Clancy Attorney Reddington and judge get into a disagreement during Trial


:) 8-) ;( :D :( :O :P ;) :heart: :ermm: :angel: :angry: :alien: :blink: :blush: :cheerful: :devil: :dizzy: :getlost: :happy: :kissing: :ninja: :pinch: :pouty: :sick: :sideways: :silly: :sleeping: :unsure: :woot: :wassat:
Duration: 2:53 Views: 4.1K Submitted: 2 weeks ago Submitted by:
Was reddington trying to bully the judge
Add comment 8 comments
:) 8-) ;( :D :( :O :P ;) :heart: :ermm: :angel: :angry: :alien: :blink: :blush: :cheerful: :devil: :dizzy: :getlost: :happy: :kissing: :ninja: :pinch: :pouty: :sick: :sideways: :silly: :sleeping: :unsure: :woot: :wassat:
2 +1 voviw88279 2 weeks ago

Schizophrenic Timothy Ray Jones Jr. got the dealth penalty for a similar crime, after the jury's two-hour deliberation, but this murderous bitch should get away with it just because she's a woman? WTF

9 +1 phergus 2 weeks ago

Burn the child murdering witch

13 +1 Cripple 2 weeks ago

In other words.....

One jurist, is sane and understands she is a murderer and should be punished as such.

Going against al the other Democrat jurist who want to let her off without punishment because Democrats believe that killing your own children is a Medical Health Care issue, and nothing that should be dictated by law.

6 +1 Quint_Beastwood 2 weeks ago

In a nutshell.

14 +1 L.X 2 weeks ago

Shouting match? Fuck off with your click bait --
(Mod note; A lot of these titles are just a cut/paste of the URL. I am trying to fix those as we find them-Cripple)

17 +1 Browser12 2 weeks ago

Zero shouting . Get your shit right

16 +1 OfficerDoofy 2 weeks ago

Waste of my fucking time who the fuck posted this shit fuckin retard!

12 +1 Jukaithegod 2 weeks ago

Wow! They were shouting very loud

4 +1 Amine666worldwatch 2 weeks ago

Defense attorney Kevin Reddington accuses a juror of lying under oath in the Lindsay Clancy trial, claiming the juror promised to follow the law but is now refusing to apply the reasonable doubt standard during deliberations.

Prosecutors dispute that claim, arguing the juror's note does not say or indicate the juror lied.

"We have a person who, under their oath, stood in front of you yesterday when you did the individual voir dire, and according to this information under oath, looked you in the eye and lied... based on this note from this juror, it clearly and unequivocally indicates that they are basically 11 to 1."