Lindsay Clancy Mistrial Strategy

    yazan Pavellim: Lindsay Clancy

    The legal strategy unfolding in Plymouth, Massachusetts, after the mistrial declaration in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial is drawing sharp criticism for treating three deceased children like pawns. Attorney Reddington has requested an hour to petition a judge to halt proceedings pending a ruling on mistrial status, arguing that the defense needs time to file an emergency appeal. The defense seeks separate questioning of jurors regarding each charge: first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and manslaughter. Reddington intends to invoke the principle of ne bis in idem if jurors unanimously acquit on first-degree murder to prevent refiling that charge, stating they cannot be tried twice for the same thing. One juror prevented the defense from securing a unanimous acquittal, and Reddington criticized that dissenting decision as a disgrace. He suggested a potential lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), claiming the individual was taking an intractable position regardless of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If the stay motion succeeds, the jury must return Tuesday; if it fails, they may not need to return at all. The author characterizes this entire legal maneuvering as games involving three deceased children. It feels like a double standard where the loss of life is secondary to procedural gamesmanship. #LindsayClancy

    Metin dökümü (en)

    Second-degree murder, manslaughter, if there was unanimity, because if they say, hypothetically, we all were unanimous it was not first-degree murder, then the defense will try to get double jeopardy attached so the prosecution, if they retry this case, cannot bring a first-degree murder charge. We do not know if the judge is going to go into that specificity. He is not required to because the reality is there was one verdict slip, and that verdict slip, the jurors are now saying we could not reach unanimity. ...of concern that has been addressed in the motions, the objections. But I further raise the issue of the American with Disabilities Act. I believe that this is a situation where there is a clear and present danger that this individual, for some reason, what it is, we don't know, but is taking a position that's intractable, regardless of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. So I want an opportunity to take an appeal to the single justice if the court will report us that opportunity. How much time do you need to do that? I have it filed today and argue tomorrow Saturday Saturday They would do it on an emergency yeah I mean I could try So we going to tell this jury to come back tomorrow I'm just trying to... I understand. The reason I'm asking it... I know, but as they're walking in, you're asking for this. I'm just trying to find out what it is that you're asking for. What I'm asking for is time to file a single justice appeal for this travesty. That's what I'm asking for. So you're asking for an emergency stay at this point? Yes. And the jurors don't have to come back tomorrow. They can be told they don't even have to come back if I lose the motion. But if I win the motion, then obviously they would have to come back Tuesday. If you want to go up and petition to the SJC for a stay, I'll give you an hour before we bring the jury back down. I think you could, it's just a request for the stay of the declaration of the distraught. So I'll hold off for an hour, and then we'll come back in in regards to that. Okay. All right. All rise. Gene, that's a bit of a twist there from the defense attorney. They're going to take a break. He's got to appeal now.