• #1,001
  • #1,002
Clancy is scheduled to sit for another psychiatric evaluation next month. The parties are due back in May to discuss those results ahead of the trial, scheduled to begin in July.







PLYMOUTH, Mass. (Court TV) — A judge has denied a request to split Lindsay Clancy‘s upcoming murder trial into two parts, meaning it will proceed with a single phase this summer.

I would have been suprised had the Judge said yes. Has anyone seen this done in a previous trial anywhere? TIA.
 
  • #1,003
I would have been suprised had the Judge said yes. Has anyone seen this done in a previous trial anywhere? TIA.
Ive not seen it before in any case.

Its more common in specific contexts like insanity defenses, and less routine in MA in criminal murder trials.
Capital cases often use bifurcation for guilt vs penalty/sentencing phases (post-1970s reforms), but that’s distinct from guilt vs insanity.

 
  • #1,004
  • #1,005
After the court denied his previous bid to divide the trial, defense attorney Kevin Reddington submitted a new motion last week. In that request for reconsideration of the bifurcated trial format, Reddington offered to the court that Clancy "is willing to stipulate formally in writing to her involvement in the underlying conduct resulting in the death of the three young children."

In the recent motion, Reddington argues that Clancy's stipulation to her deadly actions would leave her state of mind as the only "live issue" for the court to decide at trial.

 
  • #1,006
What this attorney is proposing is very much over my head, I've not seen this before. Appreciate commentary from those who are familar with this.
 
  • #1,007
What this attorney is proposing is very much over my head, I've not seen this before. Appreciate commentary from those who are familar with this.
IMO, it essentially boils down to Lindsay Clancy stipulating/admitting/agreeing or otherwise not challenging the allegations that her physical actions caused the deaths of the three children, thereby eliminating the need for a trial to prove those allegations true. She will admit her body physically acted to kill the children. In exchange for that, her defense wants the only matter "tried" before the Court to be Lindsay Clancy's mental state, i.e., whether she was capable of knowing right from wrong, was in a state of psychosis, or otherwise mentally impaired or insane.

I'm not a lawyer, but the strategy makes sense to me. The prosecution will likely vigorously oppose it if their intent is to try to prove that Lindsay Clancy is a cold-blooded killer who murdered her children with malice aforethought. I don't happen to believe she is, but that's JMO.
 
  • #1,008
IMO, it essentially boils down to Lindsay Clancy stipulating/admitting/agreeing or otherwise not challenging the allegations that her physical actions caused the deaths of the three children, thereby eliminating the need for a trial to prove those allegations true. She will admit her body physically acted to kill the children. In exchange for that, her defense wants the only matter "tried" before the Court to be Lindsay Clancy's mental state, i.e., whether she was capable of knowing right from wrong, was in a state of psychosis, or otherwise mentally impaired or insane.

I'm not a lawyer, but the strategy makes sense to me. The prosecution will likely vigorously oppose it if their intent is to try to prove that Lindsay Clancy is a cold-blooded killer who murdered her children with malice aforethought. I don't happen to believe she is, but that's JMO.
I don’t think she’s a cold-blooded killer either. I get Andrea Yates vibes from this case. MOO
 
  • #1,009
IMO, it essentially boils down to Lindsay Clancy stipulating/admitting/agreeing or otherwise not challenging the allegations that her physical actions caused the deaths of the three children, thereby eliminating the need for a trial to prove those allegations true. She will admit her body physically acted to kill the children. In exchange for that, her defense wants the only matter "tried" before the Court to be Lindsay Clancy's mental state, i.e., whether she was capable of knowing right from wrong, was in a state of psychosis, or otherwise mentally impaired or insane.

I'm not a lawyer, but the strategy makes sense to me. The prosecution will likely vigorously oppose it if their intent is to try to prove that Lindsay Clancy is a cold-blooded killer who murdered her children with malice aforethought. I don't happen to believe she is, but that's JMO.

Is it still a murder charge?
 
  • #1,010
After the court denied his previous bid to divide the trial, defense attorney Kevin Reddington submitted a new motion last week. In that request for reconsideration of the bifurcated trial format, Reddington offered to the court that Clancy "is willing to stipulate formally in writing to her involvement in the underlying conduct resulting in the death of the three young children."

In the recent motion, Reddington argues that Clancy's stipulation to her deadly actions would leave her state of mind as the only "live issue" for the court to decide at trial.

I don’t really understand why her defence team want to blame over-medication for the psychosis. It seems to me that this really over-complicates the issue. Don’t they just need to focus on the fact that she was suffering from post-partum depression and her mental health became so bad that she crossed into psychosis? This is an uphill battle anyway without having to also prove that over-medication is what led to it.
 

Guardians Monthly Goal

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
56
Guests online
2,104
Total visitors
2,160

Forum statistics

Threads
646,844
Messages
18,866,347
Members
246,130
Latest member
uneedtlc2
Top