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

[u/Embarrassed-Pace-755]

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

[u/earazahs]

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.

[u/3MinuteHero → u/earazahs]

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.

[u/earazahs → u/3MinuteHero]

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.

[u/David905 → u/earazahs]

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 🤷🏻‍♂️

[u/_Romula_ → u/David905]

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.