@kara_marlene — 85x breakout

Loading video…

Reddington Explains Exactly Why the Holdout Juror Upset Him

@kara_marlene

35.1K followers · usually 729 views a post

Views

99.5K

Likes

2.3K

Comments

114

116

View velocity

+46.6K views over 5.4d · ~8.6K/day · 6 observations

Why it worked

The video likely resonated due to its focus on a controversial legal case and the nuanced explanation of jury dynamics, appealing to viewers interested in true crime and legal proceedings.

Summary

A legal commentator explains why a holdout juror's decision in a trial upset him. While he defends a juror's right to dissent, he was bothered that the juror acknowledged reasonable doubt but refused to apply the law.

Structure

1Introduction of the topic: holdout juror
2Defense of juror's right to dissent
3Explanation of the specific issue: juror's refusal to apply law
4Commentator's personal reaction and reasoning

Product placement

GMA: Appears as a news channel logo. Removing it would not change what happens in the video. ABC: Appears as a news channel logo. Removing it would not change what happens in the video.

On-screen text

Reddington Explains Exactly Why the Holdout Juror Upset Him Full Screen RED: "I WOULD DEFEND HIS RIGHT TO HOLD OUT FOREVER." BUT HE WOULDN'T APPLY THE LAW

Transcript

What do you make of the one juror who was holding out? You know, again, I would defend his right to hold out forever. That's part of the judicial system. That's allowed. And I would certainly defend his right to do that. What I was upset about was after that lengthy trial and the work that everyone put into this case, including these jurors that spent literally almost two months away from their home, their family, their job, their family, um, where a gentleman had an opinion, not that he was sticking like, you know, the movie 12 Angry Men, but in fact he had agreed according to the note from the four lady that he had doubt, but he would not apply the law of reasonable doubt as presented by the judge.

Original caption

This is an important distinction. Kevin Reddington says he was not angry simply because one juror refused to agree with the other eleven. In fact, he said he would defend that juror’s right to hold out forever if that was honestly where the evidence led him. That is the jury system. That is allowed. What Reddington says bothered him was something completely different. According to the jury note, the holdout juror had acknowledged having reasonable doubt — but still would not apply Judge Sullivan’s instructions on reasonable doubt. And THAT is where Red says the problem was. Because there is a huge difference between: “I disagree with the other eleven jurors.” and “I have reasonable doubt, but I’m refusing to apply the law the judge gave me.” Reddington’s point was not that the holdout needed to surrender his opinion. His point was that every juror — including the lone holdout — had to follow the same law. And after nearly two months of trial and seven days of deliberations? That is why he was furious. #LindsayClancy #KevinReddington #lindsayClancyTrial #lindsayclancycase #CourtTok