Where the Prison System Puts Lindsay Clancy If She's Convicted

**SPEAKER_1** (0:01)
This is Hidden Killers Live with Tony Brueski and Robin Drake.

**Tony Brueski** (0:08)
What happens, though, if she is found guilty? What kind of appeals are available to her, and can she survive them, quite literally? That's what we're about to get into as we continue our conversation here. Robin Drake, retired FBI special agent, and Eric Faddis, defense attorney and former prosecutor. If this jury finds Lindsay Clancy guilty of first degree murder, the sentence is automatic, life in prison without the possibility of parole. The judge reads it, it's done, but the case doesn't end when the sentence is read. In Massachusetts, a first degree murder conviction triggers an automatic appeal to the Supreme Judicial Court. Reddington doesn't have to really do much. The case goes up on its own. Eric, that's a good legal question. What does that automatic review actually look for?
And I guess how often does anything get changed on automatic review? Or does it take a lot of advocacy from attorneys to get the Supreme Court to go, wait a second, we don't think that this is how it should have ended?

**Eric Faddis** (1:15)
You know, automatic reviews can unfortunately just be folks going through the motions. They've got to do this review.
But we know what happened at trial and they, you know, probably not going to disturb what is the standard consequence for someone who's convicted of first-degree murder. So, and on top of that, gosh, you think about the conditions for a person like Lindsay Clancy inside of there. I don't– it's not that I like feel terribly bad for her. This is just a horrible situation all around. But we don't want a person unduly suffering in there. And a person who's dealing with paralysis, that's hard enough in normal everyday life outside of the prison. Think about how tough it would be in a prison.

**Robin Drake** (2:02)
Yeah. And what do you think is going to be– I mean, Reddington objected many times, which gave him the jump board for an appeal in those areas. Out of all the areas he objected in, what do you think is going to be the first one he's going to use on the attack for an appeal process that you think has the biggest teeth? And is that what you do? Do you take the biggest one first and go with that?

**Eric Faddis** (2:23)
Well, you've got to bring every possible potential outcome of being able to prevail on an appeal. But one thing, Robin and Tony, that we talked about last weekend and that really struck me as improper was the prosecution's question that to a Lindsay Clancy family member, you know, is killing your kid a mortal sin under, you know, Christian doctrine?
I can't think of a more improper question that injects ideas of moral judgment, of religious judgment, and how that could affect a jury. That is my first argument I'm making on appeal, is that that was wholly improper. It tainted how the jury is going to see this in such an egregious fashion that we've got to do this all over now. I think the prosecution totally screwed up on that.

**Robin Drake** (3:18)
What the craziest set of circumstances, the prosecution asked the question, then the later witness said it himself, which was dulled down dumb. I mean, they've really hurt themselves in that one. What do you think the probability of that being a success?
I'm not saying 100 percent or anything like that. Do you think that's going to go well for the defense on that one, or prosecution is going to win it?

**Eric Faddis** (3:43)
I really think they have some significant traction on that potential appeal if there is a conviction. You can't get in these jurors' minds like, oh, if you don't convict this person, God's going to be mad at you. I can't think of a more improper admission in a trial.

**Tony Brueski** (4:00)
But I mean, it wasn't, it didn't go to the jury and say, if you convict her, she's, I mean, it was, you know, it was directed to the witness by the attorney. There was that one, which I completely agree with everything you just said, Eric. But then later on, and I failed off the top of my head to remember exactly which doctor it was that was testified, maybe someone can tell me, who also brought up mortal sin.
That was in a different context. And I'm curious to get your take on that, because when it was brought up a second time, number one, it told me, oh, that's where they got the word mortal sin from. They took it from the testimony. They knew it was going to come up from their witness shortly down the line. And let me grab that and insert it over here, because it's somehow going to support this. I think it was a horrible call, but I think that's probably where the word came from.