Latest / INSIGHT TODAY / This was a 'BIZARRE CURVEBALL' from Lindsay Clancy defense

Transcript

This was a 'BIZARRE CURVEBALL' from Lindsay Clancy defense · INSIGHT TODAY

• 0:01
  Speaker 1: The Massachusetts mom who admits killing her three young children
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: was back in court today, and it was quick. It's
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: the first time she's returned to the courtroom after a
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: judge declared a mistrial just weeks ago. Lindsay Clancy's defense
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: attorneys are fighting against a new trial. In fact, they
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: want an outright dismissal of everything against her. I'm Harris Faulkner.
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: You are in the Faulkner Focus. Clancy admits she murdered
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: her children, five-year-old Cora, three-year-old Dawson. and baby Callan, who
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: was eight months old. Her defense team argued in the
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: first trial Clancy is not guilty by reason of insanity.
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: Now they want the entire case dropped, calling it double
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: jeopardy if the prosecution tries her again. Clancy's defense also
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: filed a motion demanding an investigation into the one juror
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: who bucked the other 11 on the jury forcing that mistrial.
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: After just a few minutes, the judge set the next
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: court date today for November 2nd. That holdout juror now
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: is speaking out publicly for the very first time in
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: an exclusive audio and video statement released to Fox News'
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: Sean Hannity. Let's watch.
• 1:12
  Speaker 2: My name is Michael Peggy Desronville, also known as the
• 1:15
  Speaker 2: lone juror. I know the whole focus has been on me,
• 1:20
  Speaker 2: but we want to reel everything back and put the
• 1:23
  Speaker 2: focus on the three angels that's at hand. the ones
• 1:27
  Speaker 2: that can't speak for themselves, the ones that can't defend themselves,
• 1:31
  Speaker 2: and the ones that can't fight the battles. And those
• 1:34
  Speaker 2: are Cora, Dawson, and Callen.
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: So what happens next? Prosecutors could retry Lindsay Clancy on
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: the same murder charges, pursue lesser charges, or drop the
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: case like her defense wants. Our legal panel at the
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: courthouse now, Kerry Urban and Josh Ritter, coming up.
• 1:54
  Speaker 3: With me in Focus.
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: First, I want to go to Nate Foy with more
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: from Plymouth, Massachusetts.
• 2:00
  Speaker 4: Nate. Hey, Harris. Good afternoon. So, the judge just heard
• 2:05
  Speaker 4: arguments about several motions, including one filed by Lindsey Clancy's
• 2:10
  Speaker 4: defense about whether or not they should unseal the juror's notes.
• 2:17
  Speaker 4: And the DA's office argued that that would do irreparable
• 2:20
  Speaker 4: harm to the judicial system. Interestingly, Harris, in arguments for
• 2:25
  Speaker 4: a separate aspect of the hearing today, Kevin Reddington argued
• 2:31
  Speaker 4: that Lindsey Clancy, or at least that the prosecution didn't
• 2:34
  Speaker 4: prove that Lindsey Clancy even committed these murders, which he
• 2:38
  Speaker 4: admitted during the actual trial. He says that he had
• 2:41
  Speaker 4: to admit that because of Massachusetts law and that it
• 2:43
  Speaker 4: was the only way he could actually make the insanity defense.
• 2:46
  Speaker 4: He also took issue with some of the witnesses and
• 2:49
  Speaker 4: the credibility of the witnesses called by the prosecution. Listen here.
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: Not one.
• 2:56
  Speaker 5: Of those rebuttal doctors were qualified to get on that
• 3:01
  Speaker 5: witness stand and tell that jury their opinion of her
• 3:07
  Speaker 5: mental state as a result of a psychosis because of
• 3:12
  Speaker 5: postpartum depression, postpartum psychosis. I'll leave it at that.
• 3:23
  Speaker 4: Harris, meanwhile, prosecutors argue that they did prove that Clancy
• 3:27
  Speaker 4: committed the murders through various forms of evidence and that
• 3:30
  Speaker 4: her mental health problems do not prevent her from being
• 3:33
  Speaker 4: held criminally accountable.
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: Not every defendant with a mental illness lacks criminal responsibility.
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: That's Commonwealth v. Fujita.
• 3:41
  Speaker 6: That's Commonwealth v.
• 3:44
  Speaker 4: Rezac.
• 3:46
  Speaker 6: A defendant who has mental illness can commit crimes and
• 3:50
  Speaker 6: can be criminally responsible.
• 3:55
  Speaker 4: Meanwhile, arguments about Reddington's motion for an investigation into the
• 3:58
  Speaker 4: holdout juror, Michael Desronville, will be heard on November 2nd.
• 4:03
  Speaker 4: On that date, the judge will also hear arguments about
• 4:06
  Speaker 4: a gag order motion filed by the DA's office. In
• 4:09
  Speaker 4: that motion, prosecutors criticized Reddington for making public comments about
• 4:13
  Speaker 4: the holdout juror. This morning, on his way into court,
• 4:16
  Speaker 4: Reddington refused to answer our questions, which... If you remember, Harris,
• 4:20
  Speaker 4: is quite different than how it went every single day
• 4:23
  Speaker 4: during the actual trial. Now, also on that November 2nd date,
• 4:26
  Speaker 4: we are expecting to hear arguments about another motion filed
• 4:31
  Speaker 4: by the defense. And that motion is asking for a
• 4:35
  Speaker 4: dismissal on the grounds of double jeopardy. We'll send it
• 4:37
  Speaker 4: back to you, Harris.
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: All right, Nate, thank you very much. Fox News legal
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: editor Kerry Urban, Josh Ritter, Fox News contributor and criminal
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: defense attorney. Thank you for handling this breaking news that
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: came about pretty quickly this morning because it was such
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: a short time in court. First of all, Josh, what
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: about these motions on November 2nd? Does one stand out
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: to you?
• 5:04
  Speaker 3: Well, what's interesting is one thing we didn't hear today
• 5:07
  Speaker 3: is whether or not the Commonwealth actually intends to file
• 5:10
  Speaker 3: new charges. That bit of housekeeping has never been made
• 5:14
  Speaker 3: clear because a lot of these motions, in my view,
• 5:17
  Speaker 3: are putting the cart before the horse if we don't
• 5:20
  Speaker 3: know there's going to be a new trial. But the
• 5:22
  Speaker 3: one that stands out, obviously, is this argument that they're
• 5:24
  Speaker 3: trying to make about double jeopardy. They're essentially saying that
• 5:28
  Speaker 3: because the judge jumped the gun and declared a mistrial
• 5:32
  Speaker 3: too soon, that that was impermissible, and that impermissibility should
• 5:38
  Speaker 3: somehow grant her the attachment of jeopardy in the first trial.
• 5:43
  Speaker 3: It's a bit of a stretch, because What— even if their
• 5:47
  Speaker 3: arguments are convincing, what the remedy for that would be
• 5:50
  Speaker 3: to seat another juror, which still doesn't get her a verdict.
• 5:53
  Speaker 3: It would just get us 11 jurors voting one way
• 5:56
  Speaker 3: and one new juror that we don't know which way
• 5:58
  Speaker 3: they would have voted. So, it doesn't get you an
• 6:00
  Speaker 3: automatic dismissal, but they're essentially saying that in this case—
• 6:05
  Speaker 3: You know, horseshoes, hand grenades, and this hung jury should
• 6:08
  Speaker 3: be close enough that 11 to 1, the judge having
• 6:12
  Speaker 3: jumped the gun, they should be allowed to have a
• 6:14
  Speaker 3: dismissal and essentially saying that Jeopardy attached. That's going to
• 6:18
  Speaker 3: be the most interesting argument, I think, at this new
• 6:21
  Speaker 3: date on the 2nd of November.
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: Look, you mentioned Reddington, and you heard our reporter just
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: talking about how often he would talk coming out of
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: the courthouse. This motion for a gag order, Carrie, do
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: you think that there should be a gag order in
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: the second trial if there is one following that mistrial,
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: considering all the media exposure, not just the lone juror,
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: but everybody has had? And I'm just curious about gag orders.
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: Do you do it if you're the judge?
• 6:49
  Speaker 6: Yeah, look, I was surprised that the judge didn't rule
• 6:53
  Speaker 6: on that today. Now, to be fair, he just received
• 6:55
  Speaker 6: that motion, I believe, yesterday. I think he didn't even
• 6:57
  Speaker 6: see it until this morning. So, understandably, he wants to
• 7:00
  Speaker 6: take some time to consider it, because it is a
• 7:02
  Speaker 6: big deal when you limit the speech that counsel can
• 7:05
  Speaker 6: make outside of the courtroom and outside of the filings. But, Harris,
• 7:09
  Speaker 6: to your point, given what has happened to this holdout juror,
• 7:13
  Speaker 6: I would say the amount of comments that have been
• 7:15
  Speaker 6: made about him from defense counsel, Kevin Reddington, and the
• 7:19
  Speaker 6: steam that that has picked up, it endangers his life.
• 7:24
  Speaker 6: And so I think it would be wise in this
• 7:27
  Speaker 6: particular matter for the judge to issue a gag order
• 7:30
  Speaker 6: to both sides, right? That the lawyer shouldn't make extrajudicial
• 7:33
  Speaker 6: statements outside of the court, outside their filings. But it
• 7:37
  Speaker 6: looks like we're not going to know about that until
• 7:39
  Speaker 6: November 2nd, at the very least, because that's when the
• 7:41
  Speaker 6: hearing is. All right.
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: Real quickly on the motion for a not guilty verdict.
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: And I know we have talked about this previously as well.
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: Reddington has argued that the motion for not guilty should
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: have been entered because of a, quote, unquote, total and
• 7:53
  Speaker 1: complete lack of evidence. It is not enough to say
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: that there was some evidence. Does that persist for a
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: second round if they get another bite at the apple?
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: She says she did it.
• 8:06
  Speaker 7: Josh.
• 8:09
  Speaker 4: Yeah, sorry.
• 8:12
  Speaker 3: As far as for the new trial moving forward, they
• 8:14
  Speaker 3: can enter whatever plea they want. But this was a
• 8:17
  Speaker 3: bizarre— if there is one, correct. But this was a bizarre
• 8:20
  Speaker 3: curveball to hear from Reddington today. He's essentially trying to
• 8:23
  Speaker 3: re-argue the entire first trial, even to the point of
• 8:27
  Speaker 3: saying that they didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
• 8:29
  Speaker 3: she committed the murder. He's saying that he was hamstrung
• 8:33
  Speaker 3: by Massachusetts law, that he essentially had to admit that
• 8:36
  Speaker 3: that she committed the murder in order to make the
• 8:38
  Speaker 3: arguments regarding her level of insanity. And therefore, the Commonwealth
• 8:44
  Speaker 3: skipped over that step of actually proving the murders and
• 8:47
  Speaker 3: went straight towards her mental state. That argument, though, has sailed.
• 8:53
  Speaker 3: That argument was something that should have taken place before
• 8:56
  Speaker 3: the first trial, and him trying to relitigate it now,
• 9:00
  Speaker 3: I really don't see how that— you grabs any traction with
• 9:03
  Speaker 3: what the judge needs to consider in this moment.
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: Well, and then there's the whole idea of investigating the
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: holdout juror. That's something else that the defense team wants. Look,
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: we'll cover it November 2nd. That sets us up for today.
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: Just real quickly, I want to get to the Cornell
• 9:18
  Speaker 1: situation as well. And there's a warning for our viewers
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: that this topic is graphic and disturbing. A new turn
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: in an alleged Cornell University rape case involving fraternity brothers.
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: Nearly two years after prosecutors declined to bring charges, the
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: criminal investigation has been restarted. Now the evidence is headed
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: to a grand jury. Here's the district attorney for Tompkins County.
• 9:43
  Speaker 7: New York.
• 9:43
  Speaker 5: Watch.
• 9:45
  Speaker 7: There may be additional evidence out there. We need to
• 9:48
  Speaker 7: pursue this in order to obtain justice because I think
• 9:53
  Speaker 7: everybody agrees that morally ethically, these fraternity brothers are wrong,
• 10:01
  Speaker 7: and it's disgusting what happened, and they should not have
• 10:05
  Speaker 7: engaged in that behavior.
• 10:08
  Speaker 5: That's an understatement.
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: A former Cornell student is suing the university and seven
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: then fraternity members. She claims she was drugged and raped
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: in October of 2024. The civil suit alleges, quote, plaintiff
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: was plied with alcohol and drugs to the point of intoxication,
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: which resulted in plaintiff being sexually assaulted and raped. The
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: lawsuit also points to Snapchat messages among the fraternity members
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: that the district attorney says his office did not see
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: during the original investigation. Cornell says its investigation resulted in expulsions,
• 10:43
  Speaker 1: and one student had to write an essay. I should
• 10:45
  Speaker 1: throw that in there, because that's gotten some attention. And
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: the fraternity has now been closed. The lawyer for one
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: of the accused says the incident never happened. Josh, your
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: take on what's happening at Cornell.
• 11:00
  Speaker 3: These types of cases are difficult for prosecutors to begin with,
• 11:03
  Speaker 3: because you're dealing with ideas of consent and what was
• 11:07
  Speaker 3: the consent at the time, what are the statements that
• 11:10
  Speaker 3: the alleged victim is making to investigators at the time,
• 11:13
  Speaker 3: and how does that comport towards the elements of the
• 11:16
  Speaker 3: criminal law that they intend to charge. Where this becomes
• 11:19
  Speaker 3: even more complicated is the passage of time between when
• 11:22
  Speaker 3: they originally rejected the filing and to now this reconsideration
• 11:26
  Speaker 3: on it and the fact that a civil suit has
• 11:29
  Speaker 3: been filed in between. A lot of this looks like
• 11:32
  Speaker 3: it's pressure from being placed upon the prosecutor's office to
• 11:35
  Speaker 3: reevaluate this. But I do agree, if there is new evidence,
• 11:39
  Speaker 3: if there is evidence that they have not seen or
• 11:41
  Speaker 3: if there are other people willing to come forward, they
• 11:44
  Speaker 3: absolutely need to reopen it and take another look. And
• 11:47
  Speaker 3: perhaps presenting that in front of a grand jury is
• 11:50
  Speaker 3: the best way to do that. But this whole thing—
• 11:52
  Speaker 3: These are usually messy and difficult situations have become exponentially
• 11:56
  Speaker 3: more so in this situation.
• 11:58
  Speaker 1: And I hear you there, if there's new evidence, because
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: you see that with cases all the time. That's the
• 12:03
  Speaker 1: hinge point. Great to see you both. Carrie and Josh,
• 12:05
  Speaker 1: thank you.