Why Lindsay Clancy’s Prosecution May Have Already Lost

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

**Tony Brueski** (0:08)
The defense admitted Lindsay killed her children before the trial started. The prosecution then spent 14 days and more than 70 witnesses proving or trying to prove premeditation. The Apple Maps search, the takeout order, the timing of when she sent Patrick out of the house. The only question the jury has to answer is whether she was criminally responsible. So essentially, they spent two weeks proving something that was really never that much in dispute. Joining us to discuss, we got Eric Faddis, defense attorney, former prosecutor, Robin Drake, retired FBI special agent.
I mean, yeah, so they did spend basically two weeks proving something that was never much in dispute, but it was emotional. It got people crying, it got people upset. A jury, they had to go on the ride. They're there. They are longing for wherever those attorneys take them.
In your opinion, did anything from the prosecution land with that jury? Obviously, it's hard to know. We're not there looking at them, but just from absorbing the story that was trying to be told from the perspective of the prosecution that she premeditated this and she had all of her wits about her while she was doing it. Was there ever a very clear line that was drawn to that, Eric?

**Eric Faddis** (1:34)
In my experience, a lot of attorneys tend to shy away from some of the weaknesses in their case. They might have really strong evidence as to one element, but not so strong evidence as to another. And I think if you are only amplifying one particular element and sort of ignoring the elephant in the room, which is the weaknesses in your case, you're going to have a problem. I think they were amplifying the alleged premeditation to try to… And there is some evidence that a person could interpret as supportive of premeditation, certainly.
But even if we assume that they proved the premeditation piece, they still got this huge issue to resolve regarding whether she knew right from wrong. A person could theoretically plan something, but still not be in the right mind, not know right from wrong, but still engage in planning steps. So I think they focused way too long on what they thought was the highlight of their case while ignoring the problem.

**Tony Brueski** (2:33)
Is it almost kind of like one of those instinctual things that a lot of children do, you know, adults can do too, that are not super evolved, it's let's get louder. Like if you're not hearing me, it's not that I'm not going to make my argument stronger. I'm just going to amplify my volume. I'm going to get more shocking. I'm going to make you hurt more.
That's kind of how it read to me. It's like, oh, is this really working? Well, let's bring out this. Let's bring out that trick. Let's bring out the autopsy photos, things that are not in question here about this case. Let's traumatize you guys. Then are you going to take my side? Then are you going to believe what I'm saying? That's kind of how it felt on the outside looking in. How does that land when that sort of argument is pushed onto a jury of, I'm just going to make you feel it more?

**Eric Faddis** (3:27)
I had a very... I had that happen in a very serious child death case where I was representing the defendant. He did not do it. We prevailed, not guilty on all counts. But during it, the prosecution, they had other huge holes in their case that they were just ignoring and instead they were like, hey, let me show you 40 autopsy photos of this two-month-old with their skull covered up with a saw. Let's look at their brain and let me show you all this blood. On closing argument, I said, hey, these are scare tactics. They're trying to scare you into convicting because they're compensating for the evidence they don't have. They're trying to get into your emotions and freak you out, such that you'll be like, hey, this is such a scary scenario. I better err on the side of caution and convict.
And so I blow them up in closing argument for those kinds of strategies, but they happen all the time.

**Robin Drake** (4:22)
You know, I'm curious also, Eric, I don't know, you probably haven't been able to sit and watch the entire thing because you're actually doing work every day. But from what you've been seeing online and just through your own analysis, what do you think from what you see and how you've seen the prosecution play this, what do you think they think their strength is in this case?