Return to Transcripts main page
CNN News Central
August Jobs Report; Clancy's Defense Files Emergency Motion; Live Coverage of Clancy Trial. Aired 9-9:30a ET
Aired September 04, 2026 - 09:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[09:00:00]
OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN ANCHOR: Travelers are in for a busy day on the roads. Maybe an expensive one too. And in the skies as well.
John and Kate are out today. I'm Omar Jimenez, with Sara Sidner. This is CNN NEWS CENTRAL.
SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: Breaking this morning, new data out, just out, showing the labor market surged last month. The number of jobs reported, more than double expectations at 162,000, despite growing headwinds, like rising energy prices due to the ongoing war with Iran.
CNN's Matt Egan joining me now to break down what you're seeing in this report.
All in all, this for job seekers is good news.
MATT EGAN, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: Yes. Absolutely, Sara. Look, it's nice to be here on this Friday morning with some good news on the economy because, yes, this report, it did crush expectations.
So, the forecast from economists was for a gain of just 65,000 jobs in August. But look at this, 162,000, as you mentioned, more than doubling the forecast. Unemployment rate was supposed to go up a tick to 4.2. It didn't. It stayed at a low level of just 4.1 percent.
And there were significant revisions in the positive direction for both June and Jul. In particular, July was originally reported as a small loss of jobs. But now, as this chart shows, there's been a small gain in jobs in July. This shows how volatile the trend has been month to month. There's been a few months of job loss over the last year, year and a half or so. But again, it's nice to see an increase. In fact, this was the most jobs the economy has added in a single month since March.
So, where are the jobs? Well, that was another positive here is that the job growth has been more widespread than in the past. Leisure and hospitality adding 62,000 jobs. That was mostly bars and restaurants. And that's a big improvement from July when there was this World Cup hangover and a significant amount of jobs that were lost.
Government, 35,000. That's all schools, public schools. Local government education significantly increased in jobs in August. And that likely reflects a bounce back because in July there was job loss there, probably related to some shifts in school calendars and struggles to try to capture all of that in the BLS models.
Health care only added 13,000. That's kind of a low number for that sector. That could reflect some changes on the immigration front. We should keep an eye on that.
Information and finance. Notably, those two sectors losing a combined more than 30,000. And, Sara, those are sectors that are adopting --
SIDNER: Those are high-paying jobs.
EGAN: They are high-paying jobs and they're jobs -- these are industries that are adopting A.I. aggressively. So, you've got to wonder if that is in part reflecting some of the pressure on jobs because of A.I.
One last point for you, wages.
SIDNER: Yes.
EGAN: Wages, they were up 3.1 percent. Not a terrible number. However, that's actually a five-year low. This is a continued slowdown in wage growth. And that is well shy of the projected August inflation rate of 3.4. So, Sara, that means that for many workers, their paychecks are not going up as fast as prices.
SIDNER: All right. Thank you so much, Matt Egan, for that update.
EGAN: Thank you, Sara.
SIDNER: Appreciate it
Omar.
JIMENEZ: All right, so the breaking news this hour, Lindsay Clancy's defense attorney has just filed an emergency motion asking the court to end sidebar conversations and hold all discussions in the open. And we are moments away from the deadlocked jury returning to court after what was a dramatic day yesterday in which the defense accused a lone holdout juror of refusing to follow the law. So, what happens now? Moments ago, Clancy's attorney spoke to reporters as he walked into the courthouse
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Do you think that it's 11 to one not guilty?
KEVIN REDDINGTON, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: We'll find out, that's for sure.
REPORTER: Sir, you made a point yesterday to say that if this goes to a mistrial, that -- that that wouldn't be a victory for you. You don't -- is that true?
REDDINGTON: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They're about to break. So, don't --
REDDINGTON: It's not fair. It's just not right.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JIMENEZ: CNN's Jean Casarez is outside the courthouse for us.
So, really, I said this yesterday, it was a critical day. Today, an especially critical day. What will you be looking for as we await court getting going?
JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely. Well, CNN has obtained that defense motion, an emergency motion to disallow any more sidebars from taking place in this trial, that everything has to be in open court. This is what they want to argue, because this is the way they want it to be. But this is while there is a deliberating jury determining the fate of Lindsay Clancy.
Now, yesterday, the jury was deliberating. All of a sudden, the judge got a note. And that note was not read in court. We do not know specifically what that note said. But from the defense attorney, and his argument and what happened, it appears to be that the foreperson of the jury sent a note in regard to one juror, one juror who it was said in open court by the defense attorney was not and could not follow the law.
Well, that then morphed into each juror coming into the courtroom, one by one, individually, at sidebar, judge swearing them in, asking them something.
[09:05:09]
They then replied, and then they left and continued to deliberate. The judge also, though, gave an instruction to them on reasonable doubt.
Well, after that, there was argument in open court. And the defense attorney said, I want this one juror absolutely removed from this jury deliberation.
Take a listen.
And once he argued that he wanted this juror removed, the prosecution then said, your honor, up at sidebar, you asked every juror if they could follow the law. So, we heard what happened there. And they said they could. And they're now deliberating. So, we do not want a juror removed. Let the jury continue to deliberate.
So, now, the defense is asking for a hearing this morning. And yesterday he said he wants an open inquiry of that particular juror to come into court, that one juror, and in open court ask him questions.
Now, this will be extraordinary. The judge said, in response to all that, I don't want to take a side. This is a jury. Let them deliberate. So, will the defense get their wish of having a hearing this morning? The judge definitely may allow the defense to put things on record. But as far as an inquiry in open court of a jury and a specific juror, we'll have to see. But at any moment there could be action in that courtroom.
JIMENEZ: Yes, we're watching live images of the seal of the court, as we expect court to get going any minute now.
CASAREZ: Right.
JIMENEZ: As I know you've been watching, Jean, folks file in.
CASAREZ: And --
JIMENEZ: Stick around for us.
CASAREZ: Omar.
JIMENEZ: Yes, go ahead. Yes.
CASAREZ: We do understand Lindsay Clancy, the defendant, is actually in court right now.
JIMENEZ: OK.
CASAREZ: So, stay close because something could be happening.
JIMENEZ: Yes, we will stay close to you. Stick around for us as well. But let's talk about this a little bit more, Sara.
SIDNER: Yes, we're going to sort of discuss what's happening now as we have just learned that Lindsay Clancy, the defendant, is in court right now.
Here now to break some of this down for us and talk us through what's happening, CNN legal analyst and criminal defense attorney Joey Jackson, and Margaret McLean, former prosecutor, trial attorney and host of "The Margaret McLean Show" on YouTube.
Thank you both for being here.
Joey, you're here in person. What did you think of what you just learned from the reporting from Jean Casarez that there has been an ask, I think from the defense, for no more sidebars?
JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes. Good morning to you, Sara. Good morning, Omar.
I don't have an issue with that. I think it's a public courtroom. And certainly you want everything to be aired in public. I mean, unless there's something sensitive for which it should be outside of the public purview, I think let the world know. This is a case that's attracted much attention. People have vested interest and views with respect to the sides they're on. If we have to speak to the judge, let it be seen, let it be heard, let it be argued and let's not go to sidebar and take it out of the public purview.
JIMENEZ: And, Margaret, what do -- what do you expect to actually -- oh, you know what, let's actually listen in to court as it gets going here. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Attorney Jennifer Sprague, an Assistant District
Attorney Shanan Buckingham
JUDGE WILLIAM SULLIVAN, PLYMOUTH COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT: Hi. Good morning, everyone. Good morning, counsel.
CROWD: Good morning.
SULLIVAN: Hi. Good morning, Ms. Clancy.
LINDSAY CLANCY, DEFENDANT: Good morning, Your Honor.
SULLIVAN: All right. So, at the end of the day yesterday, there was a note that was sent in from the jury. And we put over to today to address it.
Commonwealth, you had the opportunity to review that note?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, your honor.
SULLIVAN: All right.
Defendant, you had the opportunity?
KEVIN REDDINGTON, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yes, Your Honor.
SULLIVAN: All right. And so, I will hear from the parties as to how the -- each party suggests or requests I deal with that note.
So, I want to hear from the Commonwealth first.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you, Your Honor. I apologize for my voice.
So, Commonwealth's suggestion is that the jurors be instructed to return to their deliberations, without any further instruction or voir dire. The basis for that request is Commonwealth versus Ronchi, 491 Mass 284 from 2023. In that case, it's a similar situation , where it's reported one juror is having issues with the other jurors. And it says in that case, where reliable information comes to a judge suggesting a lack of impartiality, bias, extraneous influence or inability to deliberate that there should be an individual voir dire, a hearing, regarding that.
We don't have any of those circumstances here. There's no indication of a lack of impartiality or bias or extraneous influence, and no indication of inability to deliberate.
[09:10:07]
In fact, they've deliberated for a very long time in this case, and very conscientiously.
So, what we have here is a note that indicates a disagreement about how to weigh the evidence. And that's deliberation. So, it's the Commonwealth's position, especially considering the fact that your honor voir dired each of the jurors yesterday, and they all said that they could follow your instructions. So, when you couple that with the requirements of Ronchi, I don't think an individual voir dire is necessary.
If your honor does determine to do one, we would just ask along the lines of all the case law in this area, Ronchi, Williams, Torres, the whole string of cases that the juror be instructed not to comment on the deliberations and that the juror be told that he or she cannot be discharged unless a personal problem unrelated to their relationship with the jurors or their views on the case. And that any attempt or any comments by the juror that tend to get into deliberations that your honor interrupt and remind the juror that we're not to get into that and that questioning be ceased of the juror unless he or she indicates that there is a personal problem unrelated to the case of the relationships.
SULLIVAN: All right. Thank you.
Defendant.
REDDINGTON: Thank you very much, Your Honor. Appreciate the opportunity to argue this to you.
A couple of points that occur to me.
First of all, as your honor is well aware, a defendant, any defendant, in this courtroom or any courtroom in our country, is entitled to have a juror who is true to their oath, who will agree that they will apply the facts as they determine them to be, proven beyond a reasonable doubt to the law, as given to them by you, as a judge, or any other judge. If a jury consists of people and there's one person who is refusing to actually apply the law to the facts as determined for reasons that are not arising out of the case, but are personal to the juror's position regarding their review of their oath and how they should apply their oath. In other words, if it's personal to this individual, which I believe it is based on the first question that you had.
And I have never seen a situation like this where a fore person on the jury is so courageous as to speak on behalf of 11 jurors and indicate that juror number, which I will not mention, and I quote, "has made statements acknowledging doubt, but refuses to apply it to the verdict, as the law states."
Clearly, Judge, we have a person who, under their oath, stood in front of you yesterday, when you did the individual voir dire, and according to this information, under oath, looked you in the eye and lied. That juror told you that he would be able to apply the law to the facts as you asked them. And based on this note from this juror, it clearly and unequivocally indicates that they are basically 11 to one, and this person will not apply reasonable doubt to the evidence to return a not guilty verdict.
I would ask that the court would, and I know it's awkward, I'm familiar with the law, I know that we try to protect and preserve the sanctity, if you will, of the jury. We don't want to invade their deliberations. We want to keep that private. Obviously, that's a good thing to do. But when you have a situation where you have not one but two notes that clearly indicates that this individual has acknowledged doubt but refuses to apply it to the verdict, he is, as the law states, he is not being honest with you at the sidebar. I would go so far as to reluctantly say that the individual has made a false statement under oath to this court. There has to be an issue that is not arising out of deliberations, and the facts of this case. But the individual is refusing to apply your instructions on proof beyond a reasonable doubt, to allow that jury to return a verdict of not guilty.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If I may, Your honor.
SULLIVAN: (INAUDIBLE). Sure.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I just wanted to put on the record that the note does not indicate that this juror lied to your honor when responding.
[09:15:00]
The note indicates that the parties disagree on what is reasonable doubt, or what doubt is, and how it should be applied. And we are in no position to judge if the 11 are right or the one is right, but there's no indication that the juror is intentionally trying to mislead the court or lie to the court.
SULLIVAN: All right. Thank you.
Well, as all three counsel are aware, the case law spells out kind of the concerns that everybody has in a situation like this, where it says the discharge of a deliberating juror's sensitive undertaking fraught with potential error. It's to be done only in special circumstances, with special precautions. A judge must take the utmost caution to avoid invading the province of the jury. And that's what I'm concerned with in this -- at this point.
And as -- even under the statute, during deliberations, a juror properly may be discharged only for reasons personal to that juror, having nothing whatsoever to do -- nothing whatever, I'm sorry, to do with the issues of the case or with a juror's relationship with their fellow jurors.
In this case here, I see no showing of the need for an inquiry of this particular juror. The note that we were referring to, the one from late yesterday afternoon, indicates that the juror has -- says acknowledged doubt but refuses to apply it to the verdict.
Well, the instruction that the SJC has suggested we give in regards to reasonable doubt and that both parties agreed to says that reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt. And so, in reading that note carefully, and strictly, in the way that I have to before I possibly invade the province of the jury, that note does not indicate that this is a person who has refused to follow the law. And in addition, as the parties recognized yesterday, we brought all the jurors in, including the juror who is at issue here. And we asked, I asked, whether or not those jurors could follow the instructions, including the instruction I just referred to. And the -- all the jurors indicated that they could. This is not a
case that there's any indication that the juror has refused to deliberate, or has any reason -- has indicated that they would not follow the law or that they're physically suffering, or there's no note from the juror that indicates that the juror cannot or will not be able to continue deliberating, as some of the other cases talk about.
So, for reasons of for that, I'm not going to do a further inquiry of this juror, over the defendant's objection. And at that point, my inclination would be to bring the jury back. If my thought would be, though, to remind them that it's their duty to accept the law as I give it to them and that they have to follow that law. And I think this is what I told them a week ago. They have to follow it whether they like it or not. So, I'm going to give them that instruction and remind them of that.
So, with that --
REDDINGTON: (INAUDIBLE) -- go ahead.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, I was just going to ask that the court also instruct the jurors, or remind them, that any future notes should not contain any information about deliberations.
SULLIVAN: Oh, yes. Yes. Here's -- well, here's what I was going to say. If there's any notes, or any future notes, if there are any, you should refrain from detailing any of the actual deliberations and do not indicate where they stand numerically.
REDDINGTON: I have a couple things.
SULLIVAN: Sure.
REDDINGTON: First of all, your honor acknowledges that I have an objection, which I appreciate. And I do have an objection. And I am again citing Article 12, Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This is -- this goes beyond Massachusetts law. This is constitutional. It's a structural, I suggest respectfully, defect in the procedure that we're engaged in. We're elevating form over substance. And that's your honors ruling. And I understand. I've objected.
But I would ask that you not instruct the jury that they cannot indicate anything. And I understand why. Traditionally, we tell jurors, don't let us know what your division is or what your split is. But in this case, I'm concerned that if you do that, that foreperson is going to feel that that is some type of -- that she violated something and might feel that your honor is kind of coming down on her and not to do that. And I think it's too delicate right now a situation.
And in addition, and finally, I would ask that you not just give them, as I described it yesterday, a soft inquiry. Will you listen to my instructions? I would ask that you specifically direct their attention to proof beyond a reasonable doubt and reinstruct them on that forcefully.
[09:20:08]
SULLIVAN: I think I did that yesterday, didn't I?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
REDDINGTON: And you did it yesterday. You did it soft. You didn't do it forcefully. And I'm asking, maybe you want to --
SULLIVAN: OK, what -- I mean what do you want -- what do you want me to do?
REDDINGTON: I want you to tell the jury that --
SULLIVAN: Get a brass band? I read the instruction as written by the SJC.
REDDINGTON: Right.
SULLIVAN: The fact that I perhaps didn't give it my full inflection, I'm sorry about that. I'm not an actor. I'm just giving the instructions.
REDDINGTON: Well, my point, Judge, simply is that you're kind of glossing over the issue. The issue is, this juror will not, according to that note, apply the law of reasonable doubt. And that's why I've requested -- you know what I've requested.
SULLIVAN: Right.
REDDINGTON: So, I note my objection.
SULLIVAN: But it just -- just in case the record's clear, I am specifically not glossing over this issue. I have thought about this issue long and hard.
I know the defendant objects, but the characterization that I'm glossing over it, trust me, that's not the situation. I've been thinking about this for quite a while.
So, that's my -- that's what I'm going to do. I'm going to just give that instruction, as I said, that they have to follow, follow my instructions. I'm not going to reiterate the reasonable doubt at this point. It may come to that again as we go through it. And I'll try and give this with, with more pizzazz than I gave yesterday, I suppose.
But -- so, with that, we'll bring the jury back in and, I'll ask the questions. I'll give those kind of -- that instruction, and then we'll send them back out.
OK.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Court, all rise. (INAUDIBLE).
SIDNER: All right, they are rising now, waiting for the jury to return.
Just quickly here, Joey, we just heard a heated exchange between the judge and the defense attorney for Lindsay Clancy over how he talks to the jury and objecting to the fact that he says, look, we have done this right. This juror is entitled to this juror's opinion. And that juror, the one juror that's a holdout, has not done anything wrong. What did you hear in this exchange?
JACKSON: I heard that the judge is doing the judge's job. And that job is not to interfere with the province of the jury. Everyone has a role. The prosecutor's role is to prosecute. You're guilty, according to the state. The defense's job is to say, no, I'm not, and here's why. Reasonable doubt. The judge's job is to be a referee. If you look at, for example, a sporting event, a referee doesn't get involved in the match. The referee calls balls and strikes. This is what this judge is doing.
The judge does not want to interfere with the province of the jury, which is very sacred. We don't get to remove jurors, the judge is speaking, I believe, because we don't like their point of view. We remove them for misconduct. If no misconduct is shown or alluded to, there's nothing for the judge to do other than to read them the appropriate instruction.
SIDNER: And that is what he said he was going to do.
Here's the judge now.
SULLIVAN: What I want to do is first ask you those questions, and then move on from there.
So, the first question, as we all know, is going to be, has any member of the jury read, seen, heard or overheard anything from any source about this case that would affect your ability to be a fair and impartial juror?
JURY: No.
SULLIVAN: And the last of these questions is, is there any other serious matter or concern bearing on your service as a juror in this case that anybody needs to bring to my attention at this time?
JURY: No.
SULLIVAN: Thank you.
All right, so, I did get the note yesterday. And one thing I would say is, if there are any notes in the future, and I'm not saying there are, but if there are, just don't -- make sure we don't put down where everybody is numerically, OK.
But what I wanted to do was give you -- go over one thing. I wanted to remind you, as I instructed you earlier, it's your duty as jurors to accept the law as I stated to you. You should consider all of my instructions as a whole. You may not ignore any instruction or give special attention to any one instruction. You must follow the law as I give it to you, whether you agree with it or not. The law that I'm instructing you on is the law that's been established by our legislature and our appellate courts. And it applies to everyone. And you must apply the law, as I have instructed you. And you have a copy of the instructions that I gave you. You should still have them back there with the jury room.
And with that, you may now resume your deliberations.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Court, all rise.
Jurors, this way, please.
SIDNER: All right. You have heard the all rise. That means the jury is getting up and going back to deliberate after 36 hours.
[09:25:02]
So far, they have remained deadlocked, 11 to one. We learned that because of the note sent in from the jury, when they're saying they were deadlocked, how many people were -- had a -- were ready to render a decision. And the one person that was not. The judge asking them not to do that again. Not to tell them exactly where they are numbers wise when they or if they have another question.
But there is a heated exchange happening here between the defense and the judge himself, going back and forth over this, over what they believe is happening in the jury. And the judge says, hey, listen, I think they're following the law. We're going to go forward.
JIMENEZ: Yes. Yes. And the defense attorney said, you're glossing over the issue. And the judge said, trust me, that's not the situation.
SIDNER: Right.
JIMENEZ: That he's been thinking about this throughout all of this.
Now, we talked about that heated exchange. I want to bring in Jean Casarez, who's been following, just like we have, but more with color of what's been going on inside the courtroom.
And, Jean, while -- before you get going, I just want to ask you about one moment in particular, which was why this pre questioning even needed to happen in the first place. And the question over the legality of this juror's question. Just take us through how significant that moment was, the judge's explanation, and then what stood out to you from these exchanges?
CASAREZ: Well, first of all, I think we need to remember that when a jury is deliberating, it's sacred. You don't intrude. You don't go into that deliberation room. The court does not have a right to know what they're talking about and what their numbers are on all of that. And so, it was extraordinary that a foreperson sent a note out saying essentially that there's one juror, 11 of us are on the same state of mind here, but there's one juror that won't follow the law. And that was just extraordinary. And the judge was trying to show that, just deliberate. Go and deliberate. But I want to tell you what the camera did not see right now. The
jurors walked in and as the judge was speaking to the jurors and telling them, you have to follow my instructions, read all the instructions, follow the law, female jurors, nodding emphatically at the judge as he's saying all this. Male jurors, intently listening, but not emphatically shaking their heads up and down. So, we can see boldness, I think, in some of these jurors as they were responding to the judge as he was talking to them at the end, but they are now deliberating.
But what I think is interesting here, and one more thing, I got to tell you, you might not have seen this on the camera, but Kevin Reddington is wearing a pink tie this morning. Now, I've covered many trials, and there are many judges that do not allow pins or t-shirts or colors when they -- when they symbolize something. But the pink tie -- and there's a pink mug, I understand, on the defense table too. So, they're just really going for it right now because this is do or die.
If there is one person -- we learned through the arguments today that there is one person that's a holdout to not acquit her, find her not guilty, we would believe, because of lack of criminal responsibility. And so, the defense is aggressively, zealously advocating for their client. I didn't hear case law, though. I heard the Constitution. But the prosecution had case law. And they said, and the judge agreed, you do not dismiss a juror unless there is a personal reason that that juror has to leave or something else that is extremely significant. And the judge believes that this juror swore an oath he could follow the law. And they're deliberating.
SIDNER: Jean, thank you for that, reminding us just all that has happened and giving us some color from inside of the court that we might not be able to see.
I do want to go to the moment where Clancy's defense attorney and the judge get into an exchange, a heated exchange, you don't often see. There's usually a lot of deference that attorneys make towards judges.
Take a look at this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REDDINGTON: And you did it yesterday. You did it soft. You didn't do it forcefully. And I'm asking, maybe you want to --
SULLIVAN: OK, what -- I mean what do you want -- what do you want me to do?
REDDINGTON: I want you to tell the jury that --
SULLIVAN: Get a brass band? I read the instruction as written by the SJC.
REDDINGTON: Right.
SULLIVAN: The fact that I perhaps didn't give it my full inflection, I'm sorry about that. I'm not an actor. I'm just giving the instructions.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: So, when we listened to that, he was talking about the judge, Joey, telling the jury to apply the law when it comes to reasonable doubt and to be forceful. And you heard him say, I'm not an actor. I did that before. I've thought a lot about this.
[09:30:00]
And I will talk to them again, which we just saw him do.
What did you make of what's happening in court right now? Because you've been on the side of the defense, watching all of this and having to sit
