Lindsay Clancy 'Circus': Heated Clash Right Before Trial!

Lindsey Clancy breaks down in the courtroom as both sides go head-to-head with heated arguments. What I can't fathom is the district attorney's intent to put a circus in front of this jury that's calculated to just inflame the passions of the jury. It is not the commonwealth putting on a circus or a parade, it's the commonwealth presenting the evidence in this case to prove that the defendant killed those children in the manner in which they were killed. Now, if defense would like us to reduce some of these witnesses, that would mean not talking about one of the children. So if he would like to tell me which of these children don't matter. We're unpacking all the arguments from both sides in week one of the Lindsey Clancy trial. This is Scandal, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Sierra Gillespie. Fireworks in the courtroom and opening statements haven't even been presented yet. That's how tense things are in Plymouth County, Massachusetts, where 35-year-old Lindsey Clancy is accused of murdering her three young children, strangling them with exercise bands in her upscale South Shore home. But here's the thing, Lindsey's defense doesn't deny it. In fact, they admit she killed her children, but they say she was experiencing postpartum psychosis. At the time, and that voices in her head and a cocktail of nearly a dozen medications caused her to act. And we'll get to the specifics in a moment. But first, the fireworks that erupted in the Plymouth County courthouse this week when a motions hearing took a turn. But I still want to say that I think it's reprehensible the way the government is trying this case. Your Honor, if I may, I'd just like to say that I understand why defense counsel would want to brush past what happened to these children, whitewash away. All right, here's what we're going to do, here's what we're going to do, we're going to end that now, all right? So he gets an opportunity to say it? No, I stopped that. But that wasn't the only moment that got tense. The Commonwealth had a chance to fire back, and boy, did they ever. The Commonwealth did not choose the ages of the victims, the defendant did. The Commonwealth did not choose the horrific nature in which they died, the defendant did. It is not the Commonwealth putting on a circus or a parade. It's the Commonwealth. It's the Commonwealth presenting the evidence in this case to prove that the defendant killed those children in the manner in which they were killed. All right, you know what, I'll tell you, we don't need that, all right? During all of this tension, Lindsay Clancy herself was so overcome with emotions during these arguments, she began crying. I was there in the courtroom all week, and I kept a close eye on Lindsay. inform their conduct to the law's requirements, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any mental disease or defect that may have existed at the time of the alleged offense did not deprive the defendant of their ability to behave as the law requires, that is, to obey the law. Now, I was in the courtroom this week for jury selection, and let me tell you, this was confusing to potential jurors. I heard during individual voir dire at least one person, a prospective juror, couldn't understand what all of this meant. He said, quote, I don't understand the difference between not guilty and not guilty of insanity. I just don't get it. This man was ultimately excused, and he's not seated on the jury, but this is a very important thing for potential jurors to understand, so much so that it was actually on the jury questionnaire. Now, I got my hands on it from a source at the Boston Globe. There were eight questions total, and one of them was the following. The defense in this case is that Ms. Clancy is not guilty due to not being criminally responsible at the time that she killed her three children. This is commonly referred to as an insanity defense. Is there anything about this so-called insanity? There's a lot of insanity defense that would offend you or cause you to not be able to fairly decide this case. Additionally, the questionnaire asked a lot about mental health for obvious reasons. A few of these questions included, have you, a family member or close friend ever been diagnosed with postpartum depression, generalized anxiety disorder or bipolar disorder? Another question asked, have you, a family member or close friend, had an experience with a psychiatrist, psychologist or mental health facility that would make it difficult for you to get out of your home? I don't know. for you to be fair and impartial in this case? And let me just say, there has been zero testimony yet. This entire week, it was simply jury selection and a few motions hearings. And yet, I saw multiple people crying, three yesterday alone. And here's what's staggering. As potential jurors were called to individual voir dire, they were just inches from Lindsay Clancy herself. I heard multiple prospective jurors saying things like, quote, I'm a mom and I just can't. I saw people bringing literal boxes of tissues to voir dire crying in front of Lindsay Clancy herself, something I've never seen before in jury selection. Now, on day two of all of this, there was some additional drama when a previously seated juror came forward in front of both the judge and the Commonwealth and the defense. And let me tell you, he was emotional. He was loud. I even could hear him over the white noise. And this is what he said. It's a direct quote. I just don't know if I can handle being on the jury. I've just heard about it. And a crime like this is really just horrible. I don't think I can handle it. And mind you, all of this is said just inches from Lindsay Clancy herself. Now, that juror was ultimately removed from the jury, as were two others who had previously been seated. There was really so much confusion this week during jury selection. Both sides agreed they wanted to seat a panel of 18 jurors, so 12 jurors plus six alternates. And every time it seemed like they were close to seating 18, a juror who had already been seated would be removed. But finally, Thursday afternoon, the entire jury was seated. As it stands, it's made up of 12 women and six men. And I think it just goes to show how contentious this case is. People have strong feelings on both sides. And it's of the utmost importance that an impartial jury is seated to decide Lindsay Clancy's fate. But emotions are running high. And we saw proof of that yesterday in court. Now, we weren't allowed to record jury select, but during motions hearings, it was fair game. So thankfully, we have all this on video. Now, the first discussion was regarding a motion that Patrick Clancy himself filed on July 20th. In this motion, Patrick Clancy requests that multiple pieces of evidence be impounded, meaning they could not be released to the media or the public. The motion reads in part, the potential harmful and everlasting emotional impact to Mr. Clancy and his family of any public dissemination of such graphic and sensational evidence and existence related to his three children is immeasurable. The items that Patrick is hoping to keep away from the media are the following. The 911 call that Patrick made when he found Lindsay Clancy and the three children, photos of the children, including autopsy photos, and photos of them before their deaths, the clothing that the children were wearing at the time of their deaths, and quote, material Patrick gave to both sides. Now, Patrick was not in court yesterday for this argument, but his attorney, David Meyer, was. On behalf of the court, on behalf of Patrick Clancy, the father of the three child victims in this case, he recognizes, and I recognize on his behalf, that he has no authority, no standing, and no intention of suggesting to this court or to the attorneys how to try their case, how to conduct direct or cross-examination, and perhaps most importantly, what evidence or exhibits should be introduced during the trial. Mr. Clancy, Mr. Clancy, respectfully, judge, is not seeking to close the courtroom at any time during the trial. Mr. Clancy is not seeking to address the admissibility of any evidence or to exclude any evidence from the jury, and he's not in any way seeking to prejudice the Commonwealth or the defendant in any way. What Mr. Clancy is seeking through counsel, Your Honor, respectfully, is to restrict in a very limited way the display and access to certain specific limited items of evidence and exhibits at trial to the jury, to the court, to counsel, to the court reporter, to the session clerk, and to the court officers, that is, the necessary parties who will be involved in trying the case. And respectfully, judge, I suggest that pursuant to the so-called Massachusetts Victims' Rights Bill and other statutes and cases with which the court is familiar, as a victim, as a family, as a family member of the three victims in this case, Mr. Clancy respectfully has an opportunity and a right to be heard through me or through his counsel. Judge William F. Sullivan then asked both sides for their input, starting with the Commonwealth. With regard to the 911 call, Your Honor, I believe it's a public record available on a public records request, but I would defer to the court in terms of how you want to restrict publication of the 911 call during the trial. Or thereafter, as long as the Commonwealth is still allowed to show, or play rather, the recording for the jury as the court has previously allowed that motion. Regarding photographs of the children, we had already addressed the autopsy photographs. The Commonwealth was going to request impalement of those, and we would agree that they should not be broadcast or photographed in any way. Crime scene photographs, the children had already been removed from the home when the crime scene photographs were taken. So they will not appear in those photographs. The only blood in those photographs would be the purported blood of the defendant in the bedroom and on the exterior of the home, and then a small amount of blood from Cora in the basement. And here's where the fireworks first began. When it came time for the defense to take on this motion, attorney Kevin Reddington did not hold back. I have been in this court every time we've had, pre-trial hearing, indicating to the court that the circumstances of the death is not in dispute. The circumstances of this horrific act are not in dispute. Repeatedly, the government has argued that they have a right to try their case, to present their evidence. Sure they do. But, you know, even though we're in a court, let's talk a little bit about humanity. Let's talk a little bit about how we should try this case. I have indicated repeatedly that we stipulate to every piece of evidence that they want. I have respectfully objected to you with the introduction of this stuff going into the trial, I understand your ruling, and quite frankly, it makes sense. You're trying a case. What I can't fathom is the district attorney's intent to put a circus in front of this jury that's calculated to just inflame the passions of the jury, repeatedly placing in evidence items such as having Patrick Clancy, who's a young man, who has suffered one of the worst tragedies that anyone could ever suffer. How that guy is still an emotional, not an emotional basket case is beyond me, and he has been. But nevertheless, he is trying hard to move forward. He's trying to move on with his life. He has, as the court is aware, they're divorced. He's remarried. He has a family. He has his extended family. Your Honor heard statements, and I know for a fact that it's true, that his family, totally innocent people that have nothing whatsoever to do with this case, are being harassed daily by news media, the New York Post, and all the rest of these types of salacious news media outside of the court. Inside their door. This is his family. Some of them are in California. They have nothing to do with this case. But nevertheless, they are being hounded by the media. And the district attorney wants to put that guy on the witness stand and show little onesies with bodily fluid of his child, and they want to have him stand there? Oh, they're going to let him stand in the hallway while we listen to the 911 call. Mr. Rankin, that's. That's another issue. that's another motion. The question we have right now respectfully is Mr. Meyer's request as to how we should deal with this in regards to the media. I agree with Mr. Meyer's request, as I told you with the sidebar. I think it's very appropriate. I think he argued it effectively. And just when you thought the judge would shut it all down, both sides were back at it and things got tense. But I still want to say that I think it's reprehensible the way the government is trying in this case. Your Honor, if I may, I'd just like to say that I understand why defense counsel would want to brush past what happened to these children, whitewash away what happened and focus on something else. Here's what we're going to do. We're going to end that now. All right. No, I stopped that. And if you want to address that in a different way, then we've got another. Motion in about five minutes that we're going to probably be talking about that. So let's talk about that. Then this is a, you know, I let counsel go and think it was going to wrap back up and I didn't see that it was going to wrap back up in regards to the request. So that's why I stopped it. All right. This is not accomplishing anything in regards to the question of access to these four pieces of evidence. All of this was the precursor for Reddington's motion asking the Commonwealth to limit the number of first responder witnesses they plan to call. This motion is asking that your honor would direct the Commonwealth since apparently the Commonwealth will not agree voluntarily to restrict the presentation of a large number of first responders to this tragic incident. First of all, you know, let's face it, you know, firefighters, EMTs, police officers, you know, they're all wonderful people. They're doing the Lord's work. What these people have gone through or would go through and have gone through in their jobs cannot be underscored. And that's to be respected and embraced. But to present them one after the other in this trial to testify to you. And I would very briefly, I don't even have to mention their names, but Duxbury Fire Department paramedic detailed to the home at 47 Summer Street dealt with dealing with the defendant, Lindsey Clancy, treating with her outside with her injuries. The Duxbury Police Department sergeant went to the house, heard noises, Stephen Hall, there's a Duxbury Police Department officer, saw the defendant heard screaming in the basement. Duxbury Police Department heard another individual heard screaming in the basement, went in, saw the kids in the basement. We stopped the soundbite there, but Reddington goes on to list 17 different first responders from various agencies, all on the Commonwealth's witness list. So that was what was presented to the grand jury and is what? From what we can see is what the government would try to present at this trial and I suggest to the court without sounding as though I'm trying to minimize the horror of what transpired here and what these good employees of the municipalities had to endure and see and probably to this day are suffering post-traumatic stress from it. Legally and objectively, I suggest to your honor that it serves no purpose. I suggest to your honor that it serves no purpose other than to inflame or try to inflame the passions of the jury, one right after the other, after the other, offering them water, offering them time to gather themselves, and it may have worked in the grand jury, but it shouldn't work on a jury trial. When it's time for the Commonwealth to respond, things get tense all over again. Here, unfortunately, we have three victims, so that multiplies those witnesses by three. We also have the defendant herself who was treated at the same time. So then that's a fourth multiplier. Then you also have Patrick Clancy who was so devastated upon finding his children in the manner that he found them that he was in an awful state and had to be brought to the hospital as well. So that's multiplying the people here by five. Now, when the first responders arrived at the home that night, they thought they were responding to one victim, the defendant. Then they found out that the children were there, and they found them in the state that they were in, and it was a chaotic scene. They're asking for more help. They're trying to figure out what's going on. They're trying to treat these children. And so there's a lot of handing off. People start CPR. People move on to another child when someone else arrives who's better equipped to deal with, say, a baby versus a five-year-old. And so we have multiple people working on these children, trying to save their lives, and then get them to the hospital and get them treated. And unfortunately, none of them survived. But the Commonwealth did not choose the number of victims. The defendant did. The Commonwealth did not choose the ages of the victims. The defendant did. The Commonwealth did not choose the horrific nature in which they died. The defendant did. It's the Commonwealth presenting the evidence in this case to prove that the defendant killed those children and the manner in which they were killed. You know what? I'll tell you. We don't need that. All right? We don't need that. Lindsay Clancy herself was so overcome with emotions during these arguments, by the way, that she began crying. The judge made note of this motion, but ultimately decided it was too early to rule on anything definitively. I guess probably just so you'd be prepared that the defense objection will be it's cumulative. And we come over here, and if there's some reason why there's something else that this witness brings, or a reason why you want to call, then we'll deal with it at that point. The Commonwealth will be prepared. All right. All right. So I'm going to take no action on this, assuming that it will be raised again in the next couple of weeks. We'll deal with it as it comes up. I appreciate the party's raid. This is exactly why we have motions to eliminate. So I know that this is an issue that's coming up. I appreciate the Commonwealth setting out what their response is. So I'm kind of ready for that as well. So I'm going to I'm not going to take any action on that. Court is dark on. Friday, but opening statements are expected for Monday. And I've been told by Kevin Reddington himself that the first witness is expected to be Patrick Clancy. He'll be called by the Commonwealth as their star witness, but also will be questioned by the defense under special circumstances, meaning it will be more than just cross exam, but the ability for the defense to put on their case a little bit early. It's not something that I've seen before, and I'm both eager to see what happens, but also trying to emotionally prepare. Because the testimony and the evidence that are going to be presented in this six to eight week trial is going to be heart wrenching. And at the end of the day, we can't forget the lives lost of Cora Dawson and Callan Clancy. Their lives were cut far too short. No matter how this all shakes out, it's going to be a monumental case and we'll be there to cover it all. Law and Crime will be live streaming the entire trial gavel to gavel, and I'll be here to give you recaps as the most shocking courtroom moments unfold. And that is. Where today's episode of Scandal leaves us for now. If you like what you saw and you want to see more or connect with me on social media, you can find me on places like Instagram at Sierra Gillespie. Thanks for watching today's episode of Scandal. As always, I'm your host, Sierra Gillespie, and I'll see you next time.