Is Lindsay Clancy criminally responsible? Doctor convicted of trying to kill wife wants new trial – TCN Sidebar

**Joshua Ritter** (0:11)
Hello, and welcome to The Sidebar, presented by True Crime News, taking you inside the courtrooms of high-profile and notorious cases from across the country. I'm your host, Joshua Ritter. I'm a criminal defense lawyer based in Los Angeles, and previously an LA County prosecutor for over a decade. In this week's episode, a doctor convicted of an attempt on his wife's life is seeking a new trial. Plus, Lindsay Clancy's defense presents their case as the mother accused of strangling her three children mounts an argument refuting her criminal liability. But first, the trial for Tupac's unsolved murder plays out in a courtroom 30 years after the rap icon's death. I'm flying solo today, so let's go ahead and just jump right in out of Las Vegas, Nevada. The trial for the murder of a hip hop legend is underway as prosecutors bring charges against the man they say orchestrated the death of Tupac Shakur. Duane Keefe D Davis faced a packed courtroom as the 30-year-old drive-by slaying finally reached trial. Prosecutors claim that Shakur's killing was an act of revenge organized by Davis after an attack on his nephew. However, they do not claim that Davis pulled the trigger. Much of the state's case will hang on Davis' own admissions, which initially came from a proffer conversation that didn't ultimately result in a plea deal for Davis. While generally these negotiations would be protected, Davis' defense was unsuccessful in barring the evidence, as Davis later reiterated much of the same information in his book and subsequent media tour. Though it is uncommon for those in gangs to come forward with information, we will see if Davis' statements could be the linchpin in the long unsolved murder case.
Well, let's talk about this proffer statement, first of all, because much of this case hinges on the words that came out of Davis' own mouth. In fact, I don't think there's a filing on this case if it wasn't for the words that came out of Davis' own mouth. The reason why this case was unsolved for 30 years is not because it was a whodunit. Investigators had a very good idea of who was involved in this. It was could they prove it? Could they get the witnesses to come into court and actually talk about these things? These types of gang cases, and that's what this is, ironically enough, after 30 years with all of the lore that surrounds this, this comes down to a simple gang beef. And those types of cases are very difficult for prosecutors because nobody wants to say anything about it. And that's exactly what they ran into in this case until Davis, one of the defendants, one of the people involved, decides he can't keep his mouth shut about the whole thing. Now, part of those statements come through a book that he wrote. Part of this is coming through interviews that he gave. He was talking to many people about his involvement. He wasn't shy about it. But part of it comes from this proffer agreement. If you've heard us talk about proffer agreements in the past, you know that those are usually protected. The whole idea is that you can go to a law enforcement agency and under a proffer agreement, anything that you say to them cannot be used against you. It's a kind of immunity as a way to look at it. They want to hear what you have to say. And if what you have to say is valuable enough, then maybe they'll use you as a witness rather than a defendant in a trial. And he did that in this case. Problem was, it's not the same as an immunity agreement. It doesn't bind the prosecution to never use your words against you. It's just an exploratory operation on the part of the prosecution to see what you have. And if you have valuable information, then maybe they make you a witness. If you don't have valuable information, then they give you no promises. But they are supposed to not use those statements unless you somehow violate your own side of the proffer agreement. Well, how can you do that? Well, one way is to not be truthful, to not give them all the information that they're asking for or give them only half truths or flat out lie about the questions you're being asked. The other way is to start talking about it. It's essentially seen as waving the agreement altogether when you start talking about it. And that's the way that the judge viewed it in this case. There is other evidence. There is other corroborating evidence. There are other witnesses. But watch as this trial plays out. Those other witnesses are going to be reluctant to testify. Some of that evidence is going to be useful, but not nearly as powerful as the evidence that comes out of Davis' own mouth. This whole case is going to come down to, do jurors believe Duane Davis when he tells other people that he was, in fact, involved in the killing? Another thing to keep in mind is that no one, including the prosecutors, are claiming that Duane Keefe D Davis is the trigger man. They are saying that he is the one who greenlit the entire thing. He's the one that said, go ahead and let's do the shooting. He's the one that provided the weapon, but he's not the one that actually pulled the trigger. That man, that person that they believe to pull the trigger has died. In fact, many of the other people involved have died. The only other true percipient witness to all of this was the man who was sitting next to Tupac. His name is Suge Knight. Suge Knight doesn't want to have anything to do with this case. Again, when you're dealing with these gang type cases, they're very, very difficult to prosecute. So we'll see if the prosecution can pull this thing off. One other thing to keep in mind is what's interesting about this case that you don't see in many cases. In many cases, when the defendant has something to say, the prosecution is taking the position, don't believe them. Don't believe these self-serving statements they were making. In this case, much of the prosecution case hinges on the idea of, believe the defendant. Believe everything he said ahead of time. Believe what he put in the book. Believe what he gave, the statements he made during proffer statements, other interviews that he gave. And the defense is in the position of saying, oh, that was just our client talking big. Don't believe a word that he says. He's just trying to sell books. He's just trying to get himself a good deal. None of it can really be believed. Quite a switch from what we're used to watching. We'll continue to watch that one because I think it will be very, very interesting as it continues to play out 30 years after the murder of Tupac in Las Vegas.