EPISODE · Sep 8, 2026 · 6 MIN
The Charlie James Show debates Lindsay Clancy jurors and AI-generated music.
from The Charlie James Show Podcast
In Hour 4, Segment 2 of The Charlie James Show on September 8, 2026, host Charlie James discusses media reports surrounding juror deliberations in the trial of Lindsay Clancy. The segment includes audio clips of jurors reflecting on the trial's sole holdout juror and debating the validity of reasonable doubt regarding the defendant's mental state. Charlie criticizes the defense's arguments attributing the crime to post-partum mental health or chemical imbalances. Later, caller Clay from Anderson calls in to share how he uses AI programs to produce music and lyrics about current news events.
Embed this episode
What this episode covers
Full Transcript Charlie James: Some of the uh Lindsay Clancy jurors are now speaking out and warning they look exactly like you think they a bunch of liberal women would look. Well, here's one of them, let's take a listen. News Anchor: Ronnie talked a lot about how managing those deliberations was harder than her work as a fifth-grade teacher, and they confirmed there was one holdout juror. I asked them what they thought of him being described by the prosecution as a rogue juror. Here's what they said. Juror 1: He was very arrogant. He really did not take anything that anybody said. The nurses, he he tried to ask a question about the medications, and we went back to the report from South Shore Hospital. We had the toxicology report, we could see exactly the amounts. The nurses in the room spoke to that and talked— Interviewer: There were nurses on the jury? Juror 1: Yes. And they spoke to that that specific thing. That was a question that he had. And he just completely disregarded the information that they gave him. Juror 2: I mean, he had reasonable doubt. He admitted he had reasonable doubt after we watched that video of the interview, I think that's when it was. He admitted he had reasonable doubt, and I started filling out the forms, I was so excited. I actually—there were three forms I had to fill out, and I started filling them out. I wrote my signature on each one, and then he said, "But I'm still not going to say that she's not guilty with by reason of insanity." Juror 3: I'm not sure if "rogue" is the right word, Sue, but every one of us in the hours of our frustration would get up and walk the room, because you just couldn't sit anymore. And we'd all go over to the cart with the exhibits. Um, he he I think got up to the cart once very briefly and went back to his seat. Um, he would not he would not interact with us um and and try to understand. We read to him on numerous occasions the definition of reasonable doubt from Judge Sullivan's instruction. He actually said one day in the end, "Well, why don't we have the judge come in and read it again?" And we were like, "No, we have it in front of us!" Charlie James: "Well, why not have the judge come in and read it again?" "No, you have the—" So, they want to call him arrogant? First of all, you're not supposed to listen to the expertise of your fellow jurors. You're supposed to listen to the expertise that testified on the stand. But this jury was packed with liberal teachers and nurses. But you had one guy, one hero holdout that said, "You know what? I've seen the evidence. I've heard all the testimony, just like you did. But I believe that this woman strangled to death her three children. She did the first one, saw what she did, moved to the second one, strangled that one, saw what she did, got interrupted by a phone call, then went to the third and completed her deed, and then looked at the bodies of those children and jumped out the window." Now, let me tell you something. They're blaming hormones, they're blaming chemical imbalance and all of that stuff. That's not a good look for women. That's not a good look for women. Because now, what are we going to think if a woman's acting irrational? "Oh, must just be hormones." You can't use that excuse for everything. But they're going to try. They're going to try. "Charlie, thank God for that juror, a sane man in Massachusetts. Go figure." Yeah. Yeah, I understand. I understand. One guy that stood up to the others and said, "No, you're wrong. You're wrong. She did what she did, she admitted to doing what—" Now, they're trying to blame the husband, they're trying to blame everybody but the person that actually did it. I'll be honest with you, I don't know if Susan Smith could get convicted today. Not after this. Let's go to Clay in Anderson. Clay, what do you think? Clay: Uh, I wasn't calling about that, I was calling about the AI thing that you guys were discussing. Charlie James: Okay, what's up? Clay: ...
Ready to play
The Charlie James Show debates Lindsay Clancy jurors and AI-generated music.
No transcript for this episode yet
Similar Episodes
No similar episodes found.
Similar Podcasts
No similar podcasts found.