Could you get us up to date on this?

So yeah, it happened this morning.

As I was getting on the train here, I read about it.

And nobody's surprised about this.

But you remember, this is the same judge who ruled in favor of Jim Acosta in 2018 for very similar actions.

The judge is pretty much saying this.

There was not due process.

How do you see it?

Is that how unprecedented is that? And what would that mean for this case if it does go to a new trial?

Well, number one, Reddington knows you can't get a pardon because it's not a federal crime.

This is a state thing.

He's doing this for publicity.

But what he's really doing is, look, the DA in Massachusetts, in that particular town or county, I should say, is a Republican.

So he's probably trying to put a little pressure on them.

But there is no way that this is not going to be recharged and then there's going to be a resolution, whether another trial or plea or whatever.

What do you make of those comments? I

Do you think Lindsey Clancy should be found guilty, given what we've seen in court? And if so, on what charges?

Do I? Yeah, I think she definitely does.

I think the prosecution, look, they have the burden, all right? The burden is on them, which is kind of weird because it's an insanity defense.

In any other state, the burden is actually on the defense, but they have the burden.

And I think they did prove it because they proved it by showing the actions that Lindsay Clancy took, all right? She told her husband, hey, I want you to go get Italian food.

This is a long ways away.

So she planned this.

So as you're watching the defense for Clancy over the last few weeks, what are some things that you think they did well and some things that you would have done differently if you were on her defense team?

When you say debating the charges, are you thinking they're all unanimous saying that, let's say she was in her right mind, but was it second degree, first degree? Or do you mean debating the charges as still debating guilty or not guilty?

Well, that's a good question.

I think it's either an all or nothing scenario with the jury, in my opinion.

Either they're going to hit her with a first degree, or they would hit her with not guilty by reason of insanity.

I think it's one of the two.

So, you know, you have a second degree, you have just a plain not guilty, which obviously is not happening, and you have a manslaughter charge.

Those three, I don't think, are going to come into effect.

Are tensions high in a deadlock jury typically if they're not agreeing? Or is this very sophisticated where they're truly just standing on their personal convictions?

I know.

So the judge, what he'll do is he'll send them back in, but he'll bring them to the courtroom first and he'll say, hey, listen, guys, I'm not trying to coerce you.

I'm not trying to threaten you or say anything.

Look, if you do not believe that you can come to a resolution and come to a unanimous verdict, then that's fine.

But I'm asking you to go back into the jury room and to talk more.

Now, this case, obviously, we all know this is a really tough case.

what you're taking how each side did the defense attorney seemed to do a pretty good job but maybe not at the closing what you think

that well that's exactly it i thought it did a really good job during the whole trial itself but he left some meat on the bone when it came to the actual closing argument and i think the prosecution they pounced on that they really did a good job and look you know you've been in the courtroom a million times if you had the last word you That is huge.

Is that something that could even be undone?

Once you testify, you testify.

It's on the record, you know, and it's something they have to consider.

So I don't see that being a reason of anything.

I think I honestly and again, I could be totally wrong.

But I think people are looking into this a little too much.

I think this is purely something where it's just the judge was being told one thing that, look, we're wrapping everything up.

How strong of a case did the defense make this week to say Lindsey Clancy was having a postpartum psychosis episode?

What, what does that even mean? What happens after that?

Well, number one, good luck on that happening.

It, it, that's a pipe dream.

That's never going to happen.

He'll be spending the rest of his life in prison, that I can guarantee.

But what you'd ha- what you have is an, it's an appeal.

So he's saying pretty much, "Listen, my counsel, my attorneys, they didn't provide the proper representation to me.

Is there a legal argument to say we can't just put somebody in the hospital and just medicate them to the point of complete psychosis?

Former Prosecutor David Gellman explains why.

Well, I think it's for negotiation purposes, first off.

I mean, it's still a new case.

He hasn't even been arraigned.

So his arraignment's not until late August, I believe.

And I think they're probably still collecting more evidence.

I think that they'll probably add that on the table for sure.

Defense? Well, they could argue that this was self-defense because, again, of those threatening texts allegedly from Celeste.

But isn't that a little odd that he got confirmation from his roommate and boyfriend that a murder took place and Lance didn't go and say, hey, my roommate here apparently killed Charlie Kirk.

Yeah, I get where you're going with it, Lyndon.

He had information, but he's not an accomplice, at least for the information that we all know.

Because an accomplice, they do some type of an assist with it, whether that's hiding evidence, whether that's just driving to the scene or something like that.

He wasn't involved with anything.

Did he have knowledge after the fact? Yeah, it sounds like he certainly did.

But that's really not enough to really criminally charge him.

What other arguments or charges really could Lance Twiggs face outside of this use immunity? There's been phrases like an accessory after the fact that's been thrown around.

Mm-hmm.

You cannot do that.

There's a reason why they're asking for more money, why the budget for the Supreme Court has doubled in 10 years.

There's a reason for that, and it's not because the left is just saying, "Oh, well, we'll, we'll, we'll take this and, you know, we'll figure it out." No, not at all.

It's because they are threatening the justices.

They're threatening members of Congress.

They're threatening individuals who they don't believe with or they don't, you know, follow their, their, um, their opinions with.

Mm-hmm.

Do you think there's anything else they could be thinking about to bring to the table if this goes to trial?

You know, Lyndon, I think those are the two key areas that they're going to really attack DNA.

And look, any trial when there is a DNA involved in it, when you don't you know, there's still a question of who did it.

You're definitely going to be attacking that.

And that is probably going to be the central premise of their of their defense.

The gunshots.

Well, I should say the the shell casing that was found on the other building.

Is there something that you were shocked the defense didn't bring up?

All their work and a new trial.

Uh, Bianca, look, I...

If I was a prosecutor, obviously I'd be very upset, but they had to have known this was going to happen.

I 100% agree with my friend Judge Nap.

This was the correct call, and the j- the trial judge did this incorrectly.

They should've dismissed this.

They should've re- had this, had the mistrial from the very beginning.