Tensions Flare in Clancy Courtroom

0:00Happy now. Breaking news, tensions flare. The Lindsay Clancy courtroom, a deadlocked jury, the defense claiming there is one juror who refuses to listen to the law. The move the judges making this morning. Incredible. Breaking overnight, miracle on the mountain to men rescue to live in Nepal after being trapped for nine days in a tunnel. What one of the men is saying this morning. Also, all time high, diesel has never been this expensive. It is the pricest leap or day ever. The hidden fuel crisis that could hit your wallet next. And dramatic reversal, the Pentagon pulling back a controversial testosterone screening program. What happened? My new reporting straight ahead. Welcome to our viewers, the United States and around the world. I'm Pamela Brown. We'll flutter us off and you're in the situation room.

1:09This is CNN breaking news. And we begin this hour with the breaking news. Court is back in session for the Lindsay Clancy murder trial. But the morning started with a 10-six-stage between Clancy's defense attorney and the judge. Take a listen. I would ask that you specifically direct their attention to proof beyond a reasonable doubt and re-instruct them on that forcefully. Did they yesterday? Didn't I? You did it yesterday. You did it soft. You didn't do it forcefully. I'm asking maybe what you want me to do. 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 that. I'm not an actor. I've just given the instructions. Well, my point, Judge, simply is that you're kind of glossing over the issue. The issue is this juror will not, according to that note, apply the law of reasonable doubt. And that's why I've requested, you know what I've requested.

2:14Right. I know what I've asked. But it just encased the records. I am specifically not glossing over this issue. I have thought about this issue long enough. I know the definitive jacks, but the characterization that I'm glossing over it, trust me, that's not the situation. The deadlock jury is back for the seventh day of deliberations and a series of dramatic developments over the past day has offered more questions and answers in a case that has already gripped the nation. Also, this morning, Clancy's defense team filing an emergency motion asking the court to end all sidebar discussions. Those are the private conversations between the judge and the attorneys. The motion asks for all discussions to be held in open court. And this comes after a note from the jury's four person offering the biggest glimpse yet into the panels nearly 40 hours of discussion. According to Clancy's attorney, Kevin Reddington, the jury, split 11 to 1, Reddington went on to accuse the lonehold out of refusing to listen to the law.

3:16Clancy is on trial for the murder of her three young children. And it's up to this jury to decide whether she is criminally liable. Clancy's defense argues she was experiencing postpartum psychosis at the time of the killings. Joining us now is CNN correspondent Jean Casares from the courthouse in Plymouth, Massachusetts, attorney Alan Turkheimer. He's also a jury consultant. And defense attorney, Elise Hirshen, a lot to talk about this morning. Jean, let's start with you. A lot of developments in that courtroom this morning bring us up to speed on this very unusual series of events. I think the first thing, most importantly, the jury is deliberating right now. So to any minute, something could happen. We're just waiting. This is, as you said, almost 40 hours of deliberation right now. And when the jurors filed in, the judge did repeat his order to follow the law. And our producer in the courtroom, the camera didn't catch it obviously because it's the jurors, but noted that female jurors were shaking their head. Yes, just quite enthusiastically, as the

4:20judge was saying, you have to follow the instructions, follow the law. The male jurors were focused on listening, but not with that enthusiasm of shaking their head at all. But the main issue here comes from the note, the note. And now we know on the record there were actually two notes that were sent to the judge. And the notes had to do with just one lone juror that the four person at least was saying that they couldn't follow, wouldn't follow the law. And so the defense, first of all, wanted the juror out. But today the issue was really he wanted inquiry in open court of that one juror. And the judge said, I'm not going to do it because he swore. And it was a he because Reddington said he many times this morning, it's more to tell the truth. And he said that he would follow the law. And so the prosecutor gave up came up and actually cited case law saying the only reason that you can excuse a juror while they're deliberating is personal

5:24reasons, personal reasons. And an inquiry is if there is actual bias or actual issues in regard to how they are focused on things. But she said, we have none of that. We just have disagreement. We have disagreement in the jury room. And so the judge listened to that and ordered the jury to continue. So on that note, Alan, I mean, how unusual is it for a jury four person to send two notes to the judge singling out a single juror saying essentially that person, in this case, he, according to Reddington, isn't following the law. It's unusual, but certainly not unprecedented. This happens. And if you think about it, they've been deliberating for so long. They've rehashed arguments. They've tried to persuade others. They've tried to get to unanimity. And at this point, they're frustrated. They're clearly frustrated. And if you think about it also, what is reasonable doubt? Yes, there's a, there's

6:27a definition. It's red. But this is why we have 12 people assemble because it means different things to different jurors. So I wouldn't necessarily think that this juror is deliberating about faith or not even following the law. I understand why some jurors might think that's the case. But we just, we don't know that this, this juror might have a different definition of reasonable doubt and might be arguing about it from a perspective that is urking the majority of jurors in this case. And it's really notable to me, Elise, that Reddington gave us a glimpse of what was in this letter, which is super unusual to learn about the deliberations as they're ongoing. Tell us more about the significance of that of Reddington saying, according to this far person, that this lone juror has expressed doubt, but isn't following the law. What does that tell you? So it tells me that we don't know what's in that note, but Attorney Reddington does. So going off of his representations to the court on the record is that that note contained

7:27of split, a jury split, what the numbers were that usually is not disclosed to the public. That's usually that can never be asked into the jury room. The judge and the lawyers are supposed to stay out of that. They reported to the judge from what we can gather. It's an 11 to one split, and this is not just about a holdout juror, and this is not about the defense council wanting this to be over in his favor. This is about a juror that in that note has raised enough of an issue that the four person wrote a note to the judge saying, someone is holding out because they recognize there is doubt, but won't apply it to the law. Attorney Reddington said this in court, he said this in a press conference, and they've recognized that with the, basically, the judge read the instruction of reasonable doubt, and he said, the person will follow the law, I'm going to re-instruct them. That's what the prosecutor asked for, but a reasonable doubt instruction is always 99.9 percent of the time favors the defense. The prosecution never wants that re-instructed, because it reiterates how high their burden is. They know, in this case, that they are losing the

8:31jury, or they, the jury is likely 11 to one against them, and they want that instruction, and they probably want to mistrial, because they don't want to lose this trial. Yes, so just to drill down on that, what does all of this tell you, Elise, about how the jury might currently be voting, who they're favoring right now? 11 to one for what I would anticipate would be an acquittal under criminal responsibility. So remember there were five options there, first and second degree agree murder, manslaughter, not guilty for lack of criminal responsibility, and then a follow-quitle. I would imagine based on the evidence, based on the case, and based on the strength of the defense experts, and the weakness of the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt criminal intent. I think they're landing on that. There's no way for me to know, but something favorable to the defense outside of first or second degree murder. And of course, that motion to have all the sidebars heard in open court, that's a totally valid motion. We do have a public trial system, as long as the jury is out of the room and not privy to what is being argued over and discussed. I think

9:35that motion was valid, and the judge did the right thing with allowing it. And it was interesting, Alan, and I'll get to you in a second, Gene, just on like next steps, but it was interesting because the judge met with the jurors, and he indicated in court today that despite the majority of the jury, believing that this lone juror wasn't following the law, that he said he didn't see evidence that this lone juror wasn't following the law. Can you just help us understand this and make sense of it? Sure, the judge has to do what he has to do, and that's talked to each juror and just say, can you follow the law? Are you following the law on your deliberations? He wants to make sure they're deliberating and good faith. And it's hard to imagine a juror saying, no judge, I'm not going to listen to you, or I'm going to flout the law that you'd give me. So he just had to follow the process, and he was convinced that every juror is doing it. And look, think about it in the deliberation. It's hard to imagine a juror saying, you know, I kind of think that the prosecution didn't meet their burden. However, I'm not going to let her go. She killed her three kids. It's just unlikely that somebody is going to be that blatant with their

10:38rejecting the law. But certainly the jurors think that this juror is not following the law and brought it to their attention. And the judge had to do what he had to do and ask about it and felt confident that the jurors are all following the law, but he gave it on the burden of proof. And it was interesting to me the judge emphasized, even if you don't like the law, if you have personal feelings, you have to disregard that and follow this law, despite what you think about it. Jean, were minus what happens if this ends up being a mistrial? If this is a mistrial, the trial is over. And conceivably, Lindsay Clancy is a free woman, because there was not a verdict at all. However, the prosecution, more likely the not, will stand up in court and ask that she remain in custody because you don't think about that she's in custody, but she is. This is a triple murder case. And it's a no bail situation. They will reiterate that. And we may hear in the courtroom if it comes to this, that their intent is to retry the case

11:42conceivably. All right, and just really quickly, Elise, back to you, how unusual is it for the defense attorney to kind of push back at the judge in this way? Presumably, you would think that the defense would want to be in the judge's good favor. I just wonder what your take is on how the defense has approached this. I think, you know, certainly attorney Reddington can get away with certain things that I couldn't at this point in my career. He's been doing this a long time, has tried cases in front of this judge. So there's a level of professional respect. The judge understands attorney Reddington. This is a triple first degree murder trial. Her life is on the line. And the judge understands that cellist advocacy is required. attorney Reddington certainly has his own style that works for him. He is very straight to the point. He's very blunt. And he's a strong advocate for his client. So everything that he said and did had a valid legal basis for it, for asking it anyways, but it wasn't the judge's discretion to deny swapping out that juror.

12:43Again, like we discussed in other people in the panel discussed personal bias or personal issue is really the only thing that would allow a judge to do that. And the judge cannot further inquire into what that jury is deliberating on. They are sacrosanct. They're not allowed to invade the province of the jury. So the judge had to stay far away from asking exactly what was going on in there. All right, Jean, Elise Allen. Thank you all. We appreciate it. And we're going to continue to monitor this and still ahead. Diesel hitting a record. What this means for the cost of everyday items for you and your family. And then later, Louisiana judge paves the way for two NFL rookies to return to LSU ahead of tomorrow's kickoff. The dramatic showdown brewing between the Tigers and the SEC. You're in the situation room and we'll be right back. So if I got news for your ears, the podcast, I am your host, Michael Ian Black. What are we going

13:43to talk about? Let's get into it. We're talking about we're back at war with Iran. And Trump has the AI slot videos to prove it. Dan Driscoll quits right when we learned who he was. Trump's midterm plans involved several unpopular things himself and data centers. Have I got news for your ears? Check us out on Apple, Amazon Music, wherever you get your podcasts, even better you can watch the podcast on Spotify. Well, drivers are expected to pay a record Labor Day gas prices this holiday weekend, but it's not just the cost of filling your tank that's going up. Diesel, the workhorse fuel that powers the economy has also hit an all time high, adding pressure to the trucking industry. At 585, a gallon, that means a typical 18 wheeler with a 300 gallon tank can cost more than $1,700 to fill up. CNN senior reporter Matt Egan is in New York. We're talking sticker shock all around here. Matt, breakdown the numbers for us. Well, Pamela, diesel has never been more expensive than

14:47it is right now. Before the war started, this was not a problem, right? Diesel was selling for well below less than $4 a gallon. But look at that 585, a gallon blowing away the prior record that was set four years ago under President Biden after Russia invaded Ukraine. Now, I know it's tempting to kind of dismiss this because most of our viewers, they're not using diesel to fill up their cars. However, yes, diesel is the MVP of the fuels. It is the silent workhorse that's really powering the modern economy. It's powering the trucks and trains that are hauling the stuff that we buy online. It's powering the boats that allow goods to get shipped overseas, the tractors, the farmers use to produce fuel, the construction vehicles making homes and data centers. That's why this is a very big deal because all of those activities have just gotten more expensive and businesses they are likely to pass along. At least some of those costs to all of us as consumers. So why is this happening? Well, one, it's the fact that oil prices have gone up because of the war with Iran. But

15:49two, there's this global shortage of refining capacity. Refineries, there's just not enough of them that are operating right now to produce enough fuel. And it's not just the level of prices that are a record. It's the increase. This is, we're looking at a north of a 60% increase so far this year that would easily be the most on record. And then there's gasoline. As you mentioned for the first time ever, gas buddies projecting that Labor Day gas prices will be above $4 a gallon. So whether it's gas or diesel either way, we're looking at an energy shock that is making the cost of living get even worse. Pamela? We're getting in some different economic markers. The machine-tissupated August jobs report was just released a little over 90 minutes ago. I want to go to National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett and what he said about the report earlier this hour. It's really one of the biggest blowout skyrocketing job numbers that we've seen in a long time. And I think that if you put it, you know, in perspective, what it means now after this report,

16:52the President Trump's economy, his policies have created now over a million jobs. So we went over the million job market because of this report. What more can you tell us about this report? Well, Pamela, this report didn't just beat expectations. It did crush expectations. The forecast was for a gain of 65,000 jobs. The reality was 162,000, right? So more than doubling the forecast. In fact, this was stronger than even the most optimistic forecaster. And there were positive revisions. Both June and July were revised higher. Another positive is the fact that job growth in August, it was more widespread than it has been in the past, right? This wasn't all health care government added a lot of jobs. That was mostly local schools, public schools, leisure and hospitality. That was bars and restaurants. But one thing that we do have to note here, Pamela, is wages. What we saw is that wage growth slowed again to a five year low. Notably, wages are going up much slower than inflation. So that means that if you adjust your paycheck for inflation,

17:55your paycheck is actually getting smaller right now. So Pamela, I do think that really speaks to how people are experiencing this economy. And while a lot of consumers right now, they feel like they just can't keep up with higher prices because the data shows they literally can't. All right, Madigan. Thank you so much. We appreciate it. And coming up, Miracle and the mud, two men found alive in Nepal, more on how they were rescued, and the hope to find others alive. Amazing euphoria and just disbelief. Exhausted rescue crews erupt in cheers as you heard there as two men are pulled out alive. Nine days after Nepal's catastrophic blood trapped them inside a hydropower tunnel, here rescuers carry one of them to medical care,

18:57or told one of the hydropower workers is in stable condition at this hour, the other critical. Both men are now hospitalized in Nepal's capital, Kathmandu. And in a moment, you're going to hear from one of them speaking from his hospital bed. The body of a third person has been found in the tunnel. Even so, the rescues give new hope after nine days of unimaginable heartbreak. Nearly 1300 people are confirmed dead in Nepal, about 5,500 are missing there and across the border in China. CNN's Hanukkah Montgomery has the latest from the rescucing in Nepal. I mean, there were cries of joy. There was jubilation after these men were pulled out almost miraculously after spending nine days stuck in the tunnel. You can imagine how difficult it must have been for these men to hang on to the walls as the floodwater was coming in, sweeping some of their colleagues away, yet somehow they were able to hang on and stay alive. And you've seen some of those incredible videos of them getting pulled out of the tunnel using the rescue workers to hang

20:01on and to lean on. And of course, them getting carried into helicopters with stretchers. And we now know that these two men are receiving medical treatment at a military hospital in Kathmandu in the capital. And we actually heard from one of the survivors, Sanjay saw about his time inside the tunnel. Listen to this amazing account of what he experienced. My responsibility was to save everyone's life. After the accident happened, I could not run by myself. I had to save everyone. In the process of saving everyone, I told them that there was an accident in the big dam. I asked everyone to escape outside. Doing so, I wasted time and I could not get out. I got trapped. I mean, truly an act of heroism, if he was sacrificing his time to escape by helping his co-workers. Now, we know that these rescue operations are ongoing. We saw some of them

21:02when we were up by the Trisholi 3A tunnel and we saw those rescue workers pulling at a piece of rope, hoping that the person on the other end of that rope was indeed alive. I also heard from a commander on the ground there that they believed around 40 individuals might still be stuck inside that tunnel. But again, these are just some of the conditions that rescuers have been experiencing day in and day out as they try to get as many people out as possible. Back to you. And I come up with a summary. Thank you so much. And coming up, the Pentagon is at least temporarily pulling back on a posted plan, discrete for testosterone levels among troops. I'm going to speak to one of the architects of the policy and special advisor to the Defense Secretary up next. I'm Dr. Sanjay Gupta, host of the Chasing Life Podcast. Last week, there was this important report that dropped that I think got a lot of attention. It's about football and there was this new study in the British Medical Journal, which estimates that of all the NFL players who died

22:05between 2016 and 2021, about 878 players, at least 25% of them had confirmed CTE. That is the disease that is caused by repetitive hits to the brain. So CNN's resident NFL veteran, Koi Wire, he called me, we called fellow CNN sports anchor Andy Sholes, and we were talking about it. I know as a former player, anytime I forget my keys, if I get a slight headache, it pops in my head. I'm thinking like, man, I hope this is just Andy, do you forget your keys? I'm barely, I don't know. Oh, the ear's supposed to say yes all the time Koi, make me feel better. Listen to Chasing Life streaming now, wherever you get your podcasts. Happening now, longtime Fox News anchor Maria Bartoromo is out of a job this morning. A source tells CNN that Fox made the decision back in August. After Bartoromo apparently disclosed confidential information to the Trump White House, Bartoromo has not responded to CNN's

23:06request for comment on her exit from Fox and has not posted on social media about it. And at the White House, the Trump administration launched a series of arcade-style games on the official White House website yesterday, where users arrest immigrants and build a border wall. Now White House officials tell CNN quote, this is an effort to further contrast between a culture of fun and winning and the dark socialist vision Democrats have for America. But some on social media are questioning the administration's priorities given the Iran warrant high cost of living. And a powerful storm knocked out power to more than 500,000 people across the Great Lakes of Mid-Atlantic and Pittsburgh, the flooding was so bad, water erupted from a sewer. Some of the same areas could be hit again with another round of severe weather today. And breaking news, US official tells me the Pentagon is at least temporarily rescinding its newly published clinical guidance for its testosterone screening policy. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced the mandatory program for troops ages 30 and older back in July, arguing it would allow

24:10service members to operate at their absolute best. Receiving test-drawn replacement therapy is voluntary we should note. But after the Pentagon published the guidance for the policy on its website Wednesday it was then removed. The news was first reported by Reuters and the Pentagon tells several outlets the interim guidance will remain in effect. So join us now for some clarity as one of the architects on the testosterone policy, Tim Parlatory, he's a special advisor, the Secretary Hegseth and previously served as an attorney for President Trump. Tim, thanks for coming here to the situation room. So just first off the bat, help us understand what happened here. Why were the guidelines removed and will there be new guidelines posted soon? Yes, they're well. So Secretary Hegseth put out his initial memo that mandated the testing for everybody over 30 and then we were going to have amplifying implementation guidance. And what was posted earlier this week was something that was adraft. It was not approved for release and somebody had put it out there inadvertently and so we needed to pull that back because we need

25:14a lot more input to make sure that the information on that reflected the current science and medical guidance as opposed to certain antiquated protocols. Okay, so obviously you're a lawyer not a physician. So bring us into the process and the input that you're getting to come up with these guidelines. Sure, testosterone replacement therapy is something that is relatively new and the military doesn't really do this, hasn't done this, but it is very well established science on the outside. So outside civilian doctors, you know, they do this routinely. It's very well studied, but not within the military system. And so what we were trying to do and what we're doing right now is taking that policy and as opposed to having something that's generally this created just inside, we're getting the input from the outside doctors, the people that are actually doing this therapy successfully with the civilian population to be able to apply those lessons within the system. There is research showing that prolonged combat can actually lower testosterone for those in high

26:16stress jobs or special operators. For example, I'm wondering what you say to critics who argue there shouldn't be a blanket policy for everyone in the military and they're concerned that this will be used somehow to filter people out. What do you say to that? Oh, no, it's not about filtering people out. What this is is we need to get military medicine into the game to actually monitor everybody. The symptoms of low testosterone are something that's not always fully understood. Sometimes it manifests as depression, it manifests as being overweight. And so a lot of the doctors will look at it and they'll say, okay, you're depressed. You need to go see a therapist, you're overweight, so you need to just work out more and watch your diet. When really the issue is the testosterone. And so on the civilian side of the doctor will look at this and they'll say, okay, I want you to get this test. And we started seeing in the military system where people would come in and they would specifically ask, I think that I have this. Can I have this test? And the doctors will look at them and say, no, you can't have the test. And so because we have such a high population that is susceptible to this

27:18condition, starting from a baseline of testing everybody and then being able to monitor it over time, because the needs of military life do increase this problem. And so you can see over the course of years as the testosterone dips in these individuals, then we can properly treat their condition that quite honestly, the military itself cost. So there's no defined normal testosterone level for women. There's no FDA-approved testosterone for women. So how will this policy impact female service members and should we expect more tailored guidance for them to come? Absolutely. And that's a very important piece, is that yes, this is not just about the men. Obviously the men is the largest population in the military, but we also want to make sure that we're optimizing female hormones. And so whether that's testosterone, which is something that's an emerging, emerging area of science on the outside and the FDA is still catching up to that, whether it's, you know, other things estrogen, everything else. And so we are looking at separate guidance to make sure that

28:20we're optimizing not just the men, but also the women. So you know that there was this case of a bud student who died during buds and it turns out that he was overdosing on testosterone. And wondering how do you make sure that that doesn't happen with this new policy that service members don't go to the extreme if it shows that perhaps they have low testosterone? So that and full disclosure, I was one of the attorneys on that case that represented the commanding officer. That was a case where a student, a 22 year old kid was going out and buying illegal steroids and taking massive quantities of it and dealing it to other classmates. By doing it this way, what we're going to do is we're going to prevent people from going outside and getting illegal steroids because instead we're going to just optimize them. We're going to be optimizing them so that we've reduced the incentive. We're also going to be monitoring them because having physicians actually monitor your levels and adjusting it. If somebody all of a sudden comes in with an extraordinarily high level, then we know that they're doing something else on the outside beyond what the doctor has prescribed. And so this

29:24is actually going to significantly increase the safety. But here's the other thing, that gave us 22 years old. You don't need that at 22. If you do, you have a serious problem and you need to be seeing a doctor. Most kids that age, if they're doing it, it is purely for performance enhancing. We're only looking at the 30 and above population, the people that have actually been in for 10 years and have been subjected to these stresses so that we're optimizing them as opposed to none of this is about giving people like Mr. Olympia level doses. This is about giving them the proper dose to make them just optimize for what their bodies are designed to do. I want to just get your response while we have you from this reporting from my colleagues, Hayley Britsky and Zach Cohen, in the wake of Army Secretary Dan Dresskull's resignation. They spoke to some sources who said there was concern, the Secretary Hegseth. Could be too focused on culture wars and what an American war fighter should look like, rather than looking at the battlefield and modernizing it. And so basically, they say that

30:30he's too focused on how you look and the culture wars and not enough on the substance and that this policy kind of feeds into that. And I just want to give you a chance to respond to that reporting. Sure. I think one of the problems is that because of the personalities involved, people try to politicize this, but the reality is hormone replacement therapy for men and women is something that optimizes people's health. It's not about what you look like, it's about how healthy you are. And so what he's doing here is he's trying to help our troops to be as healthy as they can be, which is going to have the long term effects of also significantly improving things at the VA level. Because if we start treating people now and keeping them healthy, they're not going to develop all those other problems that the VA is going to have to then deal with after. So this is purely about the health of our troops. It's not about politics, it's not about any of that stuff. And the only people that are trying to politicize it are the ones that are more interested in attacking the Secretary than actually making the troops healthier. Tim Parletori, thank you for your time here. And to learn more about this, let's bring in Dr.

31:31William Berg, he's an assistant professor of urology at Stony Brook University. So Dr. Berg, thanks for coming on. I want to dive into the science behind this policy. What exactly does testosterone do? And what are the pros and cons of replacement therapy for service members in your view? Sure, testosterone is the main hormone that men have in their body, but as you mentioned before, women have it in their bodies as well. And it's important for maintaining a number of important processes in the body, including muscle building. We know it has an important role as well as in mental health and bone health and things like that. And so it plays a number of roles in normal physiologic maintenance of the body. Yeah, and there's some. Yeah, that's kind of, well clearly it plays an important role in the body. There are some misconceptions surrounding testosterone and replacement therapy. Tell us about that.

32:33Sure, I think the first thing to know is why would a man's testosterone level be low? Often a low testosterone level, especially in a younger man, usually points to maybe some other process going on. Right? The question is, why is there testosterone level low? Right? Often it can be caused by metabolic syndrome, obesity, or diabetes. And so I think getting to the root cause of why the testosterone is low in the first place is really important when it comes to figuring out those levels. So what about just stress of being in the military, if you're a special operator, what could that do to testosterone levels? And why is it important to track that? Sure. Any stressful situation can lower a man's testosterone level, even temporarily. Something as simple as having a viral illness can lower your testosterone level. We do know that in that situation, a lot of men right there testosterone levels will return back to normal if you

33:34wait a little bit for them to recover. But stress and lack of sleep are important factors for how testosterone is made. And so if you're put under a lot of pressure in a situation, you're not sleeping very well or you have a high stressful situation, it might lead to lower testosterone levels. But if you're functioning normally, those levels would then return back to normal after a period of time. So in light of that, do you think it is good to have an annual screening for those 30 and above in the military? It's not really settled science. I think testosterone can be a marker for overall health. So there is some benefit to testing men and their testosterone levels. Current guidelines really recommend that testosterone is only checked when a man has symptoms. That would be fatigue, decreased libido, sleepiness, tiredness, depressed mood. We know that low testosterone level goes along with those symptoms. Right now, we don't recommend general population-wide screening. There has been some

34:37talk that the testosterone level can be that marker for other health problems. So it's not unreasonable to test men and see what their levels are at. But I think it needs to be done in the proper way. Yeah. And one would ask, why would you have to wait for symptoms to get tested? Right? And it is such an important part. And for women, they say the data isn't there yet, but it's not because it shows it can't be beneficial for women. It's just that we're under-studied under-funded. That's an issue too. Yeah. That I've covered extensively on this show. Yeah. I mean, women are classically underrepresented in a lot of the research, especially when it comes to hormonal treatment. There is a women's health initiative study that concerned a lot of people regarding hormone replacement therapy for women. There's been a turnaround as far as the potential benefits of hormone replacement therapy in men and women. We just don't really know what a normal

35:39testosterone level is for women. There's definitely some higher risks when it comes to testosterone replacement like masculinization. Yeah. Body hair growth, some of the concerns of the levels go too high. So we don't really know what really hasn't been studied in that patient population. Yeah, which is a problem. Dr. William Berg, thank you. Appreciate it. Coming up, a CNN exclusive survivor, say Jeffrey Epstein gave a celebrity stylist salon quote instruction to make them look younger than you reporting just ahead. Well, we have new exclusive reporting, multiple survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse. Now alleged that he instructed a celebrity hair stylist salon to make them look quote as young as possible. Some of those survivors spoke with CNN about their experiences. I want to bring in CNN, CNN, CNN, National Enterprise Correspondent, MJ Lee here in the situation room with her reporting. MJ walk us through the allegations and what

36:41these women told you. Well, as you know, Pam, Frederick Fakai is a huge name in the world of hair and beauty. And in a new lawsuit, there are seven Epstein survivors who are accusing Fakai and his salon of having enabled Epstein over the years of the abuse. This is some of the language from that new lawsuit, which comes from five J&O's and two named survivors. They say, Fakai groomed the victims to look as young as possible under Epstein's direction. Epstein would direct Fakai to bleach victims blonde and groom them like dolls into Epstein's and others, liking. Now, we were able to speak exclusively with two of the two J&O plaintiffs about what they experience. These details we should note are not in the lawsuit. The first J&O, she says that she was around 19 when Epstein sent her to Fakai salon in Manhattan. And she told the stylist that she was meeting with, that she wanted to cut her hair to shoulder length. And what the stylist told her was those aren't the instructions that I got, which is of course very unusual. The second J&O says

37:44that she was around 20 when she was in center pay with Epstein. And Epstein walks her over to Fakai and basically asks Fakai, how can we make this young woman look even younger? Now back in New York cities, she gets sent to Fakai salon just like that first woman. And the stylist cuts her hair, but she says he had instructions and that's all. Meaning he never even consulted her about what she wanted. It was clear that he was already told beforehand how exactly she should look. Now, Fakai, we should note, is vehemently denying all of these allegations from the lawsuit and these anecdotes that we got from the two J&O's. This is what his spokesperson said. He said these allegations are false. Mr. Fakai has done nothing wrong. He was never in center pay with Epstein. And he has no idea whether any Epstein victim was among the tens of thousands of people whose hair was cut every year by the hundreds of Fakai salon employees. So what more did you learn about the relationship between Epstein and Fakai? Well, you know, when you look through the Justice Department's Epstein files, Fakai and his salon are mentioned quite a bit. And it's clear that Epstein spent tens of

38:50thousands of dollars at the salon for either himself or others. And this is a relationship that clearly went beyond just hair. There are references to Epstein offering to connect Fakai with people in business. Fakai on multiple occasions asks Epstein if he could borrow some of his apartments. And it's important to note, and this has come up a lot, as you know, in our Epstein coverage, these correspondences took place after Epstein's 2008 conviction plea. So just another example of the so many people who were willing to overlook that and continue associating with Epstein. All right, MJ Lee, thank you so much for bringing us your exclusive reporting. Coming up here in the situation where a major cuts at a major automaker, Volkswagen is slashing tens of thousands of jobs and half of its vehicle lineup, a closer look at the company's struggles all new next hour. Well, new this morning, Louisiana Judge has cleared the way for former NFL rookies to return to

39:52the college ranks and play. It's set up a major showdown between LSU and its powerhouse conference. CNN Sports and Grand Isholes joins us. So what's going on here, Andy? Well, you know, Pam, who knows at this point, right? It changes every single day. We had another day, another lawsuit in college football, and there are multiple things happening yesterday. So at the same time, a Louisiana or a judge in Louisiana was hearing arguments on whether two players who are on NFL Rossis this summer could return to college to play for the Tigers. At the same time, the SEC followed a federal lawsuit against LSU in Alabama. Now that Louisiana Judge ruled that Dayquan, Riot and Xavier and Harris can join the LSU football team and play against Clemson tomorrow. Now the SEC and all of its members other than LSU are very much against this. The conference made a rule last week banning pro players for returning and threatened harsh penalties, including suspending the coach who brought the players in and handing out some big time fines. In yesterday, the SEC suing LSU and federal court, alleging the university is violating the league's first amendment right

40:56by ignoring the conference's rules. Now that Alabama judge has not issued a ruling yet, but today is a big day where all this could go down even further because LSU has to submit their official roster ahead of their huge match up tomorrow night against Clemson, if right and Harris, who played for Lane Kiffin at Ole Miss are on that roster. This battle in the courts will certainly continue and just to remind everyone, this is not going to be an ongoing problem. So this all stems from a judge back in July ruling that all the athletes from the 2022 class could get a fifth year of eligibility. Many athletes had left college for the pros thinking that they had exhausted all of their eligibility, but then they were suddenly given that extra year. That's why some of these players who didn't make it in the NFL want to come back because if the ruling had happened earlier, they probably would have never left college to begin with. Now, we do have some big games this weekend. We'll see if Kiffin ends up with those players on his roster tomorrow night. LSU, they're going to kick off against Clemson 730 Eastern in Baton Rouge. That's a big game Saturday. No NFL yet this weekend, so we got some big games on Sunday night as well with Wisconsin versus Notre Dame. That one's at Lambo

41:59Field, which would be pretty cool. You got Ole Miss also taking on Louisville in Nashville. So Pam, a big weekend of college football as this battle in the courts is going on at the very same time. All right, Andy, don't kill me, but I'm from Kentucky. In Louisville. Also, I was trying to wrap me out. I'm still trying to get Wolf Blitzer to say it the right way, but most people can't. All right, Andy, thank you so much. Great to see you. The next hour of the situation room starts right now. Breaking news, Miracle and Nepal two men found alive after being trapped underground for nine days. We'll hear from one of those survivors. And deadlocked rum by the jury in the Lindsey Clancy murder trial is deliberating once again after explosive accusations about a single holdout juror. Well, Clancy's fate come down to that one person. Welcome to our viewers, the United States and around the world. I'm Pam LaBroum, Wolf Blitzer's off and you're in the situation room.

43:07This is CNN Breaking News. I am. We begin with that breaking news. Tensions flare inside the courtroom between the judge overseeing the case and Lindsey Clancy's attorney, who's accusing one juror of refusing to listen to the law. I would ask that you specifically direct their attention to proof beyond a reasonable doubt and re-instruct them on that forcefully. Did they yesterday, didn't I? Yes. You did it yesterday. You did it soft. You didn't do it forcefully. I'm asking maybe what 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 that. I'm not an actor. I've just given the instructions. Well, my point, Judge, simply is that you're kind of glossing over the issue. The issue is this juror will not, according to that note, apply the law of reasonable doubt. And that's why I've requested, you know what I've requested. So I know my objection.

44:13But it just, just in case the records, I am specifically not glossing over this issue. I have thought about this issue long enough. I know the definitive checks, but the characterization that I'm glossing over it, trust me, that's not the situation. The deadlock jury is back deliberating after a series of dramatic developments over the past day raised more questions and answers in the case. Yesterday, a note from the jury's four-person offered the biggest glimpse yet into the panels nearly 40 hours of discussion. According to Clancy's attorney, Kevin Reddington, the jury is split 11 to 1. Reddington went on to request that one jury be removed. Clancy is on trial for the murder of her three young children and it's up to the jury to decide whether she is criminally liable. Clancy's defense argues she was experiencing postpartum psychosis at the time of the killings. CNN correspondent Jeanne Kassaras is live for us right outside that courthouse in Plymouth, Massachusetts. So where did things go from here, June?

45:16I think the jury is in control. They are deliberating. They are the leaders right here. We have to follow their lead. So until there is a communication from this jury and remember they started deliberating a week ago yesterday. So now we're starting a second week of deliberations on the brink of a holiday weekend. But we just have to wait and see if they communicate at all to the court. I want to play a particularly telling moment from what the judge said in court this morning about what the note from yesterday indicated. Actually, I think that was Kevin Reddington who indicated to the judge what was in it. Take a watch. The note that we were referring to the one from late yesterday afternoon indicates that the jury has acknowledged out the refuses to apply to the verdict. And Kevin Reddington was the one that said that jury was a male. Of course, we can't say for certain. What does it tell you? I mean, just how significant is this that works? We're sort of being brought

46:18in to what's happening during the deliberation? It seems highly unusual, Jane. It's absolutely unusual because the sanctity of the jury deliberations are that they remain private and no one should interfere with all of that. But because of the jury four person sending a note giving these specifics and the jury four person who is a female may have believed that she needed to do that. You heard the judge today say, please don't give us your counts anymore of where you are, 11 to 1 or in the jury deliberations. But that created an issue where the court had sort of had to get involved in the sanctity of the jury proceedings. But there's two distinct sides here. And the prosecution side is saying, look, they're just deliberating. There's not an issue here. The only way you get rid of a juror is if there is a personal situation on the part of that juror. And there is not here. And the only reason a juror cannot deliberate anymore if

47:19there's bias or they're refusing to deliberate and we don't have those facts here, they just have a difference of opinion. And that's the way the judge went. That's what he believes. And the jury now has the case. It appears, and Elise Herschen told us this earlier, that 11 of the jurors are citing what the defense, to some degree at least, and this holdout is not. And so my question to you is, Jean, can you express doubt? Can you have doubt as a juror and still find the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Lindsey Clancy is criminally liable here? Because in Massachusetts, the burden is on the prosecution. It's an excellent question. And the judge in instructing them yesterday said that beyond a reasonable doubt is a very difficult thing to define. And it is not beyond all doubt, he said that. So what you're saying there is, yeah, you could have a little bit of doubt.

48:22It's not beyond all doubt. But as you look at the evidence and you assess and reflect the evidence, you believe to a degree of moral certainty that there is reasonable doubt or that the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt, their case. So it's very innocuous, Pam. I mean, you have to decide within yourself if you believe that it is beyond a reasonable doubt or there is reasonable doubt. But remember, it's not all doubt. It is the doubt that either took convict or to a quit. I think that's an important point. And you heard the judge really reiterate, you have to follow the law. It's not about what your personal feelings are. You know, follow the law even if you don't like it. We'll see if they come back today. Oh, go ahead. Pam. Yep. Pam, we do understand the prosecutors, the prosecutors who have prosecuted this case are heading into the courtroom right now.

49:23Okay. That is all we know. What does that tell you, Gene? It could be nothing. It could be something. Obviously, they have their prosecutors table there. They have their notes there. Maybe they just want to look at something, but they don't routinely walk into the courtroom during a time like this. Normally, it is for a valid reason. But we just have to see if the defense attorney enters the courtroom, but we want to give it to you as we hear it. As we know it, our producer is standing there right next to the courtroom doors and tells us any movement whatsoever that may be going on. But this jury, until we know something, they continue to deliberate and they continue to look at this because the judge is saying, I asked all jurors if they can follow the law under oath yesterday and they said they did. There's nothing else for me to do, but let them deliberate. So let's just see, but that is that is the latest

50:23prosecutors have entered the courtroom. Okay. The assistant district attorneys and the district attorney for Plymouth County has just entered that courtroom too. So and and Reddington, the defense attorney is in the courtroom also. So this appears there is some movement in some form or fashion. And we don't know if Lindsey Clancy is there. I know your producer is helping. We so just far audience understand we have a producer in the right and that producer is speaking to your producer telling you what's going on. So that's what's happening right now. And I think at this point, the media has not been allowed to enter the courtroom. So we cannot tell you definitively if the defense in the courtroom. But she is watching those participants go into the courtroom at this point. Okay, because we have a live feed. Okay, that makes sense. Jean Casares, it seems like there could be some activity happening. So we're going to keep a close eye on what's going on there in Plymouth. And as we do that, as we monitor what's happening, we want to have a broader conversation because this case is really shedding light on some of the

51:26postpartum issues women face, particularly when it comes to their mental health. And I want to talk about this more with Wendy Davis, President and CEO of postpartum support international. Wendy, thanks for coming on. From your organization's perspective, I want you to bring us into how this case is affecting women currently going through postpartum. Thank you Pamela. Thank you so much for having me here and having postpartum support international be able to come and talk about the resources that exist. There is so much at stake here. There's so much noise and there's so much attention. But one thing that we know for sure is there are resources to help. So I just appreciate so much having the opportunity to talk about postpartum.net. We are seeing at postpartum support international, which offers peer support around the world, but especially our helpline right here in the United States that you can find at postpartum.net. We do peer support, we train

52:27providers, we have resources for legal professionals, and we have volunteer navigators in every single state and 30 countries. So here's what we're finding. Yes, people, women and men, dads to private postpartum, or even many years postpartum, Pamela, are contacting us in far greater numbers than we usually have on average. When we look at the numbers that come to our helpline, which is voice, text, English and Spanish, we have had in the last three months an increase of nearly 70%. And when we compare it to last year, we've had 1,410 requests for help and referrals. What does that look like? I know that I had postpartum OCD for example. I'd say it every time I can, not because I want to talk about myself, but because I want other women to know they're not alone

53:31if they have it. And that means you have intrusive thoughts that you don't want, but you don't act on the thoughts. They feel really bad. And I know I've talked to other women who say that this has been really triggering for them. Like they're worried, oh my god, what if I just lost control and did something, you know, like Lindsey Clancy. Tell us about that and that anxiety that's for postpartum moms right now. Pamela, thank you for sharing that because you're doing what we know is the most important thing we can do all of us to prevent a crisis like this. When we talk about what's really happening, we each of us, all of us together are reducing the stigma. We have to make this a part of the conversation, mental health in general, perinatal mental health, which are temporary, treatable conditions. When you talk about that, you are illustrating the impact of that. This is what it looks like. People are afraid and people are worried that this will be them. Here's

54:33what we know for sure. All perinatal mental health disorders are temporary and treatable, but this visibility highlights what PSI, postpartum, smart, international and other experts have known for years. What we teach in our provider trainings, what we tell the families who call us who are so afraid, that it is not, you said it exactly right. It is not the perinatal mental health symptoms that are in themselves dangerous. They're not. We want people to contact us. We're a clearinghouse. Find us on postpartum.net so we can tell each family and each provider this. The symptoms are not dangerous. We teach this and we tell families it is the untreated illness, right? That poses risks. All perinatal mental health disorders, including postpartum psychosis, but also depression, anxiety, bipolar mood disorders, are not inevitably dangerous. So working together, providers,

55:38families, policy, we know we can prevent the tragedies. We can prevent the crisis when we teach all of us that the risk is in the lack of treatment. The risk is in the lack, as you said, Hamla, the lack of finding other people like you, for example, calling our help lying or texting, where we can say you found the right place where glad you found us. We understand these symptoms. I haven't assessed or I don't know Lindsey Clancy, but I know all too well. We know her symptoms. We know her distress. We know her despair. We know that people can't find the help we need. And this is why postpartum support international exists because we're right here. People need only to take the first step to contact or their family or their provider help them contact us at the help line or call the national maternal mental health hotline. And then we can help them take the rest of the

56:41steps to wellness. Yeah, I think it's important. You know, with anxiety, for example, it's more about the emotional attachment to a thought. It doesn't mean the thought is true, right? And I just know so many women are struggling right now postpartum. They're worried. And this is a case that is resonated with so many people on it's just led to so many impassioned conversations on all sides of mental health. Why do you think that is? Oh my goodness. This case absolutely, because I'm going to say this first, because it's it's really common up to one in five and in later research finding sometimes one in three women and one in ten men experience true depression, anxiety, including the intrusion. I'm so sorry to interrupt, but there is a development actually in the trial. So we're going to go to Jean Casar's, but thank you for everything you said, Wendy Davis, Jean Casar's what's going on. All right, our producer has been led into the courtroom.

57:47The defense attorney sitting next to Lindsey Clancy, they have been talking. Kevin Reddington has papers at his desk. Prosecutors are in the courtroom at the prosecution table. The elected district attorney of Plymouth County is also in the courtroom. We are just waiting for the judge to take the bench. So we see the seal, but until he takes the bench, you cannot see the actual courtroom. So we're waiting for that right now. But our producer asked a court officer who has readily said when there is a note, when there is a question, what is happening right now and the court officer would not answer her. So I find that significant right there that there was no response, but we're just moments away, I think, from finding out potentially a substantial development in this case. Now, maybe it'll turn out to be another note. Maybe it will be a note, though, that will be extremely significant to this case. They've been deliberating right now for precisely almost 38 hours in that courtroom, in that little deliberation room. They have been focused for that

58:52long here. And we will see now, because I think the issue is 11 to 1, is it now 12 jurors who are unanimous or is it still a split? And that would mean that this case, the judge would potentially order a mistrial. Those are really the two options right here, verdict or mistrial. Pamela, all right, on that note, Jean, I want to bring in Jerry Consultant and Attorney Alan Turkheimer to get your read, Alan, on what's taking place right now. Well, it'll be interesting to see what happens, but I think the big picture is it's been such a grueling process. Think about all the times the jury came back. And it's also interesting, too, and we'll hear about it when the jury talks. I don't think this was 11 to 1 from the beginning. jurors tend to move positions, especially when they deliberate for this long. It could have been 66 at one point. And jurors switch their allegiances. And there's just a lot that we don't know about, but at this point, what we do know is it's 11 to 1. There's one juror holding out. And

59:57is this juror going to cave and be open to what the other jurors are saying is him disregarding or at least not heating the high burden that the prosecution has, or is this just going to end up where he's dug in, he's not going to relent. And the juror, the judge might have to call a mistrial. If it's 11 to 1 in the jury says again, they're deadlocked. If they come back, that's it. It'll be a mistrial. I can't imagine under any circumstance if it's 11 to 1 in the jury says they're deadlocked again. But the judge says, go ahead, go back and deliberate. I think this would be the end of the trial. That would be it. And at this point, what is a likelihood, Alan, from your experience, that they would come back with a verdict rather than deadlocked? I mean, after coming back a couple times, saying that there was deadlock. It seems like this juror has withstood a lot of pressure. Now, certainly if it's a seven five, if there's seven jurors against you, eight, nine, if you have other jurors arguing from with your perspective and you share an outlook,

1:01:02it's easier to hold off any challenges. So it's particularly difficult. If it's 11 jurors staring you in the face, trying to get you to budge, trying to get you to change your perspective. But since this has been such a long deliberation that they've been deadlocked, this juror has already withstood that for a long period of time. So I think there's a good chance that this juror is not going to change their mind. And we have a really good chance of having a deadlock and then subsequently in Miss Trial. So Gene, if there is a Miss Trial, what are the possibilities? Could both sides come together for a plea deal and a lesser charge? What could happen? Exactly. What you're saying is true. That could happen. A plea deal to a manslaughter charge. Now, Kevin Reddington with his passion, with his zealous advocacy, for Lindsey Clancy, may not want that. He said he was ready to go to trial again next week, if necessary. And so that may not be an option. Prosecutor could decline

1:02:08any further trial. They will not bring charges again or they could want to retrial. And I think everyone believes the prosecution would potentially want a retrial here because the first trial can be a learning experience. You learn what worked. You learn what didn't work and you go for another round. Here's one thing we know. We're still waiting for the judge to take the bench in this in the courtroom. But Kevin Reddington has been pacing around near the defense table as hands are in his pockets. He finally, according to our producer in the courtroom, she used the word flopped. He flopped himself down into the seat. Obviously, the nervous tension is still there. The courtroom is packed, wall to wall with people. Many of them, the public, wanting to be in this courtroom at this moment in time. But the courtroom can only hold so many people. So there is a line of people outside the door hoping that if someone leaves the courtroom, they can get one of those coveted seats. It's a very nice day here in Plymouth. Lots of people are here. I hear right above

1:03:13me a helicopter, which is so common in my sight for cases. Let's look at the court, Gene. On the right, we return back to the matter. Commonwealth versus Lindsay. Clancy, all problems, surprise, and excluding the jury. All right. Council, have you seen the question? Yes, Your Honor. All right. Yes. All right. And the question is with a heavy heart that we report we are unable to come to a unanimous decision and will not be able to. My, well, let me ask what is the party's position in regards to that question? Your Honor, from the Commonwealth's perspective, since the Tulean's instruction has already been given, and then there was less than deliberation after that, I think that they would require a mistrial at this point. To be written. Your Honor, my understanding is that this court has the discretion to have the jury sent back

1:04:14for the second time. The first time that there was a report, we did not treat it as a report of deadlock. We did not instruct them under Tui. We did not give them soft Tui. We didn't give anything. We just sent them back to deliberate. So technically, we have one report of deadlock that Your Honor gave the Tui Rodriguez charge to, I believe, under the statute, as well as the case law of this court has the ability to send the jury back. The fact that that jury forpress and wrote very unusually, it is with a heavy heart that we are unable to come to a decision. Based on the earlier questions that we have, I think it would be a sound and a wise decision for this court to send it back under the law. Well, I would find that under case, that Massachusetts case law and statutory law, the jury did not ask to be sent back, which would be a possibility if they had requested it to be sent back to them, but under the

1:05:19statute in the case law, I don't feel I have any choice but to declare a mistrial. That's why I asked you before. Go ahead. Well, I just got to the first one and get to the other one. All right. Your Honor, I would suggest the court that, as we are pretty much all familiar with under Karen Reed versus the climate wealth, the Supreme Judicial Court through Justice Judges back in February of 25, held that under Rule 27B of the Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure, quote, gives a trial judge discretion to require a jury to return a verdict for charges on which they have agreed before declaring a mistrial as it relates to, and again, they continue quote, judge may first require the jury to return verdicts on those charges upon which the jury can agree and directed such verdicts be received and recoded. It was on furtherance and I quote Rule 27D also permits the judge to pull the jury

1:06:21when a verdict is returned and before the verdict is recoded. However, the judge is not required to accept a partial verdict before declaring a mistrial. So I'm asking that the court would entertain a poll of the jurors as to whether or not there has been a decision on murder one, murder two, manslaughter anything like that. And if that's the case, and I certainly would argue that double jeopardy is attached and those judges cannot be prosecuted again. All right, come on. I would object to that, Your Honor, if go into the deliberations, I think we're in a different scenario here than the read case where I believe in that case they did reach a verdict on certain charges and not on others. But I think here where we've had a jury who's been deliberating for six and a half days, who has come back on multiple occasions saying that they're deadlocked, who have been given to me. I don't think anything else is that higher at this point other than the declaration of a mistrial unfortunately. Over the defendant's objection, I'm going to declare a mistrial at this point. All right, we'll be the jury in.

1:07:37All right, so we're waiting for the jury to enter the courtroom right now. The judge has made the final decision. He will order a mistrial in this case because the jurors note that was just given to him with a heavy heart, we are unable to come to a unanimous decision. The defense argued that he sent the jury back once again to continue to deliberate that he has that right prosecution said your honor after six and a half days of deliberation and having had sent them back several times, this requires a mistrial. And the judge has now said that based on Massachusetts' case law

1:08:45and based on his discretion that he believes the only alternative at this point is that I am going to declare a mistrial. So the defense had asked the jury to be pulled. This is a very interesting point right here. He wants the jury to say on first-degree murder, second-degree murder, man's slaughter, if there was unanimity. Because if they say hypothetically, we all were unanimous, it was not first-degree murder, then the defense will try to get double jeopardy attached. So the prosecution, if they retry this case, cannot bring a first-degree murder charge. We do not know if the judge is going to go into that specificity. He is not required to because the reality is there was one verdict slip and that verdict slip, the jurors are now saying we could not reach unanimity.

1:09:47I have been addressed in the motions, the objections, but I further raised the issue of the American with Disabilities Act. I believe that this is a situation where there is a clear and present danger that this individual for some reason, what it is, we don't know, but is taking a position that's intractable, regardless of proof beyond a reason. So I wanted an opportunity to take an appeal to the single justice, it's the court, and it's that opportunity. How much time do you need to do that? I'd have it filed today and argue tomorrow. Saturday? They would do it on an emergency, yeah. I mean, I can, so we're going to tell this jury to come back tomorrow. I'm just trying to, I don't, I don't, I don't care. The reason I'm asking it, I know, but as they're walking in, you're asking for this. I'm just trying to find out what it is that you're asking for. That's all. For us time to file a single justice appeal for this travesty. That's

1:10:51what I'm asking for. So you're asking for emergency stay at this point? Yes. And the jurors don't have to come back tomorrow. They can be told that 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 S.G.C. for a stay, I'll give you an hour before we bring the jury back down. I think it's just a request for the stay of the Declaration of the District. So I'll hold off for an hour and then we'll come back in in regards to that. All right. Jane, that's a bit of a twist there from the defense attorney. They're going to take a break. He's got to appeal now. And he has an hour to do so based on this single juror. He wants to basically file a complaint. Tell us more about this and what's happening.

1:11:54This is an absolute twist because the judge had said I am going to order a mis-trial. It has come to this point. And we were just waiting for the jury to enter the courtroom and the defense ready with his argument. The defense saying that he is going to take this to the highest court in Massachusetts. That is the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts for an emergency stay. And he wants to appeal any mis-trial in this case because of the travesty, with the word he used, the travesty of this situation. So he would go back to his original argument that the jury for a person sent the note that the juror would recognize doubt but would not apply the law. That would be his argument there. The conclusion, I have no idea because the court issues their decisions on questions of law. And so the judge is allowing him to have one hour this morning. So the jury is going to have to

1:12:55stay in that deliberation room and just hold. One hour to see if the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts will issue a stay or a stop. And everything is on hold. That means a mis-trial would not be declared over the weekend, potentially, an emergency one judge would determine the issue here. And if that judge would ruin the defense favor Tuesday, the day after the holiday, the jury would have to come back to the courthouse. This is highly unusual. I've covered a lot of trials in my career. You have two. What is the likelihood that the defense attorney will be successful in this? You know, many times they do allow for the stay. So they can just parse it out and see what is really here. But I think that Judge Sullivan has gone to lengths to preserve the record because judges know there can be appeals. So they want to do everything according to the law. And the

1:13:58reality is the jury said they were deadlocked. He gave them a soft and informal charge of telling them to go back to deliberate. They came back at it again with a second note saying they could not reach a unanimous decision. He then read specifically the instruction in Massachusetts, which is the two-erudrygous charge. He gave that to them, sent them back to deliberate. And then they get a note from the four-person saying, ah, one juror, one juror recognizes doubt but won't apply it to the law. What is the truth of that? The judge would not inquire of that juror. He did not want to pierce the sanctity of their deliberations. And now the final note with a clear and a heavy heart, we say we cannot become unanimous. So that will be before the Supreme Judicial Court, right there, that record. And to overrule a judge would be significant because it has to be a very clear and egregious error on the part of this court. CNN Legal Analyst, Joey Jackson joins us now. What do

1:15:02you make of all of this, Joey? Yes, so it's not unexpected, Pamela. This is obviously a case of, I mean, much magnitude, right? You have understand that whenever you're in a courtroom, you have two different competing narratives, both of which are very compelling, all right? So let's start there. And when you look at a jury trying to dig in, let's remind everybody that this jury was at it for a period of about five weeks. Let's continue to remind people that there are about 85 witnesses. In addition to that, there were facts underpinning both narratives. What were they? Number one, if you have the prosecutors, she sent her husband out on an errand for food and medicine so that she can do what she intended to do, which is to kill those children. If you're in the defenses camp, what they argued, I think, with great effect, obviously, is that there was some mental acuity here that she did not appreciate the rightfulness or wrongfulness of her actions. A loving mother doesn't just do that and they focus of the fence did on the lack of treatment she

1:16:03received and quite frankly, the incompetent treatment she received in the plying of medications. Why do I say that in the context of what's happening here? I say that because the jury had to really decipher these narratives and make a determination as to which one was more compelling. And they had to do that, Pamela, under the specter of reasonable doubt. Now, reasonable doubt is not a mathematical certainty. It is whether you have a firm conviction. Obviously, the jury had trouble in that regard. And the other reason I mention all of this is because they've been fighting over this now in their seven day. You have a system of 12 jurors. In our system of justice, the 12 jurors have to be unanimous. That is all have to agree. Could you imagine having 12 jurors agree on anything or 12 people agree on anything much less to narratives, which both are very compelling, that told by the prosecution, that told by the defense. To the core issue now, what's happening is that the judge is about to declare a mistral. What does that mean? It means that a jury cannot render an

1:17:04appropriate decision as to what happened. They can't reser when I say appropriate meaning unanimous, right? Whether the jury cannot get on the same page as to whether it is guilty or not guilty. The judge has tried to tell the jury to do that. How is the judge tried? You just heard Gene Kassar speak to the issue of a two-year-old jury. What is that? That's when you tell the jury. Ladies and gentlemen, we respect your service. There's no other jury that could come and sit in this case that would be quite different than you. They're all going to have disagreements. In the event that you have a firmly held conviction, stick to it. But if you think you can reasonably alter your position based upon the facts and circumstances, then do that. The judge gave them that instruction. It doesn't mean you have to alter your position. That means, look, deliberating good faith. And if you could change it, do it. If you can't change it, do not do it. And the law allows for you to have a lone juror. That's our system of justice. One juror can hold everybody up. So now we're at the point where the judge is about to declare the mistrial, meaning this trial is over.

1:18:06Jury cannot render an appropriate verdict. We're done. And before doing that, the defense attorney says, well, wait one second, Judge. I want you to pull the jury as to whether they have made a determination as to any other charge besides first degree murder. Now, what am I speaking about? I'll be very clear. In the event, for example, the jury, there are some things called lesser included. So I don't want to get to legalize, but it's very important to know the jury may have made a decision, for example, by some jurors may have said that this is intentional murder. On the intentional murder charge and other jurors, one may have said it's not or vice versa. In any event, there are things called lesser included offenses. That's what they're arguing about. Maybe it's not first degree murder. Maybe it's second degree murder, because first degree murder requires you showing it was extreme cruel, right? The cruelty attached to it. Maybe the juror didn't decide that. Don't know what they decided. That would be second degree murder. Maybe the jurors decided manslaughter that it was reckless. All the defense attorney is saying that he wants to know if there were any determinations made as to these other charges. Why is that

1:19:10important? Because if a jury says that, yeah, we considered manslaughter and we determined that it wasn't reckless. We would have voted not guilty. You can't try or again on that. Yeah, we considered the fact that it could have been second degree murder because it was intentional, but it didn't involve cruelty. You can't try or again on that. Why is that a big defense win? Because if the defense can make the jury poll saying we found not guilty on manslaughter, we found not guilty on second degree murder, the prosecution cannot, cannot, cannot under the double jeopardy provisions, try that again. And that's important because if the prosecutor in its discretion decides to retry this case, those two things have been determined and they would have to try this on the first degree murder statute only. And so what this defense attorney is doing is he wants an emergency stay to determine whether the judge in his discretion got it wrong. And whether he's entitled to have the jury poll to make an assessment as to whether they've reached the conclusion on these other charges. And if they've done that, then it's over at

1:20:13so those charges if the prosecution decides to try it again. And that's essentially what he's given an hour to do. We'll see whether or not the defense attorney is able to get a court to agree with that assessment and have the jury poll to see if they rendered a conclusion as to do the other charges or whether or not the defense attorney is not successful at that. But it's a big moment because it goes to what discretion if any the prosecutors will have when they try this case again with respect to what charges are going to bring forward and what another jury, if they try it again, could decide legally if it's brought before them. Yeah, there's a big if if they'll try it again because they could decide not to. They could decide to reach a plea deal for a lesser charge or several different scenarios. But in addition to the double jeopardy aspect, I mean, you heard Reddington say, I believe this is a situation where there is a clear and present danger that this individual for some reason, we don't know, but it's taken a position that's intractable regardless of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

1:21:14So he said, I want to take an opportunity to appeal the single to a single justice. Why did you make of that? I mean, look, the bottom line is that this is the defense attorney's essentially doing his job. If we back up a little bit, this defense attorney initially wanted to have the single juror who was holding up the mix to be removed from the jury. That was the first fight that was had today. Does this single juror need to be removed and are they otherwise not applying the law? The judge in response to that essentially was saying that, you know, it's not up to me. Understand this Pamela is you very well know and let's talk about it from a viewers perspective. Everyone has a different role than that courtroom. The prosecutor's role is to say, you're guilty, Ms. Clancy, and here's why you engage an intentional murder with regard to your three children. The defense's role is to say, hey, wait, not so fast. As a result of what she did, she clearly could not appreciate her actions. This is not murder. This is not guilty by reason of insanity due to that lack of

1:22:17appreciation. What's the other parties role? That's the jury. The jury is to determine the facts. It's not up to the judge to determine the facts, the prosecution to determine it to the defense. The jury's sole province is to determine what the facts are and what they suggest in terms of murder or the lack thereof. Finally, the judge simply instructs as to the law. That's the judge's job. If you picture this Pamela, we have, for example, sporting events, right? This is not a sporting event. I'm not suggesting it is. I'm using an example. In a sporting event, you have a referee that blows the whistle and cries foul when something happens in any sport. Their job is not to play, to dribble a basketball, to hit a baseball. They're jobs to call balls and strikes. That's the job of a judge. When the defense attorney was trying to remove this specific juror, the judge says, I don't have a basis to do that. There's no indication that this juror was not deliberating in good faith. There's no indication that this judge was, excuse me, juror was engaged in this conduct. There's no indication of anything other than this juror having an alternate view from the other

1:23:21jurors. That is perfectly acceptable in our particular system of justice. What the defense attorney is doing is laying the foundation and the event your client is convicted for an appeal. In the event your client is convicted and the judge made a misstep. Now you have an appealable issue to argue to a higher court as to why there was an error that would entitle your client to an actual redo. Now we don't know again, right? We could speculate about things, but we just don't know specifically what the jurors are, where they met out guilty, not guilty, etc. But the defense attorney simply laying a foundation for an appeal and doing all he can to protect his client in the event this case is tried again. Yeah, and all we can glean, Alan Turekheimer, our jury consultant and attorney, is that there have been letters sent to the judge from the four persons saying that there was this lone juror who had expressed doubt and they believe the jury, the eleven others believed that he, according to Runnington, was not following the law. You have

1:24:25to wonder what is happening inside that room right now, Alan, if we still have you, because the jury sent that letter, the four persons saying, look, it's with a heavy heart, we can't reach a consensus. And then now they're having to wait an hour to find out if this will be, this appeal will be granted, this emergency stay. You just have to wonder what's happening inside that room right now. Right, I think heavy heart is putting it kindly. This jury has been through the ringer. Jura fatigue probably sat in a couple days ago and they got to the point where after 36, 37 hours of deliberating, one juror is holding out and that causes frustration and there's nothing that we know about this juror that suggests that he said something like, I'm not going to follow the law or I believe that there's reasonable doubt, but still I'm not going to let it get away with this. She killed her kids. We just don't know that and that's what the law and how the system is set up. You have 12 jurors. Look, it's hard to get 12 jurors. It's hard to be unanimous

1:25:30with anything and jurors do it all the time, but if you think about it in polling when you have a divided country, 75, 75% of people believe something and 25 don't, that's a lot. That's significant. That's nine out of 12 jurors. So the fact that 11 of 12 jurors agreed, that's also an accomplishment, but the system is set up where you have to be unanimous. This happens all the time. There's a holdout and this holdout was empowered to stick to his guns and not alter his views and that's just where we are. And I think the jury is ready to go. It's a long weekend coming up. They've tried, they've done their best. They keep getting sent back. I just think at some point, which is now they're done with this and it's time to move on and Reddington's doing all they can is an ardent offender of Lindsey Clancy. Yeah, everyone has a job. I just think about the emotional toll because we can't forget at the center of this are three children who were killed. The defense doesn't deny that. They had argued though that Lindsey Clancy did it because she was in postpartum psychosis.

1:26:30And now we're in this limbo stage, Jean-Coussaurus, where you had the judge basically say, you know, under the statute, I feel like I have no other choice than to declare a mistrial. Then this twist of the defense asking for an appeal. So bottom line, is this a mistrial or not? Do we have to wait this hour to find out whether it's an official mistrial? What's going on? Help us understand this. Yes, there is no mistrial at this point. It's the judge's intent to declare a mistrial. And then the defense stepped in very quickly saying, I'm going to the highest judicial court in Massachusetts to ask for a stay to stop you in your actions, judge, from declaring a mistrial to see if this deliberation can go forward. And so we're waiting that hour right now. But Pam, you bring up something that is is forgotten in this case. The reason this prosecution was brought is because three innocent, beautiful children were killed in a horrific way.

1:27:35I mean, Pam, during the testimony when the medical examiner talked about the exercise band that had to be four pounds of strength around little Korra's neck. And it had to be held there for upwards of a minute to make sure that the deed was done. And Korra was five years old. And what we heard through testimony was she loved bows. She was a girly girl. Her enthusiasm for her dolls and for her life was just beautiful. And you saw that in the pictures. Then you had Dawson, who was three years old. Dawson loved fire trucks and trucks in general. And that's what he wanted to do was to play with his trucks. And then you had Callan eight months old. And just almost a year, it's interesting because there is a priest has been in that courtroom for quite a while father Bob. And we had heard during the trial, the defense stood up and said father Bob comes

1:28:39and he visits Lindsay during the court day sometimes. But what he also said, the defense attorney in court that he had baptized Callan. So father Bob in that courtroom baptized the youngest child, Callan. It's just beyond heartbreaking. We're looking at pictures right now of these beautiful children. And it just makes you want to cry when you describe the evidence that was presented in the courtroom with those exercise bands. I'm sorry. It's just awful. This trial has evoked a lot of emotion. It is. And you know, Pam, it is the on first degree murder. One of the theories is extreme atrocity and cruelty. And the reason prosecutors brought that charge is because of the cruelty. Of the way, the three young children who were placed face down on the floor in the basement

1:29:44of how they were killed, that's why that charge was brought. And the prosecution, the commonwealth is representing those victims, those lives that they believed should have justice. No matter what side you're on, three children were gone and the prosecution felt they had a responsibility here to bring this case before their community for those children. And Jean, you know, talking to us a little bit about the youngest, his sweet little baby boy eight months old. And why that's relevant, why this happened that he was eight months old. So she was eight months into her postpartum period and how that factored in to the argument that she was experiencing postpartum psychosis. Yes, that is correct. And that has been the defense from the beginning that it was, there was a misdiagnosis that that postpartum period extended longer than most, but that it was

1:30:47and the bipolar two became a psychosis. And on that day of January 24th of 2023, there was a voice as part of that psychosis commanding her that this is the moment. This is the moment when you have to kill your children. That was brought out that that voice did not say how to commit the killings of your children, not where to commit the killings, what instrument, what murder weapon to use to kill your children. And so that's where the prosecution comes in and says there were very demonstrative actions here. Dawson was taken down into the basement first and she was a loving mother. Both sides said she was such a loving mother. But she had written that Dawson was a handful and Dawson would no bay her many times. And Dawson was the first one. And then you had the other two. You know, one thing, Pamela, that's important, the prosecution theory here through their experts

1:31:48was not that she killed them out of hatred or anger or meanness. One of the experts called it as that she loved her children so much and that she had made the decision she was going to commit suicide. In her right mind, that is she wanted to take her life, she was going to take her life and she didn't want to leave her children without a mother. And so the theory is that she killed her children so they would be with her still even in death. So help us better understand, Jean, why the defense would be fighting so hard right now against a mistrial. Because if the one-loan Jewel would side with the 11 which appears to be an acquittal, a not guilty based on lack of criminal responsibility or mental insanity at that moment, at that time when she killed her children, then that's not guilty. And yes, what would happen

1:32:52in that situation is that the judge would order her to be evaluated at the mental hospital where she is right now. And then the prosecution in six months could ask her to be committed to the mental hospital. However, if it is believed that she does not have a mental disease or defect anymore and that she's not a danger to the community after a triple homicide, she can be released. She could be a free woman that's not beyond the realm of reality right there. And that is one reason and of course the defense believes that there was psychosis, that absolutely that is reasonable doubt right there that they should acquit her of this. But the prosecution of course looked at all of the deliberate actions that were done on that day down to the point of in the midst of everything returning a phone call to her husband and telling him, yeah generic pdalax is just fine to get for Korra. You know, Jean, I got a little emotional there but I did, I had three kids close to that age and

1:33:58you know, I think this is just struck such a nerve for so many people worldwide, frankly, and it's brought up so many important and passionate conversations. And you've seen it actually outside that courthouse too because it's been shining a spotlight whether or not you agree or disagree with the prosecution that aside, it's part a spotlight onto postpartum mental health in a way that we haven't seen previously. Absolutely, it is now part of the national spotlight and I think that it goes far beyond this trial because there is a question whether she was still in the postpartum time period or had that postpartum morphed into just actual mental disease or defect. And I think that's a bigger issue right there but beside the trial and the evidence, it is now part of the conversation.

1:35:01And most providers believe that postpartum does not last that long. The World Health Organization, we heard this in the trial, is part of the evidence and other independent organizations believe that postpartum can last longer. But the medical providers, what they were required to follow was that the postpartum period had actually ended for the defendant. I want to bring in Joey Jackson as the time ticks for that hour for the appeal. I just wonder how unusual it would be when you have the judge in this case declaring his intent for a mistrial and then allowing for this hour appeal. How unusual would it be for this one just as to come back and actually grant the emergency stay once the judge had already indicated that. Yeah, Pamela, I think it's highly unusual but then again, this trial has been highly unusual. And this trial really has been a battle between two sides, each of which is persuasive. I believe

1:36:04that the defense thinks that that one holdout is for guilty and the other ones want to say not guilty by reason of insanity. But understand that when the judge says mistrial, this is it's done. It's over. The this jury is now disbanded and the prosecution then decides on a few things. Number one, do we try this again? And if so, when number two, do we cut a plea deal and the event that the defense would be inclined to enter into some kind of plea that would make sense? Or number three, the prosecution could decide that we just dismiss this case. And that's going to be based upon a number of things in the event that the mist trial is ultimately declared an hour from then, right? What's the strength of our case? What was the jury breakdown? Was it indeed 11 not guilty versus one guilty? Can we do this again? Does it really satisfy the public interest in terms of whether or not the prosecutor should invest the resources in moving forward? So there's a lot to consider. But I think the overall issue that judge clearly has a discretion to the clear mist trial. I don't think that's the issue. This jury has been added for a long time. They apparently have been making

1:37:08good faith efforts, Pamela, to reach unanimous consensus, which is hard. I think the core issue of the defense is to have the jury say, hey, look, maybe we were a mist trial on the first degree murder count because we had this disconnect, but maybe the jury has reached the unanimous decision as to the lesser included offenses, as to whether this was manslaughter, right? By some provocation or disturbance of mind or what have you, maybe it was second degree murder. They didn't find atrocity. Now, you know, who knows, but there could have very well be a not guilty as to those two things and a guilty as to the first. And one important nuance. There's a difference between saying, hey, jury's, would you have found guilty if it were manslaughter? Would you have found guilty if it were second degree murder? Right. What were you thinking? What was the breakdown? That's different from asking the jury whether or not they consider that. And if they consider that, have they said not

1:38:08guilty or guilty? That's the issue. And I think that's what the defense attorney wants to appeal, last point, Pamela, because if it is appeal and the judge is, hey, stay this mist trial, yes, we want the jury pulled on those questions. If the jury said not guilty manslaughter, not guilty second degree murder, again, what happens is the prosecution cannot, cannot try those again, because of double jeopardy you cannot be tried for the same offense twice. And the jury would have rendered a conclusion as to those charges that jury did not render a conclusion. It has not rendered a conclusion as to first degree murder, premeditation with atrocity and cruelty. Jane, I want to just give final thoughts to you as we wrap up the show. There are so many layers to all of this. And as I said earlier, it's really gripped the world. We can all feel what we feel in this moment, right? Tell us what's happening right now, what's happening outside the courthouse inside and just the stakes of this hour that we're in limbo and right now.

1:39:13The judge is giving the defense one hour to try to get an emergency stay, a stop on this trial. Trial is still progressing, it still lives, but a stop, which would remain potentially over the weekend at least, because the defense wants this jury to continue to deliberate. Now, if he cannot get an emergency stay from the highest court in Massachusetts in one hour, we have to see if the judge follows through and does what he says he intends to do declare a mistrial. And then it could be potentially an appellate issue that takes a length of time for the defense to go forward on. Meanwhile, the jury, the jury is most likely sitting in a room and they're just waiting, maybe not understanding why they're waiting, but we do not know if they've been told you can continue to deliberate. We do not know at all about that, but they are still at the courthouse

1:40:15and once that hour passes, I think we got about 30 more minutes, right? We'll see if court convenes again and a decision is made. And in terms of Lindsey Clancy, if the mistrial does get declared officially, if the defense is not successful, is it likely she would go back to the psychiatric hospital where she's staying? Absolutely, absolutely, because that is where she is right now. Now, every jurisdiction is different, but most likely the prosecution would stand up to make sure that she stays in custody because they potentially would want to retry her. This was always a no-bale situation, but even though she is in a hospital, she is still officially in custody while she is there. All right, anything else as we wrap up that we should be aware of as we took down the time to the end of the hour here, June. I think just stay close. Stay very close because at any moment,

1:41:16things can change. This is a very fluid situation. A one-judge can stop this trial in its tract from having the judge declare a mistrial. At that point, we see what the judge does on the other hand if that stay is not gained by the defense, the judge may go forward and say, you tried. I know you tried. At that point, the jury would be brought in. The judge would speak to them. He would thank them for their service and know how hard they tried. Then following that, a mistrial would be declared. From there, we'll see what could happen. A lot up in the air right now. Many twists and turns, Jinkasara's thank you. Thank you all for joining us this morning. Our special coverage on this breaking news continues on Inside Politics with Phil Matynley right now. Hey, I'm Anderson Cooper. On my podcast, all there is we explore grief and loss in all its

1:42:16complexities. My guess on the podcast is NASCAR Champion and Hall of Famer Kurt Busch is grieving the recent death of his younger brother, NASCAR Champion Kyle Busch. I'm trying to grieve in ways to help people. I might mom, my dad, and I try to do it where I'm not biting off more than I can chew and then back off a bit and trying to help everyone get through this and share stories. It's not going to get any easier, but time will help you. I have a nice therapist that I worked with towards the twilight of my career. His therapy helped. It has. I embraced it a few years back whereas the younger teenager, 20 year old, 30 year old, nah. Talking grief, building community. That's what the podcast is all about. This is all there is. Listen and follow wherever you get your podcasts.