Lindsay Clancy's Lawyer Demanded WHAT About a Juror?!

SPEAKER_1 (0:01)

This is Hidden Killers Live with Tony Brueski and Robin Drake.

Tony Brueski (0:08)

The mistrial in the Lindsay Clancy case was shocking enough with an 11 to 1 deadlock. But what happened next has sparked absolute outrage. Defense Attorney Kevin Reddington went on the attack targeting the single holdout juror who refused to convict. He demanded the court investigate this person, accusing them of misconduct, lying during jury selection, and refusing to follow the law. That's up in the air, and it may be true. The judge shut him down, but the message was already sent loud and clear. Think about the nightmare of being a regular person, summoned to court, forced to look at a crime scene, all these crime scene photos, videos, a 911 call, and three strangled babies are then getting publicly targeted and dragged by a powerhouse defense lawyer through the mud when you didn't vote the way he wants. Where is the line between fighting for your client and flat out intimidating a juror? That's the question we're at right now. Joining us to discuss Eric Faddis, defense attorney and former prosecutor and Robin Drake, retired FBI Special Agent, Chief of the Counterintelligence Behavioral Analysis Program and Masterclass Instructor. Let's just start with the grounds. Let's start on the outrage of what is going on here or that some feel is going on here. If this juror, if this juror, in fact, did not represent himself accurately on the form to begin with, and he shouldn't have been seated to begin with, and if the judge had then pulled in an alternate, had he talked one on one with this juror, gotten to the bottom of it, a new alternate juror would have come in, maybe they would have had a verdict for Lindsay Clancy if not guilty. That's part of what Reddington is pointing at here, Eric.

Let's go back to that moment.

If that juror had been lying on that affidavit to begin with, does Reddington and should Reddington be doing every damn thing he's doing right now to get to the bottom of how we got on that jury?

Eric Faddis (2:14)

I think it's appropriate for Reddington to look into the integrity of the jury deliberation process. And if he sees some kind of glaring error, I think it's appropriate to raise that. I respectfully disagree with how he's done it. When we're talking about a juror giving inaccurate information on a questionnaire, that can be problematic. It can be potentially disqualifying for that juror. But if it's not recognized until the end, what the court's going to look at is, is this harmless error?

And even if it's not harmless error, I mean, error that didn't contribute to the final outcome, even if it's more significant than harmless error, what is the remedy? Typically, the remedy in a jury misconduct motion like this is seeking a new trial. Well, Lindsay Clancy already has the benefit of a new trial. Reddington's trying to go a step beyond that, I think, and argue what's called structural error, that the process was so profoundly unjust due to this inaccurate information provided by the juror that we must just throw out the case entirely. I think that is a bridge too far. I don't think any judge would agree to that. And I think that it doesn't even logically follow in my mind. And the typical remedy is a new trial. She's already getting a new trial.

Robin Drake (3:26)

Yeah, and I'm with you on this one, too, Eric.

I agree that it's his duty to interrogate the system, interrogate the process, and question it on behalf of his client. But the way in which he's communicating it is, you don't agree with it. And I think it's a bit a bridge too far, like you said, too. But I'm curious, we just got done on the last segment talking about him doing all these motions and all these actions to preserve all these things for an appeal process if it is retried and she is convicted. Is there any element of what he's doing with this juror or the jury system that is giving him the same ammunition for an appeal or is it something completely different?

Eric Faddis (4:08)

I think he's already preserved his ability to appeal on the grounds of juror misconduct should there be a conviction. But then again, I don't know because if there's a conviction, it's going to happen in the second trial. And so preserving an error from the first trial probably doesn't allow that person to bring an appeal against the second trial's outcome based on some shit that went down on the first trial. So is he kind of spinning his wheels here? Is he grabbing his straws?