VERDICT WATCH: Did Disgraced Ex-Cop Murder Sandra Birchmore? Matthew Farwell Jury Decides

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Breaking news out of Boston, Massachusetts, the jury, which is made up of eight men, four women in the Matthew Farwell trial, tells a judge late this afternoon, November 6th, that it is deadlocked and that they don't think they can get past the impasse. So what did the judge do? Sent the jurors home and expects them to be back first thing Tuesday morning, November 7th to try to continue deliberations. Is this Lindsay Clancy all over again? Are we going to get a mistrial declared? Got some amazing best guests coming right up. [00:00:37] Speaker 2: Welcome to the global phenomenon, Surviving the Survivor. Here's your host, Emmy award-winning journalist, Joel Waldman. [00:00:47] Speaker 1: What's up, SDS Nation? Welcome to Surviving the Survivor. This is the global phenomenon bringing you the very best guests in all of true crime, some of the absolutely most compelling stories, most fascinating trials, breaking news. We try to bring you what is important in the genre. And today, all day, we've been on a verdict watch in the Matthew Farwell trial. He is the former Stoughton police detective accused of murdering 23-year-old Sandra Birchmore, who was pregnant when she died in February 2021. It is a case involving allegations of sexual grooming, abuse of police authority, a secret relationship, a pregnancy, a suspicious death, and an investigation that initially concluded that Sandra Birchmore took her own life. But federal prosecutors tell a completely different story. They say that Matthew Farwell strangled Sandra Birchmore inside her Canton, Massachusetts home. Canton sounds familiar. It's not just because Bill Burr, the great comedian, is from there. That's where all the Karen Reed nonsense went down. They say that Matthew Farwell, the Stoughton police officer, staged a scene to look like a suicide and did it all to protect himself because she wanted to have his baby and was afraid of not only just criminal exposure but of Sandra Birchmore going to his wife and outing this guy. After five weeks of testimony, the question now remains in the hands of these eight men and four women, these jurors in a federal courtroom. But again, all indications right now are that they are deadlocked. Before we get to all that, a quick message: one of four U.S. homes have toxic chemicals in their tap water. Contaminated water might look clear and fine, but it could put you at risk for potentially devastating health concerns, including fatigue, hormone disruption, cognitive decline, even cancer. And all that bottled water, well, it contains microplastics. So what do you do? Aquatrude at the rescue. It's a countertop water purifier tested and certified to remove 84 contaminants, including chlorine, lead, forever chemicals and microplastics. It's a patented four-stage reverse osmosis system that goes way beyond ordinary filters for pure, healthy water you can trust. No plumbing, no installation. Aquatrude was named best countertop water filter by Goodhouse Keep It. So join 98% of customers who say their drinking water is cleaner, safer and healthier. Go to aquatrude.com now for 20% off your purifier using promo codes or surviving the survivor. Aquatrude even comes with a 30-day best tasting water guarantee. That's aquatrude.com promo code surviving survivor. Let me bring in the best guests here as we remove that. And Judge Chris Mews, the name says it all. He's a judge. He's not just any, any old anybody. He's a judge. His honor. And he worked in the Plymouth County Courthouse for many years where the Lindsey Clancy trial was going on. Judge Chris Mews, hope you had a great vacation in [00:04:06] Judge Chris Mews: Europe. Great to have you back. It's great that you remember that. I had a fabulous time in Europe. When we go offline, I'll tell you exactly where to go and where to spend all of your money on what kind of wine. There's a, there's a very important distinction among them. I would love to hear that. Uh, he hasn't been on. This is, this is a serious night. It is a serious night. And, uh, for that, [00:04:28] Speaker 1: we've got a serious guy. He's a former Massachusetts state trooper. Uh, he was on STS a lot. I'd like to have him on even more. Haven't had the opportunity till, uh, tonight. Todd McGee, uh, welcome back to [00:04:41] Todd McGee: Surviving the Survivor. Thanks for having me, Judge. Good to meet you and good to be on the panel with [00:04:46] Judge Chris Mews: you. Hi, Todd. Todd, where were you assigned in Mass? My last 10 years was at Logan Airport. Before [00:04:52] Todd McGee: that, I was at the State Police Academy. Before that, I was in the Fire Marshal's Office and various [00:04:56] Judge Chris Mews: assignments. Okay. And you're retired, obviously. I am. Thank goodness. Congratulations. Thank you. [00:05:03] Speaker 1: You can go to, uh, Europe the next time Judge Chris Mews goes. Todd, you can join and we'll show you where the, where the good wine is. Um, we're also, uh, going to be joined by Judge Jay Blitzman, who, uh, with two, two judges for the price of none. And, um, for full disclosure, we were supposed to be joined by Margaret McClain, who has been inside the courtroom each and every day. Uh, but she had a last minute conflict. So I'm hoping, uh, to get her, uh, back on, but judge, uh, let me start with you. Cause, uh, you're, uh, his honor and I got to start with a judge. I appreciate it. Yeah. You live in the Commonwealth. Um, this is about as serious as serious cases get. Um, I mean, how closely have you been following it prior to these, uh, deliberations? It's got a lot of, uh, you know, a lot of repercussions [00:05:53] Judge Chris Mews: that could come of it. I, I followed it like everyone else did, but as you know, the federal courts don't allow television. So we're not getting daily, you know, unfiltered statements of what's happening in the courthouse, but I paid close enough attention before the, uh, uh, trial and during the, during the trial. And I, you know, you're right. This is, this is, as Yogi Berra said, it's deja vu all over again. Um, in Massachusetts, having a, uh, a jury that claims to be deadlocked, uh, and, uh, on a very serious case in a case of great notoriety. But can I jump in and tell you what's really different in this case, just to separate the two? Please. A hundred percent, please. Well, it's, it's because I'm, I'm anticipating some of our conversation tonight. Uh, one of which will be, what do you, where do you do, where do you go from here? And, uh, you know what, it's going to be pretty much what we talked about with the Lindsey Clancy case about how to deal with deadlocked jurors. But what's interesting here is we have a jury that was deadlocked in the Clancy case, and we had the ultimate sympathetic defendant, the woman that, uh, killed her children, but without, without, without any contradiction, was very, very mentally disturbed. And, and, and, and the sympathy not only of the jurors was expressed, but the sympathy of the community and the world for heaven's sakes. In this case, we have a holdout or more on behalf of a guy that is the most unsympathetic defendant you could possibly have. Uh, his, his, his life was piggish. He was a predator. He violated, uh, not just the young woman, uh, but violated his oath, violated everything that stood sacred in his community. And I don't imagine that one juror thinks well of him, but they are doing their job by setting aside those prejudices to focus on the evidence. But the, but whether they'll be impelled to a verdict because he has some heartfelt feelings for, uh, someone like, like Lindsey Clancy, I don't think that's going to happen here. I think you're going to see people that are going to fighting, that'll be fighting to say, uh, our, our job is to view the evidence and to consider only it, regardless of what we personally feel for the defendant. So as we say, uh, deja vu all over [00:08:28] Speaker 1: again. Yeah. And yeah, I mean, you bring up an amazing point, uh, in this particular case, uh, very unsympathetic, uh, defendant. I don't know, you know, people have their feelings about very, very, uh, specific feelings about Lindsey Clancy. You ask one person, uh, they find her to be sympathetic. You ask another, they find her to be, uh, a demon to use some people's language. And then Karen Reed, uh, sort of a toss up there, uh, as well, but Robin Ray, uh, straight from LA, uh, disappointed again in Massachusetts made the chat. Happy to see you here, Robin Ray. It's been a long time since I've seen you back in the chat, but I'm seeing you over on the cesspool that is known as X, um, grizzly lover here. I feel like jurors in Massachusetts cannot make, uh, come to a resolution. Lindsey Clancy, Karen Reed, and now this, I mean, Todd McGee, uh, the judge brings up, uh, an amazing point. Uh, this guy, uh, swore an oath, not only a seemingly horrible husband, horrible human being, but also, uh, potentially a very bad, uh, cop as well. Uh, does this kind of hit home personally? I know a lot of police officers who take great offense when other police officers give sort of a black eye, uh, to the profession, your thoughts on that. [00:09:46] Todd McGee: Yeah. Well, I think the judge nailed it in his assessment. Um, but, but I would add that, I mean, you know, the allegations are obviously horrible. Um, we're, we're, we're talking about predatory behavior and grooming of, uh, just, uh, a despicable exploitation of a young lady. And, you know, I think the case is going to come down to the experts and, you know, I do expert witness testimony myself for use of force cases. And I always hold judgment until I see the medical reports, until I see the damage that's been claimed, the damage that is actually then medically, professionally, uh, diagnosed by medical professional. And then I carry that up to the narrative. And I think the hyoid bone really needs to be reexamined. Um, you have one expert that says that this could not have happened in strangulation. Then you have someone else, another expert that says that, yes, this, this, a chance that that hyoid bone could be damaged from string, from, uh, from suicidal, uh, ideation. So, you know, you, you have jurors hearing this information. And again, we know the standard, right? Beyond a reasonable doubt. And if there's enough reasonable doubt there, here we are again with this hung, [00:11:11] Speaker 1: this hung jury at this stage of the game. Yeah. The hyoid bones, uh, bone is important. We're going to get back to that. Um, a lot of questions right out of the gates tonight. Ms. Andy Kay always in the chat and judge, this is for use of specifically that I want to go through a little bit of, uh, of a timeline. And then, uh, there is news, uh, as of this evening that I want to get to. So, uh, and this, by the way, for those who are watching a couple of days out, this is all taking place November 6th, uh, Monday, no, I'm sorry, November 9th, Monday, November 9th, apologies, uh, 713 in the evening. But, uh, judge Chris Muse, do you think jurors tend to respond differently in federal cases than in state more concerned about their verdict? There is something a little weightier about federal court, no cameras, everything, you know, it's like going through the airport. They look for everything. It's a much more sort of, I don't want to say more serious environment, but it's, um, maybe a more serious environment. I don't know. It just feels heavier in federal court. Does that affect the jurors in any way, do you think? [00:12:16] Judge Chris Mews: That's a, that's a good, good insight, which I don't really have. I've tried cases in the federal court as a lawyer and I find the jury pool to be indistinguishable from the jurors that I would, would, uh, impanel in Boston or, or the neighboring counties. Um, in the federal court, there's pretty much what they don't indict unless they're going to absolutely conflict. And that's why you see nothing but please, uh, in the federal court and why you see a lot of judges. My judge friends are always, uh, whining about the fact that they don't get to do many trials because everything settles. So, uh, I, I, I, I wouldn't comment on how the, uh, how jurors specifically view the evidence in the federal court versus the state. I would, I would talk about how we would view a case that's equally credibly tried in either venue. Um, and in the state court, there's no dis, there's no difference in terms of putting a murder case together than there would be in this case in the, in the federal court. So I, I, maybe I'm not the right person to answer the question, but I don't, I don't see it as being, um, uh, different, but they do go ahead, go ahead, judge. No, no, you go ahead, please. I mean, but, but, but, you know, the, the, the interesting thing that Todd just came up with, with, with, with, with a very important, uh, issue after all is said and done after five weeks, um, aside from the personal feelings that the jurors might have towards the, um, the victim and or the defendant, the, it really has devolved into probably a few days of testimony. And that would be the, how do you, how, how do you view the witness testimony? And the way it was given, as I understand it, was very clinically. And he had three, three opinions. The first one was from the Massachusetts medical examiner that first said that it was a suicide. The, the cause and manner of death was asphyxia and, and suicide. Then she changed it and says something that I think is going to be difficult for the jurors to deal with, which was that it was a, uh, undetermined manner. And then we had the other, the other two more important, um, views that were presented where one, uh, expert said that the only way that the breaking of the neck, the bones, the hyoid bone, it specifically could have happened, would have been by strenulation. But then they had three or four experts that said, no, no, no, that's not the case. None of it leads up to a, uh, a correct finding that it's a homicide. So it's really only the jurors are fighting. They're not fighting over who he is. They're not even fighting about the grooming. They're not fighting about any of the important background to the case. They're not even fighting about the, the, the, the violation on poor Sandra. They're fighting over which expert or series of experts to believe. And I think that's probably, um, reflected in the fact that after only 10 hours, after only 10 hours, he said that they're deadlocked. And at first blush, he said, that's impossible. It's a five week trial. But then if you, if you, if you look at it from the, the, the lens that I just gave you, uh, it might make sense that they could have said, Hey, listen, the only thing that there's issue is, do you believe these experts or those experts? And I think, I think that's where that's going. And maybe that's why the, uh, the idea that they would announce their deadlock so early in the game, um, is, is not that unreasonable. [00:16:04] Speaker 1: I see Jay's here. Very well articulated. Uh, his honor, Jay Blitzman is here. He always has something to say and I'm going to get to him in one moment and always something smart to say, but and Dunlap back to Todd McGee and, uh, uh, uh, your honor, Jay Blitzman. I can never call, I was about to call him by his first name. I'm like, this guy's a judge. I can't call him by his first name. So, uh, well, I wouldn't do that out of respect. So judge, I'll call you judge Jay, uh, Todd McGee is a retired Massachusetts state trooper. We've had him on a lot in the past for, uh, a lot of Karen Reed stories when we were doing that, but just so you, by way of introduction and you know, your friend, uh, judge Chris Muse, but Todd, before I get to his honor, Jay could jurors be afraid of going back out in the community, Todd, if they convict an officer of the law because of retribution, is that possibly what has this jury of eight men and four women, uh, deadlock right now? [00:17:05] Todd McGee: I, I, gosh, I hope not. Um, that should not be any concern, any bearing. They're doing their civic duty. And I would tell you if anything in the law enforcement community, from what I know after 24 years of, of, of service is that he's probably quite distance. Uh, there's, there's little to no support that I've seen for, for Matthew Farwell and, and, you know, just kind of the nature of, of how police officers, um, uh, you know, interact or don't interact when, when someone in blue is, is not only indicted of a crime, but one of this nature, uh, again, the allegations of, of this predatory type behavior, um, is it's, it's disturbing. And, um, I, I don't, I don't think you're going to see [00:17:54] Speaker 1: a tremendous amount of law enforcement support for Mr. Farwell. Yeah. Um, so from rigmarole of objections here, love Todd. He's one of the few good ones in Massachusetts, uh, keep shining, uh, in that darkness and, uh, love that comment. But, uh, judge J to you, I mean, basically what judge muse laid out is we've got a despicable person in Matthew Farwell, bad husband, bad cop, bad cheater, uh, a predator. Um, and he believes this is now about all the experts and maybe over this hyoid bone because, uh, traditionally in, in self unaliving, which is the expression we use on YouTube, uh, the hyoid bone is not broken during strangulation. It is the hyoid bone is broken. Uh, do you think that they are, uh, tied up here on the battle of experts who's saying what, uh, about the, you know, injuries to [00:18:53] Speaker 5: Sandra Birchmore? Well, not surprisingly, I agree with my, uh, colleague, uh, judge muse. Um, I think, uh, the, this will could be a dance to the experts kind of scenario. Um, I'm not surprised that the jury, uh, might be struggling with this case, uh, uh, uh, you probably have discussed this already, but, uh, it's really rare. I'm not saying it's unprecedented, but it's rare when you have a, uh, federal, uh, grand jury and prosecution after there's been, uh, a finding, uh, by, in the state that, uh, culpable conduct had not occurred. So that has reasonable doubt written all over it from the outset, notwithstanding, uh, the comments you've made about, uh, officer Farwell, uh, and how, uh, the public may perceive and feel about him. I think it's really unusual to get to a hung jury, uh, the possibility of a hung jury so quickly, especially in the, in the, uh, when you're talking about a federal prosecution, but for the reasons that, uh, Chris laid out, uh, look, if that's the, if that's the area of disagreement, that's the area of disagreement. Uh, uh, interesting, you know, uh, I, I made the comment, uh, uh, that initially, uh, he had, uh, been cleared, uh, euphemistically, uh, as regards a state prosecution. The medical examiner though, upon reflection changed, uh, the, uh, uh, changed, uh, the, uh, the opinion from, uh, uh, from, uh, uh, homicide to, uh, it's, uh, clearly a possibility. So, uh, uh, uh, it's also sort of, uh, uh, uh, interesting that on the cases that I've participated in during your podcast that, uh, everyone seems to involve the hung jury. Yeah. Yeah. It's, [00:21:04] Speaker 1: it's unreal. These three high. Yeah. Karen Reed, uh, Lindsay Clancy. Now this three very high profile cases and the jury can't seem to decide Judy Sullivan here. So I'm making one big exception. [00:21:18] Speaker 5: And that was the, uh, uh, the, uh, the Adelson, uh, uh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's Florida trilogy. [00:21:26] Speaker 1: The Adelson trilogy. Yeah. Uh, Judy Sullivan, the fact Sandra did not use her phone says it all when the wacko left, she would have been planning a party if the creep broke up with her. I mean, Todd, there is circumstantial evidence. Let me quickly go through a timeline. Uh, and then there's news from tonight, but, uh, and, and Todd, this, I'm going through the timeline because someone was incredulous that they appear to be hung up and there are multiple charges here that they couldn't even maybe come to a decision about some of the charges, but 2010, Sandra Birchmore joins a stone police explorers program designed to introduce young people to law enforcement careers. Todd knows all about this. It's for young people interested in exactly that in law enforcement. Uh, prosecutors allege Farwell, then a police officer in 2012 begins sexually abusing Sandra. She's just, uh, 15 years old when this happens in 2012. So he is a predator 2012 alleged predator 2012 through 2021. The relationship continues for years. Farwell is married, has children, December, 2020. Sandra becomes pregnant. She believes Farwell is the father. We learn later that he is not January, 2021. This is when it gets interesting. Todd, a friend reports Farwell's sexual relationship with Sandra to the Stoughton police department. And according to the indictment, a department employee, uh, employees subsequently informs Farwell that she had essentially told on him and he blows a gasket, uh, February 1st, 2021 prosecutors allege Farwell kills Sandra by strangulation and stages a suicide. Three days later, she is found in her Canton apartment. I mean, Todd, there are mounds and mounds, uh, of circumstantial evidence, uh, but it doesn't seem to be helping, at least not at this point in terms of, um, the movement of this jury. Why do you think that is, Todd? [00:23:39] Todd McGee: Well, Joe, I, I don't want to get ahead of your questions, but this is going to come into question, the investigation by the mass state police, my former agency, or, or, or the invested lack, lack thereof in investigation. You know, the, the, the physical evidence, there was enough physical evidence there at the crime scene that should have been processed. There were statements in interviews that were not had. They had the conversation, but there was no documentation of the statements. So all of these opportunities to, to one, hold statements against him, uh, to hold them accountable to, to his own account, as well as the physical evidence left in the, in the apartment, all could have overshadowed the circumstantial evidence or, or at least, uh, uh, been more of a, of a, uh, more weighted evidence, [00:24:33] Speaker 5: as you know, physical evidence. Failure to examine his clothing, for example. Exactly. Judge. Exactly. [00:24:40] Todd McGee: Right. You know, so all of those missed opportunities, you know, it, it, it leaves the [00:24:45] Speaker 1: jury asking questions more than providing them with answers. Yeah. Um, there was a vigil this morning, by the way, and I think the COE is going to pull up some video of that. Uh, and it was, uh, Sandra Birchmore's, um, aunt, I believe who was there speaking, or at least a family spokesperson saying that we want to make sure that the public, this was this morning, by the way, that the public understand what happens to a child when they are groomed. And it is even more disgusting, uh, that there's people she should have been able to turn to the police. I mean, these are the guys you want to believe in that they are the people, uh, that abused her. And again, uh, judge Chris Muse, to me, there is sort of a mountain of circumstantial evidence here. Now on Friday, they deliberated four hours. I think it's been a little bit under 11 hours in total. Uh, I don't know if you know her personally, but the former AG of the Commonwealth, Martha Coakley, judge Chris Muse, uh, she was quoted, uh, Friday afternoon. I don't know if it necessarily predicts that they were close to a verdict. Uh, but it's clear that they want to get to work and try to get this done. It's because they asked to stay late Friday, right? So she's saying this on Friday, they want to stay late, but we never know unless we get a question maybe. And then sure enough, sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, we find out now, uh, that they can't seem to come to a conclusion. Uh, what do you make of her comment that they didn't want to deliberate too quickly, uh, for fear of the optics and now they seem to be deadlocked? Why do you think they were asking to stay later Friday then? [00:26:27] Judge Chris Mews: Well, I do know Martha and I knew her when she was a prosecutor of the district attorney's office and she became an attorney general and now she's in private practice. And she was, she was very competent as a trial lawyer. So she knows her business. Uh, first of all, it's reading tea leaves when you try to read a jury. So it's just impossible to ever have any certainty. So what she was saying was instinctive, I guess. I would have said the same thing, which is that if they want to stay later, then they want to wrap it up if they can. That's, that's a good, a possible potential outcome. I think the more important issue is, um, about why they came in and said that they were deadlocked. Uh, because you know, I've had so many cases with, with experts where the, they have a hard, hard time, but, but it's not that they were concerned about the optics, uh, Joel. I think what jurists undertake with responsibility is to examine all of the evidence. And I don't know how many exhibits went in there, but they said that there were thousands of text messages, for instance. So jurors take their responsibility to examine the relevant evidence and prioritize it, of course, uh, very responsibly. So in my mind, it would take 10 hours to go through the evidence and to try to try to tie it all together like a puzzle. Uh, so, uh, again, I don't, I don't, I wouldn't know how to read the jurors except, except, you know, you heard me going out on a limb by saying that maybe they have resolved that the only issue in dispute or disagreement is whether they can believe the, uh, medical examination, uh, from, from the opinions of two, two disparate viewpoints. Um, I think that's what it is. But again, you know, this is something where I could be proven wrong tomorrow or the next day when they come back and explained it, but it's going to be interesting to see what happens tomorrow. And I think we're going to do, you know, we spent a lot of time just a month ago or so wondering what's judge Sullivan going to do with the questions that would be given that being asked. And he, and I think the justice is going to follow the same path, send them back to deliberate, uh, encourage them to continue. And at some point, they're going to give them the same kind of dynamite charge that judge Sullivan gave the, the, uh, Lindsey Clancy jury. So I think, I think it's, it's, it's, we've seen the movie fellas. Yeah. And by the way, [00:28:59] Speaker 1: uh, judge Chris Muse brings up, there was a lot of news in the Lindsey Clancy today, essentially, uh, motions denied the gag order denied double jeopardy denied, and it's paving the way for a new trial. So a year is a good chance, uh, if they agree that you're going to see the judges back here later in the week, talking, uh, Lindsey Clancy. I mean, I don't know what's in the water in Massachusetts, but, uh, I do know that Annie Kaye is, uh, been a member for 35 months and you just saw, uh, uh, Robin Ray, uh, gifting five memberships. Thank you to Robin Ray, uh, STS, uh, best guests here, uh, Maga Mama B, uh, for eight months. Appreciate that. Um, judge Jay, just before you got on, there was a question for judge Muse and that was, is there sort of a different heaviness or weightiness to being a juror in federal court? Do you think that that's part of it that they, I want to say take the job more seriously, but you know, there's no cameras. They, they, they get a sense, you know, from the courtroom, um, God forbid, there were any cell phones allowed in that jury deliberation room, which is now an issue in the Clancy thing. And by the way, one of the other motions was this loan holdout in the Clancy case cannot be, uh, basically investigated. That is what, which, what judge William Sullivan ruled against. So we're going to talk about this later in the week. What does all that mean? Um, but, but does the jury feel differently in your opinion, inside of a federal, uh, jury deliberation room than they do inside of a state one judge? [00:30:30] Speaker 5: Well, again, it's hard to speculate, but, uh, uh, I would think that the, uh, grandeur of the federal courthouse, the Moakley courthouse, if you've been in it, it's quite an impressive edifice. Uh, the, uh, fact that you can't have your cell phone with you, uh, the, uh, lack of press, in theory would allow or should allow for a more deliberative process for jurors taking more time. Uh, so, uh, it's dangerous to jump to any conclusion because, uh, as Judge Muse, uh, opined, you never know what's going on with the jury. You, we could only speculate. You know, one of my favorite old stories, uh, uh, old trial stories is about, uh, the trial lawyer who, uh, is arguing his case and he sees a jurors nodding throughout the argument. He's the defense attorney. So, uh, the attorney thinks, oh, I got that juror. That's juror number six. He's in our camp. You know, the jury comes back guilty on all charges. As the juror walks out, he's still nodding. So, you know, I mean, for all, for all, for all, for all, uh, you know, for all they knew, he might've had some kind of neurological condition. He's still nodding. As he walks by, he's nodding. So again, the, you know, you look for the clues from the questions, uh, and you try to read the tea leaves from there. I do agree that it is, you know, in my experience, you know, 20 years as a trial attorney, 24 as a judge. It's really rare, uh, when a jury says on a Friday, we want to, we want to stay longer, uh, that they don't come to some kind of a verdict, at least on one of the indictments. Uh, it's usually a sign that, gee, you know, uh, we don't want to have to come back here on Monday. Uh, so, uh, I also agree with Chris, uh, unsurprisingly, uh, as regards Martha, you know, uh, I knew Martha as a trial attorney and who was the, as the middle sex DA, uh, you know, uh, before she became an attorney general. Yeah. Um, really, really, uh, you know, strong trial attorney, good instincts using her, uh, judgment and common sense. I probably, if asked the same question she was, would have responded to exactly as she did on Friday. And here we are. [00:32:56] Speaker 1: Yeah. And judge Jay, let me just couple another question before I get back to Todd here. Um, Chris Mews mentioned the dynamite charge. What is the equivalent in federal court? Um, if they come, come back now, they did indicate, um, you saw another comment just up that it was, you know, more of like a timeline issue. And I think it was Mandy 13 said, no, I'm confident they're going to get through this. But one of the, uh, I guess, uh, you know, on the jury jury note or four person note, they essentially said they are not sure they're going to get through this. So what is the so-called Allen charge in, in, uh, Massachusetts? It's a two E Rodriguez charge. What do they have in federal [00:33:37] Speaker 5: court? It's the same thing. You know, it's, uh, it's, it's, it's functionally the same thing. It's, uh, it's, it's, uh, direction to the, uh, jurors to, uh, specifically the jurors who might be holding out. Hey, listen, uh, you know, really listen to what, uh, your colleagues are saying. There's no reason to think that if we picked another 12 jurors, uh, they would, uh, reach a different verdict than you would given the time and expense and given how much attention you pay to the, to the case. Uh, please give it a second shot. Uh, there'll be language. There is language about conscientiously, uh, following your conscience and looking at the facts as you see them with a big, but the big, but, uh, keep an open mind and listen to what others are saying. It's a, you know, it's, it's called the dynamic charge for a reason. It's saying, uh, you may be in the minority, listen to the majority. Uh, you know, if there's any room for, uh, getting to yes, do it. It's an invitation for, uh, reaching a consensus quickly and, or, uh, and this is always a possibility. Uh, if there's a possibility of finding, uh, uh, uh, consensus on at least one of the indictments. So, uh, uh, it's not surprising that often after the dynamite charge, you, uh, jurors come back with a, uh, with a verdict. That's why that's why it's called the dynamite charge. [00:35:11] Speaker 1: A hundred percent and cooler by the lake asking exactly that a member for 30 months, what instruction, uh, basically you just heard judge Jay say that he's going to tell them and instruct them, go back and give this a shot. And he's going to light a fire under their collective behinds, eight men, four women, uh, on this jury. And, uh, again, for full disclosure, and I, uh, so happy to have Todd here and Todd will come back on this. Uh, but originally it was Margaret McClain who has been sitting inside the courtroom, um, for the entire five weeks doing some analysis for NBC 10 Boston. And she got, uh, carried away from us in the, uh, 11th hour, but grizzly lover. Um, I have a question for the judges. So, uh, judge muse, and then we've got a little bit of sound I've got to play, but I have a question for, uh, the judges. Uh, DA now says the state may want to charge, uh, far well, if double jeopardy doesn't attach would double jeopardy attach. Congrats to Todd on his retirement. Uh, judge Chris muse. If this ends in a mistrial, uh, can they retry, um, uh, in state court, I guess. [00:36:16] Judge Chris Mews: I, uh, you know, it's, you know, you get, you get on a trajectory and the reason that the feds got involved was because the, uh, state investigation was so, so, so shabby. And, uh, but I, the, the, the, the, the, the indictment reads two statutory offenses, one, which was killing a witness or a victim. And the other one is killing an unborn child in Massachusetts. We have one word for it. It's called an indictment for murder. I don't know that that would be double jeopardy. I don't think it would be. And I think they have a right to be able to charge it again. I don't, I don't know whether they have the stomach for it, uh, in view of everything, but it's, I don't see it as being a bar. So it wouldn't be double jeopardy, but the more important part is, um, if it's a hung jury and it's a mistrial, then all bets are off. Of course they could try it without even a consideration of double jeopardy. That's right. But if he, but if he got a verdict of not guilty, Jay, you can pick the ball from me right here. If they got a verdict of not guilty, would they be able to retry them for the same offense of, of killing, uh, in the state court? I, I, I, my, my information is they could. Yeah. You think so? You think so? I think so, but I have to, you know, double jeopardy bars, [00:37:40] Speaker 5: uh, multiple trials by the same sovereign. Right. So, uh, but what's the classic scenario is the state prosecutes and then the feds prosecute what you know, the big ones, how it's been inverted. Yeah. And I think the problem the state would have now, I could understand the DA now thinking, you know, what, you know, I've learned a lot. We've all learned a lot about how, uh, uh, about the initial investigation, especially after everything happened, you know, in the, uh, in the Reed case with the, with the alleged shottiness of that investigation. Uh, however, you know, uh, from, from a reasonable doubt perspective, you know, it's, it's, it's, it's makes for a very strong, reasonable, that argument, uh, if you're representing a defendant in such a circumstance to say, Hey, what? The state's initially charged not to prosecute. Then the feds prosecuted. [00:38:40] Judge Chris Mews: Yeah. But Jay. You're prosecuting. That's history. History is, you know, is not ancient. It's two weeks old. That's true. That's true. The state wanted to come in and, and, and try them for murder. They probably could, but this is the issue. It's going to be the same stuff that Todd was able to bring out in terms of the sufficiency of the physical evidence of, of the manner of death. And that's not going to go away in this. I would suspect that if it remains a hung jury or, uh, or not, that the, the critical question will be as phrase, uh, framed by him about the, uh, about the, um, compelling forensic evidence about caught of manner of death and particularly something that I'm very, uh, uninformed about it, other than I've read about it, about that particular, uh, neck bone, the hyoid neck bone. And that, that seems to have been a, a, a critical piece of it. So one of the things I'd add for the, that was, that I was thinking about Joel and, and, and team that, um, you know, when you talk about a dynamite charge to the jury, um, they had a, and I've, I've, I've raised this at, at, at conferences with, with people that when you, when you give the jury instructions on expert witnesses, they give the jurors a stick of dynamite to blow up everything. Because the charge will be to treat that witness like any other witness that you can believe disbelieve some or all of anything of it. And then there's an ancillary charge with, where they, where they're told just because a person's an expert doesn't mean that they're right. I'm paraphrasing. And the jurors, that's an empowerment of the jurors to say, I don't accept anything about the conclusions of one or the other. And I, and they, and, and that's that, that that's, that's what they did clearly with, with the Lindsay, uh, uh, Clancy case in terms of evaluation of the witness. That's my, my, that's my feelings about it. So those are my, [00:40:51] Speaker 1: those are my thoughts. Yeah. Todd McGee, a lot of thoughts. Uh, you're in a tough seat. You're between two judges that have a lot of thoughts. Um, so I'm going to, I'm going to, I'm going to pivot to Todd for a couple of questions here. Julia, uh, the nurse here, do jurors know, Todd, do you think that they can deliver a mixed verdict guilty on whatever charges and locked on others? Just before you answer that, let me just run through the charges here. Um, there are, uh, and you know what, I, I, I cut them off here, but obviously the murder charge, and then number two, causing the death of an unborn child. Uh, but, uh, underlying federal offenses, Todd, coercion and enticement of a minor. And someone reached out to me and said, how can they not decide on that? He, he, he started having sex with her when she was under age. How was that deadlocked? What, [00:41:45] Todd McGee: what do you think, Todd? Well, you know, going back to the Karen Reed trial, I think some of the, the, I don't want to say confusion, but some of, uh, certainly the, the, the mental gymnastics amongst the jurors during the liberation were those lesser included charges. And there was also the discussion, you know, were the judge's instructions clear enough for the jury to, to make a, a, a hard decision on. And I think we're right back here again with, with that same kind of challenge, you know, here, here are the, here's the allegations, here are the charges, here's the evidence, here's the circumstantial evidence is what we know to be what's considered physical evidence. Um, you know, witness statements, um, you, you have all of this information that the jurors are processing. And again, you know, we're not that far into deliberations when you think about everything that's been presented. So, you know, they're going to have to decide unanimously unanimously at some point. Um, otherwise, again, and again, I'm going to leave this up to my, my, uh, my team here, uh, they're better suited to answer that question. But, you know, if, if they all can't unanimously decide, then, you know, we're, we're going to be seeing additional instruction, if not a mistrial. Yeah. I mean, you go ahead. [00:43:02] Speaker 5: So, you know, some, some, uh, sets of charges are more likely or more susceptible of lesser included than others. So, uh, I agree with you, Joel. I mean, the one that they seemly, seemingly could get to yes on, uh, is the, uh, enticing a minor. Uh, uh, uh, uh, I think the other two, uh, they, they, they go together. In other words, I don't see, uh, I don't see guilty on one, not guilty on the other. Oh, I actually could see guilty on one. I, I don't see a lesser included on the other two, but, uh, I see clearly on the enticing a minor, uh, that seems like a one they, uh, they should be able to reach a decision on given the evidence that came in, in this case. [00:43:53] Speaker 1: Yeah. Um, Todd, the, thank you for that judge Jay, but you know, does Massachusetts have looked the vast majority. I am not the most pro law enforcement guy you can find. I mean, it is one of the hardest jobs, most dangerous jobs. Every time a police officer leaves the house, his family does not know, uh, if they're coming home and it's usually on a routine traffic, quote unquote routine traffic stop that a lot of times bad things happen. But is there a bad cop problem in Massachusetts? And it's sort of counterintuitive because after Karen Reed, there was just all this disgust, uh, directed towards law enforcement, but this jury now sees, uh, you know, who is portrayed as a, another bad cop and they seem to be, um, unable to decide his future. So someone on that jury, I don't know if they're pulling for the quote unquote bad cop, but they're not willing to convict. But let's start with the first question. Do you think there's a bad cop problem in Massachusetts? Does something need to be done? [00:45:01] Todd McGee: So accountability is absolutely the, the, the paramount part of that conversation, part of that question. As far as trends, I don't, I don't think the trends are any different than when I started my career in 1987. Cops were making bad decisions back then, got indicted, went to jail. And here we are in 2026, same formula. You make a bad decision. It's either going to cause you to lose your job or cause you to get indicted and possibly go to jail. So, you know, as these one percenters, as I like to say, there's still great men and women. And to your point earlier, Joel, Joel, I'll always be pro law enforcement myself coming from a great career in law enforcement. My dad, you can see a mini shrine behind me is, or to my dad, who was also a police officer and 22 year military veteran with the Navy, you know, so that's where my heart is. But when we see these instances, when we see police misconduct, whether it rises to the level of criminality or not, if it's misconduct, we got to talk about it. We got to put it out there. And we need the general public not to lose faith. We need the general public to understand that, yeah, this is a pretty horrific story to be talking about. This is a pretty horrific story that's on the news, that's dominating our news every single night here in Massachusetts. But that being said, there's still great men and women that wear the uniform every single day, that would never be in a circumstance like we're talking about here. Yeah. Todd's, Todd's completely [00:46:36] Judge Chris Mews: correct. I spent 21 delightful years as a labor counsel for the Boston Police Detectives Union, and I handled an awful lot of claims of, of everything from wrongful death cases and excessive force cases to just regular run of the mill misbehavior. But I always, I always was very, very, um, um, I was always, always afterwards, I got very guided every time I saw an accusation against a police officer, because I handled many high profile ones. And what's in the newspapers on day number one after the shooting, isn't what happens three, six, four months or years later on when there's a, when there's a final hearing on it. So I always would urge people, uh, later on when I'm a civilian, if you want, not doing the work, just to reserve judgment on it. But I'll go back with what Todd said. I don't know what the number is, but I go along until shown otherwise that it's a one percenter. That there's a, that there, there are really bad people and there are real bad cops, but, uh, the percentages is, is, is, is a very, very minor one in my mind from, from all of my, as I told you, I did 20 years of work within the ranks. And, uh, so I wouldn't, I wouldn't be throwing up my hands saying Massachusetts needs to go through a cleansing process [00:48:02] Speaker 5: at all. Jay, what do you think? Well, you know, I, I'll, I'll say this, that, uh, from, uh, again, my experiences as a, and I was a defense attorney for, for, uh, for 20 years and then a judge, as I indicated, uh, the, one of the, I think people, in spite of what happened in the Karen Reed case, uh, and, uh, uh, uh, revelations about what's happened in the investigation of this case, uh, the most, I still think that the general public, uh, has great faith in the law enforcement community. And that's reflected in the fact that, uh, I think the reason for perhaps a major, uh, uh, many, if not most jury jury disqualifications during the, during voir dire is the question, uh, questions that are asked about, uh, uh, to jurors, which goes something like this. Would you believe the word of a law enforcement officer more than that of another citizen? The majority of whether or not, uh, this is the right answer. I think the majority of, or many, uh, citizens answer that answer that question affirmatively. Uh, you know, as, as from a matter of civics, the answer should, I guess, be no. We should weigh each witness, uh, equally and, uh, and then credit whatever they're testing, credit their testimony accordingly based on what, uh, what they say. But, uh, I know, uh, that, uh, many, many jurors respond yes, uh, when being informed that police officers are going to be testifying that their testimony carries particular weight. Uh, defense attorneys then want a further inquiry of that juror, but many, and that men, and many, many, uh, uh, uh, citizens are related to or have family members who work in law enforcement, uh, and, uh, that should be something that's vetted thoroughly during, during voir dire process. So I think, sure, they're bad cops, they're dirty cops, they're unethical lawyers, right? You know, it's, uh, you know, we, we, we, we have a legal system where everybody should, uh, have their, uh, testimony assessed individually based on how credible they are when they, uh, when they present themselves. [00:50:29] Judge Chris Mews: Yeah, by the way, Jay, you're going, uh, go ahead, judge. I was just going to close up a little bit. It's an important question that was just raised by, by your viewer, uh, you know, about whether or not there's an epidemic going on in Massachusetts, and the answer from Jay and I and Todd is no. But here's something else, and this is what I would say along with, with, with, uh, with, with, uh, Jay from, you know, I had my 21 years of, of, of being a trial lawyer, and I had my 17 years as being a judge, and I saw police officers testifying. I cross-examined many of them. I saw them as judges. I, I, I found that the policing in Massachusetts, uh, was at great huge percentage, very credible, professional, and worthy of our respect and praise. And I also saw some real bad ones, and I saw them as a trial lawyer and as a judge, and even when I was defending them. So, um, let's put our hands together and say that it's not as bad as it might appear at first blush. [00:51:30] Speaker 5: Yeah, but let, you know, just, just to put this sort of the, uh, the, you know, the, the bow on that package, so to speak, I think you'll agree, Chris, and, and you too, probably, Todd, that, uh, uh, given the respect that law enforcement has when a juror thinks that a police officer is, uh, playing fast and loose, either, uh, the way they invested, investigated the case or the way they testify, uh, prosecution to lose the case just on that alone. Oh yeah. I mean, you know, we, we, we do hold them to a high standard and a hundred percent. Yeah. And I think, and I think appropriately so. But anyway, shout out [00:52:09] Speaker 1: real, real quick to the COE who's, uh, putting a lot of stuff together. Uh, I saw that in the comments and the mods, um, and real quick and judge, I'll come right back to you and then I gotta go to Todd, but glock scotch and wrist watch. I love it. Uh, are we just speculating? No, the jury sent a note saying, look, we're deadlocked and we're not sure we can get past it. Uh, some no real speculation here is coming from the mouths of the jurors. Go ahead, judge Muse. No, I was pretty, I was pretty [00:52:35] Judge Chris Mews: much finished with my, my view of keeping a balanced view of everybody, but, but, uh, I think, I think it's [00:52:41] Speaker 5: all been summed up pretty well. Yeah. As, as regards the, the comic, you just, uh, uh, is the jury really deadlocked? Well, I don't think the judge is going to give the dynamite charge yet. [00:52:52] Judge Chris Mews: No, uh, yeah, not ready to do it. They're not ready yet. So this is, you know, I mean, [00:52:56] Speaker 1: I mean, so on that, on that note, judge, what will happen? I mean, he, he now said, okay, come back tomorrow, start deliberating again at nine. So, uh, what, what do you, what's your, uh, prognostication for tomorrow? If they remain deadlocked, how long will he give them to, will he allow them to go in and deliberate until maybe another note comes back in the afternoon? [00:53:16] Speaker 5: Oh yeah. They'll, they'll, they'll deliberate until and unless they reach a verdict or, or [00:53:21] Speaker 1: another note comes in. Yeah. Uh, no, yeah, go ahead, Todd. But before you go on to the next [00:53:27] Todd McGee: question, um, just as far as, um, you know, the, the, the, the issues with, with police misconduct, keep in mind, Massachusetts now has a post system, uh, police officers and standards and, uh, police officers are, are now licensed and certified in Massachusetts. And even short of criminality, just the department violation on policy and procedure, if it warrants is enough for you to be decertified where you will not be able to be a police officer for your existing department [00:53:59] Speaker 1: or any other department. Yeah. Uh, by the way, this might be true, but I was reading a lot on this, uh, after the note and I guess maybe, uh, Mandy, you could be right. So my apologies, but the, I guess the interpretation from the reporters reporting this inside the courtroom is that it appeared that they were, you know, really stuck and didn't know. So maybe that is coming from the reporters more. So the jurors, cause obviously we're not talking to them. So, uh, I will concede to you on that and look, they very well might come in tomorrow and just come to a verdict. Um, I, what do we know? What do I know? I'm not sitting, uh, in the jury deliberation room, Maureen Gunn loving the panel. Um, by the way, when I was, uh, my daughter was born, she was like nine months old. She had a onesie that said silently judging you. And, uh, I think that, uh, his honor, Jay Blitzman and Chris Mews must have a podcast and it would be, it would be called silently judging you or just judging you. Uh, and I've got to, I've got to get that, uh, in, in full effect working, but speaking of full effect, Todd, back to you. Kelly McClellan from Pittsburgh said that, uh, she thinks there might be a Lindsey Clancy and I'll add a Karen Reed ripple effect where the jurors were at an impasse partly because of the unbelievable media scrutiny and maybe for fear that what happened to the lone holdout juror and Lindsey Clancy could happen to one of them. Is that maybe why they are afraid to forgive the pun, pull the proverbial trigger one way or another, Todd? Well, again, hard to get in the mind [00:55:38] Todd McGee: of a juror, but you know, that being said, any scenarios on the table, but I would think that uh, counsel would have done a good job of vetting all of these jurors that were brought on, uh, you know, to include the alternates. They, they would have gone through, I would think, uh, a plethora of questions that would have, you know, tried to sift through any type of emotional attachment or prior knowledge that could influence the decision on one way or another in this case. [00:56:05] Speaker 1: Uh, Linda Mann, they passed around, locked them up. Um, uh, that's why her mother sent her to the explorers to have a positive male role, male, male role model. That's hard to say, male role model in their life. Now, I said about an hour ago, I was going to play this video, so I'm going to play it now. Uh, this is a reaction to, uh, the current deadlock state here. [00:56:31] Todd McGee: Jury, as they were walking in the deliberating jurors, and if so, what did you see on their faces? [00:56:38] Speaker 5: Much, same, more of the same. I mean, I don't even know. Wouldn't you say it felt like getting hit in the face with a brick, you know? I just, I figured it would be easy to talk to a real date. [00:56:56] Speaker 6: Is there anything on their faces that you saw, like Tom just asked, that really kind of concerns you? [00:57:01] Speaker 5: No, not really. No. [00:57:03] Speaker 6: You're still hopeful. [00:57:03] Speaker 5: Oh, yes. Yes. I'm not ready to give up. I'm sorry. [00:57:08] Speaker 2: If not now, later. We're not giving up until we get justice. [00:57:13] Speaker 1: Okay, so that is, uh, a spokesperson. I'm not exactly sure who. It might be the, uh, aunt of, uh, Sandra Birchmore, but you heard her. It's, it's very hard to hear a lot of ambient noise. She said, I figured it would be easy. Yeah. I figured it would be easy. Um, was there anything on their face? Cause she was inside the courtroom. Uh, she said, no, and I'm still confident. She said, we're not giving up till we get justice, uh, for Sandra. I mean, Todd, just speak to, you know, you've testified in courtrooms. How tough is this on the families? Uh, there's no easy crime, but this is a particularly brutal crime. Um, assuming you believe, you know, you believe that it is a crime as a juror. How tough is this on the families? [00:57:58] Todd McGee: Yeah. For the family, certainly there's an emotional connection here. And again, that sense of, uh, you know, an innocent young lady, her life tragically ended. Uh, we can all agree well before, uh, her time. Uh, but you know, the, the family is going to be there in a, in a way to, uh, represent, um, you know, the, the, the, you know, some level of justice. And, and so you feel for them and, and you, and you, your heart goes out to them. Uh, but at the same time, you know, the jurors have a job to do and there's a process in that job. And so, you know, the family members are, are hanging on by bade of breath, you know, waiting for, you know, what they would hope is a guilty, a guilty verdict to come down, uh, through the jurors, [00:58:46] Speaker 1: through the jurors vote. Yeah. Uh, 13, Mandy, Joel, uh, the first question was about how much time they had before they got that answer. They said they are deadlocked and don't see it correct. Don't see it changing anytime soon. Thank you for the clarification. This is now, uh, from earlier in the day, this is the prayer vigil I talked about. Let's take a look at this. We need justice for [00:59:06] Speaker 6: Sandra today. Please look down on us and spread your love, not to just everybody in the courthouse, but all of Sandra's family and friends today, because I know it weighs heavy on their hearts. And please put your hands and love around the jury so they can come up with a just verdict for Sandra and her baby. Please let them know the truth of what happened to Sandra and please put your guide guidance in their hearts to come up with a guilty verdict today. Um, we thank everybody who comes out for Sandra and stands up for Sandra and whether you're here or you're on the internet or anywhere around the world. Thank you for all your support and rap, please wrap them with your love also. All we want is justice for Sandra. Amen. Let's do a silent moment of silence also. [01:00:12] Speaker 1: Amen. All right. Um, I mean, Judge Jay, this is, uh, America and America. You can do this. You can hold a prayer vigil. You could pray other countries. You might get shot. I don't know, but here you can do this. Uh, I mean, I think it's encouraging to see the family and supporters, uh, rallying around this, uh, young woman who lost her, her life. Um, but back to some of the, um, you know, details of the case. And I think you mentioned this, I mean, the original medical examiner classified this right away takes me. If you don't know the case, I talk about it a lot. You Google Ellen Greenberg and we're going to get back into it, but it's a case from 2011 about a Philadelphia teacher, uh, who died under suspicious circumstances. And there's a Hulu doc called death in apartment 603 to this day, since 2011, the case has never been investigated. It goes all the way up, up to reelected governor, Josh Shapiro and DA Larry Krasner and, uh, the fiance who was living with her at the time. His, uh, uncle was a powerful judge, no offense to judges. Uh, but in that case it was deemed, um, uh, I went from homicide to undetermined to a self on aliving, uh, over the course of several months here. Uh, Jay Blitzman, the original medical examiner classifies this as a self on aliving before changing the manner of death to undetermined. And then eventually, uh, you know, there's the accusations that this is a homicide. How, how much do you believe this is influencing the jurors who heard this in testimony that it was a self on aliving at first? And they're saying, well, what changed? [01:02:07] Speaker 5: Well, what changed, uh, I would assume is the medical examiner, uh, revisited the, uh, the evidence, uh, became more aware, uh, of certain things. And, and, uh, uh, uh, the bottom line, however, the examiner, uh, changes the opinion is that, uh, again, it inflects questions that, uh, the lawyers will argue and take advantage of depending on your perspective. Look, try work is about narrative. It's about storytelling. Uh, you take the, you take the universe of facts and you craft an argument depending on whether you're defending or prosecuting. So if you're defending, you show that the fact that the state, uh, didn't charge the medical examiner initially thought it was suicide, uh, to speak, you know, uh, more prosaically, uh, uh, again, bakes in a reasonable, that argument later when the case is now being tried in a, in a different court, uh, you may look at it differently. You may say, well, this is really encouraging that the medical examiner is open-minded enough. Uh, this is sort of the opinion that I have to reconsider an opinion based on, uh, a reassessment of the evidence and other, and, and, and, and further expertise. How that translates into, uh, uh, trials is, uh, it's, it's very, very difficult. But, uh, uh, uh, again, I, I said this when I, uh, when I joined you this evening, uh, um, well, I would love to see a verdict in the case as we all would given this incredibly unspeakable tragedy. You know, it's not surprising that you have this, uh, this argument, uh, this reasonable, that kind of argument, uh, based on the, uh, conflicting views, the conflicting forensic testimony, uh, and the, uh, and the, and the procedural history of the case. [01:04:04] Speaker 1: Yeah. I'm going to get to Todd on the, uh, in his wheelhouse, which is the day of, uh, the alleged murder. Uh, some of what happened, but first to Chris Muse from Brianna, a long time, uh, uh, viewer and chatter here in Florida. It is hard to convict a police officer. Usually, uh, judge views. Is that, is that kind of a universal truth? Is it harder to convict police officers, whether it's a state [01:04:31] Judge Chris Mews: court or federal court? Excellent question. Um, I think, I, I, I, I think a police officer, uh, is going to be given a little bit of extra benefit of a doubt, not the reasonable doubt that happens in the trial, um, because of the expectation that they, they are the, the protectors and the enforcers of the law. So I think there's that. So I do think that, that, that they do have an advantage, but I don't think it's, uh, it's, it's a minuscule advantage to be honest with you. I don't, in my experience, uh, and I've seen a lot and I've defended a lot and I've been around a lot of them. So I, I think they do have an advantage. Um, but it's also a double-edged sword where a jury is going to say, you know, you were given so much, we gave you so much respect and we find these facts, some facts that, uh, that show culpability. Um, they, they may very well, uh, be dictated to say that, that you've given so much, you, you've, you've, uh, squandered it. So it's, it's very hard to get into the jurors' minds, but on a, on a, on a fact basis, I do believe there is some, some percentage of benefit of extra, uh, positive doubt on behalf of the cops. That's, that's, that's the reality. [01:05:58] Speaker 1: Yeah. Uh, real quick. I'm just, I'm encouraged by, uh, 13 Mandy here. This was a long trial, five weeks with a lot of evidence. The jury just needs a lot more time according to their note. Uh, that's how I read it. Go ahead, Tom. [01:06:12] Todd McGee: Yeah. I can give you two examples, both for my, my former agency. Um, you had the CDL scandal that happened just a couple of years ago. And, uh, there was, um, again, uh, uh, Sergeant, who I know extremely well, uh, classmate of mine, actually, who's serving federal time. Uh, there's also former union president of the mass state police that was also convicted also serving federal time. Um, so, you know, um, police officers, like every other individual have their chance in court. The same standards apply to police officers, former police officers as civilians and other individuals from other professions. And if the case has been properly investigated, evidence is presented, [01:07:00] Speaker 5: then the facts are the facts. Yeah. So, uh, uh, I, I liked, I liked the, uh, I liked your answer, Todd. And in theory, I agree with it. Uh, but, uh, just like that, I'm saying in theory, I think it is harder to convict a police officer. Um, there, I guess, I mean, I'm hoping 13 Mandy is [01:07:21] Speaker 1: right and it's just a time issue and it look relatively, it's been a very short amount of time. [01:07:27] Judge Chris Mews: So, um, I think that's what the judge is going to say. Oh, be honest with you. I think that's, that's what you're saying is what the judge will say that, that, that, uh, that he would encourage them to continue with the deliberations. He has to answer to him. He hasn't answered the question or the note given to him relative to whether they're deadlocked, whether the statement that they're deadlocked. I think that's, that's how I've heard about it. So that has to be done. [01:07:56] Speaker 1: Yeah. For lack of a better way to phrase it, does he give them like a little pep talk in the morning? Does he say, all right, listen, this was a five week trial. It's understandable. Uh, but please just go back in this deliberation room and give it what you, you know, give it all you, all that you have. Does he give them a little, or is that you have to be careful, I guess, of not delivering the [01:08:13] Judge Chris Mews: Chuy Rodriguez charge? No, I think you have to transcribe what you just said, Joe, give it to the judge. And that's what should be reported to him because it's very basic. It's very basic. They're gonna, he's, it will be an encouragement. It will be to say that we want you to continue. It can't be coercive. So encouragement or positive encouragement. So transcribe it, send it over to the federal court, get it there before eight 30 in the morning. It'll work. That'll work. Yeah. I mean, you imagine, uh, [01:08:41] Speaker 1: judge Jay Blitzman's Jewish mother going, my son's a, an attorney. My son is a judge. My mother has to say, my son's a YouTuber. I mean, I should have, maybe next life I'll be a judge and my, my Jewish [01:08:52] Speaker 5: mother will be like Jay Blitzman's mother. And I'll be a YouTuber. Yeah. And you'll be a YouTuber. [01:08:58] Speaker 1: My son, my son's a judge. He's fantastic. Uh, teaches at Harvard. He teaches at Boston. [01:09:06] Judge Chris Mews: I think that's what's going to happen tomorrow, Joe. I think it's going to be an encouragement to say, please continue the deliberations and, and basically not accept them to have been deadlocked. They don't have to. Yeah. But the, it's a balancing act again, because you know, the, the, the only, the only advisory that judges get to deal with this is to make sure that whatever they say is not coercive and that's, that's, that's, that's not, that's good guidance generically, but not the best in terms of the particulars. But, but the, the, the viewer said that's a five week trial, only, only, only 10 hours. And I think, I think that's the hook that the judge will use after conferring with the [01:09:50] Speaker 5: lawyers at eight 30 in the morning. Yeah. 10 hour, 10 hour, uh, 10 hours of deliberation, 11 hours of deliberation in a federal trial of this length. Uh, it's nothing, nothing. Yeah. Yeah. [01:10:03] Speaker 1: And it's, it was a five week trial. I guess, I don't know if I, if I said something about the, the sex of the judge accidentally, but it is a female judge. But people are called me out on that. Unless you think we are not a global phenomenon. South Africa is in the house with CGG seven as my eyes continue to fail me. Uh, Todd McGee, let me come to you a couple more things. We'll get closing thoughts with the day of the alleged homicide. Surveillance footage shows Matthew Farwell entering Sandra Birchmore's apartment building at approximately 9 14 PM and leaving at 9 43 PM. Um, you've got a 29 minute window. Sandra's phone repeatedly locks at 9 13 PM and records its final eight steps at 9 40 PM. Prosecutors emphasize that Sandra never sent Farwell her customary test text message after his visit. There was no eyewitness to a killing. Um, things, you know, this is circumstantial evidence, but, uh, it's awfully coincidental Todd. And I would think that the jurors probably think it's awfully coincidental would say here. Well, I say, look at patterns. [01:11:13] Todd McGee: You touched on a couple. What's the pattern? What was the, the, the behavior once Farwell left her presence, whether it was a see you later. Thanks for coming by whatever exchange between the two of them. If that was not present, you're looking now at patterns and that again, still falls in the realm of circumstantial evidence, I suppose, but it helps bring some level of clarity. If you have to process something that's not really clear cut and dry. Yeah. But circumstantial evidence, [01:11:46] Speaker 5: I get a kick when people always say, Oh, the case is only circumstantial circumstance. There are two types of evidence, circumstantial and direct. Direct is a, what a witness sees directly or hears. Uh, circumstantial is just, is just as compelling and, and should be, uh, and is, and can be weighted exactly in the same fashion. That's part of every judge's instruction to the jury. Right, Chris? Uh, and circumstantial, uh, and direct and each, each can be as compelling. So, uh, you know, sometimes [01:12:23] Speaker 1: two plus two does equal four. Yeah. Uh, 13 Mandy's back in here today. Very, she's the optimist of the day. Um, she would have texted him or someone else. She was constantly on her phone expressing her emotions. No way. She did this to herself. And, uh, this is what Todd McKee just said that you got to look at patterns. He's a retired state trooper, uh, shout out to real happy. Uh, thanks to an OG member 30 month anniversary, uh, with STS. So we appreciate it earlier. Judge Muse, someone asked about this. What do you think of, uh, Institute instituting, uh, professional jurors? What are your personal thoughts on that? [01:13:06] Judge Chris Mews: Well, I was a professional juror when I was a judge handling jury wave cases. So I'm not, I'm not sure that we need them. I let me, let me tell you, Jay will share this with me. I've done, I think, I think that jurors are the most important public resource we have. We make great demands upon them. And I have to tell you from doing hundreds of cases and talking to hundreds of juries of following deliberations, they, they, they're magnificent. It's, it's a, I think it's a phenomenon to be able to get generally 12 people to agree upon something when the rest of the world can't, can't even agree on what day of the week it is. And I also find them, you know, for the well prepared jurors to try, the jurors that are fairly, uh, well impaneled, that is, you know, the, the bad ones are sorted out, the biased ones are kept out, that they really take their oath to heart and they really want to do a great job. That's been my experience. And it's not a Pollyanna view. It's experience. Yeah, I agree. I think, I think when they, when, when, when they undertake this, they do a great job. And I, and, and also notwithstanding the wish of some people, including those in the vigil, that God direct the jurors to find him guilty. That's not what the constitution says. We have a presumption of innocence. Even if you're a reprehensible person, like this guy absolutely is, he's still entitled to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. So I think the jurors are being troubled by it. And they're probably doubly troubled by the fact that he is such a rotten human being. I think that's probably part of [01:14:48] Speaker 5: this. Here's here, you know, my, my take on professional jurors. Uh, uh, I would say the, the, the, the, the, the current system is, is, uh, is an imperfect one, but it's, uh, but it works. And I think I've shared with you, Joel, my experience of actually being a juror, you know, and I sat in a jury, a jury where, uh, a 23 year old, uh, uh, a woman, uh, drew an inference from the facts that I totally missed, which galvanized everybody's thinking and led to a verdict in 15 minutes. So there you go. You know, you know, our job as judges is to be the, uh, is to be the, uh, proverbial umpire. Uh, and, uh, you know, sometimes, you know, very often, you know, when you have a group of people making a decision deliberatively, somebody is going to pick a pick up on a fact or an inference from the facts that one judge, uh, would miss. I loved having jury trials. I love for that reason, you know, it's, uh, it's a great responsibility to make decisions. And, uh, uh, I, I welcome the opportunities I had when I, uh, when I had a jury, uh, make the decision instead of me. I think the jury system, again, it, you know, it doesn't get it right all the time, but I think, I think it gets it right most of the time. Uh, unfortunately, when we have, you know, conversations like this or podcasts like this, it's usually, uh, that are on podcasts like this, rather, it's usually in the context of, uh, sort of the outlier, uh, cases. Uh, I'll say one thing about the dance of the experts. Uh, there are some countries and some systems which avoid the dance of the experts by having panels of experts that are mutually agreed upon by, uh, by litigants. Now, that often occurs in the civil context, but in some countries that could happen also in the criminal context, that's not our system. But if we have that kind of system, you know, you, you'd have a situation where you would have a group of say five experts, and you'd see if the prosecution and the defense could agree on three or two, uh, and they would, and that way you'd avoid this sort of dance of the experts that we're having in this case. But, uh, anyway, that's, uh, that's how it's done in, uh, in, uh, in, uh, in, in the Netherlands, for example, but we're in the United States and in Massachusetts. So we have, uh, uh, our adversary, uh, our adversarial system also, uh, obviously, uh, [01:17:20] Speaker 1: covers expert witnesses as well. Yeah. Uh, Chris Robinson here, uh, with another good point. Todd McGee, um, how strong is the leader of the jury? Some folks are not good at communicating with individuals and not able to pull people together, but we don't know, we don't know what we don't know, Todd. We don't know, uh, the dynamics of this. What we do know, Todd, is that Matthew Farwell's own twin brother, this is shades of the Alexander brothers who were just convicted to 30 years each. Uh, if you don't know the case, there's sort of like, uh, P Diddy types, uh, in the real estate world and other worlds, but Farwell's own twin brother, uh, Todd, his name is Billy testified against, uh, the defendant Matthew Farwell and acknowledged also having his own sexual relationship with Sandra Birchmore. I mean, that's unbelievable. And then you find out, uh, and this is part of the testimony that Sandra was pregnant, uh, believed that Farwell was the father and threatened to expose him. I mean, Todd, isn't that unbelievable, uh, motive, uh, from a circumstantial, uh, point of view, uh, and your final thoughts here, how do you think this all ends? Well, certainly, um, again, just a part of the, [01:18:44] Todd McGee: the bizarre nature of the, of this particular case. Um, but you know, you have a situation where the brother again, you know, set, set his own deal, um, you know, in, in, you know, in, uh, in exchange for his testimony. Um, and you know, he, he shared what he shared in front of judge and jury. And so, you know, the jury would have to process that information as well. Um, I think judge Jay hit it, hit the nail on the head, you know, for the amount of time this, this trial took for both sides to present their case. Um, we were really not that deep into the woods with this decision. We're in this microwave mindset that we want this information. Um, and again, you know, justice is one thing, but a rush to judgment, I think fails the system. So I'm one to let the system play out. I'm one to let the jurors get as much information as they can, give them the time and the space they need to process the evidence that's before them. And then from there, we'll, we'll see how they come back. Um, I, I, I'm not going to make a prediction in this particular case. Uh, but again, um, I just hope there's ultimately just some level of justice for, for Sandra. Yeah, I do too. Uh, here's an exhibit, [01:20:01] Speaker 1: uh, photo and it is, uh, Sandra Birchmore, uh, obviously in better days, um, smiling and, uh, the true victim here. And I got to feel for her family, uh, judge Christopher Muse. He, uh, for one, at one point presided in the same Plymouth County courthouse as Lindsay Clancy and off the top, there were a lot of big rulings today. And I'm hoping to get, uh, the two judges back, uh, later in the week to discuss the repercussions, but we'll get through the Matthew, uh, Farwell trial here first. I mean, Judge Chris Muse, again, I just want to reiterate his own twin brother, Billy testifies against him, but also admits to having sexual relations with this young woman. Um, I, if I'm on the jury, there's no way that's not impacting me, or I guess, are you surprised that at least up to now that didn't have a bigger impact. In other words, like for me, I would have some, I hate to say it may be a guilt by association. I don't know. I feel like it would impact a jury, uh, your, your thoughts on this. And, uh, what is your prognostication as we move to, uh, day three of deliberations? [01:21:12] Judge Chris Mews: Well, when I read that he testified against his brother under grant of immunity, but he was also violating a 15 or 16 or 17 year old girl that was entrusted to the police department to give her some kind of leadership skills that sickened me. So he's toxic just like his brother. Uh, it's probably a genetic issue. I don't know, but, but it goes to what my original premise was that unlike the Clancy case where there's great sympathy for the woman that was accused of killing her children, I don't think there's a juror that has a bit of even empathy for the, for, for far well. I don't believe that they consider him anything other than the way we've described him as predatory and a disgrace. However, this is the key to it. And I think Todd made reference to it too, that we have to reserve judgment and let the jurors do their work, which is to be able to give their fair evaluation of the evidence. And I think at the end of the day, to answer your question, I don't know how to, I believe my prognostication is that, that is that we will learn that the holdup was over. How do you, how do you handle the dance of the experts? How do you handle the contradictory claims by two groups of people that seem to have experience in these matters? And, and I believe that they're going to be bending over backwards to, to, to, to give even this disgusting human being the best fairness and, and, and lack of bias and evaluation of the evidence to consider reasonable doubt. So I'm not walking away from it, but I think that's where it's going to end. I do believe that there might be, I think, I think, I think on Monday, excuse me, I think tomorrow they'll be recharged by the judge to be able to encourage and to continue to, to explore and, and I will bet that we won't get a verdict tomorrow. I believe they're going to go back and spend a lot more time looking over the evidence and engaging in the kinds of conversations, um, that, that, um, they'll be encouraged to do. Yeah. Real quick, Jay, we're [01:23:27] Speaker 1: going, we're going to be on a verdict watch tomorrow and bring you, uh, developments as they go. Uh, judge Jay, before you get into it, I want to ask you a final question, your final thoughts, and then, uh, you can tell us what's on your mind, but real, real quick. I mean, we talked about this earlier. If, if, if, and we're far from this right now, if this ends in a, in a mistrial, uh, where does it go from that point and whatever you wanted to say, Jay? [01:23:49] Speaker 5: If there's a mistrial, there'll be, uh, there'll be a retrial. This is, there's no question. There'll be a retrial. And I would hope that, uh, the, uh, us United States attorney would be on the courthouse steps, uh, uh, so indicating that there'll be a retrial. And in a case like this, there, there has to be a retrial. If there's a hung jury, my comment regarded, uh, Israel in relation to, uh, one brother testifying against the other under a grant of immunity. You know, I don't think I've got to add, uh, uh, any, anything further about the character of either of the, uh, the brothers. Uh, I think, uh, Judge Muse covered that more than adequately. Uh, but again, you know, uh, uh, that feeds the reasonable doubt argument because, uh, any immunized, immunized testimony cuts both ways. Why is he testifying? The defense argues because maybe if, uh, uh, maybe he's the, he's the culpable party, not the defendant. So that's how that, that, that's how that often plays out. [01:24:51] Speaker 1: Uh, appreciate the, uh, amazing insight. We do have the best guests in true crime. It might sound immodest, but when you're speaking the truth, it is not. Uh, there's a picture of Sandra Birchmore. She is the victim. We are praying for her and her family and, uh, for justice to be served here. Uh, Judge Chris Muse and, uh, his honor, Jay Blitzman, both from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and a big thanks to retired Mass State trooper, Todd McGee and to his father for his service. You see that flag, uh, not only in the military, United States military, but also as a police officer. So, uh, Todd, that just gave me the chills because I have a lot of respect, uh, for you and your father. And, uh, I don't know if he's with us or not, but, uh, either way, um, you know, he, he needs, uh, that recognition, uh, and that recognition needs to continue. So, uh, thanks to, uh, all of you, uh, again, a lot of news on the Lindsay Clancy front again, and we're going to be on verdict watch tomorrow. And I can't keep, stop thinking about it. Don't you think the two judges need a podcast called judging you? Great name. I came up with the, I came up with the name. Uh, I'll talk to the COE and, uh, Steve and space coast, but we'll get you another STS podcast on that note. Love you, America. Love you. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts justice for Sandra Birch. Warren just stick around one second so I can thank you all