Lindsay Clacny's lawyer told the judge a juror identified by the foreperson as not following the law about reasonable doubt and should be removed from the jury. Jurors, who have twice said they're deadlocked, sent a note about 2:45 p.m. Eastern time in Massachusetts. Attorneys discussed it with Judge William Sullivan at the bench before Reddington wheeled Clancy over and Sullivan questioned jurors individually. The judge went into public session at 3:25 p.m., with the 12 deliberating jurors and six alternates present, and told them about reasonable doubt. After the jurors left the courtroom, the judge held another sidebar, then Reddington spoke at the lectern in a public session. "The court has an instruction from the foreperson of that juror that's been working for a week now, saying that there's one juror who refuses to listen to the law that you've given him or her on reasonable doubt, and I suggest respectfully that the soft instruction that you gave them, saying at the sidebar, 'Can you listen to the law as I instruct you?' does not focus on the issue," Reddington said. "It is the question is not sufficient enough. It does not allow any foundation for a motion to remove the juror who refuses to accept your instructions on the law on reasonable doubt. And if we come back here in a half an hour with a mistrial because of a because of a juror that has just spurned the instructions of this court, it's a shame. It's a real shame, and that's why I object to the court's ruling. I request that we have further inquiry. I request that we. My motion is to remove this juror that refuses to listen to your instruction on reasonable doubt," he said. Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague said, "There's no way to determine what the deliberations are, who's correct, who's incorrect, and nor should we attempt to because that's part of deliberations. I think what your honor has done by asking each juror if they're able to follow the law, and then giving a general instruction on reasonable doubt is appropriate under Commonwealth versus Ralph. So we do not have an objection to what the questions or the reinstruction." The judge said, "All right. Well, I'm sure as parties understand, as they say, the discharge of a deliberating juror is a sensitive undertaking. I was just specifically responding to the specific question that was asked." "I don't feel that it is proper for me to side with one side or the other of the deliberations, I don't feel it's appropriate for me to say I agree with one juror or 11. At this point, I've asked if they are able to follow my instructions. According, they swore earlier that they could. They've said to now at this point that they can. That was specifically addressed towards these specific questions, and that's what I'm doing. So the defendant's objection is noted, and we will be in recess on this at this time.” #law #crime #court - @meghannmcuniff