The Lindsay Clancy trial ended in a mistrial, but the legal battle is far from over.

In this episode of No Contest: The Kolsrud and King Report, attorney Josh Kolsrud and former law enforcement officer and legal analyst Claudia King take a close look at the controversy surrounding the lone holdout juror and the motions now being pursued by Clancy’s defense team.

Josh and Claudia break down what happened inside the jury room, what we know about the 11–1 split, and the legal significance of a single juror refusing to join the other eleven.

They also examine defense attorney Kevin Reddington’s efforts to challenge what happened during deliberations and investigate the holdout juror. Josh explains the legal hurdles involved, what a defense team must establish when raising allegations of juror misconduct, and why courts are generally cautious about interfering with jury deliberations.

Claudia and Josh also discuss Reddington’s public approach toward the holdout juror and whether aggressively targeting a juror after a mistrial could have consequences beyond this case. Could the way jurors are treated after controversial verdicts or mistrials make ordinary citizens think twice about serving?

Then, they look ahead.

Could the case be dismissed? Could Lindsay Clancy face another trial? What happens if the court finds evidence of juror misconduct? And what legal arguments are likely to matter most when the parties return to court?

PLUS, in Overtime:

Even if Lindsay Clancy is ultimately found not criminally responsible, does that mean she will someday leave psychiatric treatment?

Josh and Claudia discuss what continued commitment could look like, what courts consider when determining whether someone remains a danger to themselves or others, and why an insanity verdict does not automatically mean someone simply walks free.

No Contest breaks down the law behind the headlines and the questions that remain unanswered in one of the most closely watched criminal cases in the country.

Keywords: Lindsay Clancy, Lindsay Clancy trial, Lindsay Clancy mistrial, Lindsay Clancy juror, Lindsay Clancy holdout juror, Kevin Reddington, Lindsay Clancy motions, juror misconduct, hung jury, mistrial, insanity defense, not criminally responsible, postpartum psychosis, Massachusetts criminal law, retrial, double jeopardy, jury deliberations, criminal defense, true crime podcast, legal analysis, Claudia King, Josh Kolsrud, No Contest Podcast

Josh and Claudia can be seen regularly on Court TV, Nancy Grace, and local News programs. No Contest features the true crime cases currently in the public spotlight. No Contest provides legal and social commentary. All opinions are those of the hosts.

Your No Contest Hosts:

Claudia King, Law/Crime TV Analyst, Domestic Violence Expert @realclaudiaking youarestrongenough.com

Joshua Kolsrud, Criminal Defense and Personal Injury Attorney @joshua_kolsrud kolsrudlawoffices.com

Attorney Josh Kolsrud and former law enforcement officer Claudia King examine the Lindsay Clancy case as the jury considers whether she should be held criminally responsible for the deaths of her three children.

Josh and Claudia review the evidence presented by the prosecution and defense, the strongest moments through the trial, and the questions facing jurors after more than 10 hours of deliberations across the first two days.

They explain the legal definition of Not Criminally Responsible in Massachusetts and why the state’s standard differs from the insanity defense used in many other jurisdictions. They also discuss Lindsay Clancy’s role in managing her treatment, including the difficult question of personal responsibility when mental illness and medication are central to the defense.

The conversation also examines notable juror behavior, including a juror who cried during the prosecution’s closing argument and another who reportedly took no notes throughout the trial. Finally, Josh and Claudia consider how long deliberations could continue and when the possibility of a hung jury and mistrial may become a serious concern.

No Contest provides legal analysis and former law enforcement insight into one of the most difficult and closely watched criminal cases in Massachusetts.

Josh and Claudia can be seen regularly on Court TV, Nancy Grace, and local News programs. No Contest features the true crime cases currently in the public spotlight. No Contest provides legal and social commentary. All opinions are those of the hosts.

Your No Contest Hosts:

Claudia King, Law/Crime TV Analyst, Domestic Violence Expert @realclaudiaking youarestrongenough.com

Joshua Kolsrud, Criminal Defense and Personal Injury Attorney @joshua_kolsrud kolsrudlawoffices.com

Two cases dominating headlines. Two important reminders that criminal investigations and courtroom decisions are often far more complicated than they appear online.

In this episode of No Contest: The Kolsrud and King Report, former federal prosecutor Josh Kolsrud and former law enforcement officer and legal analyst Claudia King break down the latest developments in the Shiloh Hendrix case and the investigation into the death of Nolan Wells.

First, Claudia and Josh examine why Minnesota prosecutors charged Shiloh Hendrix with disorderly conduct following the viral confrontation at a Rochester playground. Josh explains why the prosecution focused on Hendrix’s conduct as a whole and whether it disturbed the peace, rather than attempting to criminalize one specific racially charged word.

They also discuss:

• Why Hendrix was not charged with a hate crime and how the First Amendment protects even deeply offensive speech
• The difference between protected speech and conduct that may constitute disorderly conduct
• Why the jury may have found Hendrix guilty of the count involving the child’s father but not guilty of the count involving the child
• What the split verdict may reveal about how jurors evaluated each individual interaction

Claudia and Josh then turn to the ongoing investigation into the death of 18-year-old Nolan Wells, whose body was discovered after a Fourth of July trip to Horn Island, Mississippi.

They examine the early law enforcement missteps that fueled suspicion and concern, while also discussing why mistakes or poor communication do not automatically prove corruption, a cover-up, or criminal intent.

The conversation also covers:

• What the two autopsies have revealed and why no final cause or manner of death has been determined
• Why toxicology and additional forensic testing could be critical
• Questions surrounding the friends who were with Nolan before his disappearance
• The danger of forming emotional conclusions before investigators have collected all the evidence
• Why retaining an attorney early is a smart protective decision and should never be treated as proof of guilt

This episode separates legal analysis from social media speculation and explains why waiting for evidence is not the same as ignoring legitimate questions.

Listen now for a thoughtful, fact-based breakdown of the Shiloh Hendrix verdict and the continuing search for answers in the Nolan Wells case.

Keywords: Shiloh Hendrix trial, Shiloh Hendrix verdict, Shiloh Hendrix guilty, Minnesota disorderly conduct, Rochester racial slur case, First Amendment law, hate crime charges, protected speech, Nolan Wells case, Nolan Xavier Wells, Nolan Wells autopsy, Nolan Wells toxicology, Horn Island death investigation, Mississippi investigation, Ben Crump, criminal investigation, legal analysis, true crime news, Claudia King, Josh Kolsrud, No Contest Podcast

Josh and Claudia can be seen regularly on Court TV, Nancy Grace, and local News programs. No Contest features the true crime cases currently in the public spotlight. No Contest provides legal and social commentary. All opinions are those of the hosts.

Your No Contest Hosts:

Claudia King, Law/Crime TV Analyst, Domestic Violence Expert @realclaudiaking youarestrongenough.com

Joshua Kolsrud, Criminal Defense and Personal Injury Attorney @joshua_kolsrud kolsrudlawoffices.com