Hour 1 - A Legal Circus

0:00This is an I Heart Podcast. Guaranteed Human. Welcome in to the Friday edition of Play and Buck. We predicted that this would be the likely case, but as we head into the Labor Day weekend, there is a pending mistrial in the Lindsey Clancy case, and every network is covering right now live in the courtroom. It appears, let me play a couple of audio clips for you, and then we will dive into what is going on. And frankly, I've never heard of this before. The defense is appealing to the Massachusetts Supreme Court to argue that a juror should be dismissed for... I'm not sure exactly the grounds that they are citing, but it has to do with his behavior as part of a jury process. And it looks like Buck, and again, I'm going to play the audio that based on the way all of the audio you are hearing is being reflected,

1:09that 11 jurors have essentially agreed that Lindsey Clancy is not guilty by reason of insanity. That is, she killed all three of her kids, and she's not responsible for that, because she was temporarily insane. Her hormones made her do it, basically. And right now, it appears there is one lone juror who is refusing to sign on with that. And for the past couple of days, people have just been attacking him. I would imagine in the jury room, and the pressure has been ratcheted up outside. I've never really seen anything like this, and maybe there's some trial attorneys out there listening to us right now that have had an experience similar to this. I've never really heard of anything like this, Buck. I've never really seen anything like this. And again, this is just analyzing the legal situation, not getting into opinions surrounding it. So again, this is great, because you got Clay, who's actually a lawyer, and me who's a, I would like to think well informed civilian, but not actually BJD.

2:17And so I'll come at this from the perspective of just pure common sense. And Clay has the procedural legal procedural expertise. So this is where I'd say, I know, and this comes from, I'll be honest, watching law and order episodes, that you can have a, for example, a judge can set aside a jury verdict, which is shocking when people find this out. It is extremely rare, but a judge can just say, no, I'm actually, and neither has to be some greater reasoning or rationale beyond that. But that is a real thing that can happen that very few people know about. There's also Clay, like the rid of mandamus, right, where you're basically going to another court saying immediately I need you to weigh in on this. This is critical. I need the appeals court to come down and say what's going on here is outrageous and needs to be stopped. And, and then you have, and again, that's just a civilian point of view of these things. I'm sure there's greater explanation and understanding of it out there.

3:20But in this case, Clay, a, you would just say to yourself, hold on a second, the defense wants another judge to remove a juror. What is the point of the jury if the defense can just say, I don't, well, I don't like this guy who is not giving me the verdict that I want. You know what I'm saying? On what basis? They're saying refuses to listen to the law. That is an entirely subjective judgment that they are making based upon outcome, not upon reasoning or rationale. The judge here has, has had to deal with the defense attorney. And this came out yesterday. So we kind of knew what was going on. The defense attorney said, 11 jurors have made a decision and one juror will not apply reasonable doubt. No, that's not actually what's happening here. That juror is allowed to have his own, and we know it's a him because the defense counsel also kind of outed him. But we also knew that in the first place.

4:24But Clay, his application of the reasonable doubt standard is different than the other jurors. And he's not budging on that because too much is at stake. But you see what I mean about this being, it's just an end run if this were to be granted. But I don't think it will. Sullivan has treated this as a disagreement inside the liberation. It's not juror misconduct. The defense is calling for this as though it's juror misconduct. The juror got a note from somebody outside or the juror took money or did something, you know, that's illicit in part as part of the process. The notion that you would remove somebody based on an emergency appeal is outrageous. The fact that the defense even tried this is kind of crazy, honestly. So I've got so many thoughts on this. Let's play the cuts so you can get a sense for why we believe what is going on is going on. And again, you have to use the context clues that we have, which are the open mic moments in the courtroom.

5:24Let's start with this because I think there's probably some people out there who are not that familiar with the absolute latest. Here is yesterday, I believe this is Lindsey Clancy's attorney Kevin Reddington saying there's one juror who refuses to listen to the law. This is cut for. There's one juror who refuses to listen to the law that you've given him or her unreasonable 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. And if we come back here in a half an hour with a mistrial because of a because of a juror that has just spurned the instructions of this court. It's a shame. It's a real shame. Okay, so he's telling you a lot there when he's saying if we come back with a mistrial because of one juror, he's letting everyone know basically 11 people have agreed. And for the defense attorney to be making this argument, the only reason he would be making this argument is if he's trying to do it.

6:32Is if he's trying to get the unanimous 12 not guilty. Now the judge fired back at that. This is him today a little bit earlier in the courtroom cut three. Clearly, I would ask that you not just give them as I describe it yesterday, a soft inquiry. You will listen to my instructions. I would ask that you specifically direct their attention to proof beyond a reasonable doubt and re-instruct them on that. Forcefully. I did it yesterday, didn't I? Yes. You did it yesterday. You did it. So you didn't do it forcefully. And I'm asking me. What do you want me to do? I want to get a brass band. I read the instruction as written by the SJC. The fact that I perhaps didn't give it my full inflection. I'm sorry about them. I'm an actor. I've just given the instructions. Okay, Buck, a couple couple more here. Defenses defense is acting in histrionics here. This is absurd.

7:33But I have to say the prosecutors not fighting back against this in an aggressive way lets you know that basically they feel like they've lost the case. Now a couple more things this just happened. The defense as the judge is declaring a mistrial says, Hey, give us an hour. We're in the middle of that hour. I don't know when the hour officially runs out. We'll explain exactly what's going on there too. But this was just the explosives in the courtroom. The explosive arguments cut one. Over the defendant's objection. I'm going to declare mistrial at this point. But I have to for a time to file a single justice appeal for this travesty. That's what I'm asking for. So you asked for emergency state at this point. Yes. And the jurors don't have to come back tomorrow. They can be told they don't even have to come back. If I lose the motion. But if I win the motion, then obviously they would have to come back Tuesday. If you want to go up and petition to the STC for a stay, I'll give you an hour before we bring the jury back down. I think you could be it's just a request for the stay of the decoration of the mistrial.

8:46So I'll hold off for an hour and then we'll come back in in regards to that. This defense is abusing process here. This is nonsense. He doesn't like the outcome he's getting. So he's acting like there's some malfeasance that a court. What court? He's talking about the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. That's the SJC. What court is going to say? Yeah, we're not even really on this case. We're going to look at it and just decide to overrule the verdict. Let me play cut to this is his argument because whether you like it or not, this is what the defense is saying. If you're saying what in the world's going on here, they are saying basically that this juror should be dismissed. Cut to clearly judge. We have a person who under their oath stood in front of you yesterday. When you did the individual of why dear and according to this information under oath, look you in the eye and lie. That juror told you that he would be able to apply the law to the facts as you asked them.

9:55Based on this note from this juror, it clearly and unequivocally indicates that they are basically 11 to 1 and this person will not apply reasonable doubt to the evidence to return a not guilty verdict. Okay, so this first of all to me, but I got so many thoughts on this, but this part I think is the most intriguing here knowing exactly how the jurors are voting and to have a note where again, he says he, so we know it's one of the three men on this court on this jury is refusing to find not guilty. And to be trying to get him dismissed so that the other 11 jurors all in agreement can say not guilty, it sounds like he's basing this on reports that are coming from inside of the jury deliberation room where basically other jurors are telling on this guy and saying he's not behaving appropriately as a juror.

11:05And therefore he could and should be dismissed because the rest of us have a unanimous verdict. Why they get just pure inference clay because if he's getting information from the jury deliberations, that's going to be a mistrial alone right there. Well, he said, I don't think it's inference. I think he's basic. I mean, he said there they have sidebar conversations. So the juror note must say, we're, I mean, he's basically let it all be known now. What I'm surprised by is that they've let the full deliberations of the jury now go out into the public and there is one guy who is refusing to be clear. And now it's all public. But his reason claim it has to be inference as to why the guy is refusing. We know it's 11 one, but the other jurors, their opinion of his application of the law would be absolutely irrelevant. They have no standing to say, we think this juror, the whole point of the jury is that everybody gets to decide based on the evidence for themselves. This whole thing is trying to basically muscle through the jury process to stack it so that they get the by the way, it wouldn't, she hasn't walked what they want is a not guilty by reason of insanity.

12:14And she goes to the insane asylum. That's what, that's what would happen if this guy folded. She goes to the nut house. She doesn't get found guilty of murder. Clearly this guy clay things because she did obviously she killed her three kids. He won't be a part of this. And he is standing against this. All this stuff that the defense attorney saying, but he's not applying. Well, that's just the defense attorney's analysis. He does. I think I think he, I think he knows that that's what the jurors are telling them. But that doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. Well, I think the hours to think whatever he wants about the, I think the argument is that I'm guessing again, we usually don't get this degree of specificity from inside of a jury, which is a sign that this thing is totally off the rails. And now the judge, even as outing, sorry, the defense attorney is saying he yesterday, he tried to say he or she today, he is saying. He, so we know it's one of the three men, based on the way that he is talking here. My presumption is that that what is occurring is the judges giving them a charge and saying, this is what you are called to do.

13:18And my bet is that this guy is saying in the jury room, I'm not applying reasonable doubt. I'm not applying any of these standards. My bet is he saying, she's a mom and she killed her three kids. And we know it happened. And I don't need to know anything else. And so they are saying that he is refusing to take the instructions from the judge and apply them to the facts of the law. This is my surmiso, based on all this evidence. And that therefore he is violating his oath as a juror and should be removed from the case, which sometimes does happen. I think this is outrageous that we have ended up in this situation. And certainly if I were on this jury, I give credit to this guy because it's hard. They may have been 111 for six days, Buck. Imagine what it's like to be in that jury room. All he has to do is say, yes, and he can leave. And this guy is refusing to relent to the other jurors.

14:18And now they're telling on him and saying he's not actually applying the law as he's required to do so judge. And as a result, the defense is saying he should be off the case. Right. But my fundamental point here stands, which is that a juror, a person on the jury is allowed to interpret the law as he or she sees fit the rest of the jury saying this guy doesn't understand the law because they're not getting their way cannot be. Otherwise, you'd never have a mistrial. You just like put the guy out. Who doesn't agree? Imagine that he said, uh, hey, I don't think a black person could be guilty of murder. And therefore, I will not find a black person guilty of murder. That would be juror misconduct, right? The jury in theory would be removed, even though his position is one that is valid inside of the, like you have an obligation as a juror to apply the law in some way. Right. You can't just say I won't. Right. Somebody. But this is clearly a very contentious area of the application of law in this way. So you're coming up with, like, if this guy is completely insane and says something crazy, then he should be removed.

15:28We're talking about something that 10% of the country disagrees with the other 50% on right now. Potentially, I'm just saying this is unprecedented to have the actual votes of the jurors out there. I agree with the guy who is not, who is saying not guilty. He may just be not very articulate in the way he's saying it. If he's saying I refuse to apply the law as part of the way that he is voting, then he is potentially opening himself up to a mess. There's, I mean, I don't think anybody in the jury room is so stupid as to be like, I'm not a plug. Why hold out if you're going to say that? You know what I'm saying? You wouldn't. There's no, that's crazy. I get it. But I'm trying to explain what I think is going on here because the judge decided to not have the mistrust. It's extremely unusual to your point. The only thing can be these notes. The notes can be basically whatever they want. It goes to the judge first, then to the defense play. It is extremely unusual, according to all the research that we can do on the fly here for a jury to single out another juror and basically say this person's a moron.

16:36I never heard of it before, which is why I'm saying like this whole scenario is just absolutely wrong. I wonder if that alone could be grounds for some kind of a mistromy. We went so long we got to go to break. I'll do we'll have a short segment here. We're fired up 800 to a two to a two eight minutes away in theory from the judge coming back and updating us on this. Clay. Clay. Life learned and hang with the guys play and buck preset on the I hard up. Hey, welcome back in. We got fired up. We're continuing to be fired up. I want to tell you if you're fired up about the return of college football hard rock bet. I love these guys. You can get hooked up. I stayed up late last night. Buck has no idea this game was going on. Congratulations Colorado beat Georgia Tech. That was one I did not see coming. I have got a pick for you Florida States going to beat SMU outright but you get them as a three point underdog. If you bet $5 you get $100 in bonus bets. If you go to hard rock dot bet slash clay that is hard rock dot bet slash clay.

17:43No matter if you've played before or not $5 bet you get $100 bonus bets in your account. You can play in Arizona Colorado Florida Illinois Indiana Michigan New Jersey Ohio Virginia and my home state of Tennessee hard rock dot bet slash clay. We'll take your calls guys. So light up those lines attorneys. Go to the front of the line on this one. If you've had courtroom experience won't hear from you but everybody weigh in on those lines. Picture this you're at work your phone buzzes. It's your teenagers number and it's your kids voice panic saying he's been an accident needs money wired right now. You move heaven and earth with that when you that's what a scammer is counting on here's the play criminals buy your info from data brokers online. Then they grab your kids voice off a video clone it with AI and make that call. You can't stop them from cloning your kids voice but you can make sure they never get your phone number in the first place. And this is done with incognities help incognities an online service that removes your name from hundreds of databases and people search sites and Cogni does that by contacting each of them on your behalf forced them to delete your personal info.

18:44Then a Cogni works to keep it gone. Klay and I are both using incogni to remove our info from as many of these data broker sites as possible. Go to incogni.com slash buck that's I and C O G and I incogni.com slash buck at 60% off their regular prices incogni.com slash buck use buck as your promo code for 60% off. Welcome back in we were talking off the air I think this is important to point out to where the heck is the prosecution. The defense is dominating every one of these motions creating huge storylines letting it be known how the jurors are voting everything associated with it. To me this is a sign that the prosecution actually is okay with her being found not guilty because they don't want to have to retry this case. And if she's found not guilty once and for all this is decided if it's a mistrile then the pressure goes to the state of Massachusetts to potentially retry her.

19:44But if you've already lost basically 11 to one in the first trial what are the odds that you're going to get a 12 o the other direction in the second trial. I think that's tough. I just I also just think we need to keep letting everyone know first of all I think it's no surprise to you. If I were on that jury or Clavers on that jury it would be guilty of first-degree murder. Okay. I mean our votes. So that's just so everyone just to get on the record. But I also think we need to point out it's not not guilty period she walks it's not guilty by reason of criminal insanity. And therefore she is put into a mental facility. She doesn't just walk out of there like nothing. Now I don't think that's the proper outcome. I think that's outrageous. But not guilty. There's a lot of people play sounds like oh she you know she walks right she doesn't walk. It's not guilty by reason of criminal insanity which under Massachusetts law means she is involuntarily committed to a criminal psychiatric facility unless I miss something. Yeah, that's right. But she could be out in his US 40 days.

20:45This is very much like primal fear. The movie with Richard Geer and Ed Norton where he play but he basically works in insanity defense. I'm a spoiler alert works in insanity defense into an extremely brutal murder murder trial. And at the end it's like he was actually just playing a game and they realize oh this guy could be out in 90 days. Yeah, and that's the whole thing. Again, that is if she has found mentally capable she would be out of the insane asylum and 100% free in as little as 40 days. Now it's possible that the state of Massachusetts is going to keep her there longer. But all of this is chaos and we are following it in real time and not surprisingly a lot of you have questions and to be fair, I've never seen anything like this. I don't imagine most attorneys out there even ones who have been doing trial work in a criminal capacity for a long time have been either and sorry I'm watching right now in real time trying to assess they keep running the same footage.

21:56Is it live live inside of the courtroom or not? I think we're not live with the juror with the judge right now, but guys. If you in our New York City studio can also help me with this so that do we have I believe we do the capacity to take this live if they are going back to the judge live with any of this officially inside of the courtroom. We will be able to go to you a bunch of calls Michelle in Tennessee fire away. They've got it wrong. I think the long to see it is a is a not guilty and the reasonable doubt in front is being scrutinized because the juror you don't have to find somebody guilty. It doesn't have to be absolute guilt. It can be a reasonable guilt and I think that that's what's going on here is that 11 people see that she is definitely guilty and the one hold out is like well you've not proven it to be absolute.

22:58That doesn't make any sense Michelle. I appreciate the argument. It doesn't make any sense. Let me explain why her juror her the defense is making this motion to get this juror kicked off the jury. If the defense were trying to kick off the one person who was on the decide the side of the defense that would mean that the client was going to be convicted. Her attorney should then be immediately disbarred because he's too dumb to be able to represent a client. I appreciate the call. This is not that. Now if you want to argue and I do think this again. I'm surprised more people aren't asking this. The prosecution just kind of meekly sitting in their chairs and letting the defense say I'm appealing this to the Supreme Court and not standing up and saying this is outrageous judge. What in the world are you attempting to do here. This is unprecedented to me. It suggests that they just want this case done and they don't want to try to convict her again because if you had a mistrial.

24:03Basically it's like this thing never happened and you just go for round two. They spent a month making the best case they could and they lost at best 11 to one. How much better could the prosecution do. I think they're probably sitting around thinking about this themselves to get a 12. They have to this jury has to be a wildly outrageous outlandish representation of the jury pool and they would go get a different result with another 12. That doesn't seem likely to me. I agree. I think what you've seen here is that the jury pool particularly of women in Massachusetts on this issue you will have at least one who would not go in the other direction and convicted. There's no chance that you're going to find 12 people that are going to convict on first degree murder. The issue here is I think I think Lindsey Clancy is going to a mental facility one way or another. I think though that Clay they may have to retry it and the only other all the only alternative would be the letter plead to a lesser charge.

25:11But if you're the defense attorney why would you take that. I think you know that you don't take it because you just basically nearly got a not guilty verdict unless it's something really minor like hey she's probably spent time in prison already I would imagine if they say hey you'll do two years in prison and then you'll be free and clear. That would you always would be maybe even worse innocent. Yeah, you know then the other thing is I think the state of Massachusetts. By the way you're you're an point about the prosecution I think is is extremely important right now because the defense attorney is going wild. He's demanding the you know the court come in from above the appeals court and he's talking he knows that he has all the leverage right now and that things are going in on in the court. So I think that's the reason he's in his direction and the prosecution you pointed this out you're correct is very kind of passive about this because I think they realize they don't have a better shot at the next round.

26:13It's it's astonishing to me that only one person sees this case for what it is so far on this jury and then beyond that Clay. I think it's just a really embarrassing to anyone who actually understands well I would just say reality not even the law. The state of Massachusetts brings this case again only to send her to a psychiatric facility not guilty by reason of of insanity. That looks really bad for Massachusetts to right as just as a state prosecution and as the whole process unfolds so there and though they're in the worst spot here but yeah I know I think Lindsey Clancy is she's going to the the looney bin so to speak and is not going to be found guilty in this trial or the next I think that's almost certainly where we are. I would also point out my wife has continued to hammer this she was talking about it this morning she was listening to a podcast about this case when I walked in to brush my teeth and get ready to come up and do the show. She is incredibly frustrated and thinks this is setting back women immensely because if the argument is women are too emotional and they're too hormonal to such an extent.

27:26That they cannot be held responsible for murdering their own three kids. How can you argue that women need to be in positions of power in any part of society. There is no man. Can you think of a man that has been able to get away by just saying hey my testosterone levels are too high. I was too mentally unstable and they're like it is true that she's being held to a standard that is far more lenient in terms of her behavior based on her. On an inability to control her emotions than we would ever allow a man to be held accountable in that same way. That's 100% true she's absolutely correct. And I would just say you've also seen a gender tribalism on display here. I know this can I just point out I think it was last week we were getting people saying it's not even a story producer Ali is in France right now. Not to blow producer Ali is on a well deserved vacation with with her wonderful husband there having a great time.

28:27Do you know what's on all the TVs in France right now the Lindsey Clancy trial verdict. Okay everywhere this has turned into it was very quick how this happened but it's like an OJ level criminal justice story in terms of how much interest there is. So I just want to note you know some of you you can send us your you are right buck and clay I'm sorry emails but this is a huge story. It's a very troubling story it's really a gut punch of a story and I just think clay this has shown as I was saying a gender tribalism where I have friends who are being told by women in their lives. I'll just put it that way you're not you don't get a vote on this or you're not your opinion doesn't matter on this. Which is a little bit of an extension of I will say how some woman treat the abortion argument but in this case in particular I would still make the case that that's about life and it doesn't matter what one's gender is but in this case. So you get to kill your kids if you're a woman because sometimes you get a little crazy and and men can't this my thing all along here has been play the state of Massachusetts has an obligation those are three human beings yes that the force of the state.

29:39You know men with guns and handcuffs should be deployed to protect the people of these three young people and now you know after their horrific murder to arrest those guilty entered achieve justice for them. They are human beings who were killed here it doesn't matter that their mother did it in terms of the guilt of the individual if anything it makes it much much worse much worse than a stranger. But it does there's no special you know play under under ancient Roman law the male head of household could actually kill anybody in his household. If I remember my my Greco Roman history usually it didn't usually didn't happen with wives but they would like you killed like a slave in your household slavery also existed 2000 years ago that's a whole other conversation it's existed thousands years before that. This is a little bit of shades of that where there are women who seem to think well look you know postpartum things get crazy and you know we got to stand with our postpartum sisters on this or something it's this is loony talk yes this is crazy it's moral it's demonic it's dark it's dark dark dark and again we're going to take a ton of your calls and talk backs of people are flooding us right now.

30:54The other thing we should say is I and I got texted by somebody who's a friend this morning and she said hey you and Buck need to be talking more about the fact the husband actually did this. I have a dear friend who takes the same position just so you know a female friend who takes the same position Clay and I am jaw on the table shocked that that's where we are. So here is what I would say and I have said this before but just take it. The defense did not in any way suggest that anyone else was involved in the murder. That is because there is no evidence that anyone else was involved in the murder. The number one thing you do if you are in a murder trial to defend your client is say it was somebody else. This was the theme of remember the fugitive when Dr. Richard Kimball in the 1990s film. The great was based on a 1970 Chicago area true murder.

31:57It was based on a true story yes loosely he said you know is the one arm man who actually committed the murder and I just came home and just found myself there at that point in time. One of the best defenses you can offer to reach a reasonable doubt is you have the wrong person held here for this crime. Did you do that in the OJ wasn't there an OJ theory that there was somebody else that could have done that. They tried to suggest hey it was somebody else who committed the OJ trial the OJ murder and it's one of the best ways to build reasonable doubt as a defense attorney is to say you've got the wrong person on trial because if you're a judge. It's one thing to think oh hey are they responsible what is the mental culpability all those things but if you send the wrong person to prison or to the death penalty sometimes that's compelling when it comes to reasonable doubt. It has been not even suggested by the defense attorneys. I'm really looking forward to this three day weekend and some of you work through the weekends and that's greatly appreciated but for a lot of us we get that extra day in my case we're going to be very family focused this weekend I'm actually out in the woods with carry and speed and ginger spice we're having a great time.

33:10So we're going to have a hundred or more photos and videos I'm sure of our little guy and and ginger over the weekend and that's great because technology makes it easy but back in the day when I would go out in the woods for a little family retreat with my dad my mom my siblings. We didn't have that in fact my dad probably had a 35 millimeter camera his big old cassette VHS recorder thing where he loved to do interviews on the fly. That's the stuff that you can't look at now because you don't have any means to play it and you don't know how to transfer it you don't have the technology is where legacy box comes in legacy box takes that old media for you and this is a company with all the gear technology and know how to easily digitize 19 different forms of old media whatever you've got photos videos however you recorded it back in the day they can take it for you and make it digital they're so good at this company's based in Tennessee we love this company what it stands for millions of families have already used legacy box I have clay has it's a great thing this weekend for the labor day weekend get together with your family pull together this stuff and you know get your legacy box you put it in the box you send it in digitize so easy go to legacy box dot com slash book they've got a special sale today legacy box dot com.

34:22So we are at the mistrile of the Wednesday Clancy Verdict the huge news in today we want to get your voices in on this people feel very passionately about this so we're going to do something we don't usually do we're going to take some calls and talk backs now we will start the next that so if you are a talk back rather if you are a live caller or you want to send in a talk back now is your time to get into this conversation but please I would just say when we put you on dive into it don't you know the weather here is 85 minutes breezy and no no we have tight timing here we got millions of people listening so clay with that let's go to first up will in Florida let's go. Hey guys great show former prosecutor here tried 30 during trials and state court mistrile is not necessarily the worst thing for the prosecutors because they've already seen everything that the fence is going to do so they can tailor their strategy based on that.

35:25Okay this is an interesting take let me just ask you this though sorry to cut you off losing 11 one in a mistrile is different than losing 11 one in your favor or 10 to or 9 3 have you ever seen a jury vote 11 1 1 way and then in the second trial a different jury goes 12 oh in the exact opposite direction. That's a good is it makes a good point which is that the prosecution can do a better job but I don't I don't think it's about the prosecutions case that they put on I just think this is so emotional for the jury and I think the jury people are already said on it it's very OJ verdict asked my friend in a lot of ways just it's gender not race. I think that it's even more I appreciate that call that's a fantastic call I think but again to go 11 1 against you to 12 oh for you I think is why you're not fearing the process.

36:25I think the prosecutor's throw very much of a fight up here I think deep down they're ready for this case to be over and they don't want to do this trial. I don't I don't want to I mean obviously this makes it seem like we're you know they're not taking it with the seriousness but they do bet on these kinds of things I bet if you look at the betting markets clay for a second trial I think you would get a probably five to one maybe 10 to one odds that you'll have a not guilty by reason of insanity. The flip side but yes yeah one to 10 I know you whatever you get what I'm all right calls calls calls we're coming into the next we're going to hear from all you stay with us don't go anywhere Lindsey Clancy try.