Lindsay Clancy's Lawyer Claims WHAT About Evidence?!

Tony Brueski (0:01)

This is Hidden Killers Live with Tony Brueski and Robin Drake.

Tony Brueski (0:08)

Let's move over to another case. In the Lindsay Clancy case, we need to clear up the massive headline that has dropped this last week. And we have the right person to do that today. And defense attorney Kevin Reddington stood up in the court and claimed the prosecution has no evidence that Lindsay actually killed her three children. I mean, it sounds like a horrific slap in the face after months of hearing about postpartum psychosis. But here is the reality. Reddington doesn't actually believe she didn't do it. What he's doing is filing a World 25B motion, a very calculated legal maneuver, telling the judge that technically the prosecution failed to present enough direct proof that the physical act to sustain a conviction just isn't there. Once you get past the initial shock, it's very kind of a brilliant move.

If entirely cold blooded legal strategy. We're going to talk about exactly what this motion is, how it affects Patrick Clancy and the folks who aren't quite understanding what this actually means, and whether this technicality could actually work. Here to do that, Eric Faddis, defense attorney and former prosecutor, and Robin Drake, retired FBI special agency for the Counterintelligence Behavioral Analysis Program and master class instructor. Eric, help us translate this for everyone who saw the headline and felt sick to their stomach. Oh my God, is he blaming Patrick? This Rule 25 B-Motion isn't the defense genuinely saying someone else did it. It's them testing the sufficiency of the evidence. How does this legal maneuver though actually work? And what exactly is the loophole they're trying to squeeze Lindsay through?

Sure.

Eric Faddis (1:50)

So, Tony, what we're talking about is arguing in the alternative is what us defense attorneys call it. So sometimes you might see a defense attorney say, hey, it wasn't my guy, he was in Florida. But if it was my guy, it was self-defense. And if it wasn't self-defense, it was legal insanity. So what you're doing is you're exploring all potential legal options here. And the motion before the court is arguing, hey, even when the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, no reasonable juror could conclude that Lindsay Clancy was guilty. And here, let me show you why. There was a botched investigation according to defense. They didn't really, they just assumed based on how horrible everything looked, hey, it must have been her. But you can't prove that. And so Reddington is going to this court and saying, hey, even when we look at the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, it still doesn't hold up to snuff. A reasonable juror still ought not have found her guilty. So, Judge, I want you to essentially substitute your opinion on that legal issue for the juries and kick this case out.

Robin Drake (2:54)

And for everyone, as I know, this is such an inflammatory case for so many people, if everyone could put aside what side you're on, because this is not a side. This is just a, we're talking about understanding what's going on in the case. And really the intent of everyone's actions. So with that, what do you think Reddington's intent of doing this is? Because I know his primary goal is to defend his client and uphold justice in the process, due process for her in the legal system inside that state. As I've learned from you, and I know I'm paraphrasing it probably poorly from you and Bob, what do you think his intent of filing this is? Because people say, now he doesn't believe she's innocent or didn't do it or whatever. It's like, no, that's really not what he's doing here. Explain what exactly you think his intent of doing this is.

Eric Faddis (3:39)

Sure.

There are some cases where, let's say it's like a DUI case, and the prosecution has to prove that it happened within the state of Colorado where I practice. We go to a motions hearing and the cop tells all about the observations of intoxication and everything else that they saw. But they failed to prove that this little technicality, this little loophole, that it was in the state of Colorado. Even if everybody knows, hey, it's in the state of Colorado. I would make a motion. I would say, hey, they missed this technical requirement. They cannot meet it based on the evidence. They have not proven it's in the state of Colorado. You got to throw this out. And so it's a similar principle when we're talking about this case. And Reddington is saying, hey, even if you might be of the opinion that these children died at her hands, the state has not proven that at this trial due to this crummy investigation, according to Defense, the lack of evidence on specific requirements. And so, Judge, you need to go back and determine that they, in fact, failed to meet one or more of these elements, even if it's on a technical basis. And therefore, Defense should win. I think that's really the thrust of the motivation behind Defense.