Tony Katz on Mistrial in Lindsay Clance Case

0:00. Why from the heartland and the crossroads of America. It's Tony Katz today. Well, I would find that under caseload, that master's case line 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 statutes in the case law, I don't feel I have any choice but to declare a mistrial. Well, I'd like to be heard. You want to? Why? You want to go ahead. Well, I just got the first one and it gets the other one. Hi. You run, I would suggest to the court that as we are pretty much all familiar with under Karen Reed versus the Supreme Judiciary Court, the Supreme Judiciary Court,

1:00Justice George is back in February of 25, held that under rule 27, B 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 on which the jury can agree and directed such verdicts be received and recorded. Now, if you think you can force a jury into doing something, I say good on you, Mr. Reddington, that is the lawyer for Lindsey Clancy, but this is done. This has been declared a mistrial. Tony Katz, Tony Katz today, holy mackerel, this happened. I mean, the whole show, everybody, every show in America just got changed because they weren't expecting this. The possibility, sure, the timing, no. The mist trial declared in the case, Lindsey Clancy,

2:03the allegations of murdering her three children, which if you ask me, yes, she did one at a time while she sent her husband out to get dinner or whatever it was. Then she slid her wrist, slid her neck, and jumped out the second story window, leaving her in a wheelchair. That's what happened here. Now you have other steps where you've got the lawyer who is now going to the state Supreme Court to try and get some relief, but let's go back to the lawyer. Kevin Reddington, who I'm really conflicted in, I don't know if I think Kevin Reddington should be disbarred for the way he's acting in this case, or this is exactly the lawyer I want because he's fighting for his client. This was all about allegedly comes down to one juror, right? There's one juror who was a holdout and they were deadlocked. Hopelessly deadlocked, I believe would be the bit of the expression. Now, was this juror somebody who wanted to find her guilty?

3:05Was this a juror somebody who wanted to find her innocent? You telling me that everybody else on the jury was saw this woman as innocent? Does this have to do with the fact that there are nine women on the jury? I don't have a good answer for you on this. I'm waiting to get that information. I don't really want to engage in some level of speculation on it. What I want to do is understand what that part of the story is because I've got more audio for you where this lawyer is like, we need to call that juror out. We have to do this, we need to do that. And yes, as the chatroom is known as live streaming on YouTube and rumble, the defense attorney basically threatened the juror. I'm with you. I am absolutely with you. And I have heard the way that this lawyer has spoken to the judge. I didn't know you could be that chummy, Lucy Goosey aggressive tough with a judge.

4:11I am a bit surprised by it. Now some people have noted, don't forget that this is taking place in Massachusetts. And Massachusetts has a burden that is required on the prosecution. The prosecution must, I mean, never mind beyond a reasonable doubt. But if we're talking about where the allegation is a level of mental distress, you out of their right mind, et cetera, you have to be able to prove that they weren't. That's a level of Massachusetts law that is in existence there. It's a much harder burden to prove. But let's go back now to her lawyer, Lindsey Clancy's lawyer, Kevin Reddington, R-E-D-D-I-N-G-T-O-N, making his statement after the judge says, I got to clear a mistrial. I'm not on furtherance and I quote, rule 27-D also permits the judge to poll the jury

5:11when a verdict is returned and before the verdict is recorded. 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 tonight, certainly would argue that double jeopardy is attached and those judges cannot be prosecuted again. I'd come up. I would object to that, Toronto would go into the deliberations. I think we're in a different scenario over here, the repeat case. Now, that's her lawyer saying that you can poll the jury, you can force them to make a decision, doesn't want the mistrial. This is the prosecution saying I object, this is a mistrial right here. I believe in that case they did reach a verdict on certain charges and not on others. But I think here, we have a jury who's been deliberating for six and a half days, who's come back on multiple occasions saying that their deadlocked who have been given to me, I don't think anything else is required at this point other than the declaration of a mistrial, unfortunately.

6:20Over the defendant's objection, I'm going to declare a mistrial at this point. And that's how it went down. The mistrial has been declared. A lot of people are going to lose their ever loving minds, all sorts of opinions in all sorts of ways on this. Now, it didn't end there. No, no, no, because what her lawyer did is said, hey, we don't want this to be a mistrial. We want to be able to go to the state Supreme Court. And we want to be able to get them to say, no, no, no, no, no, this champion mistrial and really put it back to you into this jury to come up with the decision. What's interesting is in between these two clips, the judge called the jury back into the room. So when this law, as I understand it right when Reddington, the lawyer, Felensik Clancy alleged to have murdered her three children, I think she did it.

7:28I said alleged, I'm telling you where I'm at. When you hear this, he's talking to the judge and the judge is like, I can't believe you're saying this. In front of the jury, it's again, this very challenging methodology, which I don't know whether I'm disgusted by or I want to hire the dude. I'm impressed 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? We got. Oh, I'm sorry. This is the wrong audio. This is the audio where the lawyer, Felensik Clancy, because she's in a wheelchair, claims that one of the jurors has an issue with people who are disabled. Again, do you desparm or do you hire him? That's exactly what you just heard right here.

8:31I'm going to address 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 want an opportunity to take an appeal to the single dresses at court and report us that opportunity. How much time do you need to do that? I'd have it filed today and argue tomorrow. Now we get into this part where he wants to be able to file with the State Supreme Court to be able to have his motion heard. So a mistrial is not going to occur. He doesn't want to have to go through this again. He's trying to make sure he believes that he is one juror away from a not guilty.

9:37And he isn't willing to let that go away. He's willing to put all the pressure on the juror that he can. So he says, I want to be able to go to someone clearly has an issue with my client because they're disabled. And I want to go to the Supreme Court with this and the judge asks how long it would take. And he says, well, finally today we could be in court tomorrow, forgetting, of course, that it's Saturday and led to this. All of this happening in front of the jury. Saturday. They would do it on an emergency. Yeah. I mean, I could say we're going to tell this jury to come back tomorrow. I'm just trying to, 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 what 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.

10:38But if I win the motion, then obviously they would have to come back Tuesday. I'll, 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 he could, it's just a request for the state 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. And that's where we are right now. We're on the clock with all this. For the, my, my nerdiness exists in other ways for the court geek. This is, this is full on geek and out time. People are losing their minds. Nancy Grace must be all in her being at this moment. I don't want to lose sight of the fact that three children were murdered.

11:41I, I don't want to lose sight of, of the fact that there are these liberal women who are out there being out, not only supportive, but like some weirdo free child fan club. It's, it's super creepy and there's a lot going on culturally with this story, which is what I, normally these are not the kind of things that I cover. But absolutely what's happening here is, is beyond ugly. It's truly horrifying and it, it's not going to go away anytime soon. I don't think there's a real understanding on the effect that this has had on men.

12:45Now I wanted to have an effect on fathers who are raising daughters. So we will dig in. Keep it here. I'm Tony Katz and this is Tony Katz today.