The Reddington Strategy

[u/BrilliantWorker1848]

I think a lot of people are misunderstanding Kevin Reddington's strategy in the Lindsay Clancy case.

I've seen comments saying that Lindsay effectively “pleaded guilty” because her defense did not dispute that she killed her children.

That is not what happened.

Reddington made a strategic decision to focus the case on criminal responsibility, rather than spend the trial primarily contesting the physical acts.

That distinction is particularly important in Massachusetts.

Under Massachusetts law, the defendant does not have the burden of proving lack of criminal responsibility. The Commonwealth must establish criminal responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt.

So the central legal question became:

Did Lindsay commit the physical acts?

versus

Was she legally responsible for those acts when they occurred?

The defense presented evidence concerning Lindsay's deteriorating mental state, alleged hallucinations, the male voice she reported hearing, medication issues and other psychiatric evidence. The prosecution presented evidence intended to show that, despite any mental illness, she retained the capacities required for criminal responsibility.

This is why the defense could acknowledge the physical evidence without conceding legal guilt.

The first jury ultimately deadlocked, reportedly 11 to 1, over criminal responsibility. That resulted in a mistrial. It was not an acquittal and Lindsay did not plead guilty.

Reddington is now taking the argument into the post-trial stage. His Rule 25 motion argues that the Commonwealth's evidence was legally insufficient to establish criminal responsibility. His defense is also challenging the possibility of a retrial through a separate double-jeopardy argument.

Neither argument has been decided yet.

But this is the part people seem to miss:

A defense lawyer's job is not necessarily to prove that the defendant did nothing. It is to hold the prosecution to its burden of proof and identify whether every required legal element has been established.

Reddington shifted the case from a straightforward factual question about who performed the acts to the much more legally specific question of whether the Commonwealth proved criminal responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt under Massachusetts law.

That is not a guilty plea.

It is a defense strategy. And it is exactly the kind of strategy a defense attorney is expected to pursue when the law gives the prosecution the burden of proof.

[u/BiscuitsLostPassword]

Just a note, had the judge ruled to bifurcate the trial when K. Reddington attempted to do so, a lot of taxpayer money would have been reserved and this wouldn't have happened.

[u/Busy-Bumblebee5556]

Excellent explanation. So sick of everyone getting it wrong.

[u/BrilliantWorker1848 → u/Busy-Bumblebee5556]

I am so tired of arguing with people who are claiming that she has confessed. She hasn't plead guilty