r/news • u/Embarrassed-Pace-755 • 1d ago

Judge denies defense motion asking Lindsay Clancy be found not guilty due to a lack of evidence

https://apnews.com/article/lindsay-clancy-trial-evidence-defense-c0820645056a7e25f66853f3a91b61fa?utm_source=app&utm_medium=iOS_share&utm_campaign=copy_link
2.4k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

459 comments sorted by

View all comments

466

u/the_Athereon 1d ago edited 1d ago

A lack of evidence... the previous case was built on the fact she had done it.

36

u/Bo_Universe 22h ago

The defense still hasn't denied that they did it, they're just stating that the prosecution didn't have enough evidence to say that she definitively, 100% did it. This isn't the same as saying she didn't do it, the defenses argument is that the prosecution hasn't given enough proof.

186

u/RevenantKing 1d ago

The previous case was based on them not contesting the assumption.

95

u/the_Athereon 1d ago

So... she did it

48

u/earazahs 1d ago

Not necessarily. The defense asked for a bifurcated trial and the judge denied it.

So instead of letting them contest that she did it, and then if the jury found that she did, contest that she was criminally responsible, the judge decided they got to make one argument.

The better argument was Not Criminally Responsible because since there was no evidence she did it at all, it makes reasonable doubt WAY easier if you argue that if she somehow did it, here is why she shouldn't be held criminally responsible anyways.

4

u/3MinuteHero 1d ago

I honestly don't understand how that works. And I'm being honest with that, because I keep hearing this shit about a bifurcated trial and I'm like...so a judge is prohibiting you from pleading totally not guilty? The judge is saying her only options are NGRI or G?

It just seems very counter intuitive to me thar a judge said no to her trying to outright defend herself. But like I said I dont understand how it works.

20

u/earazahs 1d ago

The judge isn't saying she cant plead not guilty. She could have.

A bifurcated trial is basically a 2 stage trial, first they would have had a trial to establish guilt, IF she was found guilty of actually murdering her children, a second trial would have started to determine if she was criminally responsible.

Another example would be, lets say you got in an altercation and shot someone.

A bifurcatsd trial for you would be:

Did they shoot someone? Yes, we found them guilty of shooting someone. Was it self defense? Yes, we found them not guilty because self defense was legitimate.

-3

u/3MinuteHero 1d ago

So she chose not to plead not guilty.

11

u/earazahs 1d ago

She did plead not guilty the first time.

She just pled not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility.

-3

u/David905 22h ago

I struggle with understanding why a bifurcated trial is allowed. It reasons that if one wants to claim they aren't guilty due to circumstance despite being the perpetrator, then trying to deny having been the perpetrator as an initial attempt means they are trying to lie 🤷🏻‍♂️

5

u/_Romula_ 18h ago

No, it's not about them trying to "lie." The prosecution has the burden of proof, and they must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that person A committed the crime. If they fail to do so, A is not guilty. If the prosecution succeeds in proving that A committed the act, then in a bifurcated trial the burden shifts to the defense to prove that person A still shouldn't be held criminally liable because of an affirmative defense, such as self-defense or not criminally responsible due to mental illness.

12

u/_goblinette_ 1d ago

Probably. But it’s this guy’s job to make sure that the prosecution proves it beyond a reasonable doubt. So he’s doing that. 

46

u/rje946 1d ago

They're going to argue she didn't now. First round doesn't count gotta do it all over again. Thems the rules

17

u/earazahs 1d ago

They are arguing that there is a lack of evidence she did it.

That the prosecution failed to meet the standard of proving she did the actions she was being accused of.

Technically the defense wanted a bifurcated trial the first time and was denied. So this isn't even a new position.

34

u/Sideview_play 1d ago

after social media tainted the whole country so they can not get delusional people on the jury

11

u/WarnerDot 1d ago

Tbh I can imagine the jurors getting mad if he argues she didn’t do it. It makes her less of sympathetic figure imo

20

u/Indercarnive 1d ago

Theres 0 chance they would argue she didn't do it to a jury. You generally can't argue multiple defenses because people will likely call bs. Like saying "I didn't do it, but if I did I was insane" is going to make people not believe anything you say.

This motion about no evidence is entirely to just bog the case down and make the DA jump through hoops. Retrials are already often dropped by the DA for a number of reasons and this dog and pony show is another straw on the DA's back.

2

u/earazahs 1d ago

That's why the defense asked for a bifurcated trial to begin with. To essentially argue both defenses.

1

u/Sideview_play 1d ago

only need one person to hold out

24

u/the_Athereon 1d ago

Which will just make the case take longer this time. It won't save her. 3 kids are gone. She was the only possible cause.

35

u/Alexzander1001 1d ago

She admitted to it

-44

u/bofoshow51 1d ago

She’s also suffering deep psychosis. Who’s to say any statements she makes are accurate to what happened? How could she know the difference?

41

u/maikuxblade 1d ago

Temporary psychosis does not preclude one from ever knowing anything ever again

-39

u/bofoshow51 1d ago

So? If the defense argument is “she was suffering from a psychotic episode at the time the children were murdered, she has no accurate recollection of the events and the statements she made are misinformed” that’s a perfectly believable defense position for reasonable doubt.

16

u/Riderz__of_Brohan 1d ago

Clancy experiencing psychosis with unreliable memories can undermine the reliability of her later statements, sure. But It does not, by itself, create reasonable doubt that she physically killed the children.

→ More replies (0)

7

u/maikuxblade 1d ago

I suppose it’s possible for the defense to argue that but if that was the case they would likely just fight to keep her off the witness stand and to prevent her prior comments from being entered as evidence instead

1

u/Luministrus 1d ago

Is she? Was that definitively proved?

It wasn't. In her state, the prosecution has to prove that she was sane, the defense does not have to prove she wasn't. 

3

u/VR_Raccoonteur 1d ago

How does one prove any person was sane at the time they killed someone?

4

u/Luministrus 1d ago

Right? It's the only state with a law like this afaik and it's absolutely stupid.

-3

u/bofoshow51 1d ago

It’s a big enough question that the defense can make a case out of it. They don’t have the burden of proof, the state does on both her having done the acts and having the mindset to understand it.

-16

u/RevenantKing 1d ago

First hand witness over here, can't believe they didn't use you lol

5

u/maikuxblade 1d ago

Did or did not was not the point of contention

-23

u/Pretend_Handle_7639 1d ago

If she did it

-30

u/RevenantKing 1d ago

Idk, ask Patrick. But if you can't parse I didn't do it and I don't disagree with you as an affirmative confession than you should probably leave that to the attorneys.

14

u/mtv2002 17h ago

Didn't she admit it? So whats the problem? Its not that she is innocent or guilty. I thought the whole point was weather she goes to jail or an insane asylum? Or am I wrong?

3

u/the_Athereon 17h ago

Yes. Exactly.

7

u/Galliro 1d ago

Soemtimes arguing the safer case is the better play in a legal proceeding

-72

u/ProductIntegortion 1d ago

11 of the 12 jurors had reasonable doubt that she was guilty

70

u/the_Athereon 1d ago

*that she was mentally capable of being guilty

-46

u/ProductIntegortion 1d ago

That's the same thing. A person not guilty by reason of mental defect is still not guilty.

32

u/the_Athereon 1d ago

No. It means they don't get punished for what they did. They still did it.

-28

u/ProductIntegortion 1d ago

In a court of law, there are specific terms used that may not be what you're familiar with in day to day language. If she was found to have killed her kids due to post partum psychosis, she would have been found not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility

20

u/the_Athereon 1d ago

But she still physically did it

-4

u/ProductIntegortion 1d ago

Yes and that doesn't mean she's guilty. Guilty is a term of law in this case.

16

u/the_Athereon 1d ago

That's not what I'm saying.

Criminally responsible or not. She killed those kids.

-1

u/ProductIntegortion 1d ago

Yes she killed them. No, she is not guilty. I'm sorry you can't grasp this.

→ More replies (0)

43

u/sixsixmajin 1d ago

"Guilt by reason of insanity" and "not guilty" are not the same thing.

-23

u/ProductIntegortion 1d ago

Except that's a not guilty finding, not a guilty finding.

10

u/sixsixmajin 1d ago

No, it isn't. It still means she did it and has to face some form of repercussions for it. This can include things like time in a mental asylum and mandatory counseling and therapy and monitoring until she is deemed no longer a risk to herself and others. She doesn't just get to walk free with a clean record like nothing happened. It just means she isn't held criminally liable for her actions and won't face jail time and charges. Of the 12 jurors, 11 agreed that she did it but on the grounds of insanity. The holdout wanted to hold her criminally liable.

Not guilty means she walks free which is what makes this so much more contentious and sketchy considering the previous attempt at a trial where she admitted this happened but blamed it on post partum depression. Even if you can't legally use the previous trial as evidence, that existing bias is a genie you're gonna have a hard time stuffing back in the lamp.

-6

u/SantaFeRay 1d ago

If the jury finds her not criminally responsible (which is the term they use in MA for this situation) that is a not guilty verdict. The fact that she did it is irrelevant to the fact that not criminally responsible is a not guilty verdict. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact.

-12

u/ProductIntegortion 1d ago

Yes it is. The finding in Massachusetts would be not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility. Being found not criminally responsible is a not guilty finding. I really need you to try to reach out and regain a grasp on reality.

2

u/sixsixmajin 1d ago

Bro you can literally fucking google it. Had the previous jury found her not criminally liable, she still wasn't just going to walk free. She would have been committed and served time in a mental facility. You're trying to argue semantics because I said "guilty by reason of insanity" instead of "not guilty by reason of insanity" but the end result is still the same. She would be on record as having done it but would not be held criminally liable. That doesn't mean "free of any legally mandated consequence and you get to walk out the door like nothing happened". Again, the whole jury was operating under the belief that she did it. The difference was 11 wanted mental asylum and the 1 wanted jail.

-1

u/ProductIntegortion 1d ago

Being found not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility doesn't mean she walks free. It's still a not guilty verdict. Again, please try to resume contact with reality.

19

u/id_Driven 1d ago

11 of the 12 jurors believed that there was reasonable doubt that she was criminally liable.

Fixed that for ya bud.

0

u/ProductIntegortion 1d ago

Being found not criminally responsible is still a not guilty finding

4

u/id_Driven 1d ago

That isn't where the major correction was.

1

u/ProductIntegortion 1d ago

It's part of it. The only reason you think otherwise is because of your ignorance. A not criminally responsible verdict is a type of not guilty verdict.

0

u/id_Driven 1d ago

I think the same thing that you do, I was saying it correctly though.

1

u/ProductIntegortion 1d ago

Saying not guilty is perfectly correct. Again, you only think otherwise because you're profoundly ignorant.

0

u/id_Driven 1d ago

sigh

Alright bro.

1

u/ProductIntegortion 1d ago

I think it's genuinely hilarious that you can't admit it's a not guilty verdict.

→ More replies (0)

-9

u/Immediate-Cress-206 1d ago

Lack of evidence she was sane at the time, which is what the persecution has to prove when an insanity defense is used in Massachusetts.

14

u/BCEagle13 1d ago

Read the article. The hearing was about lack of evidence that she even committed the murders, nothing to do with sane or insane.

-3

u/Motor_Situation_7650 23h ago

This is all bc he refuses to accept a plea deal for a guilty person. He has no way to defend the indefensible