September 3, 2026 • 34 mins
Joe Pags guest hosts as breaking developments in the Lindsay Clancy trial reveal a jury struggling with a single holdout and questions over the meaning of reasonable doubt. The judge questions jurors individually, sends them back to deliberate, and defense attorney Kevin Reddington pushes to remove the juror at the center of the dispute. Greg Jarrett joins to explain why the situation could still end with a replacement juror or mistrial. Pags also turns to the midterms, warning about the DSA agenda, James Talarico, Abdul El-Sayed, and what is at stake with just 61 days until Election Day.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
I'm watching AOC. She's saying, I was only kidding about
(00:31):
the things I used to say. But they'll go back
to those things.
Speaker 3 (00:34):
We must pass my trans bill of rights.
Speaker 4 (00:40):
If Democrats were able to take back the gavel in
the House, would you support impeaching Donald Trump?
Speaker 3 (00:46):
On day one, Peter.
Speaker 5 (00:47):
I am so thankful that young activists have really drawn
the link between climate change and white supremacy and capitalism.
Speaker 3 (00:56):
And it is on.
Speaker 6 (00:58):
And so is the countdown.
Speaker 4 (01:02):
T-minus 61 days until election day. Yeah, we're coming to
your city. Gonna play our guitars and sing you a
country song. The new Sean Hannity Show. More behind-the-scenes information
on breaking news and more bold, inspired solutions for America.
Speaker 3 (01:29):
Joe Pag's in for Sean Hannity. It's a great day
in America, along with, of course, Linda. And I've got
my daughter also here, Sam, who's my executive producer on
my program. We've got a note. There's a note. Linda,
there's a note. I understand. I mean, what are we
supposed to make of that? There's a note. And now
we're all freaking out because it turns out there's a note.
What does the note look like? People are in the
courtroom to see the note and the Clancy trial. Do
(01:50):
we have anything other than there's a note? I mean,
that's it, right? I mean, it's just a note. So
we're going to monitor that very closely. We've got Greg
Jarrett on next hour. Of course, he's an amazing legal mind.
Going to talk about why it is that so many
people in this country think that this Clancy woman is
somehow the victim. She's not. You've got three dead kids.
(02:11):
And there's a case that Sam dug out for me
from about six, seven years ago, where a man was
accused of and now convicted of killing his five children.
And he got the death penalty. And they literally took
two hours to decide, then went and had lunch. It's
that simple. I don't know why we're playing this game
that we've got to put on a pink shirt and
walk around about women's rights. And so you literally have
people like Lisa Rinna, who's an actress, saying, Patrick did it.
(02:34):
That's it. I've decided she thinks the husband did it
when everybody, including... Clancy herself has said, no, no, she
did it, but just really wasn't of her right mind
and didn't really want to do it. But the whole
postpartum psychosis thing, and you're a man, so shut up.
You don't know anything about postpartum anything. So we've got
a note. Linda, is there anything other than we have
(02:56):
a note? That's just all we know, right?
Speaker 5 (02:58):
I'm looking forward to finding out what kind of paper
it's on and if it was written in pencil, pen,
or crayon. I'm holding tight for this information.
Speaker 3 (03:04):
We've got breaking news alerts all over the place. There's
a note. We're going to be all over this next hour.
Top of next hour, Greg Jarrett, his own self. Make
sure you stick around for that. Bottom of this hour
is going to be Ted Cruz, was on my show
the other day. This thing is about a 36-minute long interview.
Of course, we've got about a 14, 15-minute window. We'll
give you as much as we can on that. Then
you can go to my YouTube, which is JoePags.com slash YouTube.
(03:26):
and go check out the entire thing. It's going like
hotcakes right now. We posted it last night. I want
to thank Sean for asking me to come in and
do this. Thank Linda for asking me to come and
do this. It's always an absolute pleasure to be on
the number one radio show on the planet, and we're
going to bring it the best way we possibly can.
If there's anything on the Clancy note on Notegate, if
there's anything on that, we will absolutely bring it to
(03:48):
you here. We'll break in. We'll stop everything and bring
you the note because they're The note could say, I
want a Big Mac for lunch. We don't know what
it says. But this is, what, the third note, I think?
And they've said, we are not able to come to
a unanimous decision. And it makes you start wondering, is
it one guy, one gal, one person saying, not guilty,
I can't convict? Is it everybody says, let's convict? 11
(04:11):
say she's not guilty, and one says she is. I'm
not going to change. And now we're talking about possibly,
I heard this a second ago, maybe they're talking about
a possible plea bargain? And that would be very interesting.
So there are all sorts of logistics and legalese in
this case that Greg Jarrett will break down next hour.
61 days to the midterms. I want to say this.
I want to be as exacting as I can be.
(04:32):
I want to be as analytical as I can be.
Democrats are nuts. That's who they are. They're nuts. When
you've got a guy like Tallarico here in my state
in Texas, by the way, I'm based in San Antonio.
When you've got a guy like that who says, I'm
a Christian. but Jesus is non-binary. I'm a Christian, but
outside of politics, who I love are the trans kids.
(04:57):
I'm a Christian, but we should just open the border
because we're supposed to welcome everybody to our back porch.
I'm a Christian, but there are six genders. I'm a Christian,
but Muslims, Jews, and Christians all believe in the same God.
News flash for James Tallarico. I don't have to put
this on a note. Guess what, James? We believe in
(05:19):
the triune God if you're Christian. That means we believe
Jesus Christ is God embodied in a human body. Muslims
don't believe that. Jews don't believe that. If you don't
know that and you call yourself a pastor, you are
lying about being a Christian. And here's a guy that
literally two days ago came out against the oil and
gas industry. Did I mention he's running for office in Texas?
(05:41):
When you look at Texas and if you say, where
are our oil resources in this country? All sorts of
oil pumps would be showing up on your map all
over the place because it is not only an oil-rich state,
but it's a state where so many people are employed
and support their families and pay their bills from oil
and gas. This guy would like to get rid of it. Now,
(06:02):
he doesn't say he's DSA, the Democrat Socialist of America.
He doesn't say that, but he's DSA. And the DSA
wants a few things. Let's get rid of the Constitution.
It's no good. Let's get rid of the Senate. That's
no good. Have to redo how the presidency gets done.
That's no good. We have to redo how the Supreme
Court is. And all of those bodies, all of those
(06:24):
entities I just mentioned, the Senate, the President, the Supreme Court,
all have to enter the House of Representatives. I kid
you not. They would like to throw the Constitution away.
And it's not just Tallarico. I mean, people who literally say,
I am DSA, people like this guy, Abdul Rahman Mohammed
Al-Sayed in Michigan, I dare him to tell me to
(06:45):
keep his name out of my mouth. I triple dog
dare him. This guy, not only is he DSA, where
he wants to raise your taxes 7, 8, 9% in Michigan,
he also hates Mackinac Island.
Speaker 2 (06:58):
What?
Speaker 3 (06:59):
How do you hate Mackinac Island? My favorite movie ever
made is Somewhere in Time. Christopher Reeves and Jane Seymour.
If you haven't seen it, it's about time travel. It's
filmed on Mackinac Island, Michigan. It's one of the most
beautiful places on the planet, and Michigan sees it as
a jewel of the state. He hates it. Set it
(07:20):
on like a live mic. He also thinks that NFL
football or American football is too filled with toxic masculinity.
On top of the fact that he campaigned with Hasan Piker,
who I believe is the nephew of this Cenk Unger guy,
this idiot, this lunatic. He campaigned with Hasan Piker, who
has said... America deserved nine 11 who I kid you
(07:45):
not the guy somehow won the Democrat nomination in Michigan
for us Senate. He also, this is on Piker guy
says that he would do disgusting things to the constitution.
How much he hates the constitution, a guy who lives
in a $ 3 million mansion. Now this was this guy,
El Syed's wingman during the entire campaign probably got him
(08:06):
the nomination. Now, El Sayed wants us to believe that
Hassan Piker is some streamer in California. I don't want
to talk about a streamer in California, just some California streamer.
If I had time, Linda, I was going to do
a parody, California streaming. I was going to do it.
I didn't have time. I mean, I think, I think
the people would have liked that. Sam, you wanted dad
to do that too, right? A hundred percent. I missed
(08:27):
the parodies. She was writing me overnight. Can you do
the freaking parody? I don't have time. So this guy
is trying to now step away from his partner that
got him. And Piker, in return, says, listen, when Abdul
asked me to come and campaign, I said, okay, I
guess I'll go from my calm little area here into
the fire, and I'll go stomp for him, he said,
although it's stomp. And he's trying now to put some
(08:51):
space there. Remember when Donald Trump got the endorsement of
David Duke? You probably remember that. Donald Trump didn't want
the endorsement of David Duke, did not campaign with David Duke.
And in fact, every single time anybody in the legacy
media saw Donald Trump, what did they say? Do you rebuke?
Do you refute David Duke? Do you rebuke white supremacy?
And every time he said, I rebuke, I rebuke. What
(09:11):
do you want from me? Every single time. The legacy
media appears to want to give El Sayed a pass
on the fact that he just campaigned with a guy who,
if he had the ability, would get rid of the
Constitution and change our way of life in America. And
somehow it's a close race in Michigan. The guy he's
running against is a guy named Mike Rogers. Mike Rogers
(09:32):
was a U.S. representative when I was a television news
anchor in Lansing, Michigan, 30 years ago. We've been friends
a long time. Mike Rogers is a good man, a
former FBI guy, a military guy. He's not as, how
do I put this, energetic on the campaign trail as
El Sayed appears to be, but he also doesn't hate
Mackinac Island. He doesn't hate American football. He doesn't hate
the Constitution. He doesn't want to raise taxes on everybody.
(09:55):
When you ask an El Sayed, or a Bernie Sanders,
or a fill-in-the-blank DSA, idiot, how are you going to
pay for Medicare for all? How are you going to
pay for free daycare for everybody? How are you going
to pay for free food for everybody? The answer generally
speaking is, well, you know, it's going to have to,
going to have to hurt a little bit more for
everybody to make sure everybody gets taken care of. What
(10:16):
that means, Michigan is is what they're finding out in
New York City now under Mamdani. What that means is
you're going to be paying some more in taxes. You're
going to be handing those taxes over to the federal
government or to the city government, whatever position happens to be.
And they're going to then dole it out. Now, let
me ask you something. Are you $ 40 trillion in debt?
(10:37):
Because the government is. That's how good they are with
your money. That's how well they take care of your money.
That's how they look out for your family and your future,
and what it is that you need. I mean, I'm
not making it up. These people are nuts. Remember Jasmine Crockett,
who went to a school that cost $ 38, 000 a year
in Missouri, somehow showed up in Texas and affected some
(11:00):
Ebonics cadence? Jasmine Crockett now is blaming her own party.
This is the only real saving grace on the left,
because they're infighting like the right is. But Jasmine Crockett
wants everybody to believe that somehow the Democrat Party is racist.
That's why she didn't make it. As I said when
I started this monologue, Democrats are nuts.
Speaker 6 (11:18):
Evan Jackson from Young, Bald, and Regal.
Speaker 3 (11:21):
What do you want to say to the voters that
want you to run for president in 2028? Okay, first
of all, who's this guy that thinks that somebody wants
her to run for president? Anybody?
Speaker 7 (11:28):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (11:29):
Who wants you to run for president? Help me out.
Speaker 8 (11:31):
Yeah, no, not happening. Listen, running for office is a
huge sacrifice, and it takes its toll on everyone, not
just the candidate, but the candidate's families.
Speaker 2 (11:40):
And that kind of stuff.
Speaker 8 (11:42):
And after what we saw in Texas, I'm not really sure.
Speaker 3 (11:45):
I may be with.
Speaker 8 (11:48):
Former First Lady Michelle Obama on this. You know, number one,
the Democratic Party has to deal with its own racism.
The reality is that racism is prevalent, not just within
the Republican Party. And here recently, we've heard a lot
of people quoting specifically Malcolm X and talking about the
liberal white.
Speaker 3 (12:06):
It's prevalent, not prevalent. Jasmine Crockett believes that racism is
why she didn't make it. So maybe there is a
good enough chink in the armor on the left that
the right still has a really good chance in the midterms.
We do have an update on Notegate. Linda, what's going
on with note game? What did we find out?
Speaker 5 (12:19):
So as of right now, we know that Reddington has
been called up to the bench. He has, quote unquote,
had an animated conversation with the judge. And then Reddington
was slamming his hand on the papers on the judge's bench.
He threw the papers on the judge's bench. He walked
back to the defense table. Then he leaned across the
table to Clancy. She leaned in. She's listening. Then the
(12:41):
judge spoke directly with Lindsay Clancy after Reddington had gone
up to the bench. Reddington wheeled her up. And then
Clancy was looking at Reddington. We're not sure what happened.
Of course, he rubbed her shoulder because, you know, there's
something weird going on there. That's my sidebar. Now, each
of the jurors are being brought in one by one
to the judge, talking to the judge. They nod and
(13:01):
then they leave the courtroom one by one, being sworn
in independently and then leaving. So no idea what is
going on.
Speaker 3 (13:10):
You know who's going to know is Greg Jarrett next hour.
He's going to be able to parse all of that
and figure out exactly what's going on. That's amazing information.
It's not just, It wasn't their lunch order. Turns out
there is now for the for Reddington, by the way,
is the defense attorney. Reddington going up there and being
animated with the judge must mean the judge says, I
don't care. I want them to keep on deliberating. And
Reddington obviously would like to see this thing end because
he's working on behalf of his client. So we'll see
(13:32):
exactly what that is as as we get updates throughout
this program. As I'm in for Sean Hannity, make sure
that you keep it right here. We will update you
the second we get it. By the way, the call
the number is the same. Eight hundred nine four one. 7, 3, 2, 6, 1, 800-941-SHAWN.
Go to SeanHannityOfCourse.com. Check out my website, JoePags.com. It's Joe
Pags in for Sean Hannity. Quick break here. We're back
(13:53):
after this.
Speaker 4 (14:02):
Transmitting to over 700 radio stations.
Speaker 2 (14:07):
Wow. Wow.
Speaker 4 (14:07):
This is the Sean Hannity Show.
Speaker 3 (14:33):
Hey, Joe Pag's in for Sean Hannity, 800-941-SEAN. We are
monitoring what's going on in Massachusetts. Let's go to a live, Linda,
if we can. What's happening in the courtroom?
Speaker 1 (14:41):
In the matter of Commonwealth v.
Speaker 8 (14:43):
Lindsey Clancy, all other parties are present.
Speaker 7 (14:45):
All right. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Good afternoon, everyone. I
just wanted to go over a couple of things this afternoon.
First off, I want to remind you that you are
required to follow my instructions on the law as I
gave them to you. All right. I also want to,
at this point, go over the instruction that I gave
(15:08):
you about reasonable doubt.
Speaker 6 (15:10):
All right, and so, reasonable doubt.
Speaker 7 (15:13):
The burden is on the Commonwealth to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the charges
made against her. What is proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Well,
the term is often used and probably pretty well understood,
though it's not easily defined. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt
does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt, for everything
(15:35):
in the lives of human beings is open to some
possible or imaginary doubt.
Speaker 6 (15:39):
The charge is proved beyond a.
Speaker 7 (15:41):
Reasonable doubt if, after you've compared and considered all of
the evidence, you have in your minds an abiding conviction
to a moral certainty that the charge is true. When
we refer to moral certainty, we mean the highest degree
of certainty possible in matters relating to human affairs based
solely on the evidence that has been put before you
(16:04):
in this case. I've told you that every person is
presumed to be innocent until they are proved guilty and
that the burden of proof is on the prosecutor. If
you evaluate all the evidence and you still have a
reasonable doubt remaining, the defendant is entitled to the benefit
of that doubt and must be acquitted. It's not enough
(16:25):
for the Commonwealth to establish a probability, even a strong probability,
that the defendant is more likely to be guilty than
not guilty.
Speaker 6 (16:34):
That is not enough.
Speaker 7 (16:36):
Instead, the evidence must convince you of the defendant's guilt
to a reasonable and moral certainty, a certainty that convinces
your understanding and satisfies your reason and judgment as jurors
who are sworn to act conscientiously on the evidence. This
is what we mean by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Speaker 1 (16:58):
All right.
Speaker 7 (16:58):
And with that, I'm going to ask you to resume
your deliberations. Wow.
Speaker 3 (17:04):
There you go. So the judge takes the time to
remind the jury of what exactly reasonable doubt is. It's
not absolute and without any doubt doubt, but it is
within reason of humanity, because human beings cannot be 100% anything.
But it's not certainly a prerogative of evidence. It's not
just sort of a civil thing. You have to be
absolutely reasonably without doubt. And it sounds like He says
(17:29):
that for a specific reason. He doesn't tell us why
he's saying it, but there's something that he found out
either from Reddington or from Clancy or from a juror
as he was pulling them one by one. There's something
that he found out because it sounds to me like
they're hanging on what reasonable doubt means. We're going to
monitor that constantly. We're going to bring it to you
here on the Sean Hannity Show as we get more.
Keep it here.
Speaker 4 (18:12):
The new Sean Hannity Show, talking about what's right for America,
with a renewed commitment to keep you up to date
on the breaking news stories.
Speaker 3 (18:25):
And America's locked into what's going on in Massachusetts right now,
the Lindsey Clancy case. Big doings just happened right before
the break. So I'm going to move my interview with
Ted Cruz till next hour. We'll have Greg Jarrett momentarily
to break down what it is we just heard. Let's
go back to it. A few moments right before the break,
we heard the judge in the case actually give instructions
to the jury. Let's play that. And then afterwards, when
(18:46):
he sends the jury away to go and deliberate some more.
There's a back and forth between him and the defense attorney.
Let's play the judge's instructions.
Speaker 6 (18:53):
I just wanted to go over a couple of things
this afternoon.
Speaker 7 (18:57):
First off, I want to remind you that you are
required to follow my instructions on the law as I
gave them to you.
Speaker 6 (19:05):
All right.
Speaker 7 (19:06):
I also want to, at this point, go over the
instruction that I gave you about reasonable doubt.
Speaker 6 (19:13):
All right, and so, reasonable doubt.
Speaker 7 (19:16):
The burden is on the Commonwealth to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the charges
made against her. What is proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Well,
the term is often used and probably pretty well understood,
though it's not easily defined. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt
does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt, for everything
(19:38):
in the lives of human beings is open to some
possible or imaginary doubt.
Speaker 6 (19:42):
The charge is proved beyond a.
Speaker 7 (19:44):
Reasonable doubt if, after you've compared and considered all of
the evidence, you have in your minds an abiding conviction
to a moral certainty that the charge is true. When
we refer to moral certainty, we mean the highest degree
of certainty possible in matters relating to human affairs based
solely on the evidence that has been put before you
(20:07):
in this case. I've told you that every person is
presumed to be innocent until they are proved guilty and
that the burden of proof is on the prosecutor. If
you evaluate all the evidence and you still have a
reasonable doubt remaining, the defendant is entitled to the benefit
of that doubt and must be acquitted. It's not enough
(20:29):
for the Commonwealth to establish a probability, even a strong probability,
that the defendant is more likely to be guilty than
not guilty.
Speaker 6 (20:37):
That is not enough.
Speaker 7 (20:39):
Instead, the evidence must convince you of the defendant's guilt
to a reasonable and moral certainty, a certainty that convinces
your understanding and satisfies your reason and judgment as jurors
who are sworn to act conscientiously on the evidence. This
is what we mean by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Speaker 6 (21:00):
All right.
Speaker 7 (21:01):
And with that, I'm going to ask you to resume
your deliberations.
Speaker 3 (21:06):
Now, that was the judge moments ago, right before the
break here. And I'm listening to it, thinking to myself,
somebody in the jury wasn't exactly sure what reasonable doubt meant.
And they wanted him to explain it even better. That's
what it sounds like he did. Now, while we were
in break, Ethan and Linda were monitoring this. The judge
and Clancy's attorney, Reddington, Had it back and forth in
(21:26):
the courtroom. Let's go to that.
Speaker 9 (21:28):
Then at the sidebar, the juror, the court has an
instruction from the foreperson of that juror that's been working
for a week now saying that there's one juror who
refuses to listen to the law that you've given him
or her on reasonable doubt. And I suggest respectfully that
the soft instruction that you gave them saying at the sidebar,
(21:51):
can you listen to the law as I instruct you,
does not focus on the issue. The question is not
sufficient enough. It does not allow any foundation for a
motion to remove the juror who refuses to accept your
instructions on the law on reasonable doubt. And if we
(22:12):
come back here in a half an hour with a
mistrial because of a juror that has just spurned the
instructions of this court, it's a shame. It's a real shame.
And that's why I object to the court's ruling. I
request that we have further inquiry. I request that my
motion is to remove this juror that refuses to listen
(22:32):
to your instruction on reasonable doubt.
Speaker 6 (22:33):
All right.
Speaker 1 (22:35):
Come on.
Speaker 3 (22:37):
I mean, that's pretty amazing.
Speaker 10 (22:40):
We have the note from the jury. There's no way
to determine what the deliberations are, who's correct, who's incorrect,
nor should we attempt to, because that's part of deliberations.
I think what Your Honor has done by asking each
juror if they're able to follow the law and then
giving a general instruction on reasonable doubt is appropriate under
Commonwealth v. Ralph, so we do not have an objection
(23:03):
to the questions or the re-instruction.
Speaker 6 (23:07):
All right.
Speaker 7 (23:08):
Well, I'm sure as parties understand, as they say, the
discharge of a deliberating juror is a sensitive undertaking. I
was just specifically responding to the specific question that was asked.
I don't feel that it is proper for me to
(23:28):
side with one side or the other of the deliberations.
I don't feel it's appropriate for me to say I
agree with one juror or the other. At this point,
I've asked if they are able to follow my instructions
of courting. They swore earlier that they could.
Speaker 6 (23:48):
They've said at this point that they can.
Speaker 7 (23:50):
That was specifically addressed towards these specific questions. And that's
what I'm doing. So the defendant's objection is noted. And
we will be in recess on this at this time.
Speaker 6 (24:05):
Thank you.
Speaker 3 (24:07):
What I take from what we just heard is that
clearly there's one juror. Reddington stands up, the defense attorney,
and puts that into the ether as we're all watching
and listening. Well, the one juror is the one that
won't exonerate. That's what it sounds like he was trying
to say. So let's remove that juror. The prosecution is like,
we don't know what side the jurors are on at all.
But guess what? I'm not the legal mind here. One
of the best legal minds on the planet is Greg Jarrett,
(24:28):
who joins me now. Greg, how are you?
Speaker 1 (24:30):
I'm fine, Joe. Good to be with you.
Speaker 3 (24:32):
You know, is that what you heard as well? There's
one juror that's in question. And I think it sounded
to me like the defense attorney was trying to pretend
like that's the one juror that won't exonerate her.
Speaker 1 (24:42):
Yeah, he may have reason to believe that, but he
can't possibly know that for sure.
Speaker 3 (24:48):
Right.
Speaker 1 (24:49):
So, yeah, you know, as we've been talking on Sean's
show throughout the week, we had no idea the numbers.
Is it 6-6? Is it 9-3?
Speaker 6 (25:01):
Is it 11-1?
Speaker 1 (25:01):
Well, it turns out to be 11-1. That's abundantly clear
from the remarks of the judge and the defense attorney.
But the prosecutor has a valid point. Well, 11 to 1,
which way?
Speaker 2 (25:14):
Right.
Speaker 1 (25:14):
Because you've got to be unanimous to either acquit or convict.
And furthermore, convict of what? Are we talking about murder one,
murder two, the lesser included, or even manslaughter, which I
think was a compromise offer from the judge. So there's
a lot we don't know, and in many ways we're guessing.
(25:36):
I will say this. with the judge dot has done
here is absolutely proper and it conforms with the requirements
of the law in massachusetts uh... you know i uh...
i don't know if the defense attorney wanted in the
alternative of this trial so they can do it all
(25:57):
over again or cop a plea in lieu thereof uh...
but you know it's true that in massachusetts uh... once
jurors come back and say they're deadlocked the judge is
typically going to say go back and try harder the
second time he delivers what's called a dynamite charge and
(26:20):
that he did yesterday telling the jurors don't abandon your
convictions but seriously consider opposing views and reassess your own
position and try to reach an agreement uh... the law
in massachusetts is that once you've given the dynamite charge
and they come back and they say they're deadlocked after that,
(26:41):
you've got to declare a mistrial. But that's not what
happened here. Apparently, the jury foreperson has indicated, we've got
one juror here who refuses to even acknowledge the law
insofar as reasonable doubt is concerned. Now, I've seen this,
(27:01):
not frequently, but occasionally, where a juror just either refuses...
to participate a few refuses to deliberate refuses and says
he or she is refusing to follow the law and
i've seen judges remove that particular juror because of that
(27:22):
because you're supposed to communicate and deliberate with fellow jurors
and you're not doing that you're trying to obstruct the
process uh... there is firm legal grounds for a judge
to remove the jury now He hasn't done that yet.
And he apparently questioned the jurors under oath once again about,
(27:45):
you know, what's going on and are you abiding by
my instructions? So we have no idea where it's going
to head, but it was proper for him to, for
the third time, explain reasonable doubt under the law to
the jury.
Speaker 3 (28:04):
It's Greg Jarrett. Go to gregjarrett.com. Get every book that
he's written. He's a great legal mind. The amazing Greg Jarrett.
Interesting delineation, Greg, because it sounds like if I'm on
the jury and I'm the one who's holding out, but
I have good reason and I've got good moral compass
as to why I'm holding out and I can explain
this is why I disagree with you, that's fine. But
(28:24):
it sounds like the suggestion by the other 11 is
this person is even following your instructions and is not
following the law. Is that the difference that you're telling me?
Speaker 1 (28:32):
Yes, it is. As I said before, an obstructionist on
the juror who's not doing it based on the facts
and the law, but simply doing it for their own
personal reason, that's not a proper juror. And that's a
(28:53):
juror who is defying their oath and their promise at
the beginning of the trial. that they would listen to
the evidence and they would use the law and apply
it to the evidence and make a determination. Sounds like
you've got one juror there who's resistant to doing that.
(29:16):
And now it's very difficult for the judge because he
can't intrude on the minute-by-minute hour-by-hour deliberations of the jurors
but when you have been notified that there is a
jury here who is interfering in the process itself supposed
(29:36):
to be following you likely have to take action action.
Speaker 3 (29:40):
It's Greg Jarrett. Greg, is it likely what I said,
that note says, can you explain reasonable doubt again? Or
does the note say we've got one holdout and we're deadlocked?
What do you think the note said?
Speaker 1 (29:50):
Boy, it's It's hard to say. It could be a
combination of both. We've got a juror who won't consider
what reasonable doubt is. That's kind of my guess, which
is what prompted the judge again for the third time
to explain reasonable doubt. He did it in the initial
(30:13):
jury instructions. He did it during the dynamite charge yesterday.
Speaker 7 (30:17):
Right.
Speaker 1 (30:19):
And now he's done it for a third time today
to try to get through to this holdout juror.
Speaker 3 (30:24):
It's Greg Jarrett. Go and get everything Greg does. Amazing
illegal mind. I love having you on. Come on my
show again soon, Greg. Let me ask you about not
sequestering this jury. If there is any reason to sequester
a jury, I think this would be a very good reason.
You've got people outside protesting, yelling in your face. We
now know that somebody was allegedly approached. A juror was
allegedly approached as they walk out a door that I
(30:46):
guess you can see them walk out of. Why not
sequester them so that they're not inundated with this outside stuff?
Speaker 1 (30:52):
Yes, I would probably do a half measure, not a
typical full sequestration in a hotel where they're isolated. You've
got to take their cell phones and communication devices away
from them and so forth. In this day and age,
it's very hard to do. What I would do is
have the jurors meet at a secret location every day
(31:14):
and bust them in and bring them in through the
basement so they don't, You know, with blacked-out windows, you know,
they don't see what's going on outside the courthouse. That's
the last thing you want to have happen is, you know,
the nut balls outside, both for and against, influencing, you know,
this jury. And so, you know, I have been worrying
(31:36):
about that, and I'm bewildered why that step wasn't taken.
Speaker 3 (31:42):
I've got about a minute left, Greg. Thanks for jumping
on early. Do a little predicting. What's going to happen here?
Speaker 1 (31:49):
Boy, I think one of two things, the juror will
be removed, replacement juror, and then you've got to start
all over again, because understand those other six jurors have
been waiting in the wings, if not as part of
the liberation. So, you know, you kind of hate to
go through all of that, given the fact that these
(32:10):
existing seated jurors have been doing this for, what, six,
seven days. And the other is to simply declare a mistrial.
And then the question arises, will prosecutors retry Lindsey Clancy? Probably.
Speaker 3 (32:27):
Oh, I think so.
Speaker 1 (32:30):
Yeah. And, you know, they have unlimited resources. The defense doesn't.
the parents, as I understand it, have spent all the
money they have on experts and costs and the defense
attorney and so forth. So does that mean, you know,
somewhere down the line?
Speaker 7 (32:49):
Maybe.
Speaker 1 (32:50):
Hard to know.
Speaker 3 (32:50):
We're going to be watching very closely. Thanks for your
expertise and your friendship, Greg. It's Greg Jericho. Follow him everywhere. 800-941-SHAWN.
Joe Pag's in for Sean Hannity back after this.
Speaker 6 (33:04):
On the headlines, on the stories that matter most to you.
Speaker 4 (33:09):
Sean Hannity's on right now.
Speaker 3 (33:33):
This is the Sean Hannity Show. Joe Pag's in for Sean.
It's 800-941-SEAN. As always, go to Hannity.com. Also, check out JoePag.com.
Had breaking news all through the first hour. If you're
just joining us now, where were you? We've been on
for almost an hour. The Clancy case, all sorts of
stuff happening. No, there's not a verdict. Yes, more jury instructions.
There's one holdout. We don't know which side they're on,
(33:53):
either exoneration or guilty. We hope to find something more
out as we go. As the breaking news comes in
on this case, we will bring it to you right here.
After the top of the hour, I've got Ted Cruz on, U.S. Senator,
great state of Texas. I asked Ted Cruz directly, why
won't you get rid of John Thune in leadership in
the Republican side of the U.S.
Speaker 2 (34:11):
Senate?
Speaker 3 (34:11):
And he gives an answer that I didn't expect. Make
sure you stick around for that. Going to be off
the top of the hour. We've got much more coming
your way, including what's going on in this midterm. I
want to hear from you on this. Can the Republicans
hold on to the House and the Senate? We'll break
it all down. A lot more coming your way. Joe Paggs,
in for Sean Hannity. Stay right here.
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
I'm watching AOC. She's saying, I was only kidding about
(00:31):
the things I used to say. But they'll go back
to those things.
Speaker 3 (00:34):
We must pass my trans bill of rights.
Speaker 4 (00:40):
If Democrats were able to take back the gavel in
the House, would you support impeaching Donald Trump?
Speaker 3 (00:46):
On day one, Peter.
Speaker 5 (00:47):
I am so thankful that young activists have really drawn
the link between climate change and white supremacy and capitalism.
Speaker 3 (00:56):
And it is on.
Speaker 6 (00:58):
And so is the countdown.
Speaker 4 (01:02):
T-minus 61 days until election day. Yeah, we're coming to
your city. Gonna play our guitars and sing you a
country song. The new Sean Hannity Show. More behind-the-scenes information
on breaking news and more bold, inspired solutions for America.
Speaker 3 (01:29):
Joe Pag's in for Sean Hannity. It's a great day
in America, along with, of course, Linda. And I've got
my daughter also here, Sam, who's my executive producer on
my program. We've got a note. There's a note. Linda,
there's a note. I understand. I mean, what are we
supposed to make of that? There's a note. And now
we're all freaking out because it turns out there's a note.
What does the note look like? People are in the
courtroom to see the note and the Clancy trial. Do
(01:50):
we have anything other than there's a note? I mean,
that's it, right? I mean, it's just a note. So
we're going to monitor that very closely. We've got Greg
Jarrett on next hour. Of course, he's an amazing legal mind.
Going to talk about why it is that so many
people in this country think that this Clancy woman is
somehow the victim. She's not. You've got three dead kids.
(02:11):
And there's a case that Sam dug out for me
from about six, seven years ago, where a man was
accused of and now convicted of killing his five children.
And he got the death penalty. And they literally took
two hours to decide, then went and had lunch. It's
that simple. I don't know why we're playing this game
that we've got to put on a pink shirt and
walk around about women's rights. And so you literally have
people like Lisa Rinna, who's an actress, saying, Patrick did it.
(02:34):
That's it. I've decided she thinks the husband did it
when everybody, including... Clancy herself has said, no, no, she
did it, but just really wasn't of her right mind
and didn't really want to do it. But the whole
postpartum psychosis thing, and you're a man, so shut up.
You don't know anything about postpartum anything. So we've got
a note. Linda, is there anything other than we have
(02:56):
a note? That's just all we know, right?
Speaker 5 (02:58):
I'm looking forward to finding out what kind of paper
it's on and if it was written in pencil, pen,
or crayon. I'm holding tight for this information.
Speaker 3 (03:04):
We've got breaking news alerts all over the place. There's
a note. We're going to be all over this next hour.
Top of next hour, Greg Jarrett, his own self. Make
sure you stick around for that. Bottom of this hour
is going to be Ted Cruz, was on my show
the other day. This thing is about a 36-minute long interview.
Of course, we've got about a 14, 15-minute window. We'll
give you as much as we can on that. Then
you can go to my YouTube, which is JoePags.com slash YouTube.
(03:26):
and go check out the entire thing. It's going like
hotcakes right now. We posted it last night. I want
to thank Sean for asking me to come in and
do this. Thank Linda for asking me to come and
do this. It's always an absolute pleasure to be on
the number one radio show on the planet, and we're
going to bring it the best way we possibly can.
If there's anything on the Clancy note on Notegate, if
there's anything on that, we will absolutely bring it to
(03:48):
you here. We'll break in. We'll stop everything and bring
you the note because they're The note could say, I
want a Big Mac for lunch. We don't know what
it says. But this is, what, the third note, I think?
And they've said, we are not able to come to
a unanimous decision. And it makes you start wondering, is
it one guy, one gal, one person saying, not guilty,
I can't convict? Is it everybody says, let's convict? 11
(04:11):
say she's not guilty, and one says she is. I'm
not going to change. And now we're talking about possibly,
I heard this a second ago, maybe they're talking about
a possible plea bargain? And that would be very interesting.
So there are all sorts of logistics and legalese in
this case that Greg Jarrett will break down next hour.
61 days to the midterms. I want to say this.
I want to be as exacting as I can be.
(04:32):
I want to be as analytical as I can be.
Democrats are nuts. That's who they are. They're nuts. When
you've got a guy like Tallarico here in my state
in Texas, by the way, I'm based in San Antonio.
When you've got a guy like that who says, I'm
a Christian. but Jesus is non-binary. I'm a Christian, but
outside of politics, who I love are the trans kids.
(04:57):
I'm a Christian, but we should just open the border
because we're supposed to welcome everybody to our back porch.
I'm a Christian, but there are six genders. I'm a Christian,
but Muslims, Jews, and Christians all believe in the same God.
News flash for James Tallarico. I don't have to put
this on a note. Guess what, James? We believe in
(05:19):
the triune God if you're Christian. That means we believe
Jesus Christ is God embodied in a human body. Muslims
don't believe that. Jews don't believe that. If you don't
know that and you call yourself a pastor, you are
lying about being a Christian. And here's a guy that
literally two days ago came out against the oil and
gas industry. Did I mention he's running for office in Texas?
(05:41):
When you look at Texas and if you say, where
are our oil resources in this country? All sorts of
oil pumps would be showing up on your map all
over the place because it is not only an oil-rich state,
but it's a state where so many people are employed
and support their families and pay their bills from oil
and gas. This guy would like to get rid of it. Now,
(06:02):
he doesn't say he's DSA, the Democrat Socialist of America.
He doesn't say that, but he's DSA. And the DSA
wants a few things. Let's get rid of the Constitution.
It's no good. Let's get rid of the Senate. That's
no good. Have to redo how the presidency gets done.
That's no good. We have to redo how the Supreme
Court is. And all of those bodies, all of those
(06:24):
entities I just mentioned, the Senate, the President, the Supreme Court,
all have to enter the House of Representatives. I kid
you not. They would like to throw the Constitution away.
And it's not just Tallarico. I mean, people who literally say,
I am DSA, people like this guy, Abdul Rahman Mohammed
Al-Sayed in Michigan, I dare him to tell me to
(06:45):
keep his name out of my mouth. I triple dog
dare him. This guy, not only is he DSA, where
he wants to raise your taxes 7, 8, 9% in Michigan,
he also hates Mackinac Island.
Speaker 2 (06:58):
What?
Speaker 3 (06:59):
How do you hate Mackinac Island? My favorite movie ever
made is Somewhere in Time. Christopher Reeves and Jane Seymour.
If you haven't seen it, it's about time travel. It's
filmed on Mackinac Island, Michigan. It's one of the most
beautiful places on the planet, and Michigan sees it as
a jewel of the state. He hates it. Set it
(07:20):
on like a live mic. He also thinks that NFL
football or American football is too filled with toxic masculinity.
On top of the fact that he campaigned with Hasan Piker,
who I believe is the nephew of this Cenk Unger guy,
this idiot, this lunatic. He campaigned with Hasan Piker, who
has said... America deserved nine 11 who I kid you
(07:45):
not the guy somehow won the Democrat nomination in Michigan
for us Senate. He also, this is on Piker guy
says that he would do disgusting things to the constitution.
How much he hates the constitution, a guy who lives
in a $ 3 million mansion. Now this was this guy,
El Syed's wingman during the entire campaign probably got him
(08:06):
the nomination. Now, El Sayed wants us to believe that
Hassan Piker is some streamer in California. I don't want
to talk about a streamer in California, just some California streamer.
If I had time, Linda, I was going to do
a parody, California streaming. I was going to do it.
I didn't have time. I mean, I think, I think
the people would have liked that. Sam, you wanted dad
to do that too, right? A hundred percent. I missed
(08:27):
the parodies. She was writing me overnight. Can you do
the freaking parody? I don't have time. So this guy
is trying to now step away from his partner that
got him. And Piker, in return, says, listen, when Abdul
asked me to come and campaign, I said, okay, I
guess I'll go from my calm little area here into
the fire, and I'll go stomp for him, he said,
although it's stomp. And he's trying now to put some
(08:51):
space there. Remember when Donald Trump got the endorsement of
David Duke? You probably remember that. Donald Trump didn't want
the endorsement of David Duke, did not campaign with David Duke.
And in fact, every single time anybody in the legacy
media saw Donald Trump, what did they say? Do you rebuke?
Do you refute David Duke? Do you rebuke white supremacy?
And every time he said, I rebuke, I rebuke. What
(09:11):
do you want from me? Every single time. The legacy
media appears to want to give El Sayed a pass
on the fact that he just campaigned with a guy who,
if he had the ability, would get rid of the
Constitution and change our way of life in America. And
somehow it's a close race in Michigan. The guy he's
running against is a guy named Mike Rogers. Mike Rogers
(09:32):
was a U.S. representative when I was a television news
anchor in Lansing, Michigan, 30 years ago. We've been friends
a long time. Mike Rogers is a good man, a
former FBI guy, a military guy. He's not as, how
do I put this, energetic on the campaign trail as
El Sayed appears to be, but he also doesn't hate
Mackinac Island. He doesn't hate American football. He doesn't hate
the Constitution. He doesn't want to raise taxes on everybody.
(09:55):
When you ask an El Sayed, or a Bernie Sanders,
or a fill-in-the-blank DSA, idiot, how are you going to
pay for Medicare for all? How are you going to
pay for free daycare for everybody? How are you going
to pay for free food for everybody? The answer generally
speaking is, well, you know, it's going to have to,
going to have to hurt a little bit more for
everybody to make sure everybody gets taken care of. What
(10:16):
that means, Michigan is is what they're finding out in
New York City now under Mamdani. What that means is
you're going to be paying some more in taxes. You're
going to be handing those taxes over to the federal
government or to the city government, whatever position happens to be.
And they're going to then dole it out. Now, let
me ask you something. Are you $ 40 trillion in debt?
(10:37):
Because the government is. That's how good they are with
your money. That's how well they take care of your money.
That's how they look out for your family and your future,
and what it is that you need. I mean, I'm
not making it up. These people are nuts. Remember Jasmine Crockett,
who went to a school that cost $ 38, 000 a year
in Missouri, somehow showed up in Texas and affected some
(11:00):
Ebonics cadence? Jasmine Crockett now is blaming her own party.
This is the only real saving grace on the left,
because they're infighting like the right is. But Jasmine Crockett
wants everybody to believe that somehow the Democrat Party is racist.
That's why she didn't make it. As I said when
I started this monologue, Democrats are nuts.
Speaker 6 (11:18):
Evan Jackson from Young, Bald, and Regal.
Speaker 3 (11:21):
What do you want to say to the voters that
want you to run for president in 2028? Okay, first
of all, who's this guy that thinks that somebody wants
her to run for president? Anybody?
Speaker 7 (11:28):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (11:29):
Who wants you to run for president? Help me out.
Speaker 8 (11:31):
Yeah, no, not happening. Listen, running for office is a
huge sacrifice, and it takes its toll on everyone, not
just the candidate, but the candidate's families.
Speaker 2 (11:40):
And that kind of stuff.
Speaker 8 (11:42):
And after what we saw in Texas, I'm not really sure.
Speaker 3 (11:45):
I may be with.
Speaker 8 (11:48):
Former First Lady Michelle Obama on this. You know, number one,
the Democratic Party has to deal with its own racism.
The reality is that racism is prevalent, not just within
the Republican Party. And here recently, we've heard a lot
of people quoting specifically Malcolm X and talking about the
liberal white.
Speaker 3 (12:06):
It's prevalent, not prevalent. Jasmine Crockett believes that racism is
why she didn't make it. So maybe there is a
good enough chink in the armor on the left that
the right still has a really good chance in the midterms.
We do have an update on Notegate. Linda, what's going
on with note game? What did we find out?
Speaker 5 (12:19):
So as of right now, we know that Reddington has
been called up to the bench. He has, quote unquote,
had an animated conversation with the judge. And then Reddington
was slamming his hand on the papers on the judge's bench.
He threw the papers on the judge's bench. He walked
back to the defense table. Then he leaned across the
table to Clancy. She leaned in. She's listening. Then the
(12:41):
judge spoke directly with Lindsay Clancy after Reddington had gone
up to the bench. Reddington wheeled her up. And then
Clancy was looking at Reddington. We're not sure what happened.
Of course, he rubbed her shoulder because, you know, there's
something weird going on there. That's my sidebar. Now, each
of the jurors are being brought in one by one
to the judge, talking to the judge. They nod and
(13:01):
then they leave the courtroom one by one, being sworn
in independently and then leaving. So no idea what is
going on.
Speaker 3 (13:10):
You know who's going to know is Greg Jarrett next hour.
He's going to be able to parse all of that
and figure out exactly what's going on. That's amazing information.
It's not just, It wasn't their lunch order. Turns out
there is now for the for Reddington, by the way,
is the defense attorney. Reddington going up there and being
animated with the judge must mean the judge says, I
don't care. I want them to keep on deliberating. And
Reddington obviously would like to see this thing end because
he's working on behalf of his client. So we'll see
(13:32):
exactly what that is as as we get updates throughout
this program. As I'm in for Sean Hannity, make sure
that you keep it right here. We will update you
the second we get it. By the way, the call
the number is the same. Eight hundred nine four one. 7, 3, 2, 6, 1, 800-941-SHAWN.
Go to SeanHannityOfCourse.com. Check out my website, JoePags.com. It's Joe
Pags in for Sean Hannity. Quick break here. We're back
(13:53):
after this.
Speaker 4 (14:02):
Transmitting to over 700 radio stations.
Speaker 2 (14:07):
Wow. Wow.
Speaker 4 (14:07):
This is the Sean Hannity Show.
Speaker 3 (14:33):
Hey, Joe Pag's in for Sean Hannity, 800-941-SEAN. We are
monitoring what's going on in Massachusetts. Let's go to a live, Linda,
if we can. What's happening in the courtroom?
Speaker 1 (14:41):
In the matter of Commonwealth v.
Speaker 8 (14:43):
Lindsey Clancy, all other parties are present.
Speaker 7 (14:45):
All right. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Good afternoon, everyone. I
just wanted to go over a couple of things this afternoon.
First off, I want to remind you that you are
required to follow my instructions on the law as I
gave them to you. All right. I also want to,
at this point, go over the instruction that I gave
(15:08):
you about reasonable doubt.
Speaker 6 (15:10):
All right, and so, reasonable doubt.
Speaker 7 (15:13):
The burden is on the Commonwealth to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the charges
made against her. What is proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Well,
the term is often used and probably pretty well understood,
though it's not easily defined. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt
does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt, for everything
(15:35):
in the lives of human beings is open to some
possible or imaginary doubt.
Speaker 6 (15:39):
The charge is proved beyond a.
Speaker 7 (15:41):
Reasonable doubt if, after you've compared and considered all of
the evidence, you have in your minds an abiding conviction
to a moral certainty that the charge is true. When
we refer to moral certainty, we mean the highest degree
of certainty possible in matters relating to human affairs based
solely on the evidence that has been put before you
(16:04):
in this case. I've told you that every person is
presumed to be innocent until they are proved guilty and
that the burden of proof is on the prosecutor. If
you evaluate all the evidence and you still have a
reasonable doubt remaining, the defendant is entitled to the benefit
of that doubt and must be acquitted. It's not enough
(16:25):
for the Commonwealth to establish a probability, even a strong probability,
that the defendant is more likely to be guilty than
not guilty.
Speaker 6 (16:34):
That is not enough.
Speaker 7 (16:36):
Instead, the evidence must convince you of the defendant's guilt
to a reasonable and moral certainty, a certainty that convinces
your understanding and satisfies your reason and judgment as jurors
who are sworn to act conscientiously on the evidence. This
is what we mean by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Speaker 1 (16:58):
All right.
Speaker 7 (16:58):
And with that, I'm going to ask you to resume
your deliberations. Wow.
Speaker 3 (17:04):
There you go. So the judge takes the time to
remind the jury of what exactly reasonable doubt is. It's
not absolute and without any doubt doubt, but it is
within reason of humanity, because human beings cannot be 100% anything.
But it's not certainly a prerogative of evidence. It's not
just sort of a civil thing. You have to be
absolutely reasonably without doubt. And it sounds like He says
(17:29):
that for a specific reason. He doesn't tell us why
he's saying it, but there's something that he found out
either from Reddington or from Clancy or from a juror
as he was pulling them one by one. There's something
that he found out because it sounds to me like
they're hanging on what reasonable doubt means. We're going to
monitor that constantly. We're going to bring it to you
here on the Sean Hannity Show as we get more.
Keep it here.
Speaker 4 (18:12):
The new Sean Hannity Show, talking about what's right for America,
with a renewed commitment to keep you up to date
on the breaking news stories.
Speaker 3 (18:25):
And America's locked into what's going on in Massachusetts right now,
the Lindsey Clancy case. Big doings just happened right before
the break. So I'm going to move my interview with
Ted Cruz till next hour. We'll have Greg Jarrett momentarily
to break down what it is we just heard. Let's
go back to it. A few moments right before the break,
we heard the judge in the case actually give instructions
to the jury. Let's play that. And then afterwards, when
(18:46):
he sends the jury away to go and deliberate some more.
There's a back and forth between him and the defense attorney.
Let's play the judge's instructions.
Speaker 6 (18:53):
I just wanted to go over a couple of things
this afternoon.
Speaker 7 (18:57):
First off, I want to remind you that you are
required to follow my instructions on the law as I
gave them to you.
Speaker 6 (19:05):
All right.
Speaker 7 (19:06):
I also want to, at this point, go over the
instruction that I gave you about reasonable doubt.
Speaker 6 (19:13):
All right, and so, reasonable doubt.
Speaker 7 (19:16):
The burden is on the Commonwealth to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the charges
made against her. What is proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Well,
the term is often used and probably pretty well understood,
though it's not easily defined. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt
does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt, for everything
(19:38):
in the lives of human beings is open to some
possible or imaginary doubt.
Speaker 6 (19:42):
The charge is proved beyond a.
Speaker 7 (19:44):
Reasonable doubt if, after you've compared and considered all of
the evidence, you have in your minds an abiding conviction
to a moral certainty that the charge is true. When
we refer to moral certainty, we mean the highest degree
of certainty possible in matters relating to human affairs based
solely on the evidence that has been put before you
(20:07):
in this case. I've told you that every person is
presumed to be innocent until they are proved guilty and
that the burden of proof is on the prosecutor. If
you evaluate all the evidence and you still have a
reasonable doubt remaining, the defendant is entitled to the benefit
of that doubt and must be acquitted. It's not enough
(20:29):
for the Commonwealth to establish a probability, even a strong probability,
that the defendant is more likely to be guilty than
not guilty.
Speaker 6 (20:37):
That is not enough.
Speaker 7 (20:39):
Instead, the evidence must convince you of the defendant's guilt
to a reasonable and moral certainty, a certainty that convinces
your understanding and satisfies your reason and judgment as jurors
who are sworn to act conscientiously on the evidence. This
is what we mean by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Speaker 6 (21:00):
All right.
Speaker 7 (21:01):
And with that, I'm going to ask you to resume
your deliberations.
Speaker 3 (21:06):
Now, that was the judge moments ago, right before the
break here. And I'm listening to it, thinking to myself,
somebody in the jury wasn't exactly sure what reasonable doubt meant.
And they wanted him to explain it even better. That's
what it sounds like he did. Now, while we were
in break, Ethan and Linda were monitoring this. The judge
and Clancy's attorney, Reddington, Had it back and forth in
(21:26):
the courtroom. Let's go to that.
Speaker 9 (21:28):
Then at the sidebar, the juror, the court has an
instruction from the foreperson of that juror that's been working
for a week now saying that there's one juror who
refuses to listen to the law that you've given him
or her on reasonable doubt. And I suggest respectfully that
the soft instruction that you gave them saying at the sidebar,
(21:51):
can you listen to the law as I instruct you,
does not focus on the issue. The question is not
sufficient enough. It does not allow any foundation for a
motion to remove the juror who refuses to accept your
instructions on the law on reasonable doubt. And if we
(22:12):
come back here in a half an hour with a
mistrial because of a juror that has just spurned the
instructions of this court, it's a shame. It's a real shame.
And that's why I object to the court's ruling. I
request that we have further inquiry. I request that my
motion is to remove this juror that refuses to listen
(22:32):
to your instruction on reasonable doubt.
Speaker 6 (22:33):
All right.
Speaker 1 (22:35):
Come on.
Speaker 3 (22:37):
I mean, that's pretty amazing.
Speaker 10 (22:40):
We have the note from the jury. There's no way
to determine what the deliberations are, who's correct, who's incorrect,
nor should we attempt to, because that's part of deliberations.
I think what Your Honor has done by asking each
juror if they're able to follow the law and then
giving a general instruction on reasonable doubt is appropriate under
Commonwealth v. Ralph, so we do not have an objection
(23:03):
to the questions or the re-instruction.
Speaker 6 (23:07):
All right.
Speaker 7 (23:08):
Well, I'm sure as parties understand, as they say, the
discharge of a deliberating juror is a sensitive undertaking. I
was just specifically responding to the specific question that was asked.
I don't feel that it is proper for me to
(23:28):
side with one side or the other of the deliberations.
I don't feel it's appropriate for me to say I
agree with one juror or the other. At this point,
I've asked if they are able to follow my instructions
of courting. They swore earlier that they could.
Speaker 6 (23:48):
They've said at this point that they can.
Speaker 7 (23:50):
That was specifically addressed towards these specific questions. And that's
what I'm doing. So the defendant's objection is noted. And
we will be in recess on this at this time.
Speaker 6 (24:05):
Thank you.
Speaker 3 (24:07):
What I take from what we just heard is that
clearly there's one juror. Reddington stands up, the defense attorney,
and puts that into the ether as we're all watching
and listening. Well, the one juror is the one that
won't exonerate. That's what it sounds like he was trying
to say. So let's remove that juror. The prosecution is like,
we don't know what side the jurors are on at all.
But guess what? I'm not the legal mind here. One
of the best legal minds on the planet is Greg Jarrett,
(24:28):
who joins me now. Greg, how are you?
Speaker 1 (24:30):
I'm fine, Joe. Good to be with you.
Speaker 3 (24:32):
You know, is that what you heard as well? There's
one juror that's in question. And I think it sounded
to me like the defense attorney was trying to pretend
like that's the one juror that won't exonerate her.
Speaker 1 (24:42):
Yeah, he may have reason to believe that, but he
can't possibly know that for sure.
Speaker 3 (24:48):
Right.
Speaker 1 (24:49):
So, yeah, you know, as we've been talking on Sean's
show throughout the week, we had no idea the numbers.
Is it 6-6? Is it 9-3?
Speaker 6 (25:01):
Is it 11-1?
Speaker 1 (25:01):
Well, it turns out to be 11-1. That's abundantly clear
from the remarks of the judge and the defense attorney.
But the prosecutor has a valid point. Well, 11 to 1,
which way?
Speaker 2 (25:14):
Right.
Speaker 1 (25:14):
Because you've got to be unanimous to either acquit or convict.
And furthermore, convict of what? Are we talking about murder one,
murder two, the lesser included, or even manslaughter, which I
think was a compromise offer from the judge. So there's
a lot we don't know, and in many ways we're guessing.
(25:36):
I will say this. with the judge dot has done
here is absolutely proper and it conforms with the requirements
of the law in massachusetts uh... you know i uh...
i don't know if the defense attorney wanted in the
alternative of this trial so they can do it all
(25:57):
over again or cop a plea in lieu thereof uh...
but you know it's true that in massachusetts uh... once
jurors come back and say they're deadlocked the judge is
typically going to say go back and try harder the
second time he delivers what's called a dynamite charge and
(26:20):
that he did yesterday telling the jurors don't abandon your
convictions but seriously consider opposing views and reassess your own
position and try to reach an agreement uh... the law
in massachusetts is that once you've given the dynamite charge
and they come back and they say they're deadlocked after that,
(26:41):
you've got to declare a mistrial. But that's not what
happened here. Apparently, the jury foreperson has indicated, we've got
one juror here who refuses to even acknowledge the law
insofar as reasonable doubt is concerned. Now, I've seen this,
(27:01):
not frequently, but occasionally, where a juror just either refuses...
to participate a few refuses to deliberate refuses and says
he or she is refusing to follow the law and
i've seen judges remove that particular juror because of that
(27:22):
because you're supposed to communicate and deliberate with fellow jurors
and you're not doing that you're trying to obstruct the
process uh... there is firm legal grounds for a judge
to remove the jury now He hasn't done that yet.
And he apparently questioned the jurors under oath once again about,
(27:45):
you know, what's going on and are you abiding by
my instructions? So we have no idea where it's going
to head, but it was proper for him to, for
the third time, explain reasonable doubt under the law to
the jury.
Speaker 3 (28:04):
It's Greg Jarrett. Go to gregjarrett.com. Get every book that
he's written. He's a great legal mind. The amazing Greg Jarrett.
Interesting delineation, Greg, because it sounds like if I'm on
the jury and I'm the one who's holding out, but
I have good reason and I've got good moral compass
as to why I'm holding out and I can explain
this is why I disagree with you, that's fine. But
(28:24):
it sounds like the suggestion by the other 11 is
this person is even following your instructions and is not
following the law. Is that the difference that you're telling me?
Speaker 1 (28:32):
Yes, it is. As I said before, an obstructionist on
the juror who's not doing it based on the facts
and the law, but simply doing it for their own
personal reason, that's not a proper juror. And that's a
(28:53):
juror who is defying their oath and their promise at
the beginning of the trial. that they would listen to
the evidence and they would use the law and apply
it to the evidence and make a determination. Sounds like
you've got one juror there who's resistant to doing that.
(29:16):
And now it's very difficult for the judge because he
can't intrude on the minute-by-minute hour-by-hour deliberations of the jurors
but when you have been notified that there is a
jury here who is interfering in the process itself supposed
(29:36):
to be following you likely have to take action action.
Speaker 3 (29:40):
It's Greg Jarrett. Greg, is it likely what I said,
that note says, can you explain reasonable doubt again? Or
does the note say we've got one holdout and we're deadlocked?
What do you think the note said?
Speaker 1 (29:50):
Boy, it's It's hard to say. It could be a
combination of both. We've got a juror who won't consider
what reasonable doubt is. That's kind of my guess, which
is what prompted the judge again for the third time
to explain reasonable doubt. He did it in the initial
(30:13):
jury instructions. He did it during the dynamite charge yesterday.
Speaker 7 (30:17):
Right.
Speaker 1 (30:19):
And now he's done it for a third time today
to try to get through to this holdout juror.
Speaker 3 (30:24):
It's Greg Jarrett. Go and get everything Greg does. Amazing
illegal mind. I love having you on. Come on my
show again soon, Greg. Let me ask you about not
sequestering this jury. If there is any reason to sequester
a jury, I think this would be a very good reason.
You've got people outside protesting, yelling in your face. We
now know that somebody was allegedly approached. A juror was
allegedly approached as they walk out a door that I
(30:46):
guess you can see them walk out of. Why not
sequester them so that they're not inundated with this outside stuff?
Speaker 1 (30:52):
Yes, I would probably do a half measure, not a
typical full sequestration in a hotel where they're isolated. You've
got to take their cell phones and communication devices away
from them and so forth. In this day and age,
it's very hard to do. What I would do is
have the jurors meet at a secret location every day
(31:14):
and bust them in and bring them in through the
basement so they don't, You know, with blacked-out windows, you know,
they don't see what's going on outside the courthouse. That's
the last thing you want to have happen is, you know,
the nut balls outside, both for and against, influencing, you know,
this jury. And so, you know, I have been worrying
(31:36):
about that, and I'm bewildered why that step wasn't taken.
Speaker 3 (31:42):
I've got about a minute left, Greg. Thanks for jumping
on early. Do a little predicting. What's going to happen here?
Speaker 1 (31:49):
Boy, I think one of two things, the juror will
be removed, replacement juror, and then you've got to start
all over again, because understand those other six jurors have
been waiting in the wings, if not as part of
the liberation. So, you know, you kind of hate to
go through all of that, given the fact that these
(32:10):
existing seated jurors have been doing this for, what, six,
seven days. And the other is to simply declare a mistrial.
And then the question arises, will prosecutors retry Lindsey Clancy? Probably.
Speaker 3 (32:27):
Oh, I think so.
Speaker 1 (32:30):
Yeah. And, you know, they have unlimited resources. The defense doesn't.
the parents, as I understand it, have spent all the
money they have on experts and costs and the defense
attorney and so forth. So does that mean, you know,
somewhere down the line?
Speaker 7 (32:49):
Maybe.
Speaker 1 (32:50):
Hard to know.
Speaker 3 (32:50):
We're going to be watching very closely. Thanks for your
expertise and your friendship, Greg. It's Greg Jericho. Follow him everywhere. 800-941-SHAWN.
Joe Pag's in for Sean Hannity back after this.
Speaker 6 (33:04):
On the headlines, on the stories that matter most to you.
Speaker 4 (33:09):
Sean Hannity's on right now.
Speaker 3 (33:33):
This is the Sean Hannity Show. Joe Pag's in for Sean.
It's 800-941-SEAN. As always, go to Hannity.com. Also, check out JoePag.com.
Had breaking news all through the first hour. If you're
just joining us now, where were you? We've been on
for almost an hour. The Clancy case, all sorts of
stuff happening. No, there's not a verdict. Yes, more jury instructions.
There's one holdout. We don't know which side they're on,
(33:53):
either exoneration or guilty. We hope to find something more
out as we go. As the breaking news comes in
on this case, we will bring it to you right here.
After the top of the hour, I've got Ted Cruz on, U.S. Senator,
great state of Texas. I asked Ted Cruz directly, why
won't you get rid of John Thune in leadership in
the Republican side of the U.S.
Speaker 2 (34:11):
Senate?
Speaker 3 (34:11):
And he gives an answer that I didn't expect. Make
sure you stick around for that. Going to be off
the top of the hour. We've got much more coming
your way, including what's going on in this midterm. I
want to hear from you on this. Can the Republicans
hold on to the House and the Senate? We'll break
it all down. A lot more coming your way. Joe Paggs,
in for Sean Hannity. Stay right here.
The Sean Hannity Show News
Host
Sean Hannity
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!