case.
00:01:37
Speaker 2: So you do use this as a teaching example? Oh, sure.
00:01:41
Speaker 3: Oh, sure. Because there's a lot to it, you know, especially from if you just think about the basic trial skills and the persuasive ability of lawyers to connect with the jury and There's a lot here to teach from. And also for the students to be able to see the firsthand stuff that you talk about in the classroom about how to appropriately treat a witness, how to examine them, how to introduce evidence, and how to make the arguments about exclusion of evidence. So there, you know, I think when you relate the actual subject matter to a contemporary issue that they can see on TV, and I did, they watched all of this as it unfolded today on the TV, It does sort of reinforce, okay, now I get what that means about, you know, germ misconduct or whatever it is.
00:02:30
Speaker 4: Right.
00:02:31
Speaker 2: So before we get to the events later in the day today, I do have to ask a couple things about the deliberation. 35 hours is longer than usual? Is that the far end of long? How normal is that?
00:02:47
Speaker 3: It's not that normal. But I mean, just a couple of examples. Aaron Hernandez was convicted on the first trial of Odin Lloyd. He was convicted in about the same time period. So it's not outrageous. Phil Spector, you know, since your BCN days, he was convicted in about the same time period. But there are other cases that go on in 30 hours and you get not guilty. So it's not... It's not outrageous, but there are an awful lot of cases that are resolved in just a few hours. Laurie Vallow was convicted multiple times for murder and attempted murder in less than four hours.
00:03:29
Speaker 5: And O.J.
00:03:29
Speaker 3: Was exonerated in less than four hours. So it happens. So you see a wide variation in cases. how long the jury deliberates. Part of it depends on the complexity of the case. And this is an incredibly complex case with complex legal and psychiatric, psychological issues involved.
00:03:50
Speaker 2: You did approach addressing what I'm going to ask you next. It's the age-old question. Does a long jury deliberation give you any clue as to how they're going to finish up?
00:04:04
Speaker 3: No, not really, because as we just were saying... You know, there are cases where you're in for 30 hours and it's a guilty and you're in for 30 hours and it's a not guilty. The only thing the length of time helps to show or tends to indicate is the longer it goes on, obviously, the more likely you are to have a hung jury because the reason it's going on for a long time is they just can't decide the thing on the merits.
00:04:29
Speaker 1: Okay.
00:04:30
Speaker 2: Can you give the, recount the events of the late afternoon regarding this one juror?
00:04:42
Speaker 3: Well, yes, and we think it's one juror based on what the defense attorney has said, Kevin Reddington, that the jury is split what appears to be likely 11-1. We don't know exactly where they're going, but based on what he said and what his reaction was to it, we think it's likely 11-1, not guilty because of mental disease. or defect. And so what he's pushing for, and so one of the jurors, we had a couple notes ready, one early on the week saying, we're a hung jury, judge says go back and try to work a little harder. We then had another one and a question. And today, the judges received a note that appears to indicate that at least one juror is not following your instructions, not applying the law as you told them to apply it with respect to reasonable doubt. And so the question then becomes, does that juror need to be removed? And that's an extraordinary thing you're asking the court to do during deliberations. And that's what the fight is now about. I mean, we're now approaching day seven of deliberations. As you point out, it's a lot of hours spent. We're getting closer to a question of whether it's a hung jury or is there cause to remove this juror and replace the juror with one of the six alternates that are there. That's what Reddington's pushing for because he's counting Moses. He sees and feels there's 11 jurors already in his favor. out of 12. Statistically, any one of those six could fall into the same type of grouping with the majority. And now he's got 12 votes for not guilty by reason of mental illness. That's what he's been seeking for the whole time. But it appears that in order to do that, unless that juror changes his mind overnight, he's going to continue to push for removing that juror.
00:06:50
Speaker 2: It seems clear that Reddington believes that the The 11 other jurors are on his side. What is it that leads him to believe that?
00:07:01
Speaker 3: Well, body language. You know, you read the jury throughout the entirety of the trial. You watch what they're reacting to. You watch what they maybe smile at or gesture or just when they're taking notes. All of that would tend to indicate whether your points are landing with the jury or whether the other side here in the prosecution is. So you really do look at when the judge is instructing them, what they're doing in response to that, and what they seem to be impacting or resonating with them. And so, you know, yes, a lot of it is it's a gut feel, but I wouldn't discount his gut feels. He's one of the premier criminal defense lawyers in this state. Uh, clearly if you get jammed up on the South shore, you want to call a Reddington. Um, and, uh, he's got a daughter and a son who are also lawyers, Patrick and Colleen, both terrific lawyers. So the fact is, is that he knows, he knows how to read the room. He knows what the jury is likely thinking. And, and yeah, could he be wrong?
00:08:11
Speaker 1: Sure.
00:08:12
Speaker 3: But I don't think that's likely. So the body language tells you a lot.
00:08:16
Speaker 2: God forbid I get jammed up on the South shore. But if I do, uh, I don't know who to call. Here are the three possibilities. I see them when it comes to this juror. And perhaps you can comment after I give you my three options. Number one is that this person truly sees no reasonable doubt whatsoever.
00:08:38
Speaker 3: That's correct.
00:08:39
Speaker 2: Okay. The other one is that the juror does not understand reasonable doubt, but I don't see how that's possible. It's been explained over and over. It's been explained by the judge. And you can be sure those other 11 are explaining the heck out of it. And the third option is that the person does see reasonable doubt and maybe is even expressed to the other 11 that they see a reasonable doubt, but they morally or something like morally just cannot abide seeing Clancy and be acquitted. And there's just, maybe they're religious, maybe it's a moral thing, but regardless of the rules, there's something that won't let them do it. That's my third option. Is there a fourth, or do you.
00:09:29
Speaker 3: Have thoughts on that? No, I think you're right, and especially on your third option, this is a polarizing case. If you could poll your listeners, have them describe their sentiment about it, if you'd like, But I think what you're going to find is there's about 25 percent of the people to a third on either side of this. Some people feeling she just at the end of the day, even if she. had suffering from a mental disease, a defect, she knew this was wrong and she shouldn't have done it and she needs to be punished. And there's probably 25% of the people that way. And then there's, I think, even more people that are leaning to the side of And whether this is a third or even 50% saying, no, listen, the medical system failed her. She sought desperately for help and she didn't get it. This isn't her fault. At the end of the day, she was mentally ill and they would never vote to convict her. And I think there are people with strongly held beliefs on both sides. And your third option may well be where we're at is that we've got that type of divide between and you're never going to bridge it. And that may not be overcome. And it could be a good faith belief in applying the law that the judge said. And if that's the case, then the juror shouldn't be removed. On the other hand, if the juror is saying, I don't care what the law is, I don't care what the evidence is, what she did was wrong and she needs to be punished and go to jail, Well, then you've got a different circumstance where the court has to be concerned.
00:11:13
Speaker 1: Right.
00:11:14
Speaker 2: I have a couple more questions. Can we do one more segment?
00:11:16
Speaker 4: Sure. Okay.
00:11:17
Speaker 6: I can do whatever you like.
00:11:18
Speaker 2: Yeah, let's do one more, and then after you depart, I will poll the audience.
00:11:23
Speaker 3: Okay.
00:11:23
Speaker 4: Okay.
00:11:24
Speaker 2: So one more segment here. A few more questions for Dean Michael Coyne of the great Massachusetts School of Law after this on WBZ.
00:11:33
Speaker 1: You're on Nightside with Dan Ray on WBZ, Boston's news radio.
00:11:39
Speaker 7: I appreciate the fact, Your Honor, that you're allowing us to be heard in public rather than at the sidebar. The court has an instruction from the foreperson of that juror that's been working for a week now saying that there's one juror who refuses to listen to the law that you've given him or her on reasonable doubt. And I suggest respectfully that the soft instruction that you gave them saying at the sidebar, can you listen to the law as I instruct you, does not focus on the issue. The question is not sufficient enough. It does not allow any foundation for a motion to remove the juror who refuses to accept your instructions on the law on reasonable doubt. And if we come back here in a half an hour with a mistrial because of a juror that has just spurned the instructions of this court, it's a shame. It's a real shame. And that's why I object to the court's ruling. I request that we have further inquiry. I request that my motion is to remove this juror that refuses to listen to your instruction on reasonable doubt.
00:12:49
Speaker 2: Well, there you go. That's a defense attorney in the Clancy trial. Spells everything out. What happened today, we are with Dean Michael Coyne of the Massachusetts School of Law. And just prior to the break, kind of spelled out the three things that might be going on. That juror may actually see no reasonable doubt. And on the other end of that spectrum, the juror may be ignoring the instructions of the judge. and maybe should be replaced. So the question is, how does the judge ferret out which of the possibilities is actually the case? Does he actually have to talk to this one juror? Is that highly out of line? What would you recommend, or what do you expect might happen?
00:13:37
Speaker 3: Well, it's not highly out of line. There's a delicate line, though, that has to be adhere to, because you don't want to invade that jury's deliberative process, that the conversations that they engage in to try and arrive at a decision. But in the same vein, though, the defendant's entitled to a fair trial where the jury will, as they promised at the outset, listen to the evidence and and apply the law to the evidence that is received during the course of the trial. And if that's not being done, then her rights are being violated. And that's why he's so vociferous with respect to, Judge, you've got to go further. You've got to take a harder look. You've got to talk to and ask questions of the juror exactly what they're doing when they're back there with respect to, the law that the court has told them, what reasonable doubt is, the evidence that they received. And I think the best way to be able to do it, and this is what Attorney Reddington is trying to say in part, is that you can't just ask them yes or no questions. You know, yes, you know, who's going to say that they're biased and disregarding the law? Are you fair and impartial when you apply the law as I've instructed you? The likelihood of someone saying no to that is low. None of us are ever going to agree, in essence, that we're biased in favor or against someone. So what you do when you're trying to seek a jury, you ask them questions that are open-ended to try and get at that prejudice that they may not be willing to admit. And so I do think Similar type of questioning here is what you would try to do, but I'll be honest with you, since we've been talking about it all afternoon on air, what is the question that is likely legitimate that you would be able to do and not have the appeals court say that what you're doing is you're intruding into that private space of the jury deliberations? And it's not that, you know, I mean, I'm busy, but... There's not a question that readily comes to mind that you would say is in essence bulletproof on appeal because our Supreme Court is rare. They talk about this is an emergency. You have to show an emergency situation. You have to show an extraneous influence on the jury. You have to show that somehow the jury has been, this juror has been influenced improperly or has lied on their jury questionnaire about information that would have disqualified them from the outset of serving on that jury. Those are high standards, and they should be because we don't want a judge imposing his or her will on a juror's votes. That's the whole system, is that we bring 12 people in and ask them to use their common sense to the facts and then apply the law as the judge instructs them. And Judge doesn't get to overrule the jury if the evidence supports what their conclusion is.
00:16:58
Speaker 2: Tricky business. So a half step might be for the judge to talk to the foreperson and say, please explain to me what you know about how this person arrived at a feeling that there is no reasonable doubt. Could they do that? Or could the judge say, did this person actually say, I do have reasonable doubt, but I refuse? to uh acquit.
00:17:26
Speaker 3: Um yeah well if that okay i don't think the proper inquiry is to the poor person of the jury um because that they're the ones that sent the note so the sentiment is either the four persons or the group likely the group of 11 um and so if you really if you're thinking you need to get further with the inquiry and i'm not sure the court does because that's They would like that. The defendant would like that to happen. But I do think the court is very cautious here and concerned about invading that deliberative process. But if they were going to do it, I think the appropriate inquiry is to the juror in question. It appears based on Attorney Reddington's statements. We know who it is. We know which one it is. So bring that person in and ask them questions. But I think the real question is, in order to not violate the law, is to be able to say, you know, do you understand, in essence, I guess you could say, what do you understand reasonable doubt to mean? And are you applying, in essence, explain to me how you're applying the law as I instructed. And that, those might be safe questions, and you're going to get a narrative.
00:18:38
Speaker 1: There, right?
00:18:39
Speaker 3: But you're not getting a yes or no answer. And so you get a narrative, and then based on that narrative, if the answers hold up, if the answer supports, yeah, that's not an unreasonable interpretation of reasonable doubt, and that's not a non-reasonable doubt, and that's not an unreasonable interpretation of how they're supposed to apply the law, then that's where that's, I believe, where the inquiry would end, because beyond that, the judge is on very dangerous ground. Our Supreme Court has talked about that it's very rarely done, that you remove one in the process. There was a case a few years back out of Suffolk County. Dan Conley talked about it earlier today, the former district attorney for Suffolk County. Four young men were killed on, I believe it was Melville Ave in Dorchester, where I'm from. And by the defendant and three jurors lied about their prior involvement in criminal history or whatever, it was, they didn't disclose fully the information or truthfully on the jury questionnaire. And so they were removed from jury service, jury involvement in the case because of the concern that if they had disclosed that, the Commonwealth never would have put them on the jury and likely would have been challenged for cause, which means you don't need to stay. The reason is that they really aren't unbiased. And under those circumstances, those jurors were removed, taken, you put in three of the alternates, and now you move forward. But that's, if you think about it, it's an extraordinary measure. But if you've been deceitful and lied in order to serve on the jury, you're not serving impartially and you're not giving the Commonwealth a fair chance to have their evidence aired either.
00:20:39
Speaker 2: I wonder if the defense is digging around looking for some sort of something like that. Before you go, just an observation. It's possible that if the judge does speak to outlier juror 12, that outlier juror 12 will say straight up, Judge, I just morally cannot do this. I fear I will go to hell. It's wrong. And the juror may be relieved to be able to... to tell the judge that, so the juror would be relieved of duty, because the juror may feel in a terrible bind, because on the one hand is reasonable doubt, and on the other hand is their moral code. And they might be happy to be excused.
00:21:23
Speaker 3: Well, Knight, I think there's more likelihood that with the pressure brought to bear, when it's 11-1, you're sole holdout at this point. that's hard to stand against the majority. So you might get someone changed to change their opinion based on that peer pressure. But I also think the other part of that that you have to be wary of is all he's got to do is say, no, you know, I'm applying the law. And the language of the reasonable doubt instruction says you've got to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty. So our morals do end up playing into this. If it's religion-based, he's got a problem. But the fact is, you should be convinced of the guilt to that extent. So so and there's a lot of overlap in law between our own sense of morals, right or wrong, as well as what the law requires. So you wouldn't even be that far out of bounds if you said, you know, morally, I believe it's wrong. Legally, I believe it's supported. The problem is, is you guess your question really does indicate that if instead you're imposing your own moral values and disregarding the law, that's where there's a problem.
00:22:42
Speaker 2: Perfect. As always a great, great guest. And I appreciate your late night time. I know you you've had school all day and you've been doing other things and you joined us. So thank you so, so much.
00:22:52
Speaker 3: Always a pleasure to talk to you and your listeners, Bradley. You know, I enjoy it.
00:22:55
Speaker 2: Yes, sir. Thank you very much. Now we'll break and then we'll talk to Ed and Worcester. And I got a 25, 23 minutes to speak with you and find out how you feel about this whole thing, especially today, what should happen. but your feelings on it in general. The easy question is, if you were on the jury, what would you do? If you were the judge, what would you do in this case? It's WBZ. And Rob Brooks, why don't you take us to the break, and we'll talk to you in a minute.
00:23:31
Speaker 1: You're on Nightside with Dan Ray on WBZ, Boston's news radio.
00:23:37
Speaker 8: We have the note from the jury. There's no way to determine whether what the deliberations are, who's correct, who's incorrect, nor should we attempt to, because that's part of deliberations. I think what Your Honor has done by asking each juror if they're able to follow the law and then giving a general instruction on reasonable doubt is appropriate under Commonwealth v. Ralph, so we do not have an objection to the questions or the re-instruction.
00:24:03
Speaker 2: So that's Jennifer Sprague from the prosecution. She expresses her thoughts on the judge's decision. about the note to the jury in the Clancy trial from the foreperson saying, hey, we've got a person here that's not obeying the instructions when it comes to reasonable doubt. If, in fact, as we suspect, the 11 that do agree are in favor of acquittal and the one holdout is not, you can bet that Jennifer Sprague and her team, the team, are praying for that jury to continue to hold out because they would love another crack at this case because they made some mistakes. One of the large mistakes was they really overpromised in the opening argument. And you know that because when it came to closing argument, it had been honed down to really the one simple question of did the defendant know what she was doing was wrong? At the time. That's the crux of it. And I probably wish they had stuck with that and not overpromised in the beginning. And you can also bet that, if it's as we suspect, the 11 jurors that do agree are in favor of acquittal, that Kevin Reddington really wants to close this deal. So close. So close to closing. And tomorrow is a huge day. Tomorrow, and if they can't agree, get it done tomorrow, I can't imagine they would go through the weekend. I would imagine they would say, that's it, hung jury, we're going to have to do it all over again. So much is in the balance tomorrow. Either that lone juror caves or not. And if that juror doesn't cave, everybody's going to do it all over again. And I think it would behoove the prosecution to have another trial. So, as promised, we'll go to Ed and Worcester. What are your thoughts on all of this, Ed? Thanks for calling us on WBZ.
00:26:12
Speaker 6: Hi, Bradley. Without getting into the merits of it, I think if you remember Officer Chesna, who was murdered a few years ago, in his first trial, I think it was a hung jury. And I think it was one juror was holding out for acquittal, and the other 11 wanted to convict. I think the fix here... is to require at least two jurors to hang a jury. Because the problem if you let one, the person doesn't have to engage. They don't have to try to persuade anybody else. And I've never been comfortable with that, either a civil or a criminal jury.
00:26:57
Speaker 2: So in this case, if only one juror was holding out, then the 11 would carry the day.
00:27:03
Speaker 6: Correct. Correct.
00:27:04
Speaker 2: And in order for it to.
00:27:05
Speaker 4: Be hung up.
00:27:05
Speaker 6: Think about it.
00:27:06
Speaker 1: Yeah.
00:27:07
Speaker 6: You enable, look, I'm all for allowing dissent and contrary views, but this gives too much power to the dissenter and the contrarian. They don't have to, they don't have to engage with anybody. They don't have to try to persuade anybody.
00:27:24
Speaker 2: That's interesting. That's interesting. So you're on the jury. What are you doing?
00:27:29
Speaker 6: You know, I haven't been paying attention to this. I just don't know. I haven't been paying any attention to this case.
00:27:37
Speaker 3: I don't know.
00:27:38
Speaker 5: Okay.
00:27:39
Speaker 2: Very well, Ed. Anything else before we move on?
00:27:43
Speaker 6: I'm a little uncomfortable with identifying in open court that it's one. That just doesn't sit well with me. I don't know that it's any kind of an ethical violation.
00:27:55
Speaker 4: I just.
00:27:56
Speaker 6: I think it puts duress on that person in a way that I don't like.
00:28:00
Speaker 2: So if that person is aware of what the reaction is going to be, it might, it might make them feel pressure.
00:28:06
Speaker 3: Yeah.
00:28:07
Speaker 5: Right.
00:28:07
Speaker 2: That's an interesting decision.
00:28:08
Speaker 6: Or feel stigma after if it, if it, if they hold out and they later on get identified, it's, you know, they're going to, they're going to get some, some, you know, harsh treatment.
00:28:19
Speaker 5: Yeah.
00:28:20
Speaker 2: That's a good point. Would you, would you want to be on this jury?
00:28:28
Speaker 6: I wouldn't particularly want to be on any jury, but if I were called, I would do it. I wouldn't particularly want to, no.
00:28:34
Speaker 2: I feel like I would want to, because I'm interested in the law. It's a real way to make a real difference. These people are making a real difference through their labor. I think it maybe seems grotesque in some way to say I would want to be on the jury, but I would. I mean, you know, I... I work part-time. I have the time. And as you know, I'm interested in the law. And I do think that this is probably one of the top 10% of more grueling trials for a jury ever. It must be. Those people are going to have PTSD after what they've seen, what they've been put through. But I feel like it would be a chance. I've never gotten called for a real case, and I think I would. I would not mind being on it. Ed, I really appreciate your points. Really good points.
00:29:27
Speaker 3: Thanks.
00:29:29
Speaker 5: Okay.
00:29:29
Speaker 3: Thanks, Bradley.
00:29:30
Speaker 5: Bye. Okay.
00:29:31
Speaker 2: Hey, Bob and Raina, we might as well talk to you right now. Hi, Bob and Raina.
00:29:36
Speaker 5: Hey, how you doing, Bradley?
00:29:38
Speaker 2: Great.
00:29:39
Speaker 5: Good. Hey, um, so your last, your last guest that was speaking and you know, both of you guys are speaking about, um, the possibility of the judge, uh, speaking to this old out juror. And to me, I would think, that would be the ultimate in jury intimidation.
00:30:03
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's a good point. I mean, yes, that's, that's a, could be, I don't know what to do. I guess the thing is what to do is what he did is go back in there and battle it out.
00:30:15
Speaker 5: Yeah. And, um, I, I think, I mean, if I, if I was on the jury, um, I would definitely find her guilty because, um, I thought the, The prosecution made a very good case that she was very lucid. Sounded like the entire day that she killed those kids up until the point that, you know, sending the husband out for food and to the drugstore. And she brought one of the kids to the doctor that day.
00:30:50
Speaker 2: Right. I mean, being psychotic, I don't think being psychotic means you do not, you lose the ability to scheme. I don't know. I'm not an expert in that area, but I've always thought from what I've learned that you can be psychotic and still scheme, still plan.
00:31:17
Speaker 5: And another thing I'd like to say, but I would find her guilty. I think Oh, I said this to you. I called you last week, actually. And I said, there are some crimes that there is just no excuse for. And, oh, that's what I was going to say. She's not on trial for the murder. There's no doubt that she did the murders. And she's on trial. They're only trying whether or not she was of sound mind or not. And in this case, I don't think it matters whether you are sound mind or not. It's so horrific.
00:31:59
Speaker 2: All right.
00:32:00
Speaker 5: There is no, there is no excuse.
00:32:02
Speaker 2: And you know what? That may be exactly, I think two other people, actually a hundred percent of the people that did respond to that question, that idea agreed with you. So it's really possible that this 12th juror feels exactly like you do and feels, and feels like, It might have even expressed this, yeah, maybe there's reasonable doubt, but it doesn't matter. This is so horrific that this cannot go unpunished. That may be the case, exactly the case. We'll see.
00:32:37
Speaker 5: And this holds, you know, ramifications for the future. From now on, does every woman that kills a kid say, geez, look at the Lindsay, whatever name, Ms. Case, and, you know, I just have to Say I had post-whatever-it-is syndrome, and that's it.
00:33:00
Speaker 3: Okay.
00:33:00
Speaker 5: And I'm out.
00:33:02
Speaker 2: Fair enough. In 30 seconds, do you believe that postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis is really real and really debilitating, or do you feel like it's fake? No, no, no.
00:33:18
Speaker 5: I feel like you.
00:33:19
Speaker 2: Feel like it's fake.
00:33:20
Speaker 6: I don't.
00:33:21
Speaker 5: No, I don't think it's fake. I think the brain's a very sensitive thing and things can trigger the brain, but there's no legitimate reason. I mean, men get depressed. If a man was depressed and he took out his three kids, the only people that would be standing in that Outside that courthouse would be to have him executed.
00:33:46
Speaker 1: Yes.
00:33:46
Speaker 5: To bring the death penalty back.
00:33:47
Speaker 2: But I think it's qualitatively a different kind of thing. It's not just depression. And so I had a caller call right here sitting in the seat and tell me she said she'd never said this before ever. She was crying to me on the air. Some of you have heard her saying, I almost, I can't even tell you what she said. It's too intense. But she almost killed her child. and she cries when she thinks about it. There's some particular type of psychosis and depression this is. It's not the same thing.
00:34:19
Speaker 3: As a man.
00:34:21
Speaker 5: Well, there's no excuse. Whatever it is, it's no excuse.
00:34:24
Speaker 2: All right, fair enough. Thank you, Bob. I'm super late. I'm tight on time. Thanks, Bob. It's WBZ.
00:34:32
Speaker 1: Nightside with Dan Ray on WBZ, Boston's news radio.
00:34:38
Speaker 9: I'm sure as parties understand, as they say, the discharge of a deliberating juror is a sensitive undertaking. I was just specifically responding to the specific question that was asked. I don't feel that it is proper for me to side with one side or the other of the deliberations. I don't feel it's appropriate for me to say I agree with one juror or the 11th. At this point, I've asked if they are able to follow my instructions of courting. They swore earlier that they could. They've said to that at this point that they can. That was specifically addressed towards the specific question.
00:35:26
Speaker 5: And that's what I'm doing.
00:35:28
Speaker 9: So the defendant's objection is noted and we will be in recess on this at this time.
00:35:35
Speaker 3: Thank you.
00:35:37
Speaker 2: Well, that was a. the judge, Sullivan, talking about the objections from Kevin Reddington and just explaining his decision and why he has said the things he said. It's quite an intense moment in the trial. So here's my prediction. If I have to make a prediction, I'm saying that the holdout juror number 12, if that juror was going to cave, would have caved by now And that juror understands that they can probably, if they can make it through one more day, that they'll all be able to go home due to a hung jury. And that person senses that if he can get through that day or two, maybe, and get sent home as a hung jury, that that person will have left with their conscience intact. So I think they're going to hold out. But I kind of hope I'm wrong. because that's always such a disappointing and expensive thing for everybody, including you. Let's talk to Louis or Louie in New Jersey.
00:36:50
Speaker 3: Hi.
00:36:52
Speaker 4: Yes. Good evening, sir.
00:36:53
Speaker 2: Good evening.
00:36:55
Speaker 4: I think that the prosecution dropped the ball after the fact that she had three children and she's claiming postpartum depression after having three kids and whereby the prosecution should have said to her or questioned her after the first child, did you or did you not have postpartum depression? It's a very simple, unambiguous question to ask somebody that is being accused of the crimes that she's committed after having three children.
00:37:38
Speaker 2: Yeah, that makes sense. That's interesting. I wonder if the defense had anticipated that question. And I wonder why the prosecution did not answer.
00:37:52
Speaker 4: I think that the prosecutor probably dropped the ball and didn't even think about it. But you know what? Three children later and now you're claiming I've got postpartum depression. I'm not buying it.
00:38:08
Speaker 2: All right. Yeah, that's true. She said no to having it after one and after two. That would make it harder to believe her claim, I guess. It's a difficult thing. It's a terrible thing. So it's interesting. 100% of the people that have responded, both tonight and in the previous time, agree with you and the previous person Sorry, I forgot your name. I'm spacing. I know it, but I forgot it. No, before. It's terrible, and even if she is a psychosis, that she must be found guilty. It's interesting to see that that's how you feel. Louis, I need to run now because it's news time, but I thank you for your input on that. Thank you very much. Well, we shall see how things pan out tomorrow, and WBZ will be covering it very, very closely.
00:39:10
Speaker 9: It is WBZ.
Speaker 1: It's Nightside with Dan Ray on WBZ, Boston's news radio.
00:00:07
Speaker 2: What a great hour with Robert Siciliano, who is a cybersecurity expert, not just for companies, but for you. And you might want to think about his book, The Strategic Human Firewall. There's so much information that we all need to know to get through this jungle of a cyber world out there. And there was so much information there that if you missed it, Or if you didn't jot things down, you're going to want to listen again. You can listen again at DiceSideOnDemand.com. And don't forget also about the iHeartRadio app. It's free, and that way you can listen anywhere. Well, big doings in the Clancy trial today. It did not resolve itself, but it presented us with a cliffhanger. It's kind of unprecedented, and we are very fortunate to have Dean Michael Quine, Dean of the Massachusetts School of Law, with us to chat about it. Before we get into that, school must be, has started up, so you must be pretty busy today.
00:01:10
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, no, it's been a busy couple weeks. We started two weeks ago, and between the trial and school and all the rest, it's been very hectic, but, you know, this is the type of thing that you live for, right, is that You want to be able to educate students and you want to be able to educate the public with respect to really significant legal issues and mental health issues that are examined in this Clancy case.
00:01:37
Speaker 2: So you do use this as a teaching example? Oh, sure.
00:01:41
Speaker 3: Oh, sure. Because there's a lot to it, you know, especially from if you just think about the basic trial skills and the persuasive ability of lawyers to connect with the jury and There's a lot here to teach from. And also for the students to be able to see the firsthand stuff that you talk about in the classroom about how to appropriately treat a witness, how to examine them, how to introduce evidence, and how to make the arguments about exclusion of evidence. So there, you know, I think when you relate the actual subject matter to a contemporary issue that they can see on TV, and I did, they watched all of this as it unfolded today on the TV, It does sort of reinforce, okay, now I get what that means about, you know, germ misconduct or whatever it is.
00:02:30
Speaker 4: Right.
00:02:31
Speaker 2: So before we get to the events later in the day today, I do have to ask a couple things about the deliberation. 35 hours is longer than usual? Is that the far end of long? How normal is that?
00:02:47
Speaker 3: It's not that normal. But I mean, just a couple of examples. Aaron Hernandez was convicted on the first trial of Odin Lloyd. He was convicted in about the same time period. So it's not outrageous. Phil Spector, you know, since your BCN days, he was convicted in about the same time period. But there are other cases that go on in 30 hours and you get not guilty. So it's not... It's not outrageous, but there are an awful lot of cases that are resolved in just a few hours. Laurie Vallow was convicted multiple times for murder and attempted murder in less than four hours.
00:03:29
Speaker 5: And O.J.
00:03:29
Speaker 3: Was exonerated in less than four hours. So it happens. So you see a wide variation in cases. how long the jury deliberates. Part of it depends on the complexity of the case. And this is an incredibly complex case with complex legal and psychiatric, psychological issues involved.
00:03:50
Speaker 2: You did approach addressing what I'm going to ask you next. It's the age-old question. Does a long jury deliberation give you any clue as to how they're going to finish up?
00:04:04
Speaker 3: No, not really, because as we just were saying... You know, there are cases where you're in for 30 hours and it's a guilty and you're in for 30 hours and it's a not guilty. The only thing the length of time helps to show or tends to indicate is the longer it goes on, obviously, the more likely you are to have a hung jury because the reason it's going on for a long time is they just can't decide the thing on the merits.
00:04:29
Speaker 1: Okay.
00:04:30
Speaker 2: Can you give the, recount the events of the late afternoon regarding this one juror?
00:04:42
Speaker 3: Well, yes, and we think it's one juror based on what the defense attorney has said, Kevin Reddington, that the jury is split what appears to be likely 11-1. We don't know exactly where they're going, but based on what he said and what his reaction was to it, we think it's likely 11-1, not guilty because of mental disease. or defect. And so what he's pushing for, and so one of the jurors, we had a couple notes ready, one early on the week saying, we're a hung jury, judge says go back and try to work a little harder. We then had another one and a question. And today, the judges received a note that appears to indicate that at least one juror is not following your instructions, not applying the law as you told them to apply it with respect to reasonable doubt. And so the question then becomes, does that juror need to be removed? And that's an extraordinary thing you're asking the court to do during deliberations. And that's what the fight is now about. I mean, we're now approaching day seven of deliberations. As you point out, it's a lot of hours spent. We're getting closer to a question of whether it's a hung jury or is there cause to remove this juror and replace the juror with one of the six alternates that are there. That's what Reddington's pushing for because he's counting Moses. He sees and feels there's 11 jurors already in his favor. out of 12. Statistically, any one of those six could fall into the same type of grouping with the majority. And now he's got 12 votes for not guilty by reason of mental illness. That's what he's been seeking for the whole time. But it appears that in order to do that, unless that juror changes his mind overnight, he's going to continue to push for removing that juror.
00:06:50
Speaker 2: It seems clear that Reddington believes that the The 11 other jurors are on his side. What is it that leads him to believe that?
00:07:01
Speaker 3: Well, body language. You know, you read the jury throughout the entirety of the trial. You watch what they're reacting to. You watch what they maybe smile at or gesture or just when they're taking notes. All of that would tend to indicate whether your points are landing with the jury or whether the other side here in the prosecution is. So you really do look at when the judge is instructing them, what they're doing in response to that, and what they seem to be impacting or resonating with them. And so, you know, yes, a lot of it is it's a gut feel, but I wouldn't discount his gut feels. He's one of the premier criminal defense lawyers in this state. Uh, clearly if you get jammed up on the South shore, you want to call a Reddington. Um, and, uh, he's got a daughter and a son who are also lawyers, Patrick and Colleen, both terrific lawyers. So the fact is, is that he knows, he knows how to read the room. He knows what the jury is likely thinking. And, and yeah, could he be wrong?
00:08:11
Speaker 1: Sure.
00:08:12
Speaker 3: But I don't think that's likely. So the body language tells you a lot.
00:08:16
Speaker 2: God forbid I get jammed up on the South shore. But if I do, uh, I don't know who to call. Here are the three possibilities. I see them when it comes to this juror. And perhaps you can comment after I give you my three options. Number one is that this person truly sees no reasonable doubt whatsoever.
00:08:38
Speaker 3: That's correct.
00:08:39
Speaker 2: Okay. The other one is that the juror does not understand reasonable doubt, but I don't see how that's possible. It's been explained over and over. It's been explained by the judge. And you can be sure those other 11 are explaining the heck out of it. And the third option is that the person does see reasonable doubt and maybe is even expressed to the other 11 that they see a reasonable doubt, but they morally or something like morally just cannot abide seeing Clancy and be acquitted. And there's just, maybe they're religious, maybe it's a moral thing, but regardless of the rules, there's something that won't let them do it. That's my third option. Is there a fourth, or do you.
00:09:29
Speaker 3: Have thoughts on that? No, I think you're right, and especially on your third option, this is a polarizing case. If you could poll your listeners, have them describe their sentiment about it, if you'd like, But I think what you're going to find is there's about 25 percent of the people to a third on either side of this. Some people feeling she just at the end of the day, even if she. had suffering from a mental disease, a defect, she knew this was wrong and she shouldn't have done it and she needs to be punished. And there's probably 25% of the people that way. And then there's, I think, even more people that are leaning to the side of And whether this is a third or even 50% saying, no, listen, the medical system failed her. She sought desperately for help and she didn't get it. This isn't her fault. At the end of the day, she was mentally ill and they would never vote to convict her. And I think there are people with strongly held beliefs on both sides. And your third option may well be where we're at is that we've got that type of divide between and you're never going to bridge it. And that may not be overcome. And it could be a good faith belief in applying the law that the judge said. And if that's the case, then the juror shouldn't be removed. On the other hand, if the juror is saying, I don't care what the law is, I don't care what the evidence is, what she did was wrong and she needs to be punished and go to jail, Well, then you've got a different circumstance where the court has to be concerned.
00:11:13
Speaker 1: Right.
00:11:14
Speaker 2: I have a couple more questions. Can we do one more segment?
00:11:16
Speaker 4: Sure. Okay.
00:11:17
Speaker 6: I can do whatever you like.
00:11:18
Speaker 2: Yeah, let's do one more, and then after you depart, I will poll the audience.
00:11:23
Speaker 3: Okay.
00:11:23
Speaker 4: Okay.
00:11:24
Speaker 2: So one more segment here. A few more questions for Dean Michael Coyne of the great Massachusetts School of Law after this on WBZ.
00:11:33
Speaker 1: You're on Nightside with Dan Ray on WBZ, Boston's news radio.
00:11:39
Speaker 7: I appreciate the fact, Your Honor, that you're allowing us to be heard in public rather than at the sidebar. The court has an instruction from the foreperson of that juror that's been working for a week now saying that there's one juror who refuses to listen to the law that you've given him or her on reasonable doubt. And I suggest respectfully that the soft instruction that you gave them saying at the sidebar, can you listen to the law as I instruct you, does not focus on the issue. The question is not sufficient enough. It does not allow any foundation for a motion to remove the juror who refuses to accept your instructions on the law on reasonable doubt. And if we come back here in a half an hour with a mistrial because of a juror that has just spurned the instructions of this court, it's a shame. It's a real shame. And that's why I object to the court's ruling. I request that we have further inquiry. I request that my motion is to remove this juror that refuses to listen to your instruction on reasonable doubt.
00:12:49
Speaker 2: Well, there you go. That's a defense attorney in the Clancy trial. Spells everything out. What happened today, we are with Dean Michael Coyne of the Massachusetts School of Law. And just prior to the break, kind of spelled out the three things that might be going on. That juror may actually see no reasonable doubt. And on the other end of that spectrum, the juror may be ignoring the instructions of the judge. and maybe should be replaced. So the question is, how does the judge ferret out which of the possibilities is actually the case? Does he actually have to talk to this one juror? Is that highly out of line? What would you recommend, or what do you expect might happen?
00:13:37
Speaker 3: Well, it's not highly out of line. There's a delicate line, though, that has to be adhere to, because you don't want to invade that jury's deliberative process, that the conversations that they engage in to try and arrive at a decision. But in the same vein, though, the defendant's entitled to a fair trial where the jury will, as they promised at the outset, listen to the evidence and and apply the law to the evidence that is received during the course of the trial. And if that's not being done, then her rights are being violated. And that's why he's so vociferous with respect to, Judge, you've got to go further. You've got to take a harder look. You've got to talk to and ask questions of the juror exactly what they're doing when they're back there with respect to, the law that the court has told them, what reasonable doubt is, the evidence that they received. And I think the best way to be able to do it, and this is what Attorney Reddington is trying to say in part, is that you can't just ask them yes or no questions. You know, yes, you know, who's going to say that they're biased and disregarding the law? Are you fair and impartial when you apply the law as I've instructed you? The likelihood of someone saying no to that is low. None of us are ever going to agree, in essence, that we're biased in favor or against someone. So what you do when you're trying to seek a jury, you ask them questions that are open-ended to try and get at that prejudice that they may not be willing to admit. And so I do think Similar type of questioning here is what you would try to do, but I'll be honest with you, since we've been talking about it all afternoon on air, what is the question that is likely legitimate that you would be able to do and not have the appeals court say that what you're doing is you're intruding into that private space of the jury deliberations? And it's not that, you know, I mean, I'm busy, but... There's not a question that readily comes to mind that you would say is in essence bulletproof on appeal because our Supreme Court is rare. They talk about this is an emergency. You have to show an emergency situation. You have to show an extraneous influence on the jury. You have to show that somehow the jury has been, this juror has been influenced improperly or has lied on their jury questionnaire about information that would have disqualified them from the outset of serving on that jury. Those are high standards, and they should be because we don't want a judge imposing his or her will on a juror's votes. That's the whole system, is that we bring 12 people in and ask them to use their common sense to the facts and then apply the law as the judge instructs them. And Judge doesn't get to overrule the jury if the evidence supports what their conclusion is.
00:16:58
Speaker 2: Tricky business. So a half step might be for the judge to talk to the foreperson and say, please explain to me what you know about how this person arrived at a feeling that there is no reasonable doubt. Could they do that? Or could the judge say, did this person actually say, I do have reasonable doubt, but I refuse? to uh acquit.
00:17:26
Speaker 3: Um yeah well if that okay i don't think the proper inquiry is to the poor person of the jury um because that they're the ones that sent the note so the sentiment is either the four persons or the group likely the group of 11 um and so if you really if you're thinking you need to get further with the inquiry and i'm not sure the court does because that's They would like that. The defendant would like that to happen. But I do think the court is very cautious here and concerned about invading that deliberative process. But if they were going to do it, I think the appropriate inquiry is to the juror in question. It appears based on Attorney Reddington's statements. We know who it is. We know which one it is. So bring that person in and ask them questions. But I think the real question is, in order to not violate the law, is to be able to say, you know, do you understand, in essence, I guess you could say, what do you understand reasonable doubt to mean? And are you applying, in essence, explain to me how you're applying the law as I instructed. And that, those might be safe questions, and you're going to get a narrative.
00:18:38
Speaker 1: There, right?
00:18:39
Speaker 3: But you're not getting a yes or no answer. And so you get a narrative, and then based on that narrative, if the answers hold up, if the answer supports, yeah, that's not an unreasonable interpretation of reasonable doubt, and that's not a non-reasonable doubt, and that's not an unreasonable interpretation of how they're supposed to apply the law, then that's where that's, I believe, where the inquiry would end, because beyond that, the judge is on very dangerous ground. Our Supreme Court has talked about that it's very rarely done, that you remove one in the process. There was a case a few years back out of Suffolk County. Dan Conley talked about it earlier today, the former district attorney for Suffolk County. Four young men were killed on, I believe it was Melville Ave in Dorchester, where I'm from. And by the defendant and three jurors lied about their prior involvement in criminal history or whatever, it was, they didn't disclose fully the information or truthfully on the jury questionnaire. And so they were removed from jury service, jury involvement in the case because of the concern that if they had disclosed that, the Commonwealth never would have put them on the jury and likely would have been challenged for cause, which means you don't need to stay. The reason is that they really aren't unbiased. And under those circumstances, those jurors were removed, taken, you put in three of the alternates, and now you move forward. But that's, if you think about it, it's an extraordinary measure. But if you've been deceitful and lied in order to serve on the jury, you're not serving impartially and you're not giving the Commonwealth a fair chance to have their evidence aired either.
00:20:39
Speaker 2: I wonder if the defense is digging around looking for some sort of something like that. Before you go, just an observation. It's possible that if the judge does speak to outlier juror 12, that outlier juror 12 will say straight up, Judge, I just morally cannot do this. I fear I will go to hell. It's wrong. And the juror may be relieved to be able to... to tell the judge that, so the juror would be relieved of duty, because the juror may feel in a terrible bind, because on the one hand is reasonable doubt, and on the other hand is their moral code. And they might be happy to be excused.
00:21:23
Speaker 3: Well, Knight, I think there's more likelihood that with the pressure brought to bear, when it's 11-1, you're sole holdout at this point. that's hard to stand against the majority. So you might get someone changed to change their opinion based on that peer pressure. But I also think the other part of that that you have to be wary of is all he's got to do is say, no, you know, I'm applying the law. And the language of the reasonable doubt instruction says you've got to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty. So our morals do end up playing into this. If it's religion-based, he's got a problem. But the fact is, you should be convinced of the guilt to that extent. So so and there's a lot of overlap in law between our own sense of morals, right or wrong, as well as what the law requires. So you wouldn't even be that far out of bounds if you said, you know, morally, I believe it's wrong. Legally, I believe it's supported. The problem is, is you guess your question really does indicate that if instead you're imposing your own moral values and disregarding the law, that's where there's a problem.
00:22:42
Speaker 2: Perfect. As always a great, great guest. And I appreciate your late night time. I know you you've had school all day and you've been doing other things and you joined us. So thank you so, so much.
00:22:52
Speaker 3: Always a pleasure to talk to you and your listeners, Bradley. You know, I enjoy it.
00:22:55
Speaker 2: Yes, sir. Thank you very much. Now we'll break and then we'll talk to Ed and Worcester. And I got a 25, 23 minutes to speak with you and find out how you feel about this whole thing, especially today, what should happen. but your feelings on it in general. The easy question is, if you were on the jury, what would you do? If you were the judge, what would you do in this case? It's WBZ. And Rob Brooks, why don't you take us to the break, and we'll talk to you in a minute.
00:23:31
Speaker 1: You're on Nightside with Dan Ray on WBZ, Boston's news radio.
00:23:37
Speaker 8: We have the note from the jury. There's no way to determine whether what the deliberations are, who's correct, who's incorrect, nor should we attempt to, because that's part of deliberations. I think what Your Honor has done by asking each juror if they're able to follow the law and then giving a general instruction on reasonable doubt is appropriate under Commonwealth v. Ralph, so we do not have an objection to the questions or the re-instruction.
00:24:03
Speaker 2: So that's Jennifer Sprague from the prosecution. She expresses her thoughts on the judge's decision. about the note to the jury in the Clancy trial from the foreperson saying, hey, we've got a person here that's not obeying the instructions when it comes to reasonable doubt. If, in fact, as we suspect, the 11 that do agree are in favor of acquittal and the one holdout is not, you can bet that Jennifer Sprague and her team, the team, are praying for that jury to continue to hold out because they would love another crack at this case because they made some mistakes. One of the large mistakes was they really overpromised in the opening argument. And you know that because when it came to closing argument, it had been honed down to really the one simple question of did the defendant know what she was doing was wrong? At the time. That's the crux of it. And I probably wish they had stuck with that and not overpromised in the beginning. And you can also bet that, if it's as we suspect, the 11 jurors that do agree are in favor of acquittal, that Kevin Reddington really wants to close this deal. So close. So close to closing. And tomorrow is a huge day. Tomorrow, and if they can't agree, get it done tomorrow, I can't imagine they would go through the weekend. I would imagine they would say, that's it, hung jury, we're going to have to do it all over again. So much is in the balance tomorrow. Either that lone juror caves or not. And if that juror doesn't cave, everybody's going to do it all over again. And I think it would behoove the prosecution to have another trial. So, as promised, we'll go to Ed and Worcester. What are your thoughts on all of this, Ed? Thanks for calling us on WBZ.
00:26:12
Speaker 6: Hi, Bradley. Without getting into the merits of it, I think if you remember Officer Chesna, who was murdered a few years ago, in his first trial, I think it was a hung jury. And I think it was one juror was holding out for acquittal, and the other 11 wanted to convict. I think the fix here... is to require at least two jurors to hang a jury. Because the problem if you let one, the person doesn't have to engage. They don't have to try to persuade anybody else. And I've never been comfortable with that, either a civil or a criminal jury.
00:26:57
Speaker 2: So in this case, if only one juror was holding out, then the 11 would carry the day.
00:27:03
Speaker 6: Correct. Correct.
00:27:04
Speaker 2: And in order for it to.
00:27:05
Speaker 4: Be hung up.
00:27:05
Speaker 6: Think about it.
00:27:06
Speaker 1: Yeah.
00:27:07
Speaker 6: You enable, look, I'm all for allowing dissent and contrary views, but this gives too much power to the dissenter and the contrarian. They don't have to, they don't have to engage with anybody. They don't have to try to persuade anybody.
00:27:24
Speaker 2: That's interesting. That's interesting. So you're on the jury. What are you doing?
00:27:29
Speaker 6: You know, I haven't been paying attention to this. I just don't know. I haven't been paying any attention to this case.
00:27:37
Speaker 3: I don't know.
00:27:38
Speaker 5: Okay.
00:27:39
Speaker 2: Very well, Ed. Anything else before we move on?
00:27:43
Speaker 6: I'm a little uncomfortable with identifying in open court that it's one. That just doesn't sit well with me. I don't know that it's any kind of an ethical violation.
00:27:55
Speaker 4: I just.
00:27:56
Speaker 6: I think it puts duress on that person in a way that I don't like.
00:28:00
Speaker 2: So if that person is aware of what the reaction is going to be, it might, it might make them feel pressure.
00:28:06
Speaker 3: Yeah.
00:28:07
Speaker 5: Right.
00:28:07
Speaker 2: That's an interesting decision.
00:28:08
Speaker 6: Or feel stigma after if it, if it, if they hold out and they later on get identified, it's, you know, they're going to, they're going to get some, some, you know, harsh treatment.
00:28:19
Speaker 5: Yeah.
00:28:20
Speaker 2: That's a good point. Would you, would you want to be on this jury?
00:28:28
Speaker 6: I wouldn't particularly want to be on any jury, but if I were called, I would do it. I wouldn't particularly want to, no.
00:28:34
Speaker 2: I feel like I would want to, because I'm interested in the law. It's a real way to make a real difference. These people are making a real difference through their labor. I think it maybe seems grotesque in some way to say I would want to be on the jury, but I would. I mean, you know, I... I work part-time. I have the time. And as you know, I'm interested in the law. And I do think that this is probably one of the top 10% of more grueling trials for a jury ever. It must be. Those people are going to have PTSD after what they've seen, what they've been put through. But I feel like it would be a chance. I've never gotten called for a real case, and I think I would. I would not mind being on it. Ed, I really appreciate your points. Really good points.
00:29:27
Speaker 3: Thanks.
00:29:29
Speaker 5: Okay.
00:29:29
Speaker 3: Thanks, Bradley.
00:29:30
Speaker 5: Bye. Okay.
00:29:31
Speaker 2: Hey, Bob and Raina, we might as well talk to you right now. Hi, Bob and Raina.
00:29:36
Speaker 5: Hey, how you doing, Bradley?
00:29:38
Speaker 2: Great.
00:29:39
Speaker 5: Good. Hey, um, so your last, your last guest that was speaking and you know, both of you guys are speaking about, um, the possibility of the judge, uh, speaking to this old out juror. And to me, I would think, that would be the ultimate in jury intimidation.
00:30:03
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's a good point. I mean, yes, that's, that's a, could be, I don't know what to do. I guess the thing is what to do is what he did is go back in there and battle it out.
00:30:15
Speaker 5: Yeah. And, um, I, I think, I mean, if I, if I was on the jury, um, I would definitely find her guilty because, um, I thought the, The prosecution made a very good case that she was very lucid. Sounded like the entire day that she killed those kids up until the point that, you know, sending the husband out for food and to the drugstore. And she brought one of the kids to the doctor that day.
00:30:50
Speaker 2: Right. I mean, being psychotic, I don't think being psychotic means you do not, you lose the ability to scheme. I don't know. I'm not an expert in that area, but I've always thought from what I've learned that you can be psychotic and still scheme, still plan.
00:31:17
Speaker 5: And another thing I'd like to say, but I would find her guilty. I think Oh, I said this to you. I called you last week, actually. And I said, there are some crimes that there is just no excuse for. And, oh, that's what I was going to say. She's not on trial for the murder. There's no doubt that she did the murders. And she's on trial. They're only trying whether or not she was of sound mind or not. And in this case, I don't think it matters whether you are sound mind or not. It's so horrific.
00:31:59
Speaker 2: All right.
00:32:00
Speaker 5: There is no, there is no excuse.
00:32:02
Speaker 2: And you know what? That may be exactly, I think two other people, actually a hundred percent of the people that did respond to that question, that idea agreed with you. So it's really possible that this 12th juror feels exactly like you do and feels, and feels like, It might have even expressed this, yeah, maybe there's reasonable doubt, but it doesn't matter. This is so horrific that this cannot go unpunished. That may be the case, exactly the case. We'll see.
00:32:37
Speaker 5: And this holds, you know, ramifications for the future. From now on, does every woman that kills a kid say, geez, look at the Lindsay, whatever name, Ms. Case, and, you know, I just have to Say I had post-whatever-it-is syndrome, and that's it.
00:33:00
Speaker 3: Okay.
00:33:00
Speaker 5: And I'm out.
00:33:02
Speaker 2: Fair enough. In 30 seconds, do you believe that postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis is really real and really debilitating, or do you feel like it's fake? No, no, no.
00:33:18
Speaker 5: I feel like you.
00:33:19
Speaker 2: Feel like it's fake.
00:33:20
Speaker 6: I don't.
00:33:21
Speaker 5: No, I don't think it's fake. I think the brain's a very sensitive thing and things can trigger the brain, but there's no legitimate reason. I mean, men get depressed. If a man was depressed and he took out his three kids, the only people that would be standing in that Outside that courthouse would be to have him executed.
00:33:46
Speaker 1: Yes.
00:33:46
Speaker 5: To bring the death penalty back.
00:33:47
Speaker 2: But I think it's qualitatively a different kind of thing. It's not just depression. And so I had a caller call right here sitting in the seat and tell me she said she'd never said this before ever. She was crying to me on the air. Some of you have heard her saying, I almost, I can't even tell you what she said. It's too intense. But she almost killed her child. and she cries when she thinks about it. There's some particular type of psychosis and depression this is. It's not the same thing.
00:34:19
Speaker 3: As a man.
00:34:21
Speaker 5: Well, there's no excuse. Whatever it is, it's no excuse.
00:34:24
Speaker 2: All right, fair enough. Thank you, Bob. I'm super late. I'm tight on time. Thanks, Bob. It's WBZ.
00:34:32
Speaker 1: Nightside with Dan Ray on WBZ, Boston's news radio.
00:34:38
Speaker 9: I'm sure as parties understand, as they say, the discharge of a deliberating juror is a sensitive undertaking. I was just specifically responding to the specific question that was asked. I don't feel that it is proper for me to side with one side or the other of the deliberations. I don't feel it's appropriate for me to say I agree with one juror or the 11th. At this point, I've asked if they are able to follow my instructions of courting. They swore earlier that they could. They've said to that at this point that they can. That was specifically addressed towards the specific question.
00:35:26
Speaker 5: And that's what I'm doing.
00:35:28
Speaker 9: So the defendant's objection is noted and we will be in recess on this at this time.
00:35:35
Speaker 3: Thank you.
00:35:37
Speaker 2: Well, that was a. the judge, Sullivan, talking about the objections from Kevin Reddington and just explaining his decision and why he has said the things he said. It's quite an intense moment in the trial. So here's my prediction. If I have to make a prediction, I'm saying that the holdout juror number 12, if that juror was going to cave, would have caved by now And that juror understands that they can probably, if they can make it through one more day, that they'll all be able to go home due to a hung jury. And that person senses that if he can get through that day or two, maybe, and get sent home as a hung jury, that that person will have left with their conscience intact. So I think they're going to hold out. But I kind of hope I'm wrong. because that's always such a disappointing and expensive thing for everybody, including you. Let's talk to Louis or Louie in New Jersey.
00:36:50
Speaker 3: Hi.
00:36:52
Speaker 4: Yes. Good evening, sir.
00:36:53
Speaker 2: Good evening.
00:36:55
Speaker 4: I think that the prosecution dropped the ball after the fact that she had three children and she's claiming postpartum depression after having three kids and whereby the prosecution should have said to her or questioned her after the first child, did you or did you not have postpartum depression? It's a very simple, unambiguous question to ask somebody that is being accused of the crimes that she's committed after having three children.
00:37:38
Speaker 2: Yeah, that makes sense. That's interesting. I wonder if the defense had anticipated that question. And I wonder why the prosecution did not answer.
00:37:52
Speaker 4: I think that the prosecutor probably dropped the ball and didn't even think about it. But you know what? Three children later and now you're claiming I've got postpartum depression. I'm not buying it.
00:38:08
Speaker 2: All right. Yeah, that's true. She said no to having it after one and after two. That would make it harder to believe her claim, I guess. It's a difficult thing. It's a terrible thing. So it's interesting. 100% of the people that have responded, both tonight and in the previous time, agree with you and the previous person Sorry, I forgot your name. I'm spacing. I know it, but I forgot it. No, before. It's terrible, and even if she is a psychosis, that she must be found guilty. It's interesting to see that that's how you feel. Louis, I need to run now because it's news time, but I thank you for your input on that. Thank you very much. Well, we shall see how things pan out tomorrow, and WBZ will be covering it very, very closely.
00:39:10
Speaker 9: It is WBZ.
