Day 1 Lindsay Clancy jury selection

[00:00:00] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [02:28:30] Speaker 1: Thank you. [02:29:00] Speaker 2: Good morning. Good morning. Hi. Ms. Clancy. Good morning. All right. Before we get to impalement, there are just a couple of things I wanted to go over. First, I made a couple of changes to the questionnaire kind of in light of the discussions that we had last week, give you a couple of chances, give you all a chance to take a look at it. Then I'll maybe talk to you at sidebar just for a second. Then I know there was another motion limine that we wanted to discuss and go over. So, Councilor, can I see you just briefly in regards to the questionnaire? [02:29:56] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [02:36:26] Speaker 2: Thank you. I've had an opportunity to review the Commonwealth's motion and the attachments, I've had a chance to review the defendant's opposition. And so why don't I hear first from the Commonwealth and then I'll hear from the defendant. Commonwealth? [02:37:10] Speaker 1: Thank you, your honor. [02:37:11] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [02:37:40] Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [02:39:40] Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you. [02:39:42] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. [02:39:42] Speaker 3: Thank you. [02:39:43] Speaker ?: Thank you. [02:40:11] Speaker 3: Thank you. [02:40:12] Speaker ?: Thank you. [02:40:12] Speaker 3: Thank you. [02:40:13] Speaker ?: Thank you. [02:40:41] Speaker 3: Thank you. [02:40:42] Speaker ?: Thank you. [02:40:42] Speaker 3: Thank you. [02:40:43] Speaker ?: Thank you. [02:41:11] Speaker 3: Thank you. [02:41:12] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [02:41:12] Speaker 3: given them voluntarily videotapes of their interview and evaluation of Lindsay. I have given them their notes. They've got every scrap of paper that my doctors, that would be Dr. Ziesel, Dr. Resnick, and Dr. Spinelli have. As it relates to, for example, the other doctor that's referenced in the defense disclosure to the government, Dr. Condon. Dr. Condon is not one of my experts. Dr. Condon is an individual who filed an affidavit dealing with the atrocious failure to have medical care that is consistent with the standard that is applicable, and that's in the civil suit. I summons them. He doesn't know me. I haven't sat down with him and gone over evidence and everything else. I said, you're a witness in that case. You filed an affidavit. I'm summonsing you, and I did. I have spoken with him, and I gave the government the affidavit that he filed in the civil suit. You then have my crime scene, if you will, blood spatter evidence. I don't expect that I'm going to be calling Dr. Condon, but when we get into this thing where they wanted to have whiteboards and drop fluids on it and experiments in front of the jury, you remember that I objected, filed an objection, filed a brief, and indicated that I would have to have, I wanted a dobear hearing. Your Honor allowed that. I then spoke to Dr. Condon, who I've dealt with before. Very, very well-known crime scene reconstruction gentleman, very qualified, board-certified, on the boards and all these things. I'm not going to use him, because we, as you know, are not going to be doing the experiment on the board. I am still going to consult with him as it relates to evidence that I think I have to ask him questions about, but right now, as I stand here, I don't expect to call him. So, that's Dr. Condon on the affidavit on the civil suit. My crime scene blood spatter expert, I have my board-certified emergency room doctor, and then I have Dr. Lapisada. Everybody knows Dr. Lapisada. She's no stranger to the courts. I've used her on many, many, many murder cases over the years. Dr. Lapisada, as I stand here now, I don't know if I'm going to call her or not. It depends on, again, what the government argues in their opening. If they argue something in their opening that opens the door for me to slam them with Dr. Lapisada, you can bet I will call her. But they don't need weeks to prepare for cross-examination. That's ludicrous to suggest that. So, I think I have complied, and then some, with Rule 14. So, I'm asking that the court, not at this early stage, strike the witnesses, because I don't know if I'm calling them yet. And if I do, they'll get a report. They already have all their CVs. [02:44:24] Speaker 2: Yeah. [02:44:24] Speaker 1: I may, Your Honor. Ms. Bray, please. We do not have 30-some-odd people working on this case. It's ADA Buckingham and myself working on this case, along with our victim witness advocates. We've never made an allegation that Defense Counsel hadn't provided discovery pursuant to Rule 14 in a timely manner for the three experts that they plan on calling regarding criminal responsibility. What we're talking about are the four witnesses he's detailed in this last-minute notice of witnesses. And when he says that Dr. Condi is just a witness, he's not an expert because he's in the civil case and he hasn't talked to him, that doesn't mean he's not an expert. He's clearly an expert because he's talking about medical information, psychology, and medications, and the psychiatric standards of care that only an expert would know. And we haven't been provided anything but his affidavit, and his affidavit doesn't even state which standards of care is he talking about, and what he bases his opinion on. And most of his opinion is more likely than not. So there's nothing in that affidavit that would be compliant or would fully comply with Rule 14. In terms of Dr. La Posada, yes, I am familiar with her, and often in cases when she testifies for defense, she files a report at the last minute, giving prosecution little to no time to prepare for what she's going to testify to. We have nothing on her or any of these other witnesses as to what they plan to testify to, what their opinion is. There are no reports, no notes, no statements. Those are all required information so that we can be prepared so that the process is fair. And defense has to follow Rule 14 as well. [02:46:03] Speaker 2: I mean, I understand the defendant's kind of argument that not knowing exactly what the evidence is, it's difficult to say what witnesses you're going to call. But at this point, the Commonwealth has presented their experts and what the opinions are. The defendant has provided significant discovery regarding the three experts regarding criminal responsibility. The other issues, it's almost like it's premature at this point to rule on this. I mean, if the Commonwealth's witness comes out of left field and gives an opinion that is completely different than what had been disclosed, that's a different analysis than if the witness says, I've been saying this for two years. I think that's a different argument. So I don't know yet. I'm assuming that the witnesses that the Commonwealth is going to call will testify consistent with what their opinions. And if that's the case, I may very well allow the motion. But at this point, if they varied significantly, then I might have to view it a different way. It's it's a difficult motion in regards from the defendant's standpoint, because I don't have I don't have any opinions. Like Dr. LaPosada, I don't know what her opinion is, right? I mean, it's it may be completely going along with the Commonwealth or against the Commonwealth. So it's hard to deal with that. Same with Dr. Condi, probably not. Is it Dr. Condi? He's going to testify regarding the standard of care. I'm not sure if that's going to be any different than what the defendant's other expert is going to testify to. And it was already an expert who's going to opine in regards to that. The other. The other is Dr. Valentin. But that doesn't sound like that's going to be an issue because it doesn't sound like the Commonwealth is going to do the seek to introduce that demonstration. It was that Dr. Volkovich and same with the emergency room doctor. I don't I don't know if anybody's even going to disagree with each other, you know. So I'm going to allow the Commonwealth's motion at this point, subject to it being renewed based upon what the evidence is as the case develops, if that makes sense. Well, the Commonwealth's motion is to exclude the defendant's undisclosed expert witnesses. I'm going to allow that at this point, but I keep using the word allow, but allow the defendant to renew that depending on what the Commonwealth's either opening is, as you said, or what their experts say. [02:49:09] Speaker 3: If they say something that's unexpected, the problem with that judge respectfully is that it hard ties me on my opening because I don't know until they make their opening. If, for example, I would utilize Dr. Volkovich, I just don't know until I hear their opening. So if you're ordering me that I can't reference these witnesses or what their opinion would be, then it puts me in a very awkward position. [02:49:34] Speaker 2: Well, it's not that awkward because you you've got a situation where you're telling me you don't know what they're going to say. So how. [02:49:41] Speaker 3: Because I can anticipate what they're going to say. I have their prior statements that they've made. I've got their various releases. I've got their Raymond argument. I've got all of that. So I have an idea what they're going to say. I just don't know what they're going to say to me. [02:49:57] Speaker 1: Well, we go first. So then he'll know. [02:50:00] Speaker 2: And then he can tailor his opening to them. Here's what we're going to do. Here's what we're going to do. We're going to do just what I said. All right, I'm going to allow this motion subject to the defendant as the Commonwealth's case changes. Or if you want to come up after the Commonwealth's opening, if you feel that that has opened the door in some way, I have no problem hearing everybody over here. And same thing as the case unfolds, if you feel that something said that was unexpected or inconsistent with the earlier disclosure, by all means, come on up to the sidebar and we can talk about that. Okay? All right. Anything else we need to address? No, Your Honor. All right. So what I'm going to do is I'm going to get off the bench at this point. We'll bring the jury up, the potential jurors up, and then we'll begin impanelment as soon as we get everybody up here. Okay? All right. Thank you. [02:50:59] Speaker 1: Thank you. We'll rise. [02:51:19] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.