The View’s Sunny Hostin put herself at the center of a controversy last week when she bragged about being a lone holdout juror in a the high-profile murder trial of The Butcher of Tompkins Square Park. Things took a turn when contemporaneous reports showed other jurors pointing to a man as the holdout, with some noting two. Hostin appeared on ABC’s Behind the Table podcast to try to clean up the mess, saying they were each holdouts on different charges and scoffed at critics being too dumb to understand.
“So, the amount of attention this got was a little bit outsized, I thought,” proclaimed executive producer Brian Teta.
First up on the itinerary to help defend Hostin’s credibility was making sure people understood that while they found Daniel Rakowitz not guilty by reason of insanity, he still committed the crime and was not out on the streets like many online seemed to believe.
Hostin noted he was still committed to a mental institution (Click “expand”):
And that's, and that's, that's the problem. I think that people have with the insanity defense. They think that someone is ‘let off.’ When you find someone not criminally responsible, meaning they didn't have the criminal intent because of a mental disease or defect is what we used to call it. It means then that they get put into a psychiatric hospital and are held there.
So, think about Hinckley, right? Think about other people. There are many that are still institutionalized in what is a secure facility and being treated for their mental illness. But they are not out on the street.
This man, Daniel Racowitz, I believe he's probably in his 60s by now. And he is still in a mental institution where he should be because if someone is capable, it is so sick that they did what he did, imagine what he would do in general population in a prison or could do without being treated.
“Imagine that person being in gen pop. Imagine that person killing a guard, another prisoner, a cafeteria worker. Think about that,” she argued, pointing out that a mental institution was better equipped to deal with him.
After suggesting she a was a lone holdout juror in the murder trial of The Butcher of Tompkins Square Park, Sunny Hostin now says she remembers the male holdout juror. She claims he was only holding out on the charge of desecrating remains, she held out on the murder being due to… pic.twitter.com/qucPstsjXP
— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) September 29, 2026
Moving on to “phase two of the last week's headlines,” as Teta put it, Hostin was given an opportunity to explain why her version of what happened was seemingly different from what was reported by newspapers at the time.
Speaking about the accounts from other jurors quoted in the papers, Teta said, “they were talking about a man that other people pointed to as saying this is the reason we couldn't come to a verdict.” “I remember him,” Hostin replied.
Hostin argued that both of them were holdouts, but they each held out on different charges, her on the insanity defense and him on the desecration of the victim’s body (Click “expand”):
HOSTIN: 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.
TETA: Right.
HOSTIN: It was always the easy one. But we could not reach a unanimous verdict on that count.
TETA: Okay. So when you were on the show, you said that you were the holdout juror.
HOSTIN: I was.
TETA: You didn’t mention this other person at the time.
HOSITN: That’s a different count!
They then pointed to the Newsday article, the only article to report the existence of two holdouts, as their proof.
Brian Teta, The View's EP, walks Hostin through the quotes she gave to the newspapers at the time to try to iron out the inconsistences in her comments.
Hostin says the facts of the case are too "complex for the average person":
TETA: So there were quotes from those original… pic.twitter.com/h1MZuiCy75— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) September 29, 2026
As they were nearing the end of that part of their conversation, Hostin seemed to take a swipe at the intelligence of her critics. “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,” she proclaimed.
She ended with a flabbergasted, “Okay everybody?!”
The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read:
ABC’s Behind the Table
September 29, 2026
01:20(…)
BRIAN TETA: Well, we were talking about the holdout juror in the Lindsey Clancy case -
SUNNY HOSTIN: Yeah!
TETA: - and the fact that people wanted to interview him, investigate him, out him. And you were very much against that.
HOSITN: Well, it's unfair. I think it would have a chilling effect on the jury system. And it's such an important duty. And a lot of people try to avoid being on a jury because it takes time, takes time away from your family, and from work, and some of the topics can be very dark. People don't want to do it.
And then I remembered, you know, my story that I actually, I was 22 or 23 years old, and I literally got called for jury duty. And I didn't want to do it just like everyone else. And I happened to be working with a group of attorneys. I was like a -
TETA: Paralegalish?
HOSTIN: Kind of a paralegal, not really, but I was a paralegal. I really got coffee and stuff for some of the attorneys and they were defense attorneys.
And they encouraged me to do it. They said, this is a duty. You'll learn so much. They wanted me to go to law school. I wasn't really clear on that yet. And that experience made it much more clear to me, but it made it clear that I wanted to be a prosecutor and not a defense attorney. But they encouraged it. And they paid my salary while I was doing it, which I think is unusual.
And I remembered being a holdout juror. And that's why I brought it up.
TETA: Right.
HOSTIN: I brought it up because as a holdout juror myself, I would be horrified that people would investigate me for doing my duty as an American science.
TETA: So, the amount of attention this got was a little bit outsized. I thought, but -
HOSTIN: I can't believe it. You're telling me that. But, I guess so.
TETA: And there were several, there were several distinct phases of people talking.
HOSTIN: Okay.
TETA: For starters, they - and you came on the show and you talked about the idea of an insanity defense and you talked about -
HOSTIN: It’s complex. It's complicated.
TETA: You in this case helped convince other jurors that this person was not guilty by reason of insanity.
HOSTIN: Yes.
TETA: This was then portrayed -
HOSTIN: Not guilty, but that doesn't mean that person is not responsible for it. The person did it without intent because the person was mentally ill.
And this person that we found not criminally responsible by reason of insanity is because he had a lengthy psychiatric history. I'm talking, they brought in like boxes of medical records. He had been sick for years. So, it was very clear to me that he suffered from mental illness.
And I should also say that one of the other reasons why I understood it was because I had people in my family that suffered from mental illness. And so, I was particularly aware of that.
TETA: When you first talked about this, people were outrage saying she let this guy out on the street -
HOSITN: No.
TETA: - and what’s worse she's proud of it. And of course, he wasn’t let out on the street.
HOSTIN: And that's, and that's, that's the problem. I think that people have with the insanity defense. They think that someone is ‘let off.’ When you find someone not criminally responsible, meaning they didn't have the criminal intent because of a mental disease or defect is what we used to call it. It means then that they get put into a psychiatric hospital and are held there.
So, think about Hinckley, right? Think about other people. There are many that are still institutionalized in what is a secure facility and being treated for their mental illness. But they are not out on the street.
This man, Daniel Racowitz, I believe he's probably in his 60s by now. And he is still in a mental institution where he should be because if someone is capable, it is so sick that they did what he did, imagine what he would do in general population in a prison or could do without being treated.
TETA: Right. So, the idea is he's someplace that's equipped -
HOSITN: To deal with someone like that that could kill someone while mentally ill. Imagine that person being in gen pop. Imagine that person killing a guard, another prisoner, a cafeteria worker. Think about that.
TETA: Right. So the lazy take on this was she's got a matter of jail and she's proud of it and it’s disrespectful to the victims.
HOSITN: Why would I be proud of that?
TETA: Yes, I know.
HOSITN: It's an experience that I had that I shared so that people would understand better. I think our lived experiences are a very good way on this show in particular to explain to people current events. Right.
TETA: Let's go to phase two of the last week's headlines. So then, the next day, someone on the internet dug up a Daily News article from 1991 that profiled another different person that was a holdout juror. You were quoted in this article too.
HOSTIN: Yes.
TETA: But they were talking about a man that other people pointed to as saying this is the reason we couldn't come to a verdict.
HOSTIN: I remember him.
TETA: Explain. Tell people what was going on.
HOSTIN: Oh my gosh.
So as I recall and look it up for yourselves, there were three counts, I believe. One was, you know, second-degree murder, but it was intentional. Then there was the defense to that was, we could consider the insanity defense, meaning that he committed the crime, but he was not criminally responsible because of a mental disease or defect. And there was a third count or a third issue that we dealt with. And that issue was the desecration of Monika Beerle’s remains.
And I felt really strongly about that as I did think the rest of the jury did because it was clear to me that once he killed her, he tried to hide that. I think that shows intent. And I think you have to know what you're doing if you go to such gruesome lengths to hide someone's body.
TETA: So, your feeling was he was insane when he made - committed the murder?
HOSTIN: 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.
TETA: Right.
HOSTIN: It was always the easy one. But we could not reach a unanimous verdict on that count.
TETA: Okay. So when you were on the show, you said that you were the holdout juror.
HOSTIN: I was.
TETA: You didn’t mention this other person at the time.
HOSITN: That’s a different count!
TETA: It's a different count.
HOSITN: [Laughter]
TETA: There's another article in Newsday that - a Long Island paper.
HOSITN: Okay.
TETA: Again, 1991 that talks about two holdout jurors.
HOSTIN: Yes.
TETA: So that explanation would be -
HOSTIN: That's right!
TETA: - you and this guy.
HOSTIN: Yes, that is correct.
The jury found him initially guilty of intent.
TETA: Right.
HOSITN: I did not.
TETA: So, when you talked about having to convince the other jurors, it was about them about the insanity -
HOSITN: Inanity defense.
TETA: - at the time of the murder.
HOSITN: Yes, but I believe that all the jurors including that guy, we all believe that he dismembered her.
TETA: All right. And this was all brought up because of the Lindsey - [laughter] - Lindsey Clancy jury.
HOSITN: Yes! But does it make sense to you?
TETA: It does. But it's more confusing than a five minute segment allowed us to tell.
HOSITN: Yes!
TETA: So there were quotes from those original articles that he brought up.
HOSTIN: Sure.
TETA: In the Daily News, you said, ‘we don't think he intended to kill her, but once he did, he dismembered the body in an effort to commit the perfect prime.’
HOSITN: Correct. He was guilty of the dismemberment 100 percent.
TETA: Right. That was The New York Times. Sorry. Daily News said, ‘yes, we believe he did it. I believe he butchered the body and almost committed the perfect crime.’
HOSITN: Yes.
TETA: ‘He knew what he was doing.’
HOSITN: Yes. He knew what he was doing when he dismembered the body!
TETA: But not when he killed her.
HOSITN: Because we were very, what you have to understand is we sat through weeks and weeks of trial testimony, looking at gruesome pictures. And then, we get and we're sequestered. We can't go home. And we don't get, we get a mistrial on one of the most obvious counts. Imagine how it feels to be interviewed and asked, why didn't you convict him without people realizing the complexity underneath it.
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.
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.
TETA: Yes.
HOSITN: Because it felt bad.
TETA: Okay.
HOSITN: Okay everybody?!
TETA: Probably not, but there we are.
HOSITN: I mean, that's it.
TETA: We've given all the explanation we can.
(…)
