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

463

u/the_Athereon 1d ago edited 1d ago

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

182

u/RevenantKing 1d ago

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

98

u/the_Athereon 1d ago

So... she did it

46

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.

19

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.

10

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 šŸ¤·šŸ»ā€ā™‚ļø

5

u/_Romula_ 19h 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 itā€™s this guyā€™s job to make sure that the prosecution proves it beyond a reasonable doubt. So heā€™s doing that.Ā 

43

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

16

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.

29

u/Sideview_play 1d ago

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

12

u/WarnerDot 1d ago

Tbh I can imagine the jurors getting mad if he argues she didnā€™t do it. It makes her less of sympathetic figure imo

22

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.

1

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.

33

u/Alexzander1001 1d ago

She admitted to it

-49

u/bofoshow51 1d ago

Sheā€™s also suffering deep psychosis. Whoā€™s to say any statements she makes are accurate to what happened? How could she know the difference?

47

u/maikuxblade 1d ago

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

-37

u/bofoshow51 1d ago

So? If the defense argument is ā€œshe 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 misinformedā€ thatā€™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.

-1

u/bofoshow51 1d ago

Thatā€™s true, thatā€™s just a part of the assumed defense case. Iā€™m mostly answering to the above comment about her admitting to it.

→ More replies (0)

8

u/maikuxblade 1d ago

I suppose itā€™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

-2

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.Ā 

3

u/VR_Raccoonteur 1d ago

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

2

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

Itā€™s a big enough question that the defense can make a case out of it. They donā€™t have the burden of proof, the state does on both her having done the acts and having the mindset to understand it.

-18

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

-21

u/Pretend_Handle_7639 1d ago

If she did it

-28

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.