Lindsay Clancy Mistrial: The 11-1 Split and What Happens Next

0:00Good evening and welcome everybody. It is Friday, September 4th, 2026. And this is a special edition of courtroom confidential coming to you live from the Boston Airport after I just attended the week's long deliberation from the Lindsey Clancy trial. So we're going to do this a little bit different. We're going to do this a little bit quick and dirty, but I'm going to do my best to try to answer as many questions as you may have had today. I know what those questions are. I've been hearing from you all day long. And I just wanted to thank you all for carving out some time to join us. I know this kind of got thrown at you at the last second that I appreciate you being here. Let me say hello to Rainy Day and Shygale. I'm a listen, novin and ruders quadruple seven. You guys are all fantastic. Iowa backyard and BT mom eight. You guys are all fantastic. Thank you so much for being here. Let me introduce myself really quickly if

1:03you don't know who I am. Who I am. My name is Joshua Ritter. I'm a former prosecutor with the L.A. District Attorney's Office. I was there for 10 years before I left to go into private practice as a criminal defense attorney. And this is courtroom confidential. We do our best to bring you both sides of the courtroom, both sides of the issues, both sides of the stories. And we normally do a Friday weekly roundup. And it's much better than this. What about to give you right now? But I have been in Plymouth, Massachusetts, for the past couple of weeks with the Lindsey Clancy trial, including today, which was one of the most extraordinary days in court that you're ever going to see it right now. I'm sitting in a lounge at the Boston Airport about to catch a flight to go back home, thankfully to see my little girls and family. So I'm going to try to be respectful of all of those around me and not shout too much as I like to. But thank you all so much for being here. Stay to the end. We're going to have some quick announcements. Do you think we deserve it? I think we all deserve to take a deep cleansing breath. What a day,

2:10what a week. Hit that like button if you haven't already subscribed if you haven't already and share this with anyone that you feel might enjoy it. Okay, let me break down to you as best I can. And it's quickly as I can. What took place with the last couple of days and why it is so extraordinary and where that leads us to right now. Okay, first of all, this all started. The jurors indicated. I want to say two to three days ago. I didn't even have the dates in front of me. You guys are you guys can shout the dates at me if you want. I first indicated that they were deadlocked and the judge immediately sent them back in to deliberate and the judge didn't expand on what the note said. Did he? I think the note just said that we're unable to reach a verdict. And maybe that's all that it said, but we didn't know much more and the judge didn't tell them much more other than to say this has been a complicity case. You've heard from 80 something different witnesses and 300

3:11something exhibits. We understand please go back and deliberate. And between that time, there was a 10 hour period that went by which is already outside of the ordinary. I would say usually when a jury is hung, you'll send them back in and it might be two, three hours and you hear back from them. This jury sent a note out in the morning, went through that entire day and did not say anything. Then the next day we thought, well, we're going to for sure hear from them today. And it was still several hours before we heard from it. Again, indicating that they were deadlocked. Now at this point is when the judge gave the so-called two-ee Rodriguez instruction. I love that we all know what two-ee Rodriguez was. If you ask me, what two-ee Rodriguez was a couple of weeks ago, I'd say, two-ee Rodriguez, I love that guy. He makes great sandwiches down at the deli. Two-ee Rodriguez, we now all know to be which commonly referred to in the federal courts as an Allen instruction or the dynamite charge.

4:16You may have heard two-ee Rodriguez before if you've been closely following the Karen Reed case. It is an instruction that is a little controversial because what it does is really turns up the temperature on jurors that if they are at an impasse to reevaluate their position, to talk to their other jurors, to have an open mind and importantly to tell them that by the way, don't think somebody else is going to come do your job for you. You're in the best position to do this. You're the ones who have heard the evidence. Don't think that this case is going to get any better down the line and don't think that there's going to be another group of 12 people who are better positioned to handle this. You should do your job and handle it now. Many states don't allow it. Many states have outlawed it. It's allowed in the federal courts and it's allowed in some states, including the state of Massachusetts. But according to Massachusetts state law, once you've given that instruction, that is it. That's the last time the judge can encourage them to go back. So unless they indicate that they need more time, that's done. So what happens? We're all expecting to hear

5:20back from those jurors and to say that they're in fact hung and everybody's going to go home. No, of course not. Yesterday, we receive a note from the jurors and it's not to say that they're hung. It's to say that, hey, one juror is refusing to apply the law as it regards, is it, is regarding doubt. Now, the reason why I'm a little vague on this note is because we've never seen the note and the note has never, the judge has never read from the note for beta. We've had Kevin Reddington referred to its contents. We've had the prosecution refer to its contents. We've even had the judge referred to its contents, but all in vague, not specific terms. The best I can gather from this is that the jury, and this is in retrospect, having heard all their arguments and even the comments today, the best that we can assess is that all the jurors were leaning in the direction

6:20of not guilty by reason of insanity. I'm assuming. And that one juror, according to the jury for a person, had an issue with doubt. Now, I say it in those terms because the way that Reddington described it, it was as if this juror simply would not follow the law. But the prosecution got up to speak, and I thought this was important because they kind of clarified this. It wasn't that this person, that they were indicating that this person wouldn't follow the law. It was that they were indicating that this person had a doubt. And again, I am doing my best to kind of piece together what we know here, that this person had a doubt and wouldn't use that to apply it to the law as their understanding. Let's get to what that really means in a moment because what the judge did next is very important. The judge, having heard that, discussed it with the attorneys

7:20at Sidebar, who said, I think the best way to proceed is to question each of these jurors individually. And that is the best way to proceed because once they've indicated that a juror may not be deliberating properly or may not be following the law, the judge has to be very careful. The judge can't start to go, we'll bring that juror in front of me. I'm going to have a talk with that juror. We're going to sit this juror straight. The judge cannot appear to be leaning on any juror and directing them towards a particular outcome. And the judge also has to be very careful to not start to wait into the waters of what their deliberation process might be and where they might be in that deliberation. I can bring up the name and invoke the name of Alec Murdoch, if you want to know how problematic this can be to start to get into jury deliberations. So the judge brings each of them individually and asks them, this was done at Sidebar. So again, I'm giving you with the best knowledge we have on this, ask each of them, can they follow the law? Do they understand the law

8:25and can they follow the law? All 12 of them answer, yes. Now, ask yourself, what more is a judge supposed to do there? The record is that all 12 jurors have indicated that they can follow the law. A judge can't go, well, I think you're lying or I think you're not telling me the truth. Or another juror has said that's not in fact true. The record is that all 12 have indicated that they can follow the law and that's the best that the judge can do at that point. But he also then decides to read the instruction on beyond an unreasonable doubt on the reasonable doubt standard again to just make sure there's not any issues. And hold on, one thing I don't want to do is miss my flight. So I just want to make sure that I've got plenty of time and it looks like I do. Okay, one thing in the judge does not want to do, sorry, reads the reasonable doubt standard. Okay, now, Reddington immediately has a problem with this and goes on the record and you may

9:32remember this kind of initial outburst that takes place between the judge and Reddington. Because Reddington said he didn't believe that this soft instruction that the judge had given to the jurors was enough. And forgive me because it's been a long few days. I can't remember if this back and forth outburst was about that took place yesterday or if it was earlier this morning. It might have been this morning, but at some point they discussed what he meant by a soft instruction. I think he actually criticized the judge the night before and then brought it up again this morning. But his objection is that the judge should have been more, put a put more emphasis on following the law or should have been more vociferous in the way that he read that instruction. The judge goes, what do you want me to do? I read the instruction. I'm not an actor. I'm not going to perform this. And I'll tell you, I'll go one step further. The judge should have said, by the way, it would have been entirely and wholly inappropriate for me to try to highlight parts of the law

10:35for this particular juror. Okay? So this brings us to this morning. And I know I'm kind of blending the days a little bit, but this morning, last night, actually, let's start again with yesterday. Reddington tells reporters outside that the juror has been identified and that he expects to have a hearing with this juror of Wad here, which is what they call it, with this juror. We get to this morning and he brings that up with the judge and he says, I want to have a hearing. I want to talk to this juror. I think this juror needs to be questioned and I think we need to instruct that juror. And the judge goes, I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to, the last thing I'm going to do, again, is single out one particular juror and browbeat that juror. This isn't what the judge said, but this is me paraphrasing browbeat that juror into following with the other 11 jurors are going to do. You guys have to understand how important it is for judges to tread lightly in

11:41situations like this. We all may be frustrated by this and we all may feel there's one hold out there and this one hold out doesn't sound like they're following the law but the judge cannot be the person to lean into this person and say, I'm not going to, I'm not going to allow you to remain a hold out unless you explain yourself to me entirely inappropriate. Kevin Reddington says, he wants a hearing and I think this is this morning when the judge and him kind of had this back and forth where he goes, what do you want me to do? I'm not an actor. I read the law as best I can. So he denies that. Should we take a break so I can think some people who've been so patient? Do we have some stuff that I can do? Thank you so much to Ida Van Schalkwick says, thanks Josh for doing a chat from the airport safe travel zone. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate that. Mindy Luhu, thank you for the super chat. Very kind of you says, thank you Josh and mods.

12:45I do not know if they will ever find a jury to agree on this case. More to come on that later. Very good point though. And then finally, thank you all for joining us for this ad free live. If you're watching Corp. and Confidential and you're watching it live, we've dedicated ourselves to never allowing that to be interrupted by YouTube so that's why we appreciate all of your super chats and support. Okay, so that is how things remained this morning. Now, we're now just waiting because the ball is in the jurors court. They've indicated twice that they've hung the judge gave the the Tui Rodriguez instruction. And the last that we heard from them is they were indicating that this juror was being a problem, which is also interesting to think about because I wonder if that juror was aware the four persons sent out that note because they identify apparently this juror in that note. And then the judge instructs them, questions them, sends them back in.

13:51We're just waiting to hear from the jury and we're all thinking to ourselves, well, maybe that questioning was enough. Maybe they go back and they lean on this juror, maybe we get ourselves a verdict or maybe we get a hundred. We get a note. It says, Your Honor, we are, oh, what was the word used? It was, we are, oh, God, there was a little more emphasis put into this last note. The ladies are going to let me know here. We are heavy heart. That was it. With a heavy heart. If future jurors learned anything from watching Miss Trial, it's if you're going to send a note back, use a little bit of a fuse of language. Get a little more, you know, a little more dramatic with your writing of notes. It is with a heavy heart that we tell you that we're unable to reach a verdict. So brings in the attorneys again. And the judge says, listen, have given them the

14:55instruction. We've talked to them. They are hung. This is now the third time that they've indicated they're hung. This is a deadlock jury. I'm going to declare a Miss Trial. And initially, Reddington puts on the record things that he wants the judge to do. He thinks it's inappropriate. He again, name checks the care and read case. He says that we should pull the jury to see if they've actually decided on any of the counts, you know, flashback and PTSD. We're all getting from that one. And he also says that I want the jury pulled individually as to whether or not they all feel this way. The judge declines to do all of that. And then he's literally signaling to the court clerk to start to get these people up out of their chairs from the deliberation room and come into the courtroom so that he can declare a Miss Trial and send them home and Reddington in a Hail Mary of Hail Mary stands up and goes, runner, I have to object once again. And I'm requesting

15:56leave of this court to file an emergency motion for a stay from the Massachusetts Supreme Court so that I can have a hearing on the issues that I brought forth previously. And the judge goes, and I wonder what the history is between this judge and Reddington because they do seem to kind of have a familiarity with each other. And he goes, what are you asking me here? I'm literally got the people about to walk into the room in your asking me to do what now. And he goes, I want a petition. The Massachusetts Supreme Court for an emergency stay. I'm going to tell you some inside baseball right now. Okay. Defense attorneys, I am one. We will make our records and we will ask for extraordinary things sometimes. A lot of times we don't think we're getting those things. I can tell you right now, I do not believe Reddington

16:59thought he was going to get this. I think he asked for it just to put it out there to put one more thing on the record, one more issue out there. I do not think he was thinking he was going to get this. And the judge goes, all right, dude, I'll give you an hour. You can file that in an hour. If you think you can get it done and Reddington goes, okay, and I can almost guarantee you, he's got, he's probably thought to himself, what did I just get myself into here? And lo and behold, he does. He files it within an hour. And the justices oftentimes have one judge, one justice who's on call for these emergency issues. And there was a judge who is available. So the criminal justice system moves at a glacial pace. But sometimes they can get their act together and move quickly. And today there is actually a zoom hearing. This is Reddington, along with Lindsey Clancy waiting or having this hearing in front of the justice who is wearing a

18:04robe on a zoom, hearing everything that had to be said. And there she, there you go. The parties argued their positions on it. It was very quick. I will say by the time we got the zoom up and running, if they were concluding it, it was lightning quick. No real, well, let's actually, this is a good time to go through what he put in his motion. So he filed a seven page brief. And I will say this too, hats off to whoever in his office is this quick on the draw to put together this brief. Essentially what he is saying is this, they wanted specifically for the court to order the lower court to inquire into the ability of the identified juror to apply the law. So in other words, to have this voidier hearing and to prohibit the further deliberations of the juror identified by the jury for a person that's biased and refusing to follow the court's instructions on reasonable doubt and less. And until the court determines by individual voidier,

19:06that the juror is willing and able to follow the court's instructions. So he asked for a bunch of stuff. But what he really wanted according to this petition here was this voidier, this hearing. And I'll tell you why. I think Reddington was banking on in the off chance this is granted that these will really scare that one juror. These holdouts sometimes they they might have a lot of fortitude, but they can't last forever. And if it seems like everybody's coming down on them to the point that they're being individually questioned by the judge, they might just go ahead and fold. They might just go ahead and say, well, maybe I got a wrong and bold. The other thing, and this is page number five here, Caitlin, right there in that middle paragraph, if you guys can see it. Here was the the real crux of their argument as to why they felt this was

20:08appropriate. I'm just going to read this. It says the judge need not simply accept the jurors' professions fidelity and impartiality. Again, remember, they threw this motion together in minutes. So I'm pretty impressed with it. What they're saying is that that judge, this judge doesn't need to have accepted this identified juror saying, yeah, I can follow the law at face value. The judge is entitled, he goes on to say, to make credibility determinations and discredit the jurors' answers in light of the other jurors' statements. The judge appears to be abdicating the responsibility to weight the evidence of juror malfeasance. In other words, this is not an abuse of discretion. It is a failure to exercise discretion at all. Why is that important? Because the standard in which the appellate court, the justice, pardon me, on the Supreme Court, that was hearing this emergency motion, that standard has to do with egregious abuses of discretion. They had to bring that up. They

21:11had to say that somehow this judge, justice of the Supreme Court, this trial court judge has gone off the rails. He is not, he is abusing his discretion. It is a gross abuse of his discretion. They are just saying, well, it is not even that he abuse this discretion. It is that he is failing to employ his discretion whatsoever. Now, I will tell you, I was watching this hearing. At one point, you saw the justice that we had pictured there earlier. It just kind of clicked. She got what the arguments were. All of a sudden it made sense what they were arguing and what they were asking for. And then the judge goes, okay, I am going to go ahead and get back to with my ruling. And I thought to myself, right then, and there, this is over. They are not going to grant this. Because these judges are so reluctant to intervene in this process. They are so reluctant with a deliberating jury in the middle of a trial to intervene and start pushing elbows around and

22:15telling that lower court judge to do. The only way that they would do it is if they really felt that this judge, our judge, had gone off the rails entirely. And it is just clearly not present here. Okay, the girls are telling me that they may have had this in the works last night. So, you know, it explains a little bit more how well it was done. Listen, it was a well-prepared motion. It is just that it does not have any merits to it. There is just nothing here to object to really because the judge did not do anything wrong. And what he did was clearly within his discretion. So, we find out within, I don't know, half an hour or so of that that this motion has, in fact, been denied. What was he asking for, though? I think it is something that is being confused here. This judge wasn't going to rule. You need to make, you need to have this hearing and inquire of this jury. The justice I'm talking about, the Supreme Court Justice. All this justice was going to do

23:21was grant a stay to have a full-fledged hearing on whether they could order that judge to do that. And this judge denied to even have that stay. So, in other words, it took the pause of the proceedings which wasn't even put in place anyways. The judge, the lower court judge, had actually said, I'll give you time. But it took off any kind of reigns on any of this, gave the trial court judge full-fledged green light to go ahead and do what he had to do. Judge brings him into court. And to tell them, I'm going to go ahead and declare a mistrial, does declare a mistrial. Judge Sullivan finally brings them all out of the room, lets them know where they're at, who are deadlocked. I'm declaring a mistrial. Thank you for your services and you could go ahead and head home. It was nice. He actually had this kind of little moment where he talked about Winston

24:26Churchill and he thanked them for their service. I thought it was kind of nice to hear that. They did put a lot of work into this. I'll say this, it's frustrated as you all may be. And I include myself in that group. You've got to say to these jurors that they really gave it their all. They worked very hard. They put a good faith effort into all of this and I applaud their efforts. It's unfortunate that we ended up without a decision, but I applaud their efforts in what they've done and the sacrifice that they've made. All right, now that brings us to the point of what happened this afternoon. Okay? All right. Let's go ahead and play some of these clips and then we'll talk about where we're moving forward. First of all, let's hear the moment that I was just referencing where the judge declares the mistrial and thanks the jurors. All right, members of the jury. At this point, I'm going to declare that the jury is deadlocked and I'm going to declare a mistrial. I watch

25:26every day, day after day, week after week. All of you performing that duty that you braced for. Is that it? Okay, sorry. Okay, so there's the judge thinking. Now let's get to the press conference that took place outside and you could tell the tensions were running very high on both sides. This is D.A. Tim Cruz right afterwards. They spoke first. Our priority has always been to fight for Korra, for Dawson and for Calon. The noise in this case may be louder than it is for other prosecutors in our county, but we have treated it the same as any other case. Children were murdered and it's our job to seek justice. All right, he at some point had a couple of people heckling him. It got a little heated.

26:33He obviously feels very passionate about the case. One thing though that he has been criticized for is that he did not indicate whether or not he will in fact refile charges. There's nothing extraordinary about that. They always kind of say we're going to take a moment to do it. I can't think of the last case where they immediately said that they were. I think it was actually the Karen Reed case again to name check that, but usually they go we're going to take a beat and they should take a beat. It was hung 11 to 1 against them. They should take a beat to think about what they want to do about this. He wouldn't commit on that. I'm going to tell you right now I'm going to be shocked beyond belief if they don't refile this as a first degree murder case again and we're looking right back at a trial. Then finally, Reddington, this is what most people are all talking about today. He had his comments at the end of today as well. It's a very sad case. Cruise knows that he was crushed. He doesn't have a case. He doesn't have to stand here and say

27:39that he's advocating on behalf of the victims and then look down to see what their names are. Sat there through seven weeks of the trial. We had nobody had anything bad to say about her except for the two prosecutors and apparently Tim Cruise. All right. He went on at one point to to controversially talk about this juror and and say, I don't know how this guy is going to sleep at night. Some other really strong words for this juror. I'm going to say this right now. I think Kevin Reddington is a really phenomenal attorney. I think he, you know, regardless how you feel about this case, you have to acknowledge when somebody is very skilled at what they do and he's very skilled at what they do. But this really left left a bad taste in my mouth the way that he handled this press conference. And I'll give him a lot of leeway for just still being in the heat of the moment

28:40and the idea that he feels that he saw a acquittal essentially slip through his fingers on all of that. But it was inappropriate to me to call out this one juror in the way that he did. We have to respect this process. And I know that he, his position is this juror refused to follow the law. But I don't think that the the further evidence that we have on this really supports that. And even if it did, you have a person who dedicated several weeks of their life and and over. I think approaching 40 hours worth of deliberations on this in a case that is so hotly followed and emotionally triggering to so many people on the outside. People feel very passionately about this. We live in a political climate where doxing is a thing. And people

29:41get really upset about this kind of stuff. And to single out this one person that way, I just really did not agree with. I felt it was really inappropriate. And I imagine even now he would probably choose his words differently on that. It's fine to be upset about the conclusion. But to say that this juror was somehow had an agenda or that this juror was some sort of plant and just came in here to disrupt this thing from the first place. There's zero evidence to support that. This was a difficult case. From the beginning, we all talked about how this could easily end up in a hung jury. I understand he felt like he was one juror away from making a very unlikely outcome likely. But don't do that. Don't do that. To me, that was just that was just a bridge too far, a little inappropriate. But where does this leave us? And I've got about five more minutes here before I have to start running. Where does this leave us?

30:48It leaves us with the commonwealth making decision on whether or not they're going to refile. I think they're just playing it close to the best. I think we will find out likely by next week that they are in fact refiling. There is a future court date already said. It's September 20. Do I have a date right, ladies? September 29th? Is that it? Yeah. So Lindsey Clancy's back in court on the 29th. That is for a status hearing. It's basically back on the trial calendar again. They've already talked about retrying this somewhere in the fall. There's been a lot of discussion about whether or not they will bring first-degree murder charges again. I honestly think that they will. I know some people are saying, well, that's strategically a bad idea. They already saw that they're going to lose. Why not step it down to something else? Well, they can charge her and then discuss plea negotiations otherwise. Where they can charge her as first-degree and then have instructions on other stuff as they did in this case. But if you're the prosecutor, it's really hard to see this case any other way. If you were the prosecutor, the prosecutor's position is that

31:51she was not legally insane. So then putting that issue aside, what is the murder? Will you go by the circumstances of the murder? And you have three children who are strangled to death with exercise bands. There's no other way that that is not a malice of forethought premeditated first-degree murder in my view. If you can find some other mechanism by which you can be, I'm willing to listen, but from a prosecutor's perspective, this is a first-degree murder or it's not or it's a not guilty by reason of insanity. And I think that they would die on that hill. I think they would rather go to trial and lose, not guilty by reason of insanity, then to file this as something short of that. But who knows? They could want to get out of this. They could see the writing on the wall, realize that they've got to reevaluate this case. And I think they do need to reevaluate it certainly strategically because the only good, real, loyering I saw took place in their closing

32:52arguments and that might have saved this case from their perspective. But it starts all over again. Evidentiary hearings, witnesses to be called, it is a brand new case. I know there were some questions earlier about double jeopardy attaching. No, it's a mistrial. It's like it never happened. There is no double jeopardy attached. We're doing the whole thing all over again. I know there were some questions about will they be sequestered this time around. That might be something that is considered. I think that would be a really good idea. I think they probably should have been this time. My understanding though, talking to people who operate here in Massachusetts, they're like, we don't do that. That's not a thing here sequestering a jury. Maybe they should make an exception for this one. I guess I'll just give you some final thoughts on this. Is there any thank yous? I can do really quickly before I let you guys go. Let me say to new port R.I. paralegal safe travels and thank you for all your input. Thank you

33:55so much for that. PAMI MC, thank you so much for supporting the mods with coffees. Veronica, thank you for supporting the mods with coffees. Southered C.J. Bay, hope you have a juror on deck to interview. They were all lining up to be interviewed. Court lurker, thank you so much for the superstar. That's very kind of you. KMTX, great coverage, Josh and CC mods. Thank you. Well, you're very fantastic. Cheryl, size more. Thank you for becoming a new YouTube member. Awesome. Thank you for that. Ida Ventshock says, will there be any consequences for reddit and for targeting a juror with a bar? You know, I could see the DA if he really wanted to get personal about this whole thing, recommending him up to the state bar. I know some people have said, come on, this was big talk. I do not think it was big talk. I really don't. I really feel that when you target one person like that, especially in a case like this where he knows

35:03how people have been on TikTok and Instagram and how heated they are about this whole thing, I, you know, there were people shouting stuff at the DA. There are people who are upset. And you're just basically given these people licensed to have out this port dude, whoever he is. I feel that was very unfortunate. I don't know if that will actually happen. Die, die, the heck says. Thank you so much for supporting the mods with coffees. Southern Ceebet loved reddit, however, never a reason to be a sore loser. You know, he was heated. He did seem to be taking a weird kind of victory lap, but I agree with you, Southern Ceebet. Subscribe to pandering says just got here. Add this to the DC fund. Thank you. Please bring Tiff and Kaelin with you for the retrial. I'd be shocked if Cruz doesn't retry it. What do you think ladies? You want to pack your bags? Should we do this? Okay, I got I got a round of thumbs up from them. All right. Thank you. Shygau says thank you so much. This

36:06was amazing. Well, thank you guys so much for being here. Information junkie. Thank you for the super sticker. All right. I do got to run. Let me just say I appreciate you all. One for being along with us for all your support for your respectfulness on a very heated topic. I know a lot of people feel very strongly about this one and I appreciate you making your best efforts to be respectful of other people's opinions. You know, more to come on all of this. I think my parting notes, if I can make that to you are that this might be frustrating. Like bear in mind too, it is part of the process. It is part of what makes our system so unique and so wonderful is that it requires a unanimous verdict and that works both ways. Some ways it works in a situation where

37:06you feel like it might have saved you for the day and sometimes it works in a way where you feel like it's a miscarriage and incredibly frustrating and how can one person hold up justice? Well, I will tell you this. I've been doing this long enough to see situations where it's hung just like this and you get a completely different result the next time around. And I've seen other ones where it's hung like this and it's an absolute given the way that it turns the next time around. I guess my whole point on that is that this is certainly an indication of how this jury, this particular group of people felt after hearing this particular trial, but we're looking at a brand new trial with a brand new set of jurors and it's still anyone's game in a very highly hotly contested situation and that is why we require unanimity and these types of very, very serious cases. So I'm frustrated. I wanted there to be a conclusion, no matter what that was to be quite honest. I wanted there to be a conclusion to all of this, but I also have

38:12have been a lawyer and taken a note and feel that we have a system that works better than anything on earth even though it might not be perfect. And I respect this decision even though it wasn't a conclusion to all of this. So thank you guys again. You're all fantastic. I'm going to pack this up and run to my gate and I will talk to you all soon. All right. Let me think. Wait a minute. Before I go, let me quickly think, often shy gal, Kathy, therapists, you know, best Nancy and Becky B. You guys have been amazing and I know how rough this has been and I know how exhausting this has been and I from the bottom of my heart, thank you all for all the work that you have done as mods in on this channel and especially on our live trials channel. Thank you guys so much. Kaelin, you're fantastic. Tiffany, you are as always the best thing that ever happened to me.

39:13I will talk to you guys all soon. Take care everybody. Bye.