The jury is split 11-to-1 after discussing the case for more than 36 hours. Clancy’s attorney Kevin Reddington is assuming the split is in favor of acquittal.

I don’t know if that’s a fair assumption or not but let’s say it is, that would mean the one holdout believes the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Clancy is legally responsible for the murders. I haven’t watched all the testimony or evidence presentation, so I want to know from anyone who has: do you think someone could reasonably believe the prosecution has proven legal responsibility based on the evidence they presented?