Post by @kara_marlene

Day 7 just opened with Kevin Reddington making one of his strongest arguments yet about the 11–1 split. And he did not dance around it. Reddington told Judge Sullivan that, based on the jury notes, this is no longer simply a juror who sees the evidence differently. His argument is that this juror has acknowledged doubt — but is refusing to apply reasonable doubt to the verdict the way the judge instructed. Then Red went even further. He said that when Judge Sullivan questioned the jurors individually, this juror represented that he could follow the law and apply the judge’s instructions. But Reddington argued that the notes now show otherwise. His words were blunt: “He is not being honest with you.” And then: “The individual has made a false statement under oath to this court.” That is a HUGE accusation to make in open court. Reddington’s position is essentially this: A juror is absolutely allowed to disagree with the other 11. A juror is allowed to view evidence differently. But a juror cannot acknowledge reasonable doubt and then refuse to apply the legal standard because of some personal belief outside the law. He repeatedly emphasized that every defendant is entitled to a jury that will apply the facts to the law given by the judge. And he asked the court to reassess whether this juror can legally continue serving. This is no longer just: 11 jurors versus 1 juror. Red is arguing: 11 jurors versus 1 juror who is not following the law. That distinction could change everything. #LindsayClancy #ClancyTrial #KevinReddington #VerdictWatch #CourtTok