Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Judge Orders Lindsay Clancy Jury to Keep Deliberating; Defense: Jury Says One Juror Refuses to Listen to the Law; Interview with Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-NM): Billionaire Leon Black Sues, Refuses to Testify in House Epstein Probe; Clippers Hit with Historic Penalties in Cap Circumvention Probe. Aired 3:30-4p ET

Aired September 03, 2026 - 15:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[15:30:00]

MARK O'MARA, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Judge one last time, we're not getting close to a verdict, and they have to be let go at that point.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Areva, walk us through what the judge is describing as a moral certainty and possible doubt versus reasonable doubt.

AREVA MARTIN, ATTORNEY AND LEGAL AFFAIRS COMMENTATOR: Yes, it's I'm not surprised that after 35 hours that the jurors wanted the judge to reread the reasonable doubt standard. It's very difficult for people to understand that level of you know, what does it mean to be proven beyond reasonable doubt gets, I think, many people confused. Is it every possible doubt eliminated?

Or is it, you know, the majority of doubt that you may have in your mind? And I could see why jurors in a case like this, again, with the complexity of this evidence really grappling with that issue in terms of beyond reasonable doubt. And in this question is, is it beyond reasonable doubt?

SANCHEZ: Please, for a moment, hold that thought. Let's go to Plymouth, Massachusetts, where Kevin Reddington, the defense attorney speaking.

KEVIN REDDINGTON, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Rather than at the sidebar, the juror, 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. 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 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 my motion is to remove this juror that refuses to listen to your instruction on reasonable doubt.

SHANAN BUCKINGHAM, ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY, PLYMOUTH COUNTY, MA: Thank you, your honor. We have the note from the jury. There's no way to determine what the deliberations are, who's correct, who's incorrect, 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 re-instruction.

JUDGE WILLIAM SULLIVAN, PLYMOUTH COUNTY DISTRICT COURT: 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 the 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 that at this point that they can. That was specifically addressed towards the specific question.

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. Thank you.

SANCHEZ: Wow. Really dramatic moments in court here for Lindsay Clancy. We've learned that there is apparently one juror, one holdout who refuses, according to the defense, to listen to the judge's orders.

The prosecution there saying that they do not object to the judge's decision to have jurors continue deliberating. The judge making clear that he believes -- Judge William Sullivan, that he believes that he acted appropriately in reiterating the rules regarding reasonable doubt to the jurors, doing so one at a time.

Let's go back to Jean Casarez, who has been following this case from the beginning. Jean, apparently there is one single holdout that we don't know whether they believe that Lindsay Clancy is guilty or whether she should be acquitted.

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good point. Let's look at the facts of what we just learned. Kevin Reddington is saying that there is one juror who will not follow the law of the instruction on reasonable doubt.

So every juror was polled. We just heard the assistant district attorney say that they were asked by the judge, each and every one of them being sworn, can you follow the law? Conceivably, every one of them said yes.

[15:35:00] So you have two opposite statements in that courtroom right now that a juror is refusing to follow the law, but every juror under oath conceivably said they could follow the law. Now, was that said in open court? No.

But if they said they couldn't follow the law, I think there'd be further discussion on that issue right there. And the prosecutor or the defense would bring that up. So, and they all heard what the jury was saying.

So the jury is now deliberating again, but we learned a lot from what both sides have just said. And we see why the prosecutor was nodding her head in agreement because the standard instruction on reasonable doubt that was given to the jury at the time they began their deliberations was read again. That's not unusual.

Many times they want to understand what a jury instruction means. And the only remedy for that is to read the instruction. They can't go into subjective reasoning.

The judge can't do that because then he's participating really in jury deliberation. So they read the instruction, jury goes back in. That's normal, but otherwise not normal.

SANCHEZ: Yes. Areva Martin, one juror that does not agree with the 11 others.

MARTIN: Yes, not unusual, Boris. In cases like this, again, sometimes you just can't get 12 people to agree. And now we know that it is one juror that has been probably for the last 30 hours, if not some substantial part of that 30 hours, not agreeing with the majority.

I'm still very concerned about those jurors being asked by the judge. And of course I agree with Jean, they all probably said, yes, I can follow the law, but apparently some of the jurors do not believe that the law is being followed. I'm not sure that the judge reading that instruction again to the entire panel gets us any closer to a unanimous decision in this case, because reasonable doubt is a very difficult legal concept to understand.

And if this juror, this one juror still believes that they cannot get to the place where they believe the evidence has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, we may still end up back at a mistrial.

SANCHEZ: Yes. Mark, it's interesting because we learned there a bit about what was in the note, the judge revealing that it had two components, one saying, obviously we can't come to a unanimous agreement, and the second, a request that the concept of reasonable doubt is expressed and that instructions are given by the judge over what it means and what it entails. What does that tell you about how this is playing out behind the closed doors of the deliberation room?

O'MARA: But in the deliberations room, it does sound like obviously 11 to 1, we now virtually know that. I have to appreciate the arrogance of Mr. Reddington, that he is the one saying, kick the one out who won't let my client go. That's a strong position to take from a defense attorney, a very confident position to take, that he knows that there's 11 of them in his favor.

I don't know how he knows that, because none of us do, but interesting. But what it really tells us is that for the past probably 30 hours of the 35 hours that it's been as one juror, we know that probably now that 11 of them have been trying for a long, long time to try and convince number 12 to come to their side. And I thought the judge now, as he explains it, did about the best he can do in a very difficult circumstance because he can't take sides.

He can't walk into one juror at a time and say, listen to the others. He did it as a whole. He can't do it individually.

Now we know why he did. All he did was ask him to follow the law. Great.

And then the reasonable doubt instruction is supposed to help the defense, but it's not a defense instruction alone. It tells the jury, it doesn't have to be beyond all doubt. It just has to be something that you can look at your moral compass as a community and say, I am confident that she is guilty or that she is not provably guilty.

It's going to be interesting what happens in this half hour.

SANCHEZ: It's fascinating quickly, Areva, that the defense attorney, Kevin Reddington is convinced that that one juror is holding out for a guilty verdict while the prosecution, the assistant DA is essentially saying, no, this is the way that things should be, that they seem confident that the 11 jurors are on their side.

MARTIN: Absolutely. Both seem to be arguing for something very different. The prosecution is saying, no, let this 12 group -- this group of 12 as constituted, let them continue deliberating, obviously feeling confident that at the end, they're going to find Clancy criminally responsible, which is what the prosecution has been arguing throughout this case.

And yes, we have the defensive lawyer saying, no, get rid of this juror, because if we get rid of that one, I feel confident that they're going to give my client something favorable, i.e. an acquittal. No way for either side to know what those 12 jurors are thinking at this point. But that's what confident, very sophisticated and very experienced lawyers do.

So I'm not really surprised by their respective, although very different positions.

[15:40:00]

SANCHEZ: Areva Martin, Mark O'Mara, thank you so much for your perspective. Our thanks to Jean Casarez outside the courthouse in Plymouth, Massachusetts as well. We're going to stay on top of any developments from court and bring them to you as we get in the Lindsay Clancy case.

Up next, a billionaire subpoenaed by House lawmakers in the Epstein probe. Turns out to be a no-show, instead filing a lawsuit against the committee. We're going to speak with one of the Democrats on that panel when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: We're following new developments in the House Oversight Committee's investigation into convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

[15:45:00]

Billionaire investor Leon Black was scheduled to appear before the panel for a deposition this morning, but instead Black is now suing in an attempt to block the committee from obtaining his nondisclosure agreements and testimony. In a letter obtained by CNN, Black's attorneys argued that the NDAs the panel was seeking were too broad, had no connection to Epstein and disregarded the privacy interests of third parties. Here's Oversight Chair James Comer responding to this latest move.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JAMES COMER (R-KY), CHAIRMAN, OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE: I would hold him in contempt right now of all the powerful billionaires and political people we brought in for interviews and depositions. This is the first time anyone's filed suit.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: During a voluntary interview in June, Black told the panel that he didn't know the extent of Epstein's crimes and that he himself never abused women or had sexual relations with minors. His refusal to answer a series of questions, though, led to two subpoenas.

We're joined now by Democratic Congresswoman Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico. She's a member of the House Oversight Committee. Congresswoman, thank you so much for being with us.

First, what happens now that Leon Black has filed this lawsuit? Does it in any way complicate the effort to hold him in contempt?

REP. MELANIE STANSBURY (D-NM), OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE: Well, this is obviously an attempt by Mr. Black to get out of his deposition and the requirements of the subpoena, but it's very clear that he is a person of interest in this case. This is not just the House Committee on Oversight that's been investigating him, but the Senate Finance Committee for years, and the reason is because Mr. Black is the second highest net worth individual who transferred over $170 million to Jeffrey Epstein, and it's not clear what it was for. He claims it was for certain financial services, estate planning, etc., but we also know from unredacted files that myself and others have viewed behind the DOJ redaction wall that one of the women who sued him for sexual assault, which he is denying and who he signed an NDA with, is actually a person that Jeffrey Epstein tried to have deported on his behalf.

In fact, there is an email in the DOJ files in which Jeffrey Epstein is contacting a Russian official and trying to have this woman who has accused Mr. Black of rape and assault to have her deported, and so the question is, did Mr. Black pay Epstein for these kinds of services? Is this what Mr. Epstein was involved in for his rich clients? And this is one of the largest financial investment firms on planet Earth, and so he is certainly a person of interest in this story and understanding how Epstein operated, and he's now in active defiance of two subpoenas.

So we will refer him for criminal contempt.

SANCHEZ: What's your reaction to the accusation that the committee is overstepping its authority and asking him about NDAs that aren't related to Epstein?

STANSBURY: Well, clearly the NDAs are related to Epstein because we know from one of the women who's accused him of sexual assault that she was forced to sign an NDA, and that is actually the person who I just mentioned, who we know Jeffrey Epstein was actively co-conspiring with to try to have her deported. So his claims are baseless. This lawsuit is baseless, and the committee will be voting to refer him for contempt.

SANCHEZ: Earlier this week, Congressman Thomas Massie said on the House floor that he wants perpetrators in the Epstein investigation to be investigated and prosecuted. He read the names of 14 people allowed, including Black. He said in order to shame the DOJ into delivering justice.

Again, Black denies any wrongdoing, says he doesn't know about the extent of Epstein's crimes. Based on the work of your committee, do you have enough evidence to prosecute someone like Black or the others that Massie named?

STANSBURY: Well, our job as Congress is not to prosecute. Our job is to collect evidence, to conduct oversight, and we are conducting oversight over DOJ, whose job is to prosecute. And part of why Todd Blanches conformation is so deeply troubling is that he has been at the heart of covering up this case for individuals who are implicated in these files, such as the President himself, as well as potentially Leon Black.

And so what we need is to hold DOJ accountable so that they will prosecute these individuals.

SANCHEZ: Of course, DOJ does the prosecuting, but I just wonder on what you found on the committee, if you've seen evidence that you think is strong enough for DOJ to do that.

STANSBURY: Well, it's not for me to determine, but what I can tell you is that I've seen unredacted files, and I know that DOJ was investigating Mr. Black for a number of years.

SANCHEZ: Do you think the committee has gone far enough with its probe that you've uncovered co-conspirators that DOJ has not?

STANSBURY: Absolutely. I mean, I think it's very clear that there are potentially dozens of individuals who were involved in Jeffrey Epstein's orbit, potential customers, people who he did fixing for, like potentially the person we're discussing today, as well as individuals who have not yet had their names revealed publicly, who were obtaining women in places where Jeffrey Epstein was spending his time.

[15:50:00]

And so I think what is most clear in this case is that we've got an administration who's engaged in the most significant cover-up, certainly in our generation. And a White House, who, by the New York Times' own reporting, is using the situation room to try to stop this information from coming to light.

And so what we have to do is to continue to put pressure on the White House, to put pressure on DOJ, and to use our voices and congressional oversight until we get justice for the survivors.

SANCHEZ: Congresswoman Melanie Stansbury, we've lived the conversation there. Appreciate your time. Thanks for joining us.

STANSBURY: Thanks.

SANCHEZ: Still ahead, the Los Angeles Clippers fined more than $30 million, blocked for making first-round picks for five years. Their owner banned from the NBA for a year. More on that investigation that led to this decision, how it could affect the team and the NBA for years to come.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:55:00]

SANCHEZ: The NBA is hitting the LA Clippers with one of the most severe punishments in league history. An independent investigation found the team circumvented the league's salary cap by funneling off court endorsement opportunities to star player Kawhi Leonard. The penalties for team owner Steve Ballmer and the team were significant, including millions of dollars in fines and forfeited draft picks.

The Clippers deny the allegations, calling the probe a, quote, heavily biased investigation. Joining us now is Amin Elhassan. He's an NBA contributor, rather an NBA analyst and contributor to the Pablo Torrey Finds Out podcast, which won a Pulitzer Prize for its reporting on the Clippers investigation.

Amin, great to see you. First, does the punishment fit the crime?

AMIN ELHASSAN, NBA ANALYST: Well, it's certainly a weighty punishment. It's a punishment that will make teams think twice about, you know, doing this type of conduct. But when you read the report that Wachtell Lipton put out, it seems to be that the Clippers went above and beyond to not only circumvent the cap, but to try to cover their tracks.

And when you read the details, it really feels like they might have gotten off a little light.

SANCHEZ: A little light. What do you think would have been an appropriate punishment?

ELHASSAN: Well, I think Steve Ballmer should have been suspended for longer than a year. And I think Gillian Zucker and, which should have probably been terminated from her position. What she did is damning because not only did she facilitate many of these deals, structuring them at the behest of Steve Ballmer, but then the cover up and then the Wachtell Lipton investigators said that she was not forthcoming and indeed obfuscatory in their dealings with her, giving false and misleading statements. So not only did she do it and cover it up, but when asked about it, she was not, you know, truthful to use their terms.

SANCHEZ: Yes, the indication is that they knew that they were doing something wrong and then worked to hide it. I wonder what you think of Kawhi Leonard's response saying that it's something to the effect of he takes full responsibility for some of the actions that the people around him may have taken.

ELHASSAN: Yes, I mean, that's part of the settlement that happened between the NBA and the Players Association. By virtue of Kawhi and the Players Association essentially saying our bad, ball of us, we promise not to do it again and accepting that fine, they thus closed the door for arbitration, which would have been the way that the Clippers could have contested this within the confines of the NBA. As a result now, because they accepted the punishment and accepted the settlement because of that, there is no venue for arbitration for the Clippers.

The only way they can challenge this is an actual court by suing the NBA itself.

SANCHEZ: Do you think that's likely to happen? How would Adam Silver respond?

ELHASSAN: Well, I mean, on the one hand, the Clippers statements seem to be very vigorous, and you know, full of energy about they're going to do this. But again, Boris, I urge anyone to read the document. And when you read the things in there and say to yourself, how can this not be cap circumvention?

It's very difficult to conceive of a rational explanation. And that's what the collective bargaining agreement says. The actual document, Article 13 on cap circumvention, it says if there isn't a rational explanation for what happened, then it can be found to be cap circumvention.

SANCHEZ: Yes. So just to explain it in basic terms, essentially, the contract of Kawhi Leonard was capped at a certain level. And the allegation here is what the NBA found is that the Clippers created a sort of fake philanthropy and they funneled money to Kawhi Leonard through this fake philanthropy to get around paying the salary cap mandated contract. Do you think, Amin, that other NBA teams may be doing something like this or that it's exclusive to the Clippers and Kawhi Leonard?

ELHASSAN: Boris, I describe cap circumvention like speeding on the highway. The number says 55. We're all doing more than 55, right?

We're going 60. We're going 65. But it all moves at the flow of traffic.

But then here comes a guy doing 95, zooming in and out of the lanes. That's the Clippers. They got pulled over.

Are they the only speeders? No, but they were doing it egregiously in a way that had to, had to have consequences.

SANCHEZ: Amin Elhassan, I can't believe you just admitted to speeding on the highway, my friend.

ELHASSAN: Statute of limitations.

SANCHEZ: Yes. Thanks so much for joining us, Amin. Appreciate you.

And thank you so much for sharing your afternoon with us. Jam-packed with news. We'll wait to see what the jury says in the Lindsay Clancy trial. They are still deliberating. More than 35 hours in now in Plymouth, Massachusetts.

"THE ARENA" with Kasie Hunt starts in just a few seconds.

END