Latest / THE DAILY BRIEF / Lindsay Clancy’s attorney argues lack of evidence she committed murders

Transcript

Lindsay Clancy’s attorney argues lack of evidence she committed murders · THE DAILY BRIEF

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: Three weeks after Lindsay Clancy's murder trial ended in mistrial,
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: her lawyer was back in court today making a stunning
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: new push to keep her from ever seeing a new jury.
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: Fox News national correspondent Brian Yannis is outside the courthouse
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: in Plymouth, Massachusetts with the details.
• 0:18
  Speaker 2: Good evening, Brian. Charlie, good evening. In a complete 180
• 0:22
  Speaker 2: after spending a six-week trial conceding Lindsay Clancy killed her
• 0:26
  Speaker 2: three children, her attorney Kevin Reddington now says there's no
• 0:29
  Speaker 2: proof Clancy did it, and so therefore the judge should
• 0:32
  Speaker 2: issue a not guilty verdict. Reddington argued police conducted a
• 0:37
  Speaker 2: botched investigation. He says Clancy has no memory of doing it,
• 0:41
  Speaker 2: and there's no evidence she confessed. Prosecutors fired back. The first.
• 0:48
  Speaker 3: point that there isn't enough evidence to prove that she
• 0:51
  Speaker 3: did it, I would suggest is a laughable argument.
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: Where is the evidence that she did this?
• 0:56
  Speaker 2: You have the woefully deficient DNA.
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: You have the woefully deficient fingerprinting.
• 1:02
  Speaker 3: You have the horrific, ridiculous investigation, using the term loosely
• 1:09
  Speaker 3: by the police. There was no investigation.
• 1:14
  Speaker 2: Prosecutors also requested a gag order to silence both sides,
• 1:18
  Speaker 2: accusing Reddington of contributing to, quote, carnival atmosphere of the
• 1:22
  Speaker 2: case and polluting the jury pool ahead of the retrial,
• 1:26
  Speaker 2: of a possible retrial. In court, Reddington denied attacking the
• 1:29
  Speaker 2: holdout juror, insisting he's only defending himself against critics. In
• 1:33
  Speaker 2: an exclusive video to Sean Hannity, that juror, Michael Disronville,
• 1:37
  Speaker 2: thanked supporters and spoke about Clancy's three children.
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: I know the whole focus has been on me.
• 1:44
  Speaker 3: But we want to reel everything back and put the
• 1:47
  Speaker 3: focus on the three angels that's at hand.
• 1:52
  Speaker 2: The district attorney has not made a decision on a
• 1:54
  Speaker 2: possible retrial. The next hearing is on November 2nd. Charlie?
• 1:59
  Speaker 3: Incredible.
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: Thank you, Brian. For more reaction, I'm joined by criminal
• 2:03
  Speaker 1: defense attorneys Todd Shapiro and David Gelman. Let me start
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: with you, David. This is pretty head snapping what happened
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: today in court. Does this indicate a new strategy on
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: the part of Reddington?
• 2:19
  Speaker 4: I don't think so. Frankly, I think Reddington has some
• 2:22
  Speaker 4: short-term memory loss or something like that because he didn't
• 2:25
  Speaker 4: talk about this one iota in the actual trial. Remember,
• 2:29
  Speaker 4: he was trying to get not guilty or not guilty
• 2:31
  Speaker 4: by reason of insanity. Well, if you're going to get
• 2:33
  Speaker 4: a not reasoned by guilty of insanity, you have to
• 2:36
  Speaker 4: concede that she actually committed the crimes. And they did that.
• 2:40
  Speaker 4: And frankly, if he's trying to say, no, she didn't
• 2:43
  Speaker 4: do that now, well, he's too late. He should have
• 2:46
  Speaker 4: done this prior to the first trial. So I don't
• 2:49
  Speaker 4: know what he is up right now for, but it's
• 2:51
  Speaker 4: not going to go well for him.
• 2:53
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: So, Todd, as David points out, Reddington, basically, he went
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: further than just kind of, you know, obliquely stipulating. He actually,
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: you know, walked right up to the line of admitting
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: that his client actually murdered her children. Can— if there is
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: a second trial and he tries a new strategy, can
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: what was said in the first trial be brought into
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: the second trial?
• 3:18
  Speaker 3: Well, absolutely, it can. There is a transcript and a
• 3:22
  Speaker 3: record of the first trial, of the statements that are
• 3:24
  Speaker 3: made by all the witnesses, by the evidence that was produced,
• 3:27
  Speaker 3: and by everything that happened in that courtroom. And so
• 3:30
  Speaker 3: to then switch lanes and go to immediately a different
• 3:34
  Speaker 3: defense could cause some problems in a retrial if it
• 3:37
  Speaker 3: does in fact happen.
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: So, David, you know, obviously the first strategy where they
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: tried to say that she was not guilty by— because she
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: was insane, it got them an 11-1. And Reddington, by
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: his own account, claims that that's a victory and that
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: the judge should just ignore the holdout juror. What is
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: it— does it tell you that he is nervous about bringing
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: the same case before a new jury? And so— For
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: some reason, he needs to kind of make wholesale changes?
• 4:14
  Speaker 4: He's a clown, Charlie. That's really what he is. He's
• 4:17
  Speaker 4: trying to listen to his own voice. But at the
• 4:19
  Speaker 4: end of the day, look, it's 11 to 1. You
• 4:22
  Speaker 4: can't really argue with that fact. And if I was
• 4:25
  Speaker 4: Kevin Reddington, I'm probably going to be pretty confident going
• 4:28
  Speaker 4: into another trial if, in fact, they do. But remember,
• 4:32
  Speaker 4: that hasn't been decided yet. You haven't been decided yet.
• 4:35
  Speaker 4: So I'm thinking that the state is probably going to
• 4:37
  Speaker 4: look to recalibrate everything. They're going to probably charge Lindsey
• 4:41
  Speaker 4: Clancy maybe with a second degree or a manslaughter if
• 4:44
  Speaker 4: they go to trial that way. Look, there may be
• 4:47
  Speaker 4: a plea agreement.
• 4:48
  Speaker 2: Who knows?
• 4:48
  Speaker 4: But Kevin Reddington, you can say what you want. He
• 4:51
  Speaker 4: did a really good job at trial, though, and I
• 4:55
  Speaker 4: would feel confident about him.
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: So, you know, obviously one of the things that has
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: been most shocking for those of us following the trial
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: has been Reddington's willingness to go after the lone juror, Todd,
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: in a savage way, basically doxing him. And it does
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: kind of make you think that maybe David's right. He
• 5:16
  Speaker 1: is kind of here for the show more than anything else.
• 5:21
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I find that to be kind of an odd
• 5:24
  Speaker 3: aspect of this whole case, is this one holdout juror
• 5:27
  Speaker 3: who had every right to hold on to his verdict
• 5:29
  Speaker 3: and say, I'm not going to change my mind, and
• 5:31
  Speaker 3: therefore we had the mistrial. But for the defense attorney then,
• 5:34
  Speaker 3: after the fact, to start coming after that juror and,
• 5:37
  Speaker 3: like you said, doxing him or publicly trying to embarrass him,
• 5:41
  Speaker 3: I think is a little bit of a clown show.
• 5:43
  Speaker 3: I would agree with that.
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: Todd and David, thank you so much.
• 5:49
  Speaker 2: Be sure to like and subscribe for all the Fox
• 5:51
  Speaker 2: News latest on YouTube and catch full shows streaming now
• 5:55
  Speaker 2: on Fox 1.