Sunny Hostin spent years explaining criminal law on television without publicly discussing one extraordinary piece of her own legal history. Before law school, before becoming a federal prosecutor and long before The View, she says she was the holdout juror in one of New York City’s most notorious murder trials.
Hostin made the revelation during the Sept. 22 episode of The View while the panel was discussing the lone juror behind the recent Lindsay Clancy mistrial. Hostin said she understood the pressure surrounding a holdout because she had once occupied that position herself in the 1991 trial of Daniel Rakowitz, widely known as the “Butcher of Tompkins Square Park.”
Rakowitz was accused of killing 26-year-old Swiss dance student Monika Beerle in 1989 and dismembering and boiling her remains. Prosecutors also presented testimony alleging that some of her remains had been put into soup distributed to unhoused people in Tompkins Square Park.
After nine days of deliberations, the Manhattan jury found Rakowitz not guilty of intentional murder and not criminally responsible by reason of mental disease or defect on a depraved-indifference murder charge. The jury did not reach a verdict on a separate evidence-tampering count.
Hostin Says One Juror Threw a Chair at Her During Deliberations
“I was a holdout juror.” As Lindsay Clancy’s lawyer is asking a judge to investigate the lone juror who refused to acquit Clancy by reason of insanity, Sunny Hostin reacts and reveals she was a lone juror in the 1991 Daniel Rakowitz murder trial. pic.twitter.com/DNG27b1Kbp
— The View (@TheView) September 22, 2026
The story surfaced as Hostin explained why she was uncomfortable with the backlash against the holdout juror in the Lindsay Clancy case. Eleven jurors ultimately favored a verdict finding Clancy not criminally responsible in the deaths of her three children, while juror Michael Desronvil remained in favor of conviction.
“I was a holdout juror,” Hostin said before naming the Rakowitz case. Her cohosts immediately reacted with surprise, with Alyssa Farah Griffin asking whether Hostin had actually been on that jury.
Hostin explained that the trial took place before she attended law school. She said a producer checked the story during the show’s preparation and found a February 1991 New York Times article reporting that one holdout juror had been principally responsible for preventing an initial guilty verdict.
“That was me,” Hostin said. She described the nine days of deliberations as intensely contentious and said one juror became angry enough to throw a chair at her. Hostin said she continued questioning the evidence with the others until the panel ultimately reached its verdict.
The reaction around The View table was immediate. Griffin asked how Hostin could have helped produce that result, while guest cohost Star Jones jokingly tried to move farther away from her at the table. TheWrap documented the exchange after the broadcast.
A 1991 Report Identified Hostin by Her Maiden Name
A Feb. 22, 1991 UPI report confirms that jurors deliberated for nine days before finding Rakowitz not guilty of intentional murder and not criminally responsible on a depraved-indifference murder charge because of mental illness.
The following day’s New York Times report quoted a juror named Asuncion Cummings. Hostin’s full name is Asunción Cummings Hostin, and Cummings is her maiden name.
The 1991 quote also aligns with what Hostin said on television this week. Cummings told the Times that jurors did not believe Rakowitz intended to kill Beerle and said his dismemberment of the body afterward was an effort to cover up the crime.
The Insanity Defense Asked a Different Question From Intent
New York’s mental-disease-or-defect defense focuses on criminal responsibility. A defendant must establish that, because of mental disease or defect, the person lacked substantial capacity to understand the nature and consequences of the conduct or appreciate that the conduct was wrong.
In Rakowitz’s case, the jury acquitted him of intentional murder while separately accepting the mental-disease defense on the depraved-indifference count.
Contemporary reporting shows that psychiatric evidence played a major role in the deliberations. UPI reported that jurors repeatedly asked to review testimony from doctors and heard evidence concerning Rakowitz’s psychiatric condition.
Rakowitz’s behavior during the proceedings also drew attention. A separate UPI report documented disruptive and threatening statements he made while testifying. Hostin said this week that she believed the psychiatric evidence showed Rakowitz was psychotic at the time.
Rakowitz Was Committed After the Verdict
Griffin’s shocked question about Hostin having “got this guy off” left out an important consequence of the verdict. Under New York Criminal Procedure Law, a person found not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect is subject to psychiatric examination and further proceedings that can result in secure psychiatric commitment.
Rakowitz was committed to New York’s forensic psychiatric system rather than simply released. Court records show that years later he remained the subject of proceedings over whether he should continue to be held in a secure facility.
A 2005 New York court decision concerned whether Rakowitz continued to meet the standard for retention at Kirby Forensic Psychiatric Center on Wards Island.
Earlier proceedings had also considered whether he could be transferred to a less restrictive psychiatric setting. A December 2025 report about the Wards Island psychiatric complex identified Rakowitz among forensic patients housed there.
The Lindsay Clancy Mistrial Prompted Hostin to Tell the Story
Hostin’s revelation emerged because of the continuing controversy surrounding Desronvil, the lone holdout in Clancy’s Massachusetts trial.
Clancy was charged with killing her three children: Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months in their Duxbury home in January 2023. Her defense did not dispute that she caused their deaths but argued that postpartum psychosis left her without criminal responsibility. Prosecutors maintained that she understood what she was doing.
After seven days of deliberations, the jury remained divided 11-1 and the judge declared a mistrial Sept. 4. Desronvil later told ABC News that he had no doubt Clancy knew what she was doing.
Clancy’s lawyers subsequently asked the judge to investigate allegations that Desronvil used a cellphone during deliberations and questions about answers he gave during jury selection and later questioning by the court. They have also asked the judge to dismiss the case rather than permit another trial.
Associated Press reported that prosecutors had not yet announced whether they would retry Clancy. Hostin said she disagrees with Desronvil’s conclusion and believes Clancy was not criminally responsible.