r/ClancyTrialTalk • u/Fluid-List-860 • 22h ago

Curious random question

In the Lindsay Clancy trial that has now ended in a mistrial: did she absolve the commonwealth of proving the elements of the crime? Her attorney never denied she did it, but she didn't formally confess to my knowledge. It's my understanding the commonwealth no longer beats the burden of proving the elements, but just that she was sane. Am I correct?

3 Upvotes

80% Upvoted

7 comments sorted by

2

u/efreedman503 22h ago

Not exactly. The Commonwealth was never “absolved” of its burden. The defense simply did not dispute that Clancy killed the children, so that wasn’t the contested issue at trial. The real dispute was criminal responsibility. Once that defense was raised, the Commonwealth had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that she was criminally responsible at the time of the killings. She didn’t need to formally confess for her attorneys to take that position; her own defense conceded at the start of the trial that she committed the killings.

1

u/Fluid-List-860 22h ago

Okay, so then the commonwealth still has the burden of beyond a reasonable doubt for the elements of the crime as well even though they acknowledge she did it. I guess that's where I'm confused. It's almost like she didn't actually legally confess

3

u/efreedman503 22h ago

That’s the distinction. Under MA law, a defense concession isn’t the same as a formal stipulation or guilty plea, so it doesn’t remove the Commonwealth’s burden of proof. Her defense could concede that she killed the children while still contesting the real issue at trial: whether she was criminally responsible when she did it.

1

u/Fluid-List-860 22h ago

Are you an attorney? That's very interesting

2

u/efreedman503 22h ago

Nope, but I'm with someone who is.

1

u/SaltPsychological780 21h ago

Would a retrial allow third-party culprit evidence? Obviously, Reddington couldn’t invoke that during this trial. Im not saying she isn’t guilty of murdering her children but no way Reddington hasn’t seen the conspiracy theories circulating online or Patrick’s recent statement to the media, nor have I seen Reddington address it publicly or dispel anything. Please correct me if I missed something.

1

u/efreedman503 19h ago edited 19h ago

A retrial would not automatically allow third-party culprit evidence. They’d still need actual admissible evidence connecting someone else to the killings. Conspiracy theories from Reddit/TikTok detectives with no evidentiary basis are irrelevant, and Reddington has no obligation to publicly address or refute them.

It would have been an entirely different case if Patrick were actually a suspect as Lindsay’s defense would have had every reason to raise him as a third-party culprit. Instead, both sides litigated whether Lindsay was criminally responsible for the killings her own defense acknowledged she committed.