Latest / INSIGHT TODAY / What to look for in the next Clancy trial

Transcript

What to look for in the next Clancy trial · INSIGHT TODAY

• 0:01
  Speaker 1: All right.
• 0:01
  Speaker 2: And so ends this first trial of Lindsay Clancy that
• 0:04
  Speaker 2: began with jury selection back on the 20th of July,
• 0:07
  Speaker 2: opening arguments the 27th of July. And we have been
• 0:10
  Speaker 2: in it ever since then. And it officially comes to
• 0:13
  Speaker 2: an end. This first phase declared a mistrial by Judge
• 0:17
  Speaker 2: William Sullivan. So the three children whom she killed have
• 0:22
  Speaker 2: not found justice yet, but perhaps they will in the future.
• 0:26
  Speaker 2: Court will be back again on the 29th of September
• 0:30
  Speaker 2: to start proceedings on a second go around on all
• 0:33
  Speaker 2: of this.
• 0:34
  Speaker 3: It's been quite a day. We've been with you for
• 0:37
  Speaker 3: every single step of it. Let's bring in Jonathan Turley.
• 0:39
  Speaker 3: He's a Fox News contributor and constitutional law attorney. Jonathan,
• 0:44
  Speaker 3: this went just about the way that you thought it would.
• 0:46
  Speaker 3: It has been now a mistrial and now we will
• 0:52
  Speaker 3: return to court at the end of this month. September 28th,
• 0:55
  Speaker 3: where they will look at the status, talk about a
• 0:59
  Speaker 3: trial assignment, and also potentially reconsider the mistrial ruling. That's
• 1:04
  Speaker 3: what the defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, is asking for. What's
• 1:08
  Speaker 3: your takeaway?
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: Well, what the defense attorney is asking for with a
• 1:13
  Speaker 1: 25B2 is usually a motion when you have a guilty
• 1:16
  Speaker 1: verdict and you ask for extraordinary relief in setting it aside.
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: This is a mistrial. I haven't actually seen a 25B
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: like this where they would seriously somehow set aside a mistrial.
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: It just doesn't compute. But a defense attorney will often
• 1:34
  Speaker 1: beat a dead horse. It's just that I can't recognize
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: the horse anymore. I mean, at some point, this is
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: going to be accepted as a mistrial. The issue that
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: the defense counsel has also raised is whether he can
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: He wanted to poll the jury to see if he
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: could claim that they reached unanimous verdict on some of
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: these counts. That did not occur. But it was very
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: unlikely that a judge would actually poll a jury to
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: get their views on those counts. It's more likely that
• 2:08
  Speaker 1: he'll seek the jury forms to see if any formal
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: vote occurred. There's a good chance it did not occur.
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: It sounded like they had an initial and threshold disagreement.
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: on the very issue that has divided many in this country.
• 2:21
  Speaker 2: All right, so Alan Dershowitz thought that that was a
• 2:23
  Speaker 2: brilliant move. Jack Lew, who is the former Superior Court
• 2:28
  Speaker 2: judge in Massachusetts, thought it was a dumb idea. Where
• 2:31
  Speaker 2: do you come down on it?
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: Well, first of all, Alan's my friend, and he is
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: one of the most brilliant friends I have. And he
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: has his own incredible record on these cases. I disagreed
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: with him with regard to the filing of the defense.
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: The filing wouldn't have advanced, in my view, that argument.
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: But that argument itself is very difficult to advance without
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: having an actual jury vote form. You're not going to
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: be able to reconstruct that, in my view, orally. And
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: I think it's probably doubtful that such a form exists.
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: So the question going forward now is, I think that
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: the 25B2 motion will be denied very quickly. And I
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: don't believe that there is a viable appealing What the
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: defense has argued here is that this juror was engaging
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: in something akin to racial discrimination by not accepting a
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: mental illness defense. I think it's extremely unlikely that a
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: court would go down that road because, you know, the
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: merits of this case is whether you believed her defense.
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: And for some, that may be frustrating to say, well,
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: you just don't accept mental illness. But it also is
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: a credibility issue, and the courts are not going to
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: try to unravel that and to come on that side.
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: By the way, one of the cases that they're citing,
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: the Vasquez case involving racial animus, involved a juror who
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: was following other jurors out of the courtroom and yelling
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: at them and all types of racial animus coming out
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: of that. It was such an extreme case that it
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: may actually hurt the defense because it has no resemblance
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: to this case. So, yeah. Sorry.
• 4:14
  Speaker 3: No, please continue.
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: So now what the court here is saying, he'll clear
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: the brush on the 29th. They will set a new
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: trial date. There's no indication that there's going to be
• 4:26
  Speaker 1: a plea. I think that much of the discussion has
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: been good from everyone about what the prosecutors should do differently.
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: I think the things we have to look for are three.
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: One is, is this the right city? Should they move
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: to a different city and possibly sequester the new jury? Two,
• 4:48
  Speaker 1: should the prosecutors drop murder one? And three, whether the
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: prosecutors should redo their strategy here. I think on the
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: last two questions, the answer is probably yes. Prosecutors sometimes
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: like to make a murder one top charge because it
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: allows jurors to compromise. But as a defense attorney, I
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: have to say, I think it works the other way,
• 5:12
  Speaker 1: that if you put murder one in a case that
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: is unreachable, it can sort of poison the well with
• 5:18
  Speaker 1: the jury. It loses credibility with the jury.
• 5:21
  Speaker 3: Jonathan, you know, we we will talk a lot about
• 5:24
  Speaker 3: what the next steps are in the next phase. coming days,
• 5:27
  Speaker 3: but can we just take a moment here to digest
• 5:30
  Speaker 3: what just happened and how a lot of people in
• 5:34
  Speaker 3: this country are feeling right now about this court case? Um,
• 5:38
  Speaker 3: if Kevin Reddington is right, and we don't know because
• 5:41
  Speaker 3: we have never seen the actual notes that the jury
• 5:44
  Speaker 3: sent to the judge, but if Kevin Reddington is right,
• 5:47
  Speaker 3: and this was all hung up on one juror who
• 5:50
  Speaker 3: just was not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, um, What
• 5:56
  Speaker 3: does that say that there were 11 jurors that did
• 6:00
  Speaker 3: not feel that she was without a reasonable doubt that
• 6:05
  Speaker 3: she was guilty of these crimes? I guess try to
• 6:08
  Speaker 3: explain to people at home that are really struggling with
• 6:11
  Speaker 3: this right now because they watch this trial just like
• 6:15
  Speaker 3: the jurors did. And they were convinced that she should
• 6:19
  Speaker 3: not walk free, that she should not, that this should
• 6:21
  Speaker 3: have gone a completely different way. Speak to those people
• 6:25
  Speaker 3: in this moment right now that are having a hard
• 6:26
  Speaker 3: time digesting this.
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: Well, thank you for that question, because this is a
• 6:31
  Speaker 1: case that has brought forth the most fundamental feelings and
• 6:37
  Speaker 1: values of people. It's an unthinkable act against nature. And
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: there are very few people that are in the middle
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: on But what you just saw is a triumph of
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: the American judicial system. One juror can stand alone. And
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: that's the reason what the defense is arguing here is
• 6:54
  Speaker 1: so dangerous. You don't want cases where what is often
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: the case, a single juror refusing to convict, is subject
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: to coercion and constant berating by the court. The rules
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: are designed against that. Sometimes there's just one juror in
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: who just doesn't see guilt. And so for people that say, well,
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: I don't understand why we should just all yield to
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: this one juror, it's because justice needs to be anonymous.
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: And that may seem too high a standard unless you're
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: the defendant, in most cases, when that one person is
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: a vote for acquittal. So that's the reason I don't
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: think this defense argument is going to go anywhere. But
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: we can take great pride in what we have seen.
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: You know, these cases are show us something about ourselves.
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: This is a great legal system. You know, you saw
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: very good lawyers taking this case, arguing zealously, a judge
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: that was incredibly faithful to both sides, trying to follow
• 7:58
  Speaker 1: the rule of law, jurors that put a great deal
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: of their lives and time at stake. This is the
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: best of us. And it doesn't mean that in justice
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: you get the result you want. What you get is
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: a process of justice.
• 8:13
  Speaker 2: All right, Professor, stay with us if you would.