Patrick Clancy Wants to Limit Evidence Released to Public in Kids' Killing

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: all right also I know we discussed the issues here I don't know if you would want to say anything else for the record in regards to your your request if I might very briefly your honor [00:00:17] Speaker 2: again as I indicated to the court on the record at sidebar and to Miss Sprague and Miss Buckingham and mr. Reddington thank you first of all judge for the opportunity to be heard as everyone is aware I'm not here as a lawyer representing the Commonwealth neither am I here as a lawyer in any way representing the defendant and on behalf of Patrick Clancy the father of the three child victims in this case he recognizes and I recognize on his behalf that he has no authority no standing and no intention of suggesting to this court or to the attorneys how to try their case how to conduct direct or cross-examination and perhaps most importantly what evidence or exhibits should be introduced during the trial mr. Clancy respectfully judge is not seeking to close the courtroom at any time during the trial mr. Clancy is not seeking to address the admissibility of any evidence or to exclude any evidence from the jury and he's not in any way seeking to prejudice the Commonwealth or the defendant in any way what mr. Clancy is seeking through counsel your honor respectfully is to restrict in a very limited way the display and access to certain specific limited items of evidence and exhibits at trial to the jury to the court to counsel to the court reporter to the session clerk and to the court officers that is the necessary parties who will be involved in trying the case and I respectfully judge I suggest that pursuant to the so-called Massachusetts victims rights bill and other statutes and cases with which the court is familiar as a victim as a family member of the three victims in this case mr. Clancy respectfully has an opportunity and a right to be heard through me or through his counsel I suggest to the court that certain items of physical evidence or certain exhibits ought be restricted from dissemination and distribution quite frankly locally nationally and internationally as is the case in this day and age and for purposes of this hearing respectfully judge I would ask the court and I would ask that the record reflect that the recording of the so-called 911 call 911 call allegedly made by Mr. Clancy be marked or be included as as an exhibit for purposes of this particular request I would also ask respectfully your honor that any photographs of the three victims in this case whether taken prior to the alleged incident whether so-called seen images whether photographs or photographs or video recordings or video recordings of the three victims or any so-called autopsy related photographs of the victims be marked for purposes of this hearing likewise your honor respectfully I would ask on behalf of Mr. Clancy that the clothing being worn by the three victims during the course of the alleged incident also be reviewed by the court and marked as exhibits and lastly your honor respectfully um [00:03:53] Speaker ?: um [00:04:21] Speaker 2: uh [00:04:23] Speaker ?: um um um [00:04:51] Speaker 2: um [00:04:53] Speaker ?: um [00:05:21] Speaker 2: um [00:05:23] Speaker ?: um [00:05:51] Speaker 2: um um [00:05:55] Speaker ?: um um [00:05:55] Speaker 2: um [00:05:57] Speaker ?: um um [00:05:57] Speaker 2: or jury. I suggest to the court that under those provisions, upon reviewing each of those four different categories of potential evidence and the correspondence from Mr. Clancy, that certain limiting rules should be adopted by the court and imposed on the media in this case. Lastly, Judge, I refer the court respectfully to two specific cases in the Commonwealth which respectfully did not rise to the level of the extraordinary nature and facts in this case. One of which, Judge, was a case involving the alleged sexual assault of a young child which was tried in Middlesex County several years ago and after the conviction and after the case a private documentary filmmaker sought access to the recordings of the witnesses who testified in court and ultimately the SJC found that the trial court's conclusion that the privacy interests and the emotional harm to the victim and her family outweighed the First Amendment right of the media or a documentary film film member to get access to the actual recording live voices in the courtroom and instead the SJC Justice Gantz indicated that the the proper mechanism given the circumstances of that case was to allow the documentary film member or the media access to the transcript that is the written word. Likewise, in that case is Commonwealth versus Winfield, W-I-N-F-I-E-L-D. Similarly, Your Honor, I respectfully direct the court's attention on behalf of Mr. Clancy to a case tried in Essex County, Commonwealth versus Chisholm, C-H-I-S-M, in which then trial judge Lowy heard a motion to suppress when a there was a videotape and a recording of a defendant's statement and ultimately the media sought access to the videotape statement to disseminate and distribute outside the courtroom and the SJC ultimately upheld Justice Lowy's decision at the trial court level to allow the media access to a transcript of the videotape and a transcript of the defendant's decision. At the trial court level to allow the media access to a transcript of the videotape and a transcript of the defendant's statements, but not the actual videotape. Given that precedent, given Your Honor's discretion, given the spirit of the Supreme Judicial Court rule that applies to the electronic recordings of proceedings in your courtroom, I end as I begin and ask the court on behalf of Mr. Clancy that certain limiting instructions to the media would be appropriate with respect to the 911 recording of Mr. Clancy's voice, certain photographs of the three child victims and the clothing worn by the three child victims in this case. Um, and again, on behalf of Mr. Clancy, um, I thank your honor for the opportunity to be heard. All right, counsel. Thank you. Uh, the treaty spray. [00:09:28] Speaker 3: Thank you, your honor. With regard to the 911 call, your honor, uh, I believe it's a public record available on a public records request, but I would defer to the court in terms of how you want to restrict publication of the 911 call, uh, during the trial or, or thereafter. As long as the commonwealth is still allowed to show or play rather the recording for the jury as the court has previously allowed that motion. Um, regarding photographs of the children, um, we had already addressed the, uh, autopsy photographs. The commonwealth was going to request empowerment of those and we would agree that they should not be, uh, broadcast or photographed in any way. Um, crime scene photographs, uh, the children had already been removed from the home when the crime scene photographs and video were taken, um, so they will not appear in those photographs. The only blood in those photographs would be, um, the purported blood of the defendant, um, in the bedroom and on the exterior of the home, and then a small amount of blood from core in the basement. Um, in terms of pre-incident photos, um, there has been mass publication of photos of the children already, um, but I would defer to the court on that as well. Um, and, uh, regarding the clothing of the victims in this case, um, the clothing, um, would be, um, a shirt and pants that Dawson was wearing, pajamas and a bathrobe that Cora was wearing. Um, but, um, although some of the material has been cut as they were cut away from the children, as EMS were working on them, trying to save them, um, there's nothing, um, there's nothing about the clothing, um, that I think would suggest the need for restriction, uh, of publication of those items. Um, so, that, that's the commonwealth's opinion. [00:11:28] Speaker 1: All right, counsel, thank you. Attorney Reddington? [00:11:33] Speaker 4: Let's close, Davis Bay, Judge. I have been in this court every time we've had pre-trial hearing indicating to the court that the circumstances of the death is not in dispute. The circumstances of this horrific act are not in dispute. Repeatedly, the government has argued that they have a right. They have a right to try their case, to present their evidence. Sure, they do. But, you know, even though we're in a court, let's talk a little bit about humanity. Let's talk a little bit about how we should try this case. I have indicated repeatedly that we stipulate to every piece of evidence that they want. I have respectfully objected to you with the introduction of this stuff going into the trial. I understand your ruling. And, and quite frankly, it makes sense. You're trying a case. What I can't fathom is the district attorney's intent to put a circus in front of this jury that's calculated to just inflame the passions of the jury. Repeatedly placing in evidence items such as having Patrick Clancy, who's a young man, who has suffered one of the worst tragedies that anyone could ever suffer. How that guy is still an emotional, not an emotional basket case is beyond me, and he has been. But nevertheless, he is trying hard to move on with his life. He has, as the court is aware, they're divorced. He's remarried. He has a family. He has his extended family. Your Honor heard statements, and I know for a fact that it's true, that his family, totally innocent people that have nothing whatsoever to do with this case, are being harassed daily by news media. The New York Post and all the rest of these types of salacious news media outside their door. This is his family. Some of them are in California. They have nothing to do with this case. But nevertheless, they are being hounded by the media. And the district attorney wants to put that guy on the witness stand and show little onesies with bodily fluid of his of his child. And they want to have him stand there. Oh, they're going to let him stand in the hallway while we listen to the 911 call. [00:14:09] Speaker 1: Mr. Reddington, that's another issue. That's another motion. The question we have right now, respectfully, is Mr. Meyer's request as to how we should deal with this in regards to the media. [00:14:26] Speaker 4: Mr. Meyer's request, as I told you with the sidebar. I think it's very appropriate. I think he argued it effectively. I think that your honor is well aware that you have the authority under the SJC rules to enter limiting orders, if you will, as to publication, as to what media can publish, what photographs they could look at and report. And I agree with what he had indicated to you in his argument. All right. All right. But I still want to say that I think it's reprehensible the way the government is trying this case. All right. [00:14:56] Speaker 3: Your Honor, if I may, I'd just like to say that I understand why defense counsel would want to brush past what happened to these children, whitewash away what happened and focus on something else. [00:15:07] Speaker 1: Here's what we're going to do. We're going to end that now. All right. [00:15:12] Speaker 3: So he gets an opportunity to say it. [00:15:15] Speaker 1: No, I stopped that. And if you want to address that in a different way, then we've got another motion in about five minutes that we're going to probably be talking about that. So let's talk about that then. This is a, you know, I let council go and think it was going to wrap back up, and I didn't see that it was going to wrap back up in regards to the request. So that's why I stopped it. All right. This is not accomplishing anything in regards to the question of access to these four pieces of evidence. So I've got everybody's position. I've heard the arguments from counsel. What I'm going to do is I'm going to take it under advisement. And then what I'm going to do is issue an order probably tomorrow morning. And parties know I've listened to the tape, that 9-1-1 tape. I have looked at the autopsy photographs. I have looked at a crime scene video, which I imagine is where the crime scene pictures will come from. And so I'm familiar with the universe of the evidence that we're dealing with right now. I want to take tonight, go over the arguments from parties. That's why I'm stopping a little bit everybody. I just want everybody to focus on that issue. So I'm going to take this matter, the request of Mr. Clancy under advisement, and I will be issuing an order in regards to that request sometime tomorrow morning. All right.