The holdout juror might've been the only one following the law | Hour 2

What's going on? Thank you so much for listening to this podcast. It is heard live every day from noon to three on WBT radio in Charlotte. And if you want exclusive content like invitations to events, the weekly live stream, my daily show prep with all the links, become a patron, go to the Pete calendar show.com. Make sure you hit the subscribe button, get every episode for free right to your smartphone or tablet. And again, thank you so much for your support. We are out at Jiffy Lube for the 7th Annual WBT Little Heroes Blood Drive and presented by Jiffy Lube, obviously. We're out here every Wednesday in September for Pediatric Cancer Awareness Month. And our friends at Jiffy Lube are offering a 50% discount on an oil change. If you come by, make a donation of your blood, they'll give you a little bit of oil. Blood for oil. That's a catchy slogan. Visit WBT.com for the locations and more details. I want to give a shout-out also to Sean and Jay and Russ and former city councilman Andy Dooling just stopped by. So thanks, everybody, for stopping by the table here. We're set up in the parking lot at Jiffy Lube on North Polk Street in Pineville. Swing on by. And if you've never done a blood donation, it takes you like 10 minutes to Like, seriously, if you're just doing a straight-up quick blood donation, like, that's it. It's very simple, okay? And you could save a child's life. All right, so last hour, we were going over this interview that three of the jurors gave to a NBC affiliate up in Boston, jurors on the Lindsay Clancy murder trial jury. And as I said last hour, they probably should not have done this interview. Some of the things that they said raise a lot of questions among lawyers. Number one, you've got the divulging that nurses on the jury during deliberations were acting as de facto witnesses, expert witnesses inside the jury room. And they're not supposed to be doing that. when they were talking about toxicology reports and stuff, and the nurses are like, oh, let me tell you what this all means, and they're trying to, like, hammer away at the one holdout juror, who is a man. That's how they said it in the report. Is a man. Okay? But, like, what are we supposed to take from this now that these women come out and they're saying all this stuff and that they're saying things like, oh, that the prosecution wasn't compassionate and didn't show any sympathy to Lindsay. Right. That's not what the prosecution is supposed to do. That should not be a factor here. But, as I said last hour, this stuff does factor in. In these deliberations, you never know what it is that moves somebody to flip their vote or to harden their position. It could be stuff like this. This is why I don't make these predictions on how a jury trial is going to turn out. Because you never know. There was a I tell this story frequently, but I will tell it again. There was a lawyer here in the Charlotte area, the late Monroe Whitesides. And we were talking, we were out in between the courthouse complex. There's a little plaza that's out there and there are these three, or sorry, 12 large rocks, these big boulders, probably about three feet high, three feet wide. And they're in this little park and there are 12 of them. And He said, oh, have you ever noticed these rocks? And I said, no. He said, these are the 12 rocks that are supposed to represent the foundation upon which our legal system is based, right? These are the 12 jurors. I said, oh, okay, well, that makes sense. And he said, yes, there are also jokes in the legal community that it is also a representation of the jurors sometimes in their cases. Because he's... He told me one time, like, there was, like, he thought he had this, he had a jury trial won or something or lost it and whatever, and it turned out that it went the opposite way. And afterwards, one of the jurors told him that they didn't like the other guy's suit or something. Like, that's how silly some of this stuff can be. So that one lone holdout juror, he appears to be the one in that room that was following the jury instructions and using the evidence. And so you may be a nurse on the jury with me, and you may be telling me that you know all of this stuff about all of the drugs and the toxicology report, but you were not called as a witness. And you testifying to me in the deliberations is not something that I should be listening to, because I heard the expert testimony, right? I I heard the people that the defense brought in and the prosecution brought in. That's what I'm supposed to use in order to make my decision. So let me see here. I've got some text messages here from the WBT text line. This is Tracy. Loopy is where I see these jurors. This woman murders her three young children, then jumps out a second-story window. If this trial is any indication of what we face with Luigi and Tyler Robinson, look out. Social media is playing into the equation that makes me sick. I would have held out, too. This... Actually, this takes me to the piece by Jonathan Turley, who is a law professor, best-selling author of Rage and the Republic, and. I remember when I saw what the defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, said at one of the proceedings when the jury was still deadlocked. And he's like, oh, you know, I want you to... Here's a note from the jury foreperson, who was one of the women in the interview, and we heard from her in the last hour. And she sends the note to try to pressure the judge... to essentially kick off or make the juror flip his vote. And Kevin Reddington got up in open court and identified the juror as a man. Now, there were only three men on the jury. So now you've given the social media mob, you've given them a 33% chance of finding their target, right? He said, After the hearing, he's outside and he's doing the press conference with all of the allied media. And he said, quote, I hope that guy can sleep well at night. It's what an officer of the court said about a juror. I hope that guy can sleep well at night. I'm sure he meant it as just like a, you know, clear conscience. I hope he has a clear conscience and whatever. I'm sure he didn't mean it as like, hey, you should make him not be able to sleep well at night. I'm sure he didn't mean it like that. But it's possible some people could have interpreted it that way, especially if they were already emotionally highly charged. Those words, this is from Turley, those words from Kevin Reddington on the steps of the Plymouth, Massachusetts courthouse were part of a diatribe against the guy who, who was reportedly the sole holdout in the Lindsay Clancy trial. The scene was a fitting end to a visceral trial, but it added a vindictive element that should prompt Judge William Sullivan to call out the seasoned defense attorney. After declaring that the 11-1 mistrial was no time to gloat, Reddington bragged repeatedly about crushing District Attorney Tim Cruz, whom he also attacked. He insisted that in the trial... Nobody said a single negative thing about his client as a mother. Does that sound familiar? Well, that's what the jurors said in their interview. Where do you think they got that from? Well, they got it from him in his closing argument. That's what he kept saying. Nobody has called her a bad mom. They didn't bring anybody up here to say she's a bad mom, which again, the prosecution would not be able to do. Now, like if she had been, you know, reported to DSS. They had, you know, domestic violence stuff, whatever. They would have tried to get that stuff admitted into the court. But you can't just, you can't just be like, oh yeah, you know, I'm in the mom's group with Lindsay and I didn't think she was a good mom. That would not be allowed. You cannot do that in the courtroom. And this attorney knows that. All right, for over a year now, you've heard me talking about Create-A-Video, great local company in Mint Hill that has helped more than 2 million families preserve their memories by turning old photos, VHS tapes, film reels, and slides into lasting keepsakes. Now, Create-A-Video is helping families and groups create brand new memories while they're traveling, introducing group travel videos perfect for family reunions, church mission trips, group vacations, destination weddings, student I mean, really any gathering of people that you care about that's traveling together. Group Travel Videos gives your traveling pack a private app where everyone can share photos during the trip, send messages, share schedules and important documents, even a traveler safety locator feature that works only during the trip. And family members and friends back home can follow along and enjoy the experience in real time. No social media, no ads. It's totally private. No emails, phone numbers, account setups or hassles. With group travel videos, you'll capture today's moments on your special trip while they're happening. Then, after the trip or gathering, they'll professionally turn your shared moments into a beautiful storytelling video that your whole group can stream and download and treasure for years. Check out GroupTravelVideos.com. That's GroupTravelVideos.com. Or call 704-846-7870, extension 206. And when you do that, ask for Katie. But Pete, can I just email? Well, yes, you can. You can email Katie, katie at grouptravelvideos.com. Group Travel Videos, from old memories to new adventures, preserving life's moments for a lifetime. And I finally remembered what I was going to say before I lost my train of thought last hour. But it is part of this Lindsay Clancy story. which was somebody had texted in about jury selection, making the point that, hey, these lawyers, they get to pick the jurors, right? So, you know, whatever biases the jurors may have, the lawyers should be trying to suss that out, and so that's on them to know what the biases are and all that. And I understand that to an extent. That is true to an extent, okay? The other thing to keep in mind here is also that during jury selection... The lawyers cannot just kick every single juror, potential juror, out of the pool. They only have a limited number of strikes, they call them. So you can strike somebody, a potential juror, for no reason at all, only like three times. They usually cap it. And both sides have the same amount of strikes, right? So once you use up all of those strikes... then you have no way to stop a potential juror from getting onto the jury unless you can find some sort of actual reason where the judge would be like, okay, yeah, that seems like he can't be impartial. She can't be impartial. We're going to disqualify them from the jury pool, right? So again, these are all factors in jury selection, and there are people that sell their services and as jury selection advisors and consultants and that sort of thing to try to help lawyers make the best picks during the jury selection process based on the pool that they are getting and the interviews that they conduct with the potential jurors. All right, so I knew there was one point that I had to add to all that. Let me see here. 864 number on the text line says... Everyone had a job to do. In today's media world, they put out what they feel they need to in order to get their message out. Everyone has their own perception and belief. In our justice system, we are judged by a jury of our peers, not professionals. It is easy to Monday morning quarterback. I can't imagine what it was like to be on that jury as a mother myself and not having ever suffered postpartum depression or psychosis. It would have been hard. You are weighing the death of three precious children and a boatload of evidence about mental health care and treatment. Maybe we need to move on and not criticize for being human. Not criticize the jury or not criticize these three jurors. See, that's what, look, I said this last hour. I said it this hour. I'll say it again. They should not have done this interview. The fact that they thought what they said and some of the comments that they made you've just confirmed the suspicions that people had about what was actually driving these deliberations, these, the decision. I mean, when one of the jurors says that, oh, you know, oh, I didn't really, we're trying to convince this guy and he may have had a reasonable doubt, but he's like, well, I'm definitely not going to to say she's not guilty by reason of insanity. And they're like, oh, but she was a good mom. They never said anything about not being a good mom. Well, I mean, except for the fact that she killed her three kids. I think that's some evidence. I'd say that's three pieces of evidence that she wasn't a great mom and she killed them. And then you bring in all of the, well, there's mental health and self-care and psychosis and postpartum and I don't feel seen, I don't feel heard. And all of this emotional... context is now getting layered into this story. And if you look at the evidence, it seems to indicate pretty clearly that she planned this for a while. And I've also seen some people on the text line. I'm sorry. It's hard to... All right. Behind the scenes here, when I'm out on remote, it's very difficult for me to keep up with texts and emails and stuff. It's just very, very different. or difficult, rather. Very difficult to keep up with all this stuff. I've got one screen I'm working off of, so I apologize. If I read your text, and I don't read it on the air, but I hearken back to it as I am now, somebody was pointing out that there was apparently a woman in Ireland who murdered her three kids like three or two years prior, and so was Lindsay Clancy a copycat? And before you dismiss that, there's already been another copycat murder. A mother killed her young child within the last month since all the publicity. So does that play a role in this? We do know copycat killers do exist. This is a media phenomenon. This is why, for example, media doesn't report on suicides. We don't do those. Why? Because then you end up with copycats. So there is a social contagion aspect to the story as well. with the rise of all the true crime podcasts, right? All of these things are factors. But when you go into that deliberation, I guess I'm just old school. You're supposed to look at what was presented at trial. What was the evidence presented for and against? Now, I mentioned this earlier also, there is a difficulty with the Massachusetts statute here. Because, like, to me, this is bonkers. That the onus is on the prosecution, apparently, to prove that the person was insane at the time. Sorry. Backwards. It's on the prosecution to prove that the defendant was sane at the time. So there's, like, this default. If you say, oh, not guilty by reason of insanity, well, that means that, like, you have to prove that I actually knew what I was doing. I was sane. Well, you committed a horrible crime. Most people could probably say that's such a horrendous crime. You have to be insane to do that. Aha, I walk free. So it like incentivizes more horrendous crimes. This does not seem to me to be a good law. Once again, we are out here at the Jiffy Lube on North Polk Street, Pineville, broadcasting live as part of the 7th annual WBT Little Heroes Blood Drive. A donation of your blood will get you a 50% discount on an oil change from our friends at Jiffy Lube. If you need a fast, easy oil change, Jiffy does it. They've got premium Pennzoil oil. Even better, you get free fluid top-offs and a full preventative maintenance check. Any customer that comes... will receive 50% off an oil change, and anybody who donates blood will get a special coupon to come on back on their next oil change and receive 50% off. Jiffy does it all. Jiffy lube. All right, so the piece by Jonathan Turley, and I will get back to the text line. This was over at the Hill, and the headline was, When 12 Angry Men Become One Angry Man. And he is laying into the defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, for targeting the one holdout juror. Saying, oh, I hope that guy can sleep well at night. And then he like rips into the DA saying, oh, I crushed him. I've been crushing that DA and all this. But the attack on the holdout juror, Turley says, was a breathtaking abandonment of restraint and decency. Reddington knows it is very likely that the name of this juror will eventually be uncovered by internet sleuths. He effectively put a target on the back of a juror who committed the unpardonable sin of not being convinced by his arguments. And I suspect with a high-profile defense attorney like Reddington, I suspect that might be part of where that animus is coming from. All right, let me jump over to the phone line. Yes, I can do that remotely. Here is John. Welcome to the program, John. There's going to be a little bit of a delay because I am on site, but welcome to the show. Hi, how you doing, Keith? I'm all right. I was just thinking, you know, if it's true that there were three women inside the jury that were giving their expert opinion on the medications and whatnot, wouldn't that be jury tampering? It's not tampering. Yeah, it's not tampering per se. Because I think tampering is somebody from outside the jury room is messing with the jurors, right? This would be just... It's just not following the jury instructions. And it's not following the law. They're told, you're not a witness in the case. So whatever your experience or expertise might be as a nurse... That is not... You were not cross-examined. There was no ability to impeach or challenge your testimony that you're basically providing in the deliberations. Yeah, I was just kind of comparing it to the Murdoch verdict that was vacated because the bailiff interjected and made comments to the jury. Yes, that would be tampered. Yeah. Yeah, so I don't know. I mean, it's already... It's already been a mistrial, right? It's already been declared a mistrial, so the outcome would be the same. Yeah. But, yeah, so I don't know what the benefit of or if there would be any repercussions for the jurors if the judge were to, like, bring them all back in and talk with them about, like, what exactly happened back there. I don't know. Is the juice worth the squeeze on that, right? Because it's already a mistrial, so... what is to be gained, you know? John, I appreciate the... Yeah. Yeah, I appreciate the call. I'm sorry there's a delay. Like I said, I'm out on remote. I appreciate the call. There is a similarity. John, I think you are correct. There is a similarity in that you have this... You have inappropriate comments and discussions that are occurring. But in the Murdoch trial, it was from the clerk of court coming from, you know, going into the jury room and talking with the jurors and stuff versus... in the Clancy trial, you've got these individual jurors citing their expertise as nurses to try to pressure this one juror who's like looking at the toxicology report and they're like, well, we will tell you this is what that means and we are nurses. It's in debate. It's called an appeal to a higher authority. It's also in sales. You can use this. It's an appeal to a higher authority. So, or appeal to authority. Like, I am the higher authority, I have this authority, or I have this expertise, so I know best. And it's a way to get somebody to stop disagreeing with you. Women outside the courthouse heckled the prosecutor who was trying to speak to the press when he gave a press conference afterwards. They were shouting that he only cares about the three children, what about the mom? That's what these lunatics were screaming. Yes, That is correct. The state prosecution cares about the victims. That's who the state is representing, the dead people, because they don't have a lawyer for themselves because they are dead. That's how that works. That's why it's the state versus Lindsay Clancy, or the Commonwealth versus Lindsay Clancy. In a civil proceeding where both people are still alive... then you have your own attorneys. The prosecution is not there to be a compassionate, sympathetic person or party to the defendant. That is not the adversarial nature of court. The whole point of court is you get somebody defending you and they get somebody defending them. That is an adversarial, uh, experience. That's the point. The whole system is built on that. Hello, John Adams, representing the British soldiers who shot and killed people at what, the Haymarket Riot, right? I blame our education system. Every single time, I keep coming back to the education system. Gosh. One final point here from Jonathan Turley. For all of the anger, he says, that it generated, the Clancy trial shows the best of our justice system, though. We have a system in which a single juror can stand against not only the rest of the jury, but against the world. That is why some of us were so shocked by Kevin Reddington's public attack on this one juror. This is not who we are supposed to be as officers of the court. We stand in the path of the mob. We don't lead it. In another great movie, To Kill a Mockingbird, Gregory Peck captured that role from the novel most vividly as Atticus Finch standing before a jail to stop a lynch mob. Finch showed that the strength of any legal system is ultimately only as strong as each individual's ability to stand alone, and he tells his daughter Scout, quote, the one thing that doesn't abide by majority rule is a person's conscience. I suspect we will find out who this juror is at some point, and he is going to go through a lot of crap. But I hope that he also enjoys some support from people for standing against the mob, because that's what it certainly is looking like with what these jurors said in this interview, which they should not have done. But I'm glad they did. because now we have a better insight as to what exactly was going on in that room and some of the thoughts that these women had as they pressured this guy to just go along. Kevikev says, as long as you're going to have these high-profile trials that are televised and in the media, the outcome's always going to be the same. There's going to be some type of sabotage because it's very influential when you have social media and you have the media fanning the narrative, the protesters definitely would not be outside of the courtroom protesting if one of those innocent children was a grandchild or family member. Uh, oh, and I need to correct myself. I said the Haymarket riot, it was the Boston massacre. The Haymarket affair was like a hundred years later. That was a labor union anarchist thing. Um, John, uh, John Adams defended the British redcoats in the Boston massacre. Um, Ed says the term is juror misconduct by these nurses that in itself should make this a mistrial, right? Which, and that's what I said, it ended in a mistrial anyway. So I'm not sure, you know, is the juice worth the squeeze? Do you bring all the jurors back and then, you know, try to punish them for misconduct or something when the end result is still a mistrial? Um, Jeff with a G says, your analysis spot on. As usual, you are like my second brain. I find myself finishing your sentences all the time, especially today with the delay. And you are right about the education system. The right was foolish to allow the left to own it. I fear it will be our undoing and it is already too late. Um, Okay. The Hellion, I've said this before, please, you have to put all of this in a single text, because I don't know when your thoughts begin. I just have a wall of text from you. So I don't know where to go to scroll up to find the beginning of it, so I can't read them. Let's see here. Good bumper tune. What did John do to have you tell him On site, did he threaten you? I don't know what that means. 704 number. This is from Holly. By the Clancy juror's logic, Jeffrey Dahmer should have been found innocent due to insanity because the jury should have just not been able to get over him violently killing and then eventually eating his victims. Yeah, and in fact, somebody else made this parallel I saw that the investigators that interviewed Jeffrey Dahmer They described him, and the psychiatrists, they described him as polite. Like, he was very personable, amicable, he was nice. You know who else was also? Ted Bundy. Like, that's the thing about psychopaths. They're able to behave in a way that allows them to blend in. And then they go out and chop up people as serial killers. Okay? They're very good at, you know, eliciting compassion. They use it against people. um all right i can't read that um i would not i would not do jury duty now says grumpy guy well i think it's more important than ever um that you that people do jury duty people who are not insane you know um I mean, do you fight for the civilization and the society and the rule of law, or do you just surrender it to the Moonbat Brigade? I know where I stand. All right, that'll do it for this episode. Thank you so much for listening. I could not do the show without your support and the support of the businesses that advertise on the podcast. So if you'd like, please support them, too, and tell them you heard it here. You can also become a patron at my Patreon page or go to thepeatcalinershow.com. Again, Thank you so much for listening, and don't break anything while I'm gone.