His discussion with reporters outside the courthouse mentioned that the holdout juror has been "identified" and that the juror is holding up proceedings. Reddington should be sanctioned and disbarred for this conduct. Reddington has also unlawfully exposed that the holdout juror is a male, and there are only 3 males on the jury.

Under Massachusetts General Laws (MGL) Chapter 268, Section 13B, attorneys can be prosecuted for intimidation of a juror if they willfully threaten, attempt to cause injury, mislead, intimidate, or harass a juror in connection with a criminal proceeding.

EDIT: Anyone who wants to can file a complaint against an attorney for juror intimidation here: https://massbbo.org/complaints

I can't be the only one who thought to look this up. (Also, weirdly, even when you click on View Decisions, the complaint/outcome doesn't pull up)

I was looking back at season 6. I remember Red being arrested and trying to escape prison, I read that he plead guilty (which makes no sense, his immunity agreement has little bearing on his guilt for the crimes he was on trial for, i.e. treason) but I also remember and just re-watched a video where he was on testifying to the jury. Google however is telling me he was found not guilty, and wikipedia is welling me he was pardoned by POTUS?

Can anyone clarify this and provide episode numbers where possible?

As many times as I’ve watched this show, I’m realizing I still don’t understand why it is reddington at the end of the day ended up pleading guilty and getting the death penalty, whether it actually happened or not.

He was found not guilty in regards to being a traitor. That’s why he was ultimately on the fbis most wanted list and that’s why they were in court.

When he was found not guilty the prosecution literally said they were ready to proceed with a litany of other charges and the judge said I’m sure you will it’ll have to wait.

So exactly what was he pleading guilty to? They didn’t have concrete solid evidence of any of the shit he’s actually done in his life to proceed with charges otherwise.

Judge: Reddington has called Assistant Director Harold Cooper to the stand. Reddington: Hello, Harold. Thank you, by the way. Cooper: For what? Reddington: Being honest. I regret I had to rely upon your integrity just to get this hearing. I wish there'd been an easier way. Attorney Sima: Objection!  Reddington: I haven't even asked anything yet. Judge: Something tells me that's the objection. Do you have a question for Director Cooper? Reddington: Just one, Your Honor, and it's this. Would you do it again? Cooper: Excuse me? Reddington: The deal we made...my cooperation in exchange for my freedom. As the man who oversaw the arrangement in all its grand and often gory detail, would you do it again? Cooper: Yes. Reddington: Why? Sorry, I had two questions. Cooper: Because it saved lives. I don't know how many since we started. Maybe thousands. Sima: Objection! Your Honor, I fail to see how this witness's subjective assessment of the agreement has any relevance to its scope as a matter of law... Reddington: Your Honor, I object to almost every thing about him, beginning with his power tie and ending with his general demeanor. Judge: Enough. Mr. Reddington, if you are going to insist on representing yourself, you will conform yourself to the rules of the court... Let the witness speak.

Cooper: We made this deal for one reason...so you could help us find those criminals we never knew existed. Reddington: And you've done that. Cooper: Violent people, evil people are dead or in prison because of you. In some cases, we recovered dangerous weapons or avoided catastrophic outbreaks... A few years ago, we learned some of those criminals were inside our own government...the Attorney General, a National Security Advisor, the very people our country depends on to maintain law and order. To be clear, none of that would have happened without Mr. Reddington. So, would I do it again? You're damn right I would.

Sima: You are aware that the defendant has been indicted on multiple counts of treason? Cooper: I am. Sima: For selling this nation's most highly classified secrets, for betraying our country? Cooper: Yes. Sima: You're aware that, for almost 30 years, he's maintained a vast criminal empire, that the charges against him as the so-called Concierge of Crime are so extensive and so heinous, they occupy a unique place in our country's history? Cooper: I'm aware of the allegations. Sima: I'm sorry. Allegations? Is it your position that the defendant is innocent? Cooper: Until proven guilty. Or is it your position that I should ignore the Constitution? Sima: My position, sir, is that some people are irredeemable, that a deal granting immunity to a man like Reddington is beneath the dignity of a country that prides itself on the rule of law. Reddington: Objection! He's arguing with the man, and, frankly, being incredibly self-righteous... Sima: Sir, is there no one you wouldn't make a deal with? If not this defendant, is anyone too offensive to be given a free pass by your standards? Reddington: Well, now he's just being insulting. Judge: I said move on, Counsel. Cooper: To be clear, nobody gave Mr. Reddington a free pass. He has to earn his freedom. There are rules he has to abide by. Sima: I see. And does he abide by them? Cooper: Yes. Sima: Really? So, to your knowledge, he hasn't committed any crimes since becoming your informant. Cooper: I won't discuss specific cases. What we do is classified and often involves matters of national security. Reddington: Okay, Your Honor... Judge: You opened the door to this. Sima: Director Cooper, does he abide by the rules or not? I'll ask you again. To your knowledge, has Raymond Reddington committed any unsanctioned crimes since becoming an informant for your task force? Cooper: I have no direct knowledge that he has. No.

Kevin Reddington has filed a motion asking Judge Sullivan to have the remaining arguments surrounding the juror issue heard in open court instead of at sidebar.

The judge rejected Big Redd's request for the Bowden Charge on the basis he still has the ability to make these critiques to the jury in his closing argument.

Was this the only time he could request Bowden charge and do you think he knew it would be rejected?

In what instances would a judge accept? Imagine it's highly unlikely but am curious about the strategy

I’m in the civil world, so i was curious if you guys would’ve gone the same route as KR. Would you pursue the insanity defense or a complete not guilty verdict?

Sorry if this has already been discussed.

⚖️ LAWYERS ONLY! DO NOT PARTICIPATE IF YOU ARE NOT A LAWYER. ⚖️

Please just let us have this one corner of the internet.

LIVE FEED: https://www.youtube.com/live/WD8_dQxZWAw?si=tLnRukaSs0VGji-Z

Today is ?!!!! Let’s find out!

Because I think he’s kicking ass. We’ll see, of course—extremely tough case and extremely tragic situation. I don’t think I’ve ever seen this much support for a mother who killed her kids, and there’s been a few high profile cases over the years.

I realize he’s probably not PD, but criminal defense no less. So same universe.

Some things I noticed he does:

When witnesses defer to generalizations (I saw one go “generally when someone…”) he veers them back with “I’m not asking generally, doctor,* I’m talking about Lindsay Clancy.” I think this is very effective, avoids “generalization” escape hatches and subtly frames the medical institution as “checking boxes and filling forms” instead of addressing the individual situation.

And throwing in “doctor,” in these cobra strikes, is smart too, because it’s showing the witness professional respect WHILE being very aggressive and confrontational.

Every-time I’ve seen him go in for a strike, its really intense, but I think like 9/10 times, I come out being like…he just made that person look pretty bad and smeared some liability around. Very strategic and effective at picking what to go in for.

He never accepts “I believe so.” I saw him say “believe so? This is a murder trial. You reviewed your records before you came here to testify, right? three children are dead; this is serious.” This is extremely effective because it in a way creates this sense that he too, is on the children’s side, trying to get to the bottom of responsibility even though he is effectively counseled for their admitted murderer. Power move.

Reddington has done an incredible job, and something pretty smart, in that they’re coming in strong on the core defense of the postpartum psychosis, but somehow has also sort of spun narrative that bring Patricks potential role into question and even raised him, indirectly, as a possible suspect, without actually asserting it or deviating from their core defense of “she did it, in a severe psychosis.” That’s pretty wild to be weaving in a secondary, contradictory defense without even arguing it.

However, one weakness, or I guess, alternative strategy I’m sure he considered: he could have potentially gone not guilty and built decent defense in “reasonable doubt” by raising Patrick as a possible, direct killer. That would have been riskier.

I’m not making allegations, after all, Lindsay is admitting to it but I do think he could have built a reasonable-doubt based defense around the husband. I mean, these are just internet rumors but. he may have been cheating with her with a doppleganger while she was clearly struggling, could have raised the possibility of him wanting out of the family life he’d built à la Chris watts. P also raked in well over a million from go fund me, sold the house at profit, there may have been life insurance policies in play (no idea, but a lot of employers offer that for family members, it’s not unheard of). Plus whatever’s going on in this civil case I’m sure is big ticket $$, if successful. Not really sure what’s going on with that, but I assume based on catastrophic damages at hand, if successful, going to be many millions. And this defense strategy may bolster that case as liability seems to be, at least in part, directed at the institutions treating Clancy.

There’s also the whole “male voice” thing that could be spun, the shoes/outfit change questions. I don’t think it’s enough to convict, or even indict, but idk the full scope of details of the investigation. I assume Reddington does. But we’re not convicting him beyond a plausible reasonable doubt, or even indicting him. The question is, could he have been developed as a reasonable doubt theory as a defense for Lindsey? Much lower standard—and might have been doable.

The trade off is, they’d be grappling with Lindseys many admissions to various people she was struggling with thoughts of self harm and harming the children which would have been hard to get past with a reasonable doubt defense. Plus she seemed to acknowledge she did it to several people. I’m sure reddington weighted out the options…and chose the insanity defense for a reason.

Still, he seems to be weaving in the second defense, brilliantly, and somehow, without contradicting his “she did it, but in a psychosis” position.

I saw a poll, which of course is just armchair jurors in the court of public opinion—but it said 21% of people polled said they think the husband did it. That’s wild. I mean, that’s not even the defense being presented, and a pretty good chunk of people (enough for a mistrial!) literally don’t think the person on trial, who is openly admitting they did it as part of their defense. I mean…wow. Nuts. 1/5 people (at least, polled) is adopting the even more long-shot defense theory *that isn’t even being presented.*

It’s interesting that post partum is having a moment, in part due to this trial, with some additional OJ-style cultural tailwinds in part due to Hayden pannitierres death, her lost brand deals, etc. then ended up dead not too long after speaking up about PPD. post-partum conditions are part of the cultural discourse at the moment, and in more ways than one. I was shocked to see the much more rare, severe version of PPD, the *psychosis* version, was taken out of the DSM-5. I think many women see this as gaslighting by the medical institution they’ve probably all felt at some point in some way, whether in relation to post-partum symptoms or not. granted, this case is an extremely rare and catastrophic manifestation.

I see this as a very useful tool for jury selection, because I suspect a lot of women have experienced PPD much more than people realize, but try to keep it to themselves, for better or for worse. PPD is not the same as the much, much more severe expression PPP. Nevertheless, PPP does happen, even if exceptionally rarely. Likewise, moms killing their kids is also exceptionally rare—but unfortunately, it does happen sometimes.

I read a study that suggested anywhere between 15-25% of women experience PPD rising to the point of being diagnosed, and that’s not even accounting for people who don’t have easy access to medical/psychological care. It’s probably much higher. But of course, it’s a scale, and the much more severe, PPP is estimated to be about 8:100,000, so much, much rarer.

But 8/100,000 means it *does* come up. just because it’s rare, doesn’t mean it’s not real when it does happen. Personally, it seems to me all women likely experience a huge dip in hormones after giving birth. I mean the body is surging with hormones during pregnancy, then discharged. Could think of it as a severe hormonal withdrawal. probably takes a few months to recalibrate. And for some women, it’s probably a much higher volatility swing than others.

My unprofessional, speculative, armchair prediction is: hung jury, mistrial, followed by plea deal on much lesser charges. or possible success of insanity defense.

My bet on least likely outcome is 3, 1DM convictions. but we’ll see. You never know. and the trial is not over.

On a side note, I read something in another lawyer sub I think y’all might appreciate:

criminal lawyers are usually civil; civil lawyers are usually criminal

Why has this guy become a hero to the people claiming Lindsay is completely innocent. The guy is a defense lawyer. Growing up I’ve always heard they are some the scummiest people around.

I find it ironic and extremely disingenuous that Reddington is accusing the Commonwealth of “putting on a circus” when he is the only one performing in the courtroom. Not well, I might add.

During the hearing yesterday, he made it seem as if the prosecution calling Patrick to the stand was an atrocity. First of all, Patrick is arguably the most crucial witness in this case. It wouldn’t make sense *not* to call him. Secondly, the defense has Patrick on their witness list too!! How can he, on one hand, act like it’s cruel and unnecessary to have Patrick testify (when it is absolutely necessary and he knows it) and then, on the other hand, be calling him to testify as well? This guy is as slimy as they come.

Do lawyers say what they think happened? Or is that not a thing? I’m curious with all these theories floating around if maybe people missed what Reddington thinks happened? (In response to the “KR knows she didn’t do it and he’s setting up PC’s trial!” comments”

If so, what does KR say about it?

I was a federal prosecutor for a number of years and am now in private practice, mostly doing civil work. So I've actually stood in a courtroom, examined witnesses, and delivered a closing argument. I cannot stress how important these are. This is the first time you get to walk the jury through the evidence in a coherent way and connect all the dots you've put out there. You may not have all the jurors you need so you use this as a chance to arm the ones on your side to win over the rest during deliberations. It is immensely satisfying when it goes well. It is easy to mess up.

Boy, did Reddington mess up. There is a trope that old-timer trial lawyers (and Reddington exemplifies that) love to wing it and think they can get the jury eating out of their hand through a combination of muscle memory and charm. That is tough to pull off. Best case scenario you leave some points on the table. More likely, you end up with a disorganized mess. I shared some thoughts in the open thread, but I wanted to expand on them:

First, Reddington was all. Over. The. Place. He was disorganized, scattered, jumping from topic to snide aside to another topic. Even if you are favorably inclined to the defense, it was hard to follow. That was even the consensus at lawyertalk, which has been very government-skeptical.

Second, his tone was atrocious. His tone was righteous anger over the "fact" that the government was maliciously targeting this poor victim. Whether you think she's NGRI or not, you cannot take this approach. Clancy did something horrific, whether or not she is criminally liable. It is entirely reasonable for a prosecutor to investigate and prosecute and disbelieve her. You don't paint her as the railroaded victim, you take a tone of "more in sorrow than in anger." It is also a mistake when your closing goes before the state's (which is weird; I've never seen that), because the state can take a reasonable, understanding, sorrowful tone--which they did!--and take the wind right out of your sails.

Third, and relatedly, I think it's a mistake to try to paint Clancy as a saint. Clancy engaged in one of the worst taboos anyone can think of. It's stomach-turning, again, even if you think she was the victim of a terrible disorder and isn't criminally responsible. But would you want her as your nurse? Would you want to leave your children with her for even a moment? You don't need the jury to think of her as a saint. Don't take that burden on yourself.

Fourth, the approach to the experts was silly. Reddington here is too much of a fighter and wants to attack them in personal terms. You attack their opinions, not their style. You have Resnick, the world leading expert on your side. You bang that drum and say "Look, their experts are lovely smart people but they aren't experts in this niche field and our guy is the field, listen to him."

Fifth, and related to the disorganization: Reddington is constantly making sneering asides to, e.g., how a witness testified, and referring to 'this guy' and 'that guy' derisively. It's almost stream of consciousness, and unless you already buy into the defense's framing, it is impossible to follow. And if you happen to have liked one of the state's experts, you feel his sneering comment as if he is sneering at you.

Sixth, what the hell was he thinking slamming down photos of the children. Horrific. Horrific. Even if you're playing righteous indignation, you treat everything related to the children with almost reverential respect. It's good optics. And it's what those poor children deserve.

Finally, and certainly least--never start a closing with thanking the jury and being such a good jury, blah blah blah. It's throat clearing and a waste of time and a waste of opportunity. You start with your best punch and circle back.

Who wants to tell him the bad news?