A point was scored against attorney Kevin Reddington because of this action toward Lindsay
LINDSAY Clancy’s defense attorney risked losing the jury at the beginning of the trial with his behavior and one key witness, an expert has told The U.S. Sun.
The 36-year-old has pleaded not guilty to murdering her three children in 2023, and is seeking an insanity defense, arguing she was suffering from undiagnosed postpartum psychosis.
Attorney Kevin Reddington, pictured on Monday, is defending Lindsay Clancy in her trial where she faces three murder charges for strangling her three childrenCredit: Reuters
Jean Cirillo, a psychologist and attorney, told The U.S. Sun that there were two moments where Reddington risked losing the juryCredit: The U.S. Sun
Lindsay’s three children Cora, Callan and Dawson were found with exercise bands around their necks in January 2023Credit: Instagram/heardwithlove
Lindsay, pictured on Monday, has admitted to strangling her children but seeks an insanity defenseCredit: Reuters
Five-year-old Cora, three-year-old Dawson and eight-month-old Callan were found in the basement of their Massachusetts home with exercise bands around their necks on the night of January 24, 2023.
Dozens of witnesses have taken the stand in Lindsay’s trial, including her ex-husband, mother, healthcare providers and people who worked on her case, including first responders, psychiatrists and medical examiners.
And several of their testimonies provoked emotional reactions from the former labor and delivery nurse as she sat at the defense table.
At one point early on, the trial was halted after Lindsay cried out, “I can’t do it” while a medical examiner shared graphic details of her children’s autopsies on the stand.
Hidden tactics as Lindsay Clancy’s trial divides USA – murderer or victim?
Defense attorney Kevin Reddington was also seen comforting Lindsay several times throughout the trial, even holding her hand as the 911 call her then-husband Patrick Clancy made was played in court.
Patrick found Lindsay on the ground in the backyard after she tried to end her life shortly after strangling their three children.
Speaking exclusively to The U.S. Sun, Jean Cirillo, a psychologist and attorney from New York, said those moments could have hurt Reddington’s case in the eyes of the jury.
“Reddington, if anything, he scored a little bit of a negative for the defense in the beginning when he seemed to be patting Lindsay, holding her hand, treating her like a wounded child or a victim,” Cirillo said.
“And obviously he has to do that to give his client the best defense. But it looked almost like he was trying too hard to win the jury sympathy, and that might have taken away a little bit.”
When asked about the reports that Reddington has a reputation for forming a close bond with his clients, Cirillo said, “It could be a character trait, but I think that it’s more a technique in this case.”
Cirillo also broke down some of the testimony given in the trial, saying she believes the defense risked losing the jury when medical examiners took the stand, detailing the extent of the injuries Lindsay’s children suffered.
“The prosecution won with the medical examiner’s testimony,” she said.
Reddington seen holding Lindsay’s hand on July 29 as she sobs while the 911 call her ex-husband Patrick made is played for the courtCredit: Reuters
Reddington seen consoling Lindsay after she broke down during a medical examiner’s testimony on August 12Credit: AP
Lindsay seen gripping Reddington’s hand during the graphic testimony from a medical examinerCredit: YouTube/Law&Crime Trials
Cirillo told The U.S. Sun she believes that Reddington, pictured on Tuesday, is using his apparent closeness to Clancy as a technique to win sympathy from the juryCredit: Reuters
Cirillo argued it was “devastating” for the defense when the medical examiner went through what they found through autopsy reports and “how [Lindsay’s children] had been strangled slowly with her elastic bands, you know that it wasn’t a quick death.”
“It wasn’t painless,” she said of the Clancy children’s deaths.
“The worst thing they could let the jury hear is how long it took, how she would have had time to stop, she would have had time to get help.
“The youngest was still alive, although they died later, and that she could have at any point changed her behavior. And she didn’t. And that shows premeditation, even if it’s only for a few minutes.”
Cirillo also picked up on some subtle things about Reddington’s body language while medical examiners testified.
“You could see him squirming when the medical director was on the stand. That was the one who was so positive toward the prosecution, describing how the children died.
“You could see his legs crossed. You could see him lean over, and he did the right thing for a defense attorney. That’s what any good lawyer would do.
“You know you’re not going to score any points for your side with this witness. Get them on the stand, get them off the stand.”
Cirillo said there was a witness later in the trial who helped the defense’s case: psychiatrist Dr. Avram Mack.
Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague holds up the pajamas Callan wore on the day Clancy strangled him as evidence in court on July 29Credit: AP
A view of the jury box where the 18 jurors in Lindsay’s trial sit each day at the Plymouth Superior CourtCredit: Reuters
A crime scene photo the jury saw in court shows Callan’s pajamas next to an exercise band and stethoscope after first responders rushed to revive himCredit: Reuters
Cirillo said the medical examiner’s testimony was a strong win for the prosecution, which includes Sprague, right, and Assistant District Attorney Shanan Buckingham, leftCredit: AP
The prosecution tasked Mack with evaluating Lindsay’s mental state after her children’s deaths.
He testified that he believes she suffered from a major depressive episode at the time, but she knew right from wrong. He also said he found no signs of psychosis.
Reddington tore into Mack’s credentials during his first day on the stand, and grilled him further when he returned to conclude his testimony on Monday morning.
“When Reddington cross-examined him, he found out that Dr. Mack really was only skilled in treating children and adolescents’ addictions. He hadn’t had that much experience, if at all, with severe depression and postpartum depression,” Cirillo said.
Cirillo said prosecution witness Dr. Avram Mack, seen testifying on Monday, helped the defense’s case more rather than the commonwealth’sCredit: AP
Reddington shows Mack a psychology book during a tense cross-examination on FridayCredit: AP
“Whereas [forensic psychiatrist Dr. Phillip] Resnick, who had been brought in originally, had lots of experience with people that were suffering from postpartum depression and severe depression and postpartum psychosis.
“So that was certainly a large load of points for the defense in this case, showing that their witness really was not as skilled.”
Resnick has worked on dozens of high-profile cases, including Jeffrey Dahmer, the Unabomber, Casey Anthony – who was acquitted of murdering her two-year-old daughter – and Andrea Yates, who was found not guilty by reason of insanity after she drowned her five children in 2001.
Despite those possibly bumpy moments for the defense, Cirillo thinks Reddington has made the strongest argument in Lindsay’s case.
Forensic psychiatrist Phillip Resnick, who has worked on dozens of cases including Andrea Yates’ and Jeffrey Dahmer’s, testified remotely in Lindsay’s trial on FridayCredit: Reuters
Cirillo said she believes the defense has made the strongest case in Lindsay’s trialCredit: AP
“I think the thing that put it over the edge was that the prosecution psychiatrist wasn’t that skilled in dealing with postpartum psychosis.
“And also the very strong point that in this case, the burden is on the prosecution to prove she wasn’t criminally insane, which is is hard to prove. How do you prove somebody is not crazy?
“You could act sane 364 days out of the year [and] on the 365th, you murder somebody. Does that mean you’re sane or insane? So it’s very hard to prove something that’s as subjective as the level of mental illness.
“Obviously, there’s something wrong with Lindsay. She’s had depression. She might even have mild psychosis. But was she able to distinguish right from wrong in the wrongfulness of her behavior?
“And was she able to conform her behavior to the standards of society? The prosecution has to prove one or both of those things.
“It’s hard to prove in retrospect, three years later, what was going on in Lindsay’s head exactly when she committed the act?”
Another moment in the trial that hurt the prosecution was when Lindsay’s former mother-in-law Susan Clancy was on the stand.
During cross-examination, the prosecution asked Susan if she was a member of the Catholic faith and then proceeded to ask, “Are you aware murder is a mortal sin?”
Susan Clancy, Lindsay’s former mother-in-law, was asked a question about mortal sin by the prosecution, which was ultimately stricken by the judgeCredit: AP
Lindsay has pleaded not guilty to three murder chargesCredit: Facebook
Judge William Sullivan called an immediate sidebar and later told the jury to disregard the question and answer, stating it could not be used in their deliberations.
“That seemed like a low blow to make toward a grandmother, a bereaved grandmother,” Cirillo said.
“And often people do that when they’re feeling desperate, when they don’t have any other cards to play. So they pull one out and they say, ‘Let’s hope this works, I’ll see where it lands.’
“Maybe I’m just projecting, in my mind that would be the final card you pull out when you feel like, well, it’s a Hail Mary; I’m going to lose anyway. My argument isn’t that good.
“Anybody would expect his mother to, at the very minimum, be ambivalent about whether or not Lindsay was criminally responsible for what she did to the three grandchildren, and she was very much on Lindsay’s side.
“She thought Lindsay had to have completely lost it and that she never saw any indication that Lindsay was a bad mother.”
Cirillo also mentioned how the prosecution questioned Susan about how much time she would spend with her grandchildren as if she were “trying to stir up jealousy.”
“[The prosecutor] was leading her in a very bad direction. She tried by saying, ‘Did you sleep over at their house? Did Lindsay ever invite you? She invited her own mother, but she didn’t invite you,’ like trying to stir up jealousy as if the mothers-in-law were two jealous teenagers.
Lindsay pictured with Patrick, Dawson, Cora and Callan in the weeks before her kids’ deathsCredit: Plymouth Superior Court
The area of the basement where Patrick found Cora and CallanCredit: Reuters
“Again, that seemed to me to be a bit of desperation.
“I don’t think the prosecutor expected this much support for Lindsay from the family members. And certainly not the mother-in-law.
“The prosecutor was trying to get back some territory for the prosecution by saying, well, you know, ‘You didn’t get along with her that well after all. Well, she seemed to favor her own mother,’ which isn’t unusual, that somebody will favor their own parent over an in-law.”
Closing arguments are expected toward the end of the fifth week in Lindsay’s trial after the prosecution’s rebuttal witnesses conclude their testimony.
If Lindsay is found not guilty and to have lacked criminal responsibility, she would be committed to a state mental health facility, but if found guilty, she faces life in prison without parole.
SOURCE: THE SUN
https://www.the-sun.com/news/16895375/lindsay-clancy-kevin-reddington-risked-losing-jury/
