How did the Lindsay Clancy jury instruction affect the outcome

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:02):
One of the favorite days of the year, right? The
start of these three-day holidays. It's just glorious. And I
have to mention, there are more happy people on the

(00:23):
roadway than we have other than maybe four other times
a year, right? Because hopefully you get Saturday, Sunday, and
Monday off. So you're looking at those three days and
it's just the start. And that is such a good feeling. Now,
on the other hand, come Monday, about 730, I thought
of going back to work and be a little heavy, but, uh,

(00:43):
but wow, right now, a lot of happy people. And, uh,
I am too. Of course, I'm almost always happy. I
had planned on, I was telling Shannon this, I had
planned on this being my worst show of the year.
I had looked forward to that And, and I was,
I have to admit being a little disappointed when we
had all this important breaking news today on the Lindsay
Clancy case, not just the fact that mistrial was declared,

(01:06):
but all the craziness surrounding it that, that I knew
that all of a sudden a show that I thought
nobody was going to care about or pay any attention
to was now going to be important because this is
an important issue and lots of people are interested as
they should be. So, uh, so yeah, we're digging in
and we had a great first hour. I hope you
were with us there. Looks like, uh, gorgeous weekend across

(01:28):
the Rocky Mountains. And there'll be some rain mixed in
here or there, which we certainly need. But overall, folks
should be able to do just about anything they want
to do. And in terms of this Lindsay Clancy case,
I'm sure you already know the basics, so I won't
burn your time on that. But you know, this is
a mom, I think she's 36 now, with these three
beautiful young children who she strangled to death with a

(01:52):
stretching band. You know, she strangled them all to death.
She chased down the last one to strangle that child.
She did it while her husband was out picking up
some medication and some takeout food. And then her defense
is essentially not guilty by reason of insanity. Now, they
do that different in Massachusetts. They call it different things.
But what it boils down to is the burden was

(02:15):
on the prosecution to prove that she knew what she
was doing was wrong and that she could not control herself.
Because even if they proved that she knew what she
was doing was wrong, they still have to prove that
she could control herself. And so, as you know, the
defense was a form of postpartum psychosis defense. And the defense,

(02:40):
they had some real evidence to work with. Nobody was
doubting that this woman had mental illness, insignificant mental illness.
Nobody was doubting that. My goodness, she had been in
a psychiatric hospital that she had wanted to go to
and had just been discharged 19 days before she murdered
these children. And so, yeah, no doubt she had a

(03:01):
serious mental illness. But I think that's part of the
reason this case has captivated, particularly recently, America is, hey,
the fact somebody is in a deep depression, no matter
what the cause, doesn't equate to an insanity defense. In fact,
the person has all sorts of mental illnesses doesn't equate
to an insanity defense. I think there's a lot of

(03:22):
fear and concern across the country that now that's going
to become the thought in a lot of people's mind.
And there's going to be a lot of killing and
a lot of killing of children occurring because people think
that that's a defense. But it's not because you can
have a whole lot of mental illness, excuse me, going
on of all different bad forms. And somebody can still

(03:45):
know what they're doing is wrong. And they can still
have the ability to control themselves. Maybe less of an ability,
but still have the ability. So that's, those are the
parameters of this case. But here's what I think is
the missing link. And I've prided myself over the years on,
you know, being the legal analyst on some really big,
important national trials and some Colorado trials as well. This

(04:10):
was not one of them. I didn't follow this case
at all. But as I'm digging in today, when it
became so important to a lot of folks, I found
something that I think really has been missing from the
legal analysis out there on the case and I think explains,
probably explains what happened here. And that is, under Massachusetts law,

(04:30):
not Colorado law, which is different, not under the law
of most every other state, which is different, but under
Massachusetts law, what is the definition of proof beyond reasonable doubt?
Because if you're sitting there on that jury Well, the
judge has given you this law. You've got to follow.
It's not a suggestion. You raise your right hand and
you take an oath to follow this law. And in

(04:53):
my experience, I've been very blessed to try cases for
43 years, about to try another one a week from Monday,
hope to try them for another 43 years. You know,
the vast, vast, vast majority of jurors work very, very
hard to follow these legal instructions that they take an
oath to follow. But listen to this. You're sitting on
that jury And you're told that this woman who killed

(05:17):
the three children, she doesn't have to prove anything to
prevail on her mental incapacity defense. Prosecution has to prove everything.
They need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she
knew what she was doing was wrong and beyond a
reasonable doubt that she had the ability to control herself.

(05:39):
So then you're the juror. It leads you to this
big question. Well, What does that mean? What's the law say,
the definition of proof beyond a reasonable doubt? And when
you hear right now what Massachusetts law requires, which is
an almost impossibly high standard, barring an admission or a videotape,

(06:02):
then I think this outcome starts to make a lot
more sense to people. It doesn't mean people are going
to like it any better, but it starts to make
more sense. Because I sit here, I don't know a
thing about this case. I don't like this outcome at all.
You know, a mother brutally killing three children? It just
seems to me that there needs to be serious criminal

(06:24):
culpability for that unless there's just absolute proof that this
woman did not know right from wrong and or could
not control herself. But that's not what the law says.
So if I'm sitting on that jury, or you are,
you know, we're going to want to follow the law.
So here it is. extraordinarily high definition of proof beyond

(06:49):
a reasonable doubt in Massachusetts. Quote, a charge is proof
beyond a reasonable doubt if, after you have compared and
considered all of the evidence, you have in your minds
an abiding conviction, here come the key words, an abiding
conviction to a moral certainty that the charge is true.

(07:11):
Now this to a moral certainty language That's unusual. That's unusual.
And you won't find that many places. So then you're
sitting on the jury and you're thinking, what does that mean?
I've got to find to a moral certainty that this

(07:32):
woman knew right from wrong and could control herself? Well,
here's the definition of moral certainty. And this is what
makes it almost impossible for a prosecutor to if a
jury is going to strictly apply the standard. Okay, the
law explains that, quote, moral certainty means, quote, the highest

(07:52):
degree of certainty possible in matters relating to human affairs. Oh,
my goodness. That's like telling a jury that they have
to be 100% certain. And that's not what proof beyond
a reasonable doubt means. It does not mean 100% certain.

(08:13):
and it certainly doesn't mean that in Colorado, the highest
degree of certainty possible in matters relating to human affairs.
If I'm on that jury, if you're on that jury,
we're thinking that means we have to be 100% certain.
So I can, from a distance, certainly understand how you

(08:36):
could get 11 jurors sitting there thinking, wait a second,
I have to have the highest degree of certainty possible
in matters relating to human affairs that she did not
know right from wrong? It's not going to take much
evidence in this case from the defense or anywhere else
to raise the kind of doubt that means there isn't

(08:56):
the highest degree of certainty possible in matters relating to
human affairs. So that is an incredibly high burden. And
you may be sitting there in the car thinking, how
do they ever convict anybody in Massachusetts with that standard? Personally,
what I think it comes down to is, A, I
do believe jurors want to follow the law. But how
strictly that standard is applied, I think, varies from case

(09:22):
to case. I think in every case, jurors try hard
to follow the standard. But exactly how strictly? I think
that's where the human element comes in. But here, my goodness,
that would make it so very hard on a prosecutor
in a case like this where the defense had some
things to work with, right? She'd been in a mental hospital.

(09:45):
She wanted to be in that mental hospital. She'd been treating.
And then she jumped out a window afterwards. So the
defense had something to work with. So you can see
with that definition of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, why
it might be very, very hard for a prosecutor to convict. Hey,
when we come back, I want to take some more
calls and text on this, get you some of the

(10:07):
really incendiary sound that was happening in and around this verdict.
Because I think the defense lawyer who did a lot
of really good work during the trial, I think crossed
a line. And did some really sleazy things at the
end that I think are very, very wrong and harmful
to the system. And this is my belief. I can't

(10:28):
prove it. It's not a statement of fact. But I
think he did it to try to intimidate the next
set of jurors. You're on the Dan Kaplan Show.

Speaker 2 (10:41):
A mistrial has been ordered by the judge. And the
question is, what about the jurors? I can tell you
from our producer in the courtroom that, when the judge said,
I want to tell you all how proud I am
of you, there was one female juror that was nodding
her head no as he was saying all that, another
female juror clenching her hands into fists as she was

(11:05):
sitting on that chair. All of the jurors were extremely tense.
One female juror would not even open her eyes.

Speaker 1 (11:14):
I wonder why she kept saying female juror. There's an
implicit message that the holdout must be a male. We
don't know any of that at this point. And hopefully
we'll find out soon. I would imagine some of these
jurors will be talking. It's interesting that, um, On social
media right now, somebody's gone to some great links, though

(11:34):
it's not that hard anymore, right, with AI, but some
great links to produce some content depicting an imaginary jury
deliberation in this case centered around the holdout. And so
I'll give you a taste of that. Just picture a
jury room, and they're picturing a male here sitting at

(11:55):
the head of the table holding out as other jurors
are pounding on him. And believe me, I'm not saying
any of this depicts a truth. It's just an interesting
social media phenomena. It's 11 to 1. Just say not responsible.

Speaker 3 (12:11):
No.

Speaker 1 (12:11):
She had postpartum psychosis. It wasn't her fault. That is
not the question.

Speaker 2 (12:16):
Then what is the question?

Speaker 1 (12:18):
Did she know what she was doing?

Speaker 3 (12:20):
She needed help. She was sick.

Speaker 2 (12:21):
It was her husband's fault.

Speaker 1 (12:23):
The judge says to keep deliberating. Okay, then change your vote.

Speaker 2 (12:28):
No.

Speaker 3 (12:28):
Not responsible.

Speaker 2 (12:29):
She was sick.

Speaker 1 (12:30):
It wasn't her fault. Just change your vote. 11 to
1 doesn't make you right. Interesting that a lot of
different content creators have gone down that same kind of road. They're,
of course, sitting here right now. Again, we have no
way to know the gender of the holdout. Now, our
friend Alexis says, Dan. Texting to DAN 57739, liberal women

(12:53):
are one of the biggest threats to our democracy and
safety in the U.S. And it'll be interesting as we
learn more about these jurors and those dynamics, et cetera,
to see if there was any political element here. If
you just joined us, I read from the Massachusetts criminal
jury instruction on the definition of beyond a reasonable doubt,
which includes words that are rare around the country, like

(13:17):
moral certainty, and then defines it as something Very close
to 100% certainty, yeah. So the prosecution up against a
very difficult jury instruction there. Dan, to suggest that people
are committing homicides because they think they're going to get
off on an insanity defense is not very sensible. It
may happen, but to such a small degree that it's

(13:37):
not even worth considering. That I cannot know or comment
on because I've been very blessed, and I say this sincerely,
to not have suffered mental illness. I know many great
humans have. who through no fault of their own have
suffered mental illness. And then even among those who suffer
some really severe mental illness, very few go to any dark,

(14:00):
violent place. So I just don't know what kind of
green light effect there might be, you know, for some
who live in that very dangerous kind of place. My
broader concern is the mental illness aside, which is obviously
a real and increasing issue in society and mental illness
in society now, being magnified and multiplied by legalization of drugs.

(14:26):
No sane, honest person would dispute it. Like in Colorado,
you know, where the big mistake was made to legalize marijuana,
green light effect meant more use, more use by kids.
You have people, including kids with depression, for example, that
then in many cases, not all, but in many becomes far,
far worse because of marijuana use. And in addition to

(14:48):
high potency marijuana, that's why we saw suicide, teen suicide
skyrocket in Colorado, you know, after legalization of marijuana. So
we have this big mental health crisis. And then separate
and apart from the mental health crisis, you know, we
have the morality crisis where people in control on the left,
I'm not putting this jacket on all Democrats, but people

(15:10):
in control on the left have decided and made the
statement and made the laws saying it is okay to
kill children. And in the most obvious example, nobody doubts that.
Nobody doubts that when a baby's at full term and
that baby is then killed before the baby is removed
from the mom, that you're killing a child. Nobody doubts that.

(15:32):
But the people in power in the Democratic Party just
say it should be legal. They glorify it. They light
up buildings to glorify it. And they say the mother
should have the choice to kill that child. So when
you've got that mentality among those in power on the left,
there's no reason that mentality would stop. at nine months gestation,

(15:52):
once they've decided that a mom has a right to
kill a child at full term, why in their often
far left secular worldview, why would it be any different
at three months, six months, nine months, two years, five years?
I mean, rationally, why would it be any different? Now,

(16:12):
if you're thinking rationally with even basic morality, then it's
fundamentally wrong to kill that child at any point in
its development, whether it's inside or outside the mother. But yeah,
just think about that for a second, that reality that
all these Democrats, right? All these big name Democrats say
they have taken the position. The mother should have that

(16:34):
right to kill the child at full term for any
reason or none at all. So, so think about where
that puts them in terms of their mentality, their morality.
and their ability to draw the lines at any other
point in that child's life. If you won't protect that
child at full term, why would you protect the child

(16:58):
five minutes later or a month after delivery or six
months after delivery?

Speaker 3 (17:03):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (17:04):
So I just think that there is a very dangerous
mentality out there, but I think it's broader. 303-713-8255, DAN, 57739.
We'll continue to break down the Clancy case. Just want
to take a little bit of credit for predicting that
buff victory last night. And I just have such a

(17:25):
good feeling, as I've been saying on air for a
while now, about the buffs this year and about the
Rams this year. And there are good concrete reasons for both,
including in the buffs case, everything I've been talking about
at length. But I've got to tell you, after watching
that game last night, And obviously, first game of the season,
there's no preseason in college. And, you know, it took

(17:45):
a while to smooth some things out. That team's even
better than I thought they were going to be. And
the coaching's even better than I thought it was going
to be. And it's really good. And Shannon can tell
us this. He was on the team playing. He was
producing that game. Shannon, one of the things that dawned
on me last night is I understand now why this
great offensive coordinator gave up a head coaching job to

(18:07):
come and be the offensive coordinator for Pride. I think
he's in line to be the next head coach.

Speaker 3 (18:14):
That certainly looks to be the case in the defensive, Coach.

Speaker 1 (18:18):
Do you know he calls it we-fence, not defense? Boy,
I love it. So impressive. Just can't wait for the
rest of the season. You're on the Dan Kaplan Show.
I'm reading an interesting story right now during the break
from Colorado Sun, a piece by Eric... Brundlin, B-R-E-U-N-L-I-N, Colorado-wide

(18:45):
student protest against ICE turns violent in Denver. Students from
more than 200 schools rallied with protest sign in marches,
including one in Denver where demonstrators assaulted a counter protester.
I think we'll have a much clearer understanding by our
next show, which will be Tuesday, no show on Labor Day,
as to how much of a turnout there was for

(19:06):
this and, and, um, you know, the nature of the
people who turned out and different things that happened. But
in this example in Denver, you know, the story quotes
like this. Brie Kennedy, a junior at Grandview, told The Sun,
we are living on stolen land and borders are imaginary lines.
And to see such horrible people do such horrible things

(19:29):
is just so sickening. Well, I guess if you're a
junior at Grandview, Grandview, And you think borders should just
be imaginary lines. And yeah, you'd be very upset with
ICE or anybody else who wanted America to exist. You'd
be upset with our military. You'd be upset with anybody
who wants America to exist. America to actually exist. So

(19:52):
it just is, yeah, just kind of a sad state
of affairs there. I wonder if this particular student goes
home and tells her parents to give back the land
their home is on to the indigenous peoples. and then
she can go camp on that land and see how
long she's comfortable out there. But then the rest of

(20:16):
this story that says, the majority of the afternoon's protest
played out peacefully, but the atmosphere took a tense turn
when an adult counter-protester walked toward the park holding a
sign that read, I Hurt Ice. I don't know why
that'd make you, like, technically a counter-protester, but in any case,

(20:36):
A surge of students pounced on the man, following him
and chanting, Nazi scum off our streets. So picture this mob.
The guy just has a sign that says, I love ICE,
but now he's Nazi scum who should be driven from
our streets. This is just so typical of the left, right?
And if we ever do learn more factually about the

(20:59):
groups behind this, I wouldn't be at all surprised. I
know you wouldn't be either, to find out that they
just turned out to be the typical group. hard left
groups that really do want to destroy America as we
know it, right? I mean, hey, look at Democrat Socialists,
you know, run Colorado Democratic Party right now. That's where
all the energy is. Story goes on to say a

(21:19):
student eventually destroyed his sign when he returned about two
hours after. A crowd of students bolted after him, throwing
water bottles at him. One student struck him in the
back of the head with a metal water bottle, and
he darted off still trailed by students. Yeah. How courageous, right?
How courageous smashes this guy with the matter metal water

(21:42):
bottle and then runs away. Just so typical of that
mentality of the left. And I say that as a
guy who's been a victim of, of leftist mob violence
I've lived at, I've been there and they're just such
puny little cowards, but they get together in this big
mob and yeah, then, you know, a big mob can
take down a guy. Um, organizers of the walkout urged

(22:05):
students to ignore the man, saying he was simply trying
to agitate him. How about the organizers saying, don't commit violence,
and condemning the violence and stopping the violence, but the
organizers had no interest in doing that. Story goes on
to say Denver police officers showed up to the scene
shortly after the assault, prompting student protesters to begin marching
throughout the streets. Wait a second. So now the police

(22:33):
are To be blamed for the students then illegally flooding
the streets?

Speaker 3 (22:38):
No.

Speaker 1 (22:38):
And here's one thing you can know about cops. And
I know this. My dad, a cop for 30 years
in Chicago and getting to know his whole circle of
friends and representing a lot of police officers out here,
you know, folks who've been injured in their own bad crashes.
Cops are devoted to protecting. They want to enforce the law.

(23:00):
So the fact there apparently weren't police there earlier protecting
this man with a sign that said, I love ICE,
don't blame the cops for that. Blame the politicians for that.
Because we've seen it over and over again in Denver
and other leftist controlled places where they just will not
let the police enforce the law. Stay in unison, one

(23:22):
protest leader shouted. There are cops everywhere. As students were
about to start their march down the street, a police
officer notified them they were breaking the law and would
be arrested if they did not leave the street. Students
shifted to the sidewalk, marching and chanting, no hate, no fear,
immigrants are welcome here. So again, I'm very, very interested

(23:43):
to see how many of those kids actually move folks
who are coming here illegally into their homes. I'd be very,
very interested to see that. I don't think there'd be
much to see, right? 303-713-8255, D-A-N-57739. I think there are
a ton of kids out there who have a real

(24:04):
heart for people who come here illegally, who have not
committed any other crimes and don't commit any other crimes
while they're here and want to help those people. And
my guess is the vast majority of those kids stayed
in school. And that you get a bunch of leftist
or little mini-me wannabe leftists who just take to the

(24:25):
street and do crazy stuff like that. But we'll have
a better picture on Monday today. Tuesday, rather. Tuesday. Today,
we're talking about the Lindsay Clancy trial and just the
craziness surrounding the wrap-up of this trial. So, taking your
calls and texts, 303-713-8255, D-A-N-57739. I think the biggest contribution
I can make to this conversation is a guy who
did not follow this trial. is that I did go

(24:52):
and I researched the jury instruction, the statement of law,
the jurors in the Clancy case would have been given
by the judge regarding the definition of proof beyond a
reasonable doubt. Because 11-1 was apparently the split here. And
the prosecution had to prove that she was sane. And

(25:14):
I use that kind of generically. The prosecution had to
prove that Lindsay Clancy knew right from wrong when she
strangled her three young children, chasing them down with an
exercise band, while her husband was out getting, I think
he was picking up a prescription and some takeout food,
and that she had the ability to control her actions.

(25:34):
The prosecution has to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.
So it got me thinking, wait a second, is there
something different about this beyond a reasonable doubt instruction in
Massachusetts to have apparently 11 jurors so adamant that there's
reasonable doubt here. So I went and I looked at
the jury instruction, and sure enough, it's wild. It is

(25:54):
wildly harder than Colorado's. Listen to this. A charge is
proved beyond a reasonable doubt if, after you have compared
and considered all of the evidence, you have in your
minds an abiding conviction, wait for it, to a moral
certainty that the charge is true. This to a moral
certainty language is key here And then the instruction goes

(26:19):
on to define moral certainty. It explains that, quote, moral
certainty means, quote, the highest degree of certainty possible in
matters relating to human affairs. The highest degree of certainty
possible in matters relating to human affairs? So if you're

(26:39):
sitting on that jury, what are you thinking? You're probably thinking,
I have to be 100% certain. I know that if
I was sitting on that jury and I wasn't a
lawyer looking at case law all the time, I would
take that instruction to mean I have to be 100
percent certain. By the way, that is not what proof
beyond a reasonable doubt means. It doesn't mean that a

(27:00):
juror has to be 100 percent certain. But in Massachusetts,
with that instruction, wouldn't you take it that way?

Speaker 3 (27:09):
I would.

Speaker 1 (27:10):
So, yeah, if all of a sudden the prosecution is
facing a scenario where. a juror has to be 100%
certain that she knew right from wrong? And 100% certain
she could control her actions? That's an almost impossible standard
in a case like this. So anyway, I just wanted

(27:31):
to add that to your consideration because I haven't heard
that discussed in the legal analysis. Everybody talks about how
hard proof beyond a reasonable doubt is, and it is.
It is. But it's usually not that hard. It's usually
not that hard. That is a particularly tough instruction for prosecutors.
I'd love to know the history. I may look at

(27:54):
it sometime when things calm down, but my guess is Massachusetts,
you know, nation's founding, just wanting to be absolutely sure
that innocent people didn't go to jail. And clearly our
criminal law from the founding of this nation was based
on a clear priority, as someone said, I can't remember

(28:17):
who said this, close to our nation's founding, that it
would be better for nine guilty people to go free
than one innocent person to go to jail. And I
know that's not a philosophy everybody shares. I'm just saying
that historically, that was a driving philosophy. And this jury
instruction would certainly be consistent with that. Wow.

Speaker 3 (28:39):
Wow. All right.

Speaker 1 (28:41):
There was a lot of craziness, a lot of craziness
by the defense lawyer who apparently did a very good
job in trial. But certain things he did toward the end,
I think, went over the line and were abusive of
this holdout juror. And I personally believe I can't prove it.
I've never met the man, but I personally believe were
an effort by him to intimidate the next set of jurors.

(29:02):
Should the prosecution decide to try this case again, you're
on the Dan Kaplan show.

Speaker 3 (29:12):
Why aren't you saying right now that you will retrial
into cleansing?

Speaker 1 (29:16):
You only cared when the kids were dead.

Speaker 2 (29:19):
Why don't you care about the mother? Amen.

Speaker 1 (29:23):
Can you believe they're shouting that at the district attorney
as he stands outside the courthouse? Where does that even
come from? Wow. You only care now that the kids
are dead. Oh yeah, like that's no big deal, right?
And this just comes back to my earlier broader point
on this Clancy case. You now have, I mean, it's official.

(29:47):
Everybody in charge on the left, all these elected officials,
Colorado and beyond, they've all taken the formal position that
it should be legal to kill a child. I mean,
when they say a mom should absolutely have the right,
for any reason or no reason at all, to kill
that baby at full nine months term, a minute before
the child's born, they are saying that the mother should

(30:08):
be able to kill a child. What's the difference in
their rationale, since they're supporting infanticide, what's the difference in
killing the child then, a minute before delivery, or killing
the child a month later, two months later, six months later?
There wouldn't be any difference because once they cross that
line into infanticide, you can't draw any logical lines. And

(30:30):
there are no logical lines supporting saying that anybody has
the right to kill that innocent life. But that is
the mentality now on the left. And I think that's
how you end up with people screaming at a DA, oh,
you only care now that the children are dead. Just
bizarre stuff like that. Anyway, we'll find out more. Hopefully

(30:52):
this holdout juror will be identified and talk, despite, I think,
the really abusive conduct of the defense attorney, who from
everything I've seen did an excellent job at trial representing
his client, but then I believe crossed a line. I'm
not saying kind of ethical line that should get him
punished or anything, but crossed a line when he's then

(31:13):
publicly singling out the holdout juror. and filing papers saying
that juror may be bigoted against handicapped people, et cetera,
just very, very wrong on every level. And I believe,
I can't prove it, but my belief is he did
that to try to intimidate the next jury because the

(31:34):
prosecution can bring this case back to trial again pretty quickly.
So when he goes out there publicly knowing that he's
not going to win an appeal on this basis, he's
going to have to have a second trial if the
DA wants one, Going out there and saying that any
juror who doesn't agree with him is a bigot? Who
hates disabled people? That's the messaging. I think that's just

(31:55):
scurrilous and very, very wrong. 303-713-8255-DAN-57739. I want to get
some text in toward the gun, but you've got to
indulge me this one because I've been predicting for a
long time so you would win that game last night
and have a very good season. And Shannon, our producer,
talk about a man's man. He probably hasn't slept literally

(32:16):
for 48 hours. He was on that team playing. And
you guys got back at what time, Shannon? Landed a
little after 4 a.m. Wow.

Speaker 3 (32:24):
Wow.

Speaker 1 (32:25):
And was producing the game, doing a lot of hard
work back there. But what a beautiful moment. You know, hey,
I was CU. I was student body president at CU.
And for many, many decades, I mean, I might have
missed like three or four games over the course of
20 years. if that many, and then of course you
have kids and you sports and everything else happens, but

(32:46):
we as a family often go back up to Buff games.
And so this moment last night was really sweet.

Speaker 3 (32:53):
Kicking from right to left, spotted down right at the 35.
45 yarder. A 45 yard attempt with three seconds remaining.
He makes it, they win, he misses, the Buffs win.
Snap put down, kick is up, and it got blocked!

Speaker 1 (33:09):
And the game is over. Who Carter? And Colorado wins
at Bobby Dodd.

Speaker 3 (33:15):
Boo, Carter blocked a field goal. How about the start
to 2026 and Prime's return to Atlanta?

Speaker 1 (33:25):
Great call by Mark Johnson and Gary Barnett. So just
a beautiful thing. I think it's going to be a
tremendous year. And I love it. And I just love
the way they won, which was real football time. and
tough on the lines and resilience and character and this
coaching staff. And I was telling Shannon, I think on air,

(33:46):
I realized this offensive coordinator CU brought in, Marion, what's
his first name? Do you know?

Speaker 3 (33:52):
No.

Speaker 1 (33:52):
Yeah, well, we'll look it up. But in any case,
he was a successful head coach who came to CU
as an offensive coordinator. And as I watched him do
interviews and watched him work last night, it suddenly dawned
on me why he was willing to give up a
head coaching job to come here. I think he's in
line to be the next head coach. Now, I hope
Prime's here forever. Brennan, thank you. But he would be

(34:16):
a perfect guy from everything I've seen so far to
take over the team when Prime does eventually go. But
world of respect for Prime, as I've been saying, for
hanging in there when the going got tough and sticking
with the program and great things ahead. And I feel
the same way about CSU. With Jim Moore, that head coach,
they've got a beautiful stadium up there. They've won big
in the past. I think there's a very, very bright

(34:39):
future for the Rams. So exciting time as we head
into this football season. Sorry we don't have time today
to get to more of these texts. Hey, we're still
going to be on this Lindsey Clancy case on Tuesday
when we come back. Hopefully by then some jurors will
have talked. Maybe we know more about the holdout. And
I know America really intrigued by the holdout now, right?

(35:01):
12 Angry Men, it takes, and I don't know at
this point whether the holdout was right or wrong, but
it takes a lot of guts to stand up and
hold out in general. Most of the people who've changed
the world for the better have been people willing to
stand up and hold out, whether it's against slavery or
all sorts of other awful things. We'll see where the
facts fall in this one. Shannon, thank you for all

(35:22):
the hard work with Little to No Sleep. Have a
wonderful weekend. We'll catch you Tuesday on the Dan Kapla Show.