Lindsay Clancy Trial: Did Graphic Testimony Backfire on Prosecutors?

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: the murder trial of a massachusetts woman took an extremely emotional turn today as jurors heard graphic testimony from medical examiners about the injury suffered by her young children their mother and the woman accused of those murders lindsey clancy broke down repeatedly in the courtroom at one point crying i can't do this as the judge halted proceedings reminded jurors that their verdict must be based on evidence not emotion however while the jury has been forced to confront both the horrific horrifying physical evidence and the complicated mental health evidence at the heart of this case the central question remains was lindsey clancy experiencing a devastating psychotic break when she killed her children or was she legally responsible for those unthinkable acts all this and more tonight on courtroom confidential good evening and welcome everybody it is wednesday august 12th 2026 and this is your wednesday night live from courtroom confidential the fastest growing true crime news channel on youtube thank you all so much for being here to best nancy and shashi cindy davidson lacy love it janet it's so good to see so many familiar names uh and a couple of new ones we're so glad to have you here it was a big day in court it was an emotional day in court i know a lot of you are drained you've been watching it all day long and now you're joining us so i am so so appreciative and if it is your first time here welcome we've got a very special show for you let me introduce myself my name is joshua ritter i'm a former prosecutor with the la district attorney's office i was there for just over 10 years before i left to go into private practice as a criminal defense attorney and this is courtroom confidential where we do our best to bring you both sides of the courtroom both sides of the issues both sides of the story and we hope that we do that and this is a show show that we do every wednesday called wednesday night live it is your midweek check-in on all things true crime what's on the docket this evening well obviously it's the lindsey clancy case we're checking in on that one we've got a special guest it's elise hershawn she's a boston criminal defense attorney we're going to be trying to ask the question of did the graphic testimony today go too far then later on don't go anywhere because right after that we have another special guest neema rahmani he's a former federal prosecutor and president of west coast trial lawyers he's going to be joining us to break down uh the latest in the luigi mangioni case yes there are some developments you should know about and nick reiner he was indicted today by a grand jury what does that all mean about that case heading forward so a lot going on a busy day in true crime stay to the end we do have some announcements some changes in our schedule this week i'll explain all of that later on but you know what time it is now more than ever take that deep cleansing breath hit that like button if you haven't already subscribe if you haven't already and share this with anyone that might uh enjoy it belfast bmac thank you so much for kicking us off this evening with 20 courtroom confidential memberships it was very kind of you appreciate your generosity and appreciate your support all right shall we get into it everybody uh please welcome elise hershawn she is a boston criminal defense attorney and she has been working around the clock nearly uh helping people understand and break down this case how are you doing elise how are you holding up with all of this [00:03:38] Elise Hershawn: this is this is a heavy one um it's so fascinating every day and every hour or something i don't want to say exciting but something very unique and interesting um is happening in this trial [00:03:48] Speaker 1: so it's a lot to keep up with you know we say this a lot where we go i've never seen this before and i try to not overuse that statement i've been doing this for decades you've been doing it for decades we've seen this we've been in trial we've been in court numerous uncount uncountable times but there is stuff going on in this trial that i've never seen before i've never um it's hard to remember a case that was so emotionally charged i've seen cases that have had a lot of emotion in them because of the circumstances of the crime itself i've seen many new murder cases that are just heartbreaking but this one's got that added element of you've got the defendant in court who's also incredibly sympathetic and emotional and we saw a lot of that today what were your thoughts [00:04:38] Elise Hershawn: she is a very sympathetic defendant and i think um you know starting right out of the gate i think the prosecution overplayed their hand here i think they came charging into this case right from opening statements you and i talked right at the beginning of this case and we both thought that there was some overreach there i think that's been the theme throughout this trial i think they underestimated how much of the public uh would really kind of sympathize with this defendant despite the horrific horrific things that she did and her lawyer has conceded she did she's also in a wheelchair um that's visually you know sympathetic um the way that she got there jumping out the window trying to take her own life and just the sobbing and the wailing today um it's happened a few times it's it's hard to listen to in clips and people that are in the courtroom have said it doesn't even do it justice it's just a heavy heavy thing to sit through and to listen to yeah i think one lesson to pull from this especially [00:05:35] Speaker 1: from pro for prosecutors is that you know you have to be able to look at your case from all perspectives that if you go into a clay case a little bit with blinders on you might miss the fact that there is a there's a real um emotional outlier that you're not playing in you're not factoring into how you present things i think they came into this thinking all of the emotion is going to be clearly on their side that you've got the murder of three children horrific murders by the way torturous murders nightmarish murders terrifying their last moments of life and you might go into that as a prosecutor thinking like they i'm gonna have this jury with me every step of the way i think you're right i think they overplayed it i think they oversold what they were going to uh uh produce for the jury and i think today in particular they may have even overstepped how strongly they could come after lindsey clancy and some of the things that she did we're going to get into all of that but i don't want to just talk about the emotion i want to talk about some of the evidence an important witness did testify today and that is latisha duke she's a mental health counselor she was formerly the perinatal clinician at south shore hospital she met with lindsey four times in december so the month before the murders take place uh i thought she presented incredibly well i've actually thought that most of the doctors have presented well in the sense that they seemed earnest in trying to do a good job now it may have been pointed out that they had some great failures in that but it does at least seem as though they were legitimately trying to do good by lindsey but may have just had some big blind blind spots in the way that they viewed her what were your initial what was your initial take on this doctor it's so [00:07:32] Elise Hershawn: interesting to hear um you know a perspective your perspective and other people who are watching this as well so the mental health counselor today we also have to remember she has her master's in counseling but she is not a prescriber she is not an rn she's not an mp um and she's not a doctor so it is confusing and i did further discuss this with some of um my experts that i use for criminal responsibility as well as some er doctors a clinician really can be used for therapists but have to keep in mind that they're not medically trained in terms of medical science so this witness um although she worked with the other nurse practitioners that testified in the same clinic the south shore um clinic uh you know i don't think she was malintentioned i don't think she was trying to not help lindsey i think she was not trained and she was in over her head to handle something as complicated as what lindsey was was suffering from lindsey regardless of who did what lindsey was decompensating i think it's clear from all of these witnesses that at some point she told each one of them into the beginning of december i want to die i want to end my life i don't want to be here anymore and i don't care not one of them moved to report her to commit her um report you know called her family i mean they basically threw medication at her this person you know i think she's in short-term therapy what can that really accomplish she met with her four times once was just a phone call three i think were telehealth um if i'm recalling correctly so how much can you really get to know a patient with four conversations [00:09:18] Speaker 1: you know it's something that i don't remember it being asked and if it was i missed it so tell me that i'm curious how common is this for these doctors like it almost seems like if if you or i had someone come to us and they said i'm really thinking i'm gonna harm myself i'm really struggling with intrusive thoughts about harming myself i don't want to be here we would stop everything we were doing and go immediately try to get that person into a hospital somewhere safe like it would be it would be something that i feel like would have a sense of urgency and i'm not saying these doctors ignored it but it does seem as though many of them treated it like they've heard this type of stuff before from other patients and that they're just a little bit more used to it doesn't mean they weren't taking it seriously but they certainly didn't seem to respond with the urgency you would have expected did they ever testify as to like no it is kind of quite common for us to handle these types of patients that's [00:10:28] Elise Hershawn: exactly right they all seemingly uh testified to very similar things she she wanted to end her life but she didn't have a plan to do it unless so i take that from all of them unless you have an exact plan as to how you're going to end your life it's not an emergency how can that be you know that might be the procedure and that might be the rule but can you not step outside the line for a particularly concerning case can you not take it a step further and and they're saying we asked you know one of them the nurse practitioner i think yesterday she's talking about well you know on cross-examination um saying well you know if she were wielding a knife and it's like what is it going to take for you to take this seriously depression is one thing and they actually went through three levels today of postpartum postpartum blues postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis they explained the different ones the psychosis you know and postpartum psychosis what we have not heard we haven't heard specific medical testimony from the prosecution as to what postpartum psychosis is what are the signs what are the symptoms how is it recognized how is it treated we've heard testimony about general psychosis but again i'm not a doctor but working with my own forensic experts er doctors psych doctors um therapists those are not the same things psychosis and they're describing someone disheveled and walking around like the uh latasha sanders case that was just the conviction was this overturn a mother of massachusetts four years ago who stabbed her two children very horrifically she was hearing voodoo voices um that was overturned because they the judge the same judge that's sitting on this trial didn't let in some medical records that should have been let in they were talking about in that trial disheveled kind of looking out of it sloppy rapid speech that's not she wasn't in postpartum psychosis she was what the defense said and what their experts say was in psychosis postpartum psychosis is an entirely different animal the defense is going to have a witness they don't have a burden here you know massachusetts doesn't have the burden to prove um on the defense side it's a little bit of a unique state so the prosecution really should be saying this is what postpartum psychosis is and this is why she wasn't suffering those symptoms they [00:12:52] Speaker 1: haven't done that yeah i mean you you make the point that if they saw something extraordinary wouldn't they go outside of their rules it does seem like as though they have these kind of protocols and the protocol one of them what we we that became clear today is unless somebody's got a plan for carrying out actions of self-harm they don't treat it the same as if a person's just saying i have ideas of it okay that's the protocol and you make a point well can't you step outside of the protocol if you see an especially worrisome case and that's why my question would be is this an especially worrisome case to you was it or is this are they just kind of used to i don't know how common it is for them to be handling people who are saying things like this and it i wonder how much of it was bad care and how much of it was they're just overwhelmed with people with all sorts of emotional and mental issues that spoke very similarly to lindsay clancy that she didn't really ring a bunch of alarm bells you know what i'm saying and i don't know if that's been made abundantly clear [00:13:57] Elise Hershawn: i think you're you bring up such good points and i think reddington on his cross-examination tried to make that more clear so he went through very specific symptoms well what about this symptom was she suffering from this yes was she suffering from this yes was she suffering from this yes did you notice this so really committing them and then using their own notes to say you wrote down that she said this you wrote down she wanted to end her life so it wasn't so much like impeaching them it was actually using a prosecution witness and their notes to bolster the defense's case which is extremely great strategy you know putting on a defense witness you can say oh well they're working for the defense um but this is a pro these are prosecution witnesses and reddington really demonstrated that he knew his material he knew everything that each one of these treat treating physicians or clinicians or therapists wrote down and anything they tried to skirt around in the direct not necessarily on purpose but because the prosecution is going towards well did you ask her if you're hearing voices did you ask her if she was going through homicidal ideations nope okay well that's fine they're operating on the absence of evidence means evidence of absence and that that is not what i think happened here i mean what i think doesn't necessarily matter so much but the defense is saying just because they didn't know she was hearing voices doesn't mean she wasn't just because they didn't pick up on the postpartum psychosis symptoms doesn't mean she wasn't suffering [00:15:27] Speaker 1: yeah let's get to some of that testimony especially about this idea of signs of uh psychosis this again is doctor or part of me not doctor therapist latisha dukes talking about a december 5th visit that she [00:15:40] Speaker 3: had uh with lindsey clancy uh she reported that over the weekend she had a difficult weekend having intrusive thoughts about wanting to die and that she had contacted aspire crisis support um she met with the clinician virtually um and was told that she did not meet the criteria for inpatient treatment due to having no si plan suicidal ideation plan what did she tell you about what she was feeling and those intrusive thoughts it was continuous intrusive thoughts of not wanting to be there but no plan okay [00:16:15] Speaker 4: kind of like the same report that she gave to crisis and were there any um signs of um psychosis or signs of mania or homicidal or uh homicidal ideation no [00:16:30] Speaker 1: i mean listen missing signs signs exist that they don't recognize uh maybe she's not giving them enough information whatever what have you the point being the prosecution at least is trying to make is like listen as much as the defense is telling you this woman couldn't know the difference between wrong or right people who are trained in this were speaking to her and they are not seeing these clear signs of psychosis or unattachment to reality that the defense would have you believe do you think any of this [00:17:01] Elise Hershawn: was persuasive no okay um i think that it's like asking the doctor one of the prosecution asked one of the clinicians uh the other day do you think you were negligent in the treatment i mean what do you think they're gonna say do you think you're gonna ask this person do you think you should have treated this more seriously do you think you made a mistake do you think you could have missed a sign number one they're not going to admit that because they're not going to admit that but another number one is they're all named in a lawsuit so they're not going to admit that they made a mistake they're not going to admit that admit that they must handle this between lindsey and lindsey clancy and patrick clancy and they're both have different lawsuits going mclean the south shore clinic um the other mental health center the dr toss's initial psychiatrist that she saw a month into her licensure um she's being sued so all these answers are very careful they're very guided they're very prepped that's how that's how i took it [00:18:07] Speaker 1: let's give the uh defense a moment here to show a clip of uh reddington in action because i thought he again is extremely persuasive extremely um effective um this is a moment again with the same um witness where they're talking about this was a point that a lot of people pointed towards as talking about whether why or why not she was accepted into a program with women's and infants program uh before we get into that i just want to thank some people who've been so patient uh and so kind to help uh support us first of all belfast b mac thank you again for the uh court and confidential members it's very kind of you rachel b so for real says if i was not for if i was not for josh i'm not sure i would breathe every day the cleansing breath is everything thank you for that believe me i need it too so we're all we're all in the same boat and shy gal says thank you for being here at least we appreciate you so much that's very true uh all right let's take a look at this this is again a moment where um i think reddington may have may have may have scored some points here let's take a look you were trying to get her into this [00:19:22] Speaker 5: program which would be pretty good for a woman that had postpartum problems right correct and you made your referral you know you opened the door for her and she got in there to at least be interviewed right correct and they didn't take her right correct you know why i am not aware as to why would you be surprised if i told you that they that they indicated that they could not help her out because their diagnosis or secondary diagnosis was that she was over medicated repeat the question would it surprise you to know that they indicated that they couldn't treat her as a woman with postpartum psychosis or postpartum depression or postpartum anxiety or any of that because their opinion was that she was suffering from a an over medication it would surprise me yes but you don't know i do not know okay did you know that the records from women and infants indicate that in fact on that very same day they reached out to nurse gelada and asked her to call them so that they could discuss the medication and gelada never get back to her i was not aware of that i'm [00:20:38] Speaker 3: sorry i was not aware of that [00:20:44] Elise Hershawn: what do you think points scored or not so much points scored yeah um so essentially what this is exposing is a lack of continuity right the continuity of care so between september is when lindsay clancy saw that first psychiatrist dr tufts and then she saw two psychiatric nurses between i think october and the beginning of december in this in a different practice than dr tufts but the same practice as each other and the same practice as latricia dukes tisha dukes also testified that she had access to the psychiatric nurses notes her colleagues in the same office but she didn't read them so she had access to their notes into the records and she didn't read them before she was treating a patient that they shared i know you didn't show that clip but i had to just put that in there that's that's nonsense to me um and again i'm not saying intentionally they tried not to help her were they overwhelmed were they in over their heads bring a supervisor in or refer her out to somebody else um so the follow-up after the women and infants where she was referred to and then they uh what the defense is alleging is that she was kicked out of the program or basically not accepted into the program she was intending to go for i think two weeks they wouldn't take because she was having adverse i think at one point he clarified adverse reactions to medications that's what she was suffering from from them from this group and then she came home and then she went to mclean and then the psyche and didn't follow up none of these nurses or therapists followed up with her she was in contact with them every two to three days multiple people in the office they're not sharing information and they're not following up with somebody that they're supposed to be treating it's a it's that to me really exposes the defense's point this is a failure in the system [00:22:38] Speaker 1: excellent now i want to push back on you for one second and i'm going to do that at my own at my own peril because i i'm worried that the the chat will come after me but try to hear what i'm saying here if this were the civil case excellent if this were a question of was lindsey clancy failed excellent points if it were the case of did the mental health care system drop the ball when it came to a woman in crisis i'm convinced but it's a case about whether or not lindsey clancy murdered her children and when when she killed her children did she know the difference between right and wrong now the prosecution may be dropping the ball here and the defense may be changing shifting the focus and i think they're doing an excellent job of that but as a lawyer as you're sitting here and applying the law does this get you any closer to answering the question of did she know the difference between right and wrong when she committed the murders because both things can be true she could be failed miserably by all of her doctors and they could have missed all of these signs and she still could have known in those moments that what she did was wrong or do you feel like no this is all part and parcel to the same thing and i'm kind of missing the point no i think you bring up a good point but i [00:24:00] Elise Hershawn: would use that this information in the criminal trial to say she fell through the cracks the system failed her but they weren't watching her closely enough and close enough to january 23rd 24th that week that this happened and so they missed it they missed the psychosis they missed the signs so that's how i would argue if the judge or somebody pushed back on me and said how is this relevant to the criminal trial well it shows that she actually wasn't being closely followed she was being batted around and then i'll put an expert up that says this combination of medications from all these people not coordinating the care can induce psychosis but none of them are watching yeah that's how that's [00:24:40] Speaker 1: what i'd say no that's an excellent point too to say listen what this is really about at this point is disregarding much of the prosecution's witnesses and just wait until you hear from the defense who's going to really explain to you what all of this meant and what they missed really good you know listen reddington probably is going to do exactly that it's an excellent excellent way of handling it okay last thing i want to get to here i don't i don't want to miss this today this was the big talking point of today is the medical examiner dr renee stonebridge took the stand and the uh prosecution went through an exhaustive explanation of the deaths of two of the children and it was very difficult to listen to because these are brutal deaths these are horrific deaths these are deaths where these kids were essentially tortured to death i can't get over how bad this case is from that perspective to me the idea that these children lost their lives they were terrified they they suffered it was not quick and it was at the hands of the one person in the world that they thought would protect them from all of this they talked about is the the the signs of asphyxia and strangulation they talked about the brain injuries it caused and lindsey clancy in court was audibly falling apart falling to pieces um at one point she you can hear her we're going to play this bit of tape where you can hear her say out loud i can't do this and the judge had to stop the proceedings [00:26:11] Speaker 6: let's take a listen and what what about um injuries hi council could [00:26:24] Speaker 1: we're going to take a break this time all right all right all right all right [00:26:28] Speaker 5: children close your notebooks place them on the chairs [00:26:42] Speaker 1: that's rough okay um you as a trial attorney know that this isn't all about ones and zeros it's not all about checking off elements and making arguments and the law and how it applies a lot of this is emotion and theater and i don't mean that in a pejorative way but i mean that this is about a presentation and how people perceive the evidence not just the evidence itself and how things play out in court and this is an incredibly impactful moment how do you think jurors respond to this because i feel like initially people might say well i don't want to influence you i want to just hear your [00:27:27] Speaker 7: your answer um i'm going to answer your question but i before i forget i'm going to push back on you on this and say what you know you asked about why is it important in this trial to show the failure [00:27:39] Elise Hershawn: of the medical system yeah why is it important to show how much they suffered and or suffered or not or how they died and going through all those painstaking details when it's stipulated to they tried to stipulate to this i'll tell you they tried to besides influencing the jury you know and and trying to get the extreme of trust and cruelty but they also could just stipulate to that i'm sure they would it's about the mental state so this really the probative value low and the effect in the inflaming the jurors emotion hi as a prosecutor i want to do it i want to say i get to put on my case i get to put on my case i get to put on the emotion the emotions of it but what they want to do is evoke emotions from the jury not from the defendant that backfired on them because that only brings her sympathy because it is it is genuine i mean the whole scene is just so sad and so horrific um i think it was upsetting to everybody watching it was it was upsetting to me just now and i've seen it yeah [00:28:42] Speaker 1: it is upsetting i do and i and i for not even for a second do i believe it's not genuine too i know people have said oh that she's just putting on a presentation here i don't think i think this is someone legitimately falling apart listening to all of this and i do agree with you i think the jurors can't help but have that replay in their heads as much as it's replaying in hours even when they go back to deliberate to your question as to why the prosecution is doing it i can tell you why they're doing it but then i'll also tell you why i think they did it wrong but why they're doing it is it's not just that murders took place that's important here it's not just stipulating to the fact that they lost their lives through strangulation it is the fact that how long and how torturous each of those murders was that's hugely important because if this is all about her losing her mind temporarily she's she's she is making the argument that she lost her mind in these crucial moments what was it 24 minutes or whatever it was that her husband was gone that she lost her mind well if it takes her several minutes agonizing minutes with each of these children then those are each second that ticks by is the second she could have changed her mind or a second that she's in full-fledged psychosis and i think for the prosecution that's important to them now did they present that properly or did they entirely to our point earlier overplay it to the point that it's backfiring on them and that might be the the exact [00:30:10] Elise Hershawn: thing that we saw took place here it's a great point i'm thinking it more about um that they're trying to go for extreme atrocity and cruelty which is one theory of first degree murder they don't they can just go forward with first degree murder but they can put forth extreme atrocity and cruelty ac and um it doesn't add a sentence but it's just a second theory of murder and they're trying to really drive that point home um i think just cumulatively over the last couple of weeks just they've handled things kind of very grisly and callously the prosecution i mean and um i it's just it's upsetting to watch her reaction that you almost are remembering that more [00:30:59] Speaker 1: than the testimony and that helps the defense last question on this we've been getting a lot of people of us asked asked this they want to know is she required to remain in that courtroom did she have [00:31:12] Elise Hershawn: to sit through all of this no no i actually we took a verdict once the defendant wasn't there um they don't have to be there what you they have a choice not to be there they don't they have a right to be there if they want to right they have a right to be there they can't be precluded from being there but if they don't want to be there for some or all of it they don't have to i think um you know it's up to it's up to the defendant but if she wanted to remove herself and there was some discussion pre-trial about whether she'd be able to sit through some of this and i think the attorneys you know attorney reddington said it and people were sort of like yeah okay that's just sort of dramatics but i think it's very clear that he was actually looking out for her and she may want to be there but also may not be able to sit through it the other thing is an attorney just the last thing i know we're over probably over time but as an attorney you don't want the jury to be distracted by wondering where your client is they don't want you know you don't you don't necessarily get an instruction the judge might give an instruction like the defendant has a choice not to be there but you don't want the jury to start wondering did they take off did they just you know not care and not show up so you want to try to avoid the jury getting distracted by somebody's absence but this is clearly right on the line yeah yeah yeah they [00:32:35] Speaker 1: might even be having discussions about that moving forward we'll see elise you're fantastic knocked it out of the park again thank you so much i know this was even the second conversation we've had about this today so i appreciate all your time and it's always a pleasure speaking with you we have put all of your links there's your instagram uh in the chat and um i hope you'll let us bug you [00:32:57] Elise Hershawn: again probably absolutely we'll be talking soon thank you for having me back on take care [00:33:03] Speaker 1: um all right guys uh let me thank some people who've been so patient uh to i just wanted to get through all of that and be and have time to get to our next guest first dd hex says a sad reality that's not being talked about is how much insurance providers dictate what level of care a patient will receive that is a really excellent point that has been brought up more than once that the one kind of elephant in the room that nobody's talking about is how much could these providers have done based upon what insurance would allow them to do so great point diddy heck um so nog says um i could buy her being failed by one or two doctors but not five or more at some point you've got to realize she's the problem that might be interesting too there's not much there's more than one doctor here who seem to have not seen some signs is that really all the doctors or is she maybe not giving them the proper information i don't know firestorm says what i find strange is that the husband spoke about how he found his kids in detail with no emotion in his voice but feels bad for lindsey very sus interesting point thank you for that firestorm all right you guys we've had a lot of you join us since that time that was elise hershawn who just spoke to us about the lindsey clancy case we're going to be getting into a couple of other cases with our next guest but before we do that i just want to take a moment to uh invite you all to please like and subscribe to this channel less than a month before luigi mangione's state murder trial begins the judge has taken extraordinary measures amid concerns about jury intimidation and outside influence now a surprise federal hearing is fueling speculation about a possible deal but could a plea agreement in one case disrupt the other to help us break this all down is a former federal prosecutor president of west coast trial lawyers and a very good friend of mine who i haven't seen in a while hello nema how are you doing my friend josh how's it going man great to see you and to be honest i'm doing fantastic and it's good to see you i feel like it's been a while and i feel like um i only bug you if there's like a federal issue at play but i'm going to stop doing that i'm going to start bugging you more for no reason how does that sound i would love to you [00:35:22] Speaker 6: can bug me on clancy the lakers you know i can talk about you know that we're missing the lakers of [00:35:28] Speaker 1: it where should we turn this into a sports chat channel all of a sudden the lakers just got sold today look what a federal investigation will do right i know very true talk about federal issues yeah um let's first talk about luigi mangioni because i've got a little bit of a theory here that i don't i've seen a little bit of chatter about it but i want to see what your thoughts are on it but first of all let's talk about um the jury selection process that's taking place in new york the defense has asked for streaming that's not going to happen new york state doesn't allow for it uh they've asked for a um what are they calling it a a a breakout room an overflow room pro part of me that has been approved to allow for even more press first of all it's just funny to me how you've got a high profile case where now the defense is saying we want more press rather than most cases where they're saying they [00:36:30] Speaker 6: don't want any what are your thoughts josh this goes against every defense attorney all the conventional wisdom right we're seeing tyler robinson right the defense is doing everything they possibly can to keep cameras out of the courtroom and why is that cameras most defense attorneys believe increase the media attention on the case right you have all these social media bloggers taking clips and opining on it and they believe that it puts implicit pressure on jurors to return a guilty verdict because they're going to have to answer questions when the case is even more high profile as to why they let a killer walk free but of course luigi mangioni is opposite day because i have never covered a trial where there is so much support for the criminal defendant still today free luigi one of the trending hashtags on social media so this defense team they're not stupid in fact they're outstanding karen friedman mark ignifilo two of the best they know exactly what they're doing they're trying to increase the media attention on the case to hope they can get a stealth juror on that panel go for jury nullification that's probably the best chance they have in this case setting aside the double jeopardy issue in the federal case which i'm sure we're going to talk [00:37:46] Speaker 1: about yeah yeah we are going to talk about that um another interesting and i agree with you it is bizarre and the only thing i can take away from it is that they want to turn this into somewhat of a circus because the guy killed somebody to send a message he doesn't want his message all of a sudden muted he wants his message out there like he did this for a reason he wants this in as much of a public platform as possible um the judge did make an order though today and this was unique to me that the jury is going to be anonymous here which i'm used to them always being anonymous in california we are provided with lists of the jurors but they're never referred to by name in court even when there's not cameras well they're i guess that's not kind of the normal course of things in new york because the judge made an order uh saying that the jury will be anonymous in this case this is judge gregory caro he says that the mangioni supporters have been engaged in inflammatory and hostile public statements outside the courthouse and announced their intention to attend jury selection to attempt to speak to prospective jurors he goes on to say given the extraordinary public attention and the case that the jury is saying that the jury has been accused of the jurors of the jurors and the court finds that the juror's names to the public poses an unjustifiable risk of interference with the administration of justice he's taking it seriously it's almost like this is a mob case no [00:39:18] Speaker 6: it is and you do see this in mob cases like you said in california we never ever refer to the jurors by their names last names it's always juror number or seat number and even though there's cameras in the courtroom they never ever point to the jurors so i think it's the right move and look aside from maybe johnny depp and the hatred towards amber heard i've never seen people lining up at midnight the night before to get into a pre-trial hearing in any case so there's a lot of interest in this case there's a lot of luigi mangioni super fans even if he's convicted and sentenced to either federal or state prison i'm sure he's gonna have many uh woman maybe even male suitors because he is just that popular i don't necessarily agree with it i agree with you josh that this is a very strong case in terms of video evidence dna ballistics fingerprints i mean you name it they got the murder weapon on him his manifesto so it's very strong case on the merits but he has a lot of support and i'm sure some of those supporters are going to be going after the potential jurors if they don't like what they hear when the verdict comes [00:40:25] Speaker 1: out of their mouth it's a little ironic to me too because this is the same judge that dismissed the state terrorism charge against mangioni which reduced it from a first degree to second degree murder and the reason i'm saying that it's ironic is that he felt that this wasn't a murder committed to send a message but now he's acknowledging message fully sent and we've even got crowds of people outside holding up signs and supporting the guy to the point that he's got to take these extraordinary measures but i will put my little my little gripes to the side to get to the the kind of more interesting uh situation here there is a date set up this friday two days from now in his federal case so everybody understands he had a state case charged by the state of new york then federally he's been charged and at one point he was charged with murder and both the murder charges on the federal side were dismissed because of some legal issues about when federal murder charges can be brought we won't get into all of that now but right now it remains as a stalking case on the federal side he's looking at life without parole though however given the federal sentencing guidelines and on the state side he's looking at second degree murder the state case is going to proceed first to trial however he's meeting with the prosecutors on the federal case on friday if everybody can follow that the state case is going to start soon but he's meeting with the federal case there's speculation though neither side of us has confirmed this that there might be a plea talk in the works that is interesting because of potential double jeopardy issues now tell me if you think there's an actual concern here or tell me why you think no [00:42:17] Speaker 6: there's a very real concern and this is why it's very well established that the state and the spends by most recently happened famously with derek chauvin for the murder of george floyd right new york is unique though and by the way those dual sovereign prosecutions they don't violate double jeopardy under the federal constitution new york has a unique law though that says that new york state courts cannot prosecute a subsequent case that arises from the same transaction or occurrence this is a stronger protection than there is in really any other state and it's very powerful for those that follow political cases not true crime this came up in the manafort case if people remember that case he was prosecuted in virginia i believe by the feds and then the former manhattan da cyrus vance filed subsequent new york state charges well there was an attorney at the time representing manafort his name was todd blanche he successfully got those state charges dismissed based on new york's double jeopardy law because he had already been prosecuted in a federal case guess what a prosecution means it means a guilty verdict or a guilty plea so the big question here josh is is stocking the same transaction or occurrence as murder you better believe the defense is going to argue that it is and therefore the plea in the federal case requires dismissal of the state charges so this may be another outstanding lawyering move by the defense and by the way even if they plead to stocking and that plea can be used in the state case to the extent that the defense is arguing extreme emotional distress or something else it doesn't necessarily prevent them from making that same argument in the state trial but let me tell you if there's a choice between serving state or federal time every defendant and every courtroom in this country is going to choose federal time and he can plead open even though there's a max of life imprisonment if you're looking at the sentencing guidelines here he probably ends up somewhere in the 25 to 30 range of course those guidelines are advisory the judge can go higher but there's the possibility that he doesn't get life in the federal case knocks out the state case he's serving federal time and who knows maybe we see luigi really free in his 50s [00:44:45] Speaker 1: this is why i love having you on because you you covered everything that i had in my notes really really well this is a really interesting um wrinkle here that i don't want to go get missed we've talked about before how you talked to me we we you got cut off for just a second but it's this idea of the dual sovereignty that you can't that usually when you have the feds prosecuting and the state prosecuting there's never a problem it doesn't evoked dual uh double jeopardy because it's not seen as though the same sovereignty is prosecuting you new york though that doesn't that that protects you on the federal level new york has gone beyond that they're allowed to do that they're allowed to add protections to you they're not allowed to take them away but they're allowed to add protections to a defendant and one of the things that they've done in new york is made this far broader um double jeopardy law so it doesn't dismiss federal double jeopardy it adds to it which is the important part and i think you're right and what i'm curious about is why wasn't this convincing to the judges earlier this isn't like something that just arose um why the only thing i can imagine is that they were just simply before trying to get it kicked out based upon double jeopardy and now they're trying to say well if he's actually convicted on the federal side that precludes the state side is that what you think is happening here i think [00:46:20] Speaker 6: that's right i think there has to be a conviction or a plea again obviously i'm not licensed in new york i'm just remembering the manafort case the fact that he was convicted that is what and again that trial finished before the state case was even filed but i think it does make it stronger and look at a minimum it's an appellate issue so there's really like only four possibilities going on the first is they're just going to plead open right that's pleading without a plea agreement and then the the chips fall where they made there's only two stocking counts so there's nothing preventing the defense from pleading to the indictment right it doesn't happen that often the second is maybe this is part of some global resolution right that basically they're saying listen we're going to plead let's just argue it before the judge if you think he deserves life you argue for life there's no death penalty at play here so if he's convicted you got to make your same argument prosecutor state federal let's argue it and let's let the judge decide the third is and i think this is the most unlikely that once mangione pleads in the federal case the state da is going to concede the double jeopardy issue and just let him be sentenced in federal court i think it's highly unlikely they're prepped for trial so they're not going to do that i [00:47:39] Speaker 1: don't think i don't know they seem to be rolling over on other things that i thought they were going to [00:47:44] Speaker 6: appeal in this case they contested right they contest and then obviously opening brief opposition reply this is a dispositive motion josh i don't think it can be really litigated and there to be a full record before september 8th i think i might push that trial date back and you got to create a record on this because this will be the absolute most important appellate issue in the state case so a lot's going to happen in the next couple days that are going to dramatically change the course of not just the federal case but the state prosecution as well and just so everybody understands [00:48:23] Speaker 1: if he doesn't strike a deal on the federal side of things that doesn't stop the state from proceeding with their trial the state could proceed with their trial and then the feds my understanding is the feds could proceed with their trial because then it would be the feds bringing the second case but where the state law comes into effect is if you've already been convicted for another crime out of the same transaction so it's the fact that they're getting the plea done before the state case that causes the issues here so if they are like you said able to get a plea now his attorneys can walk in and say hey jeopardy has attached and state law which you prosecutors state prosecutors are dictated by are precluded from prosecuting him now and i think you're right everybody keeps talking about it being an lwop case on the federal side of things but he could plead open and a judge might not give him [00:49:21] Speaker 6: that on the federal side might not and like you said when is jeopardy attached when there's a conviction obviously but when there's a trial when the jury's sworn in or the first witness is sworn in so really jeopardy hasn't attached in any of these cases just yet right the mere filing doesn't trigger double jeopardy it's laid in the in the process wow and you have to imagine too [00:49:51] Speaker 1: they're going to make an argument i unless the federal prosecutors are cooperating with this plea and again i want to reiterate that there's been nobody has said that there's a plea they're all denying that there's any kind of plea discussions at all but we're all just kind of guessing this is what this seems like it's going to happen um unless those prosecutors are playing ball a judge has to be very careful here because he's got to sentence him just based upon the federal case in front of him not with the idea that this may affect the state case do you follow what i'm saying like so even though he may have the benefit if if he gives him 20 years on the on the um on the federal case he can't calculate into that that that's undercutting the state case that's not in front of him that's not a benefit he should be concerned with it's only the federal case very interesting stuff at [00:50:47] Speaker 6: play here oh absolutely and under the sentencing guidelines he's going to calculate the advisory guidelines it's stalking it causes death there's acceptance of responsibility crunches the numbers and of course you can go higher lower they're just advisory but look one thing i want to say is and we do a lot of this josh you and i i think enough people have told me i'm not a reporter okay right right but enough people have told me today that i trust that this is happening that and it's such a good strategy potentially look it could blow up in the defense's case but what the defense does in terms of lawyering first of all they've kept their client alive you've already won as a death penalty qualified lawyer now you give them a shot it's not a guarantee but a shot of anything less than life in prison in what any other state would be a first degree murder i know new york is different you need something more than premeditation but you got to tip your hat to friedman to ignifilo what they've done has been extraordinary in terms of the lawyering you've got to give them credit for what i thought was a nearly impossible case really well done yeah they really run some circles in this one really really really [00:51:59] Speaker 1: surprising if this actually ends up happening i think a lot of people are going to be upset by that result but you know it does result in him going to prison and it doesn't result in him going to prison for a very long time but to your point it's not the death penalty it's not life without parole and it might just be time in a federal prison instead of a state prison so we'll see how it all ends up as things sit right now though he has that date on friday and then he is supposed to begin his state trial on september 8th and it's expected to take six to eight weeks so if that deal falls apart or doesn't happen or we're just hearing rumors that don't exist that's when he's supposed to start his uh state trial is on september 8th and the federal trial will begin on january 5th we'll see if any of that happens um all right let me take a moment to thank all of you kind folks shy gal says nemo what do you think about uh the clinty sentencing you got any thoughts on that i gotta get that a thumbs down [00:52:57] Speaker 6: man a manslaughter and the case listen you're talking about a former prosecutor you know unless there's some very strong evidence of what i would call imperfect self-defense where she reasonably believes she's at death or serious bodily injury i don't see it as a manslaughter case you know like obviously there's the sex issues there's race issues but that was a serious disappointment in my opinion i would not have offered anywhere near that deal that's not appropriate and certainly doesn't fit within the facts and the law in my humble opinion yeah i well in my even more humble [00:53:32] Speaker 1: opinion i i agree with you court talk daniel thank you so much for the super chat and uh court doc daniel again says clancy forgot to type in the other super chat gotcha long day if there if ever there was a jury room to be a fly in the wall it would be epic yeah i i these people are going to struggle it's going to be um it's going to be rough i feel very bad for them i think i don't think they walk away from this feeling good no matter what the result so thank you guys so much for that in an unexpected move nick reiner has now been indicted by a los angeles grand jury for the slayings of his parents in their brentwood home prosecutors also added an additional allegation of lying in wait to the murders of rob and michelle reiner what does that reveal about the prosecution's theory and why did they take the case directly to a grand jury uh to help us answer this again please welcome back neema romani former federal prosecutor and president of west coast trial lawyers this one shocked me too didn't see this one coming what are your thoughts on this uh a grand jury uh to bring an indictment is not all that heard of but it's a little rare here in los angeles and in california um and especially in a case that doesn't seem to have kind of the hallmarks where you would [00:54:56] Speaker 6: normally see it what are your thoughts very rare to get a grand jury in a state case there obviously josh you know you're at the da's office i'm sure you can count on maybe one or two hands or no fingers the number of times you went to the grand jury to get an indictment obviously happens all the time in the federal system and states back east but for folks who are watching weren't familiar to get to a felony jury trial in this country one of two things needs to happen grand jury indictment or preliminary hearing state prosecutors here in california almost always go to a prelim even in cases where they convene a grand jury for investigative purposes like david for the murder of celeste rebus they still go to a prelim they don't get a grand jury indictment so why did the da go to the grand jury in this case and josh this is pure speculation but this is my guess because people like it when i guess i think they convene a grand jury in this case because grand juries are secret and that way celebrities like conan o'brien billy crystal larry david don't have to testify more than once in a case that will be a circus it will be an incredible circus just once not twice because we don't have to have a public preliminary hearing that's the only explanation that makes sense and the reason i'm talking about the celebrity so everyone knows nick reiner got in an argument with his parents the night before at conan o'brien's christmas party a lot of celebrity witnesses witnessed it they're gonna testify that's gonna be the motive for the killing that's gonna show that he's not legally insane so it's gonna be a who's who of a-listers at the actual trial by going to grand jury it avoids all that that's my best guess as to why they [00:56:37] Speaker 1: zigged here where the da is normally zach you are absolutely right as far as i'm concerned i think you're absolutely right usually and to your your question to me i have handled exactly zero grand juries when in my time as a prosecutor they just don't happen where they happen is in very complex cases where you've got 30 different defendants who committed 67 different counts of insurance fraud or something like that and it's going to take you nine and a half years to put a prelim on but you could get it in front of a grand jury um and get it all done far more quickly or it happens in a case where you don't want the person that you're going to indict to know that they're going to be indicted for whatever reason so you want to put it all on secretly none of those really exists here the third is where it's a high profile case and maybe you want to avoid some media scrutiny in the whole thing and you don't want to turn it into a circus and you are absolutely right i think this case has celebrities like we've probably never seen on the witness list and it's not just about oh isn't it cool to put conan o'brien on the stand it's about their percipient they were there eyewitnessing this kind of final fight that we've heard about that took place at the party directly before the murders they're important witnesses it's not just that they're celebrities [00:58:05] Speaker 6: but they're like important to the case itself oh no question their percipient witnesses they heard this argument they heard uh you know rob reiner's really final words in public rob and michelle reiner um it was reportedly bad it was one of the first things that came out and i think it is going to be the key evidence in the case as to why he would commit these heinous murders again going back to how are you going to defend this case right i mean it was a bloody knife scene in their master bedroom he fled to a hotel in santa monica he's caught on surveillance right at a gas station i think it's a very strong case and in terms of defending it they've now led special circumstances to of course josh and i know lying in wait multiple victims that makes it a mandatory life without a possibility of parole case or there's the theoretical possibility of the death penalty although there's been no execution in california in the past 20 years so how are you going to defend this case right you're going to try attack motive say it's manslaughter maybe try to pursue insanity he had clear mental health issues drug issues so those actions before the murders it's not just the lindsey clancy case right building a snowman sending your husband off to get takeout far away they're critically important to get into nick reiner's head and what better way to do so to show someone's elusive when they're arguing with their parents maybe they argue about money maybe they're arguing about something else but that evidence is going to come in and those prosecution celebrity witnesses [00:59:45] Speaker 1: are going to be critical yeah yeah i want to see that witness list i want i want to see that those grand jury transcripts when they get released uh nathan hockman was of course a little uh keeping things close to the vests in his response to all of this but one thing it does do is move things along much more quickly they now are not gonna you know they're gonna bypass that lengthy pre prelim stage and go straight to the pre-trial stage he has this to say this was a profound betrayal by someone who was loved and trusted by the very people he's accused of killing the indictment unsealed today also adds a special circumstance allegation that the defendant committed the murders by means of lying in wait we hope that by having a grand jury return and indictment in this case it will bring us one step closer to a trial and achieving justice um yes the death penalty is still on the table as far as them making a decision they haven't yet they already had one special circumstance of multiple murder which is just very easy to prove in this case uh why do you think that they added the lying in wait and kind of [01:00:49] Speaker 6: break down what that means to us yeah it seems like they really like the lying in wait we saw it in david right i mean lying in wait really means what it says you're basically waiting to kill someone right it's not like it's something more than premeditation right there's different levels of homicide manslaughter heat of passion their second degree which is the most typical then premeditation plotting but lying in wait means that you are waiting for someone to arrive to kill them right so again it might apply it might not i don't necessarily know how it does when he lives at the home he lives at the guest house was he waiting for them to come back with this knife what i'm wondering i'm wondering if [01:01:32] Speaker 1: there's evidence he might have been in the main house and they know that now yeah in the main house [01:01:36] Speaker 6: or he was waiting to get home or something you know yeah he's in the master bathroom and he jumps out with the knife that that's lying in wait but if they're there and he walks in um again i think the multiple murders clearly uh they're gonna get that they don't necessarily need the lying in wait it might be a belt and suspenders approach yeah not a whole lot of information that's come out about this case i think obviously it's really sad for the victim's families and we know what happened in the master bedroom with the knife but that's really about it i think if we had a prelim like in the david case we'd know a lot more yeah or if there were some leaks but there haven't been a whole lot [01:02:15] Speaker 1: uh in this particular case obviously a very sad one yeah yeah um his next court date is september 15th that was supposed to be a pre prelim hearing now it's going to turn into a pre-trial hearing because he's already been indicted uh and will move toward trial and in june uh attorneys acting on reiner's behalf sought the release of 1.5 million from his trust account and a hearing on that petition is set for this friday and probate court uh and i know that alan jackson is probably uh waiting in the wings to see the results of that because he's pretty adamant that that money should be freed up uh for attorney's fees so we'll see what happens in all of that but in the meantime you're awesome my friend i thank you so much it's been too long and i always appreciate uh talking to you about these cases [01:03:07] Speaker 6: thank you again of course josh thanks for having me always great to hear from you and tiffany love being on courtroom confidential and thanks everyone for the nice messages and the comments as well and [01:03:16] Speaker 1: i hope to see you soon you're the best my friend take care take care there is all of his uh links his youtube instagram x please follow him wherever you can um we're big fans of his so we appreciate you supporting him nema is certainly the greatest he really is that was a really uh excellent point too on the um reiner indictment i think he's absolutely right i think that that i'll tell you what that witness list read like it read like the guest lists of the party i imagine they had to call a lot of those people and not just because isn't it fun but because they are really truly important witnesses in that case so we'll continue to keep an eye on that one all right thank you so much to cynthia marie for gifting the memberships very kind of you you guys have been so awesome tonight to support us through this ad free live stream from courtroom confidential thank you again to belfast b max says attorney i've been i've sent 25 memberships today but mine isn't working oh no your membership isn't working uh okay we're gonna have to figure that out that is that is not something that's cool because i'm about to tell you guys about where to join up for the membership so thank you to bonnie t teat uh 5843 for the super sicker very kind of you beth thank you so much for supporting the mods with coffees appreciate that court lurker says if she sat there cold as ice people would probably uh would have probably then too we can't have it both ways uh your opinions people would have probably um oh you're saying people would have been critical of that as well i guess is what you're saying yeah i i mean you know it's true yeah if she was sat through all of this stone-faced um that would be certainly a reaction that i i imagine a lot of people would be pointing out today too listen i mean it was horrific to watch certainly somebody going through what i think was legitimate pain um today i i but i do agree that it is to some extent it absolutely needed to be done i just think the way it was delivered missed the mark and maybe by a lot thank you for that court lurker thank you to court dog daniel for supporting the mods with coffees our mods needed everybody they had a rough day chef needs need z said uh thank you for supporting the mods with coffees as well and to michelle same to you thank you for supporting the mods with coffees grammy bethy b thank you for these um memberships very kind of you appreciate the support and belfast b mac last one i got to get on to some other stuff here attorney my pleasure can you please fix my account we're working on it um i'll tell you what why don't you email us uh tiffany will provide the email where you can get a hold of us and we'll try to work on that for you all right um let me tell you about a website called thecourtroomconfidential.com uh it's important for a number of reasons but one of them is for memberships i hope you're not having trouble with your membership if you are we will help you out on it but if you would like to join up if you didn't receive one of those gifted memberships that everybody was so kind to give tonight don't feel bad you can still join the crew by clicking on become a member also messages you can leave us a voice message how cool why would you want to do that well maybe you want to ask a question about a case that you're following or true crime or the law in general and i will do my best to answer those questions at our next sunday funday and then finally merch it's hot it's the middle of august it is summer time and we're all just trying to deal with it we've got you covered here at the courtroomconfidential.com we've got your summer survival kit we've got flip-flops we've got pajama pants we've got t-shirts we've got koozies and tote bags we've got slides and beach towels we've got you covered at the courtroomconfidential.com please check it out uh today and we've got bumper stickers not they're not bump they're bumper magnets for if you get into a little fender fender bender all right stay tuned coming up this week on friday fox nation uh has a show called the weekly rap sheet and i'm one of the co-hosts of that show this week at 12 p.m uh pacific 3 p.m eastern uh you can tune in live we're going to be talking about the murdoch case i am going to be in south carolina for the murdoch case so i'll be covering it live from outside the courthouse uh we're going to be talking about the clancy case of course and um some developments in the mangioni case that you heard about tonight the tyler robinson case they just filed uh their response the defense filed their response to the preliminary hearing so a lot of stuff to catch you up on then because i will be traveling we have a time change for you we're going to go live at 2 p.m pacific 5 p.m eastern on friday live from south carolina to do your weekly rap uh weekly roundup and we're going to change things around a little bit i'm going to try to answer um i'm going to do my best to answer many of your uh sunday funday lindsey clancy questions because i know you have a lot of them because i hate to tell you we're not going to have a sunday funday this sunday we've got some conflicts and we just couldn't make it happen so it's going to be friday funday instead and i will do my best to answer as many or at least cover as many of the topics that you're concerned about with the lindsey clancy case as possible so still send in your questions um all right all right let me thank uh first of all our 97 000 we hit it thank you so much for that let me thank uh our wonderful mod squad to afton shy gal kathy therapist you know best nancy and becky b you are all fantastic let me thank some of our brand new members smark jenny flinders joe amy smith for sex forever colleen off hearts debbie harrell iotay ellen f rittenberg jeannette emir 42 little lamb michelle hurley kate love dreaming peach blah blah that's the name jg 4188 30 jenna and park staggs nurse detective rita hauck unused baron area c mart ann kelly cinnabar christine de beer s bomb and tanya christina you guys are all fantastic and thank you so much for being a part of the crew before i let you go though um let me tell you about the um uh stuff that we have coming up first of all on monday uh we are oh what did you miss on monday we had our monday night special really great show uh if i do say so myself not because of me but because of the guests that we had and the conversations that we had we broke down uh the latest in the lindsey clancy case so if you want to get into more of that please check out uh what julia jenay from court tv her thoughts on it always great she's always so incredibly balanced and insightful and we talked about the courtney clenny plea with my friend joel waldman from sts so please check that out it's up on the channel now finally let me give a big very special thank you to kaylin thank you so much for everything you do for everybody who's new kaylin is a person who exists behind the scenes that does everything and makes this show so wonderful so thank you to you kaylin and tiffany who happens to be my wife and who does everything else uh thank you uh for being the best thing that ever happened to me all right everybody take care we will see you all on friday friday bye [01:11:48] Speaker ?: you you you you