Media Elite Sunny Hostin Courageously Remembers That She Was Not, In Fact, The Person She Claimed To Be

NEW YORK — In a harrowing display of bravery, daytime television intellectual Sunny Hostin courageously clarified this week that her heroic story about single-handedly subduing an entire jury room was actually about a completely different person who happened to be a man.

Hostin, who spends her mornings delivering authoritative legal wisdom to women waiting in doctor's office lobbies, recently regaled the public with a tale of her days as a lone holdout juror in the murder trial of The Butcher of Tompkins Square Park. According to initial reports from Hostin herself, she had used her raw intellect to dodge flying furniture and single-handedly conquer eleven inferior minds.

"And we were sequestered for nine days; one juror threw a chair at me," Hostin heroically explained during the grand performance. "They were so angry with me and one by one I picked them off and said, 'What about this, what about that,' and we ended up, all 12 unanimously voting that he was not criminally responsible by reason [of insanity]." 

The truth is, they just wanted to get out of that room with her.

To solidify the legend, her production team triumphantly produced a classic New York Times article noting that "Several jurors questioned afterwards said one holdout juror was principally responsible for preventing them from returning a guilty verdict."

"That was me," Hostin declared, perhaps hoping to land a tv gig. 

Unfortunately, mean-spirited conservative journalists ruined the moment by reading the rest of the news archive, which clearly identified the legendary holdout juror as a guy, not Hostin, who, we are fairly certain, she did not identify as a man at the time.

Faced with the grave injustice of public records, Hostin retreated to the safety of the Behind the Table podcast with Executive Producer Brian Teta to adjust the narrative. Teta gently guided his star host through the tragic realization that historical facts exist.

"So, the amount of attention this got was a little bit outsized, I thought," Teta sighed, visibly shaken that anyone had bothered to verify information stated on television. He then gently reminded Hostin about the male juror mentioned in every newspaper from the era.

"I remember him," Hostin suddenly recalled, her memories instantly updating to match reality.

Hostin quickly explained that while the other guy was holding out on the main murder charge, she was holding out on an entirely different charge regarding the dismemberment of the victim. And if you believe that, I have a chicken that speaks French to sell you.

"Yes, he was insane when he killed her. And he said that. He confessed that he didn’t realize that she was even dead. But then he decides to dismember her. I just thought that was so clear and gruesome and despicable to do that to someone’s remains. I thought that he should be found guilty of that. And everyone else did too, except for this one guy. And we were, like, kind of looking at him, like, that was the easy one."

When asked why none of the original jurors bothered to mention her or the dramatic airborne chairs to reporters 35 years ago, Hostin patiently explained that the press simply lacked the mental capacity to capture her brilliance.

"So, when I was explaining it to The Times and the news, I guess Newsday or the Daily News or whatever, we were, all of us were really honing in on that mistrial piece. Because it felt bad," Hostin said, not very convincingly. 

Before moving on to the next segment, Hostin generously offered a public service announcement to remind everyone that her critics are simply too uneducated to understand her brilliant memory lapses.

"So, while I know it’s complex for the average person, it’s not only, it wasn’t complex to me then. And 35 years later, now as an attorney for over 30 years, it’s not complex to me now," Hostin boasted.

At publishing time, Hostin was preparing a new segment detailing how she personally drafted the U.S. Constitution, though producers noted she may later clarify that she was actually just reading a printed copy in middle school.

Gentle readers, please take time to give a click on the ads on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything just to look. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly, but no pressure. And finally, consider subscribing if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and totally worth the cost.

Tweet

Holdout juror on Clancy Case says "activists" wanted "not guilty" on Day 1

The Lindsay Clancy jury has now explained itself, and the explanation is a masterpiece of civic self-regard. 

Eleven people sat through weeks of evidence that a mother strangled her five-year-old, her three-year-old, and her eight-month-old, then decided the real story was their own opportunity to improve the lot of women. 

One juror said it out loud: they understood the case as a turning point that could “change something to make it better for other women in the future.” If that doesn't disgust you, there's something wrong with you.

The three children were, in this telling, supporting characters in a policy seminar. They took an oath to apply the law to the facts. They then treated the oath the way a committee treats a mission statement—something to be recited and immediately subordinated to the larger project. 

From the first day of deliberations, according to the holdout juror they later helped identify, eight of them arrived already committed to acquittal. That is, they had already made up their minds before the trial got underway.

They spent the rest of the week converting the remaining holdouts. 

When one man declined to join the project, they complained that he was ignoring the judge’s instructions. The people who had recast a triple homicide as a chance to start a national conversation about women’s mental health were suddenly very particular about process.

The same cohort that celebrates “jury equity” when climate or Palestine protesters smash windows now discovered that equity is a one-way valve. Conscience is sacred when it produces the preferred outcome. When it produces a single vote for guilt, it becomes obstinacy, perhaps even a character defect worth leaking to the press. 

These despicable jurors wrapped themselves in the language of compassion while treating the man who would not play along as the problem to be solved. Then they expressed surprise that the public noticed the mismatch. 

This is the peculiar genius of the activist juror. 

The courtroom is no longer a place where twelve strangers decide whether this defendant did this act with this state of mind. It is a platform. The dead children become nothing more than raw material. The oath becomes optional. 

And the holdout who insists on doing the actual job is recast as the extremist. Imagine the perversion of thought to get to this point.

The system is supposed to survive this kind of improvement. It will be interesting to see how many people still believe that after watching the improvers at work.

Sex! Now that I have your attention, please take time to check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything just to look. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly. And finally, consider subscribing if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet