Lindsay Clancy Rule 25 Motion Challenges WHAT About the Murder Case?!

Tony Brueski (0:00)

This is live courtroom coverage of the trial of Lindsay Clancy from the Hidden Killers podcast in True Crime Today. Now, back to the courtroom.

William Sullivan (0:11)

All right, Mr. Reddington?

Tony Brueski (0:14)

I don't know which...

William Sullivan (0:15)

Are you going to argue the Rule 25? Sure.

Thank you. Your Honor, the posture at this point, obviously, is that the government rested. I filed the motion under Rule 25 for required finding. The court denied the motion. We then proceeded with the defense. When the defense rested, I renewed the motion for required finding procedurally. The court denied the motion. The government then commenced their rebuttal case. When the government rested, the rebuttal case and the case concluded. I renewed the motion for required finding, and this is a request for the court at this point to enter an order allowing a motion for required finding if not guilty.

The issue is really two. You've got, as it goes back to the motion for bifurcation, you may recall, I know you do, that I had filed the motion requesting that the court bifurcate the trial itself, arguing the Massachusetts Constitution, the difference in the language between the Mass Constitution and the Federal Constitution as it relates to presenting evidence against oneself, whether or not it's an impingement on a defendant's rights for due process, as well as their Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment due process rights, to require a person who is asserting a defense of lack of criminal responsibility to have to have both issues tried. In other words, whether the person committed the offense and whether or not the person at the time of the commission of the offense lacked criminal responsibility. Two separate issues. But the way our present statute and law is set up, and as Your Honor denied that motion, in your memorandum, you indicated obviously that we have to go forward on one trial. Whether or not it's because of money, that it would cost a lot of money to try two cases for anybody asserting a defense of lack of criminal responsibility, or whether or not it's logistics, I don't know, but I suggest to the court that it's readily apparent that you are put in a conundrum where you have to in effect admit culpability, if you will, to raise the issue of lack of criminal responsibility. Now many, many laypeople have difficulty understanding the concept of the bifurcation and say, well, you know, she admitted that she did it, so she's guilty. And therefore, she's just guilty. And then they go off on a tangent about all of these horrific allegations, you know, that she's a demon and she's possessed and she should be executed. And this is coming from politicians, you know, from President Trump all the way down. So we end up trying the case. I tried to raise the issue as best I could on the issue of probable cause.

The jury was instructed by you that they did have the obligation to make a determination as to whether or not the government has presented evidence to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this young woman was actually guilty of this offense. Your Honor then proceeded to indicate appropriately that, in the event that the jury determined there was evidence that, in fact, she had indeed committed the offense, they would then proceed to the issue of whether or not the government sustained its burden of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, that in fact she was not suffering from a mental disease or defect, such as which would have an effect on her being either unable to appreciate the criminality of the conduct alleged, or, in the disjunctive, conform the conduct to the requirements of the law, which is our black little law definition of lack of criminal responsibility.

So I'd like to kind of bifurcate this argument this morning in the same way. And what I would do is address first the issue of the government's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

And it's not riding the horse two hands against the middle and trying to play games with the system or gamesmanship or anything. This is a constitutional due process obligation that the government, when the government charges a person with a criminal offense, they have that burden of proof on each and every element beyond a reasonable doubt. You're on the nose from your review and recollection of the evidence that was presented. I submit to the court that a motion for required finding of not guilty should have been entered on the total and complete lack of evidence to indicate to a rational juror, which is consistent with the Lattimore standard, consistent with Jackson v. Virginia and 443 US. 307, where the courts note that to sustain the denial of a directed verdict, they call it directed verdict, we call it required finding, it is not enough for the court to find that there was some record evidence, which is always what the government always argues. There's some record evidence here, there was an evidence on this, evidence on that element. Dr. Satoff testified to something, and there's enough for a jury. It's a question of fact. No, that's not the standard. The standard is whether or not that there is evidence that a court is able to determine that there's record evidence to support each essential element of the offense. It must find that there is enough evidence that could have satisfied a rational trier of fact. These elements, beyond a reasonable doubt, we consider the directed verdict standard required by Jackson vs. Virginia to be comparable to that heretofore applied in Commonwealth vs. Cooper, and that's in Latimore.