2.Prosecution Rests; Rule 25 Motion for Required Finding Denied; McLean Records and Thorndike Scheduling
57 linesMS. SPRAGUE: Commonwealth rests.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. SPRAGUE: Oh, I'm sorry, Your Honor. There are some exhibits. I'm sick. I believe they're by agreement.
MR. REDDINGTON: Yeah, they're by agreement.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. SPRAGUE: And then we would rest.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. SPRAGUE: We have the two Sperry Hospital records, two disks.
MS. SPRAGUE: 272A, B. Mass General Institute Health Professions transcript.
MS. SPRAGUE: 273. Quinnipiac transcript.
THE COURT: What was that?
MS. SPRAGUE: Quinnipiac transcript. 274.
MS. SPRAGUE: And then employment records from Mass General Hospital.
MS. SPRAGUE: 275.
MS. SPRAGUE: We rest.
THE COURT: All right. And with that, the Commonwealth rests?
THE COURT: All right. All right. So, members of the jury, as you heard from Attorney Sprague, the Commonwealth has rested. All right. So at this point, I've got to address some matters with the attorneys. So I'm gonna—it's another one of those stops. I'm gonna take a stop at this point to have you go back to the jury room. I'm gonna address a few things with the attorneys. And then we'll bring you right back in. Okay?
BAILIFF: All rise, please, jurors exiting.
BAILIFF: Jurors have exited the courtroom. This court's in session. Please be seated.
MR. REDDINGTON: Before we do the motion for required finding, Your Honor, is this a good time to take a morning break?
THE COURT: Sure. Why? Do you wanna take a short break?
MR. REDDINGTON: Looking something up, that's all. I apologize.
THE COURT: All right. So the court will be in a short recess and we'll come back without the jury. We'll address the motion.
MR. REDDINGTON: Okay.
THE COURT: And then we'll kinda go from there.
MR. REDDINGTON: Great. Thank you.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
BAILIFF: Court, all rise.
COURT CLERK: Purpose of the regular return to trial, Commonwealth versus Lindsay Marie Clancy. All parties are present. Pursue with the jury.
THE COURT: All right. So the Commonwealth having rested, Mr. Reddington, does the defendant have a motion?
MR. REDDINGTON: Yes, Your Honor. I passed it up to the court. I don't know if you have it in front of you. It's basically a Rule 25. Doesn't have any memoranda with it, but I would argue, and I would cite to the court the case that was decided of Commonwealth versus Brunette Silveira. It's B-R-U-N-E-T-T-E-S-E-L-V-E-I-R-A. It was decided towards the end of May of '26 by the appeals court in Massachusetts. It was a case out of the Boston Municipal Court where defendant was charged with assault and battery on a police officer. The evidence was presented that the defendant was acting erratically, and that there was an awful lot of evidence that indicated that, brought out on cross-examination from witnesses, that the defendant was suffering from some type of a mental illness. Based on that evidence being presented, the government rested their case, just as they've done here. My suggestion to the court is that the evidence that's been presented on this case against Ms.
MR. REDDINGTON: Clancy, I would suggest, does not rise to the level under Rule 25 of, where even if you take the Lattimore standard and determine that the evidence would be decided in the light most favorable to the government at this stage of the case, I think the Brunette-Silveira case places, as they describe it, a negative obligation to prove a negative as part of their case in chief on the government. I suggest to Your Honor that the evidence that has been presented in this case is overwhelming, that this young woman was clearly and unequivocally suffering from a mental disease or defect, that it was occupying her waking hours, her life, that she considered all of her avenues. She attempted to go to these healthcare providers, using the term loosely, that she went to these people. She had medication after medication after medication. She was obviously acting, I suggest to the court, in a state that was observed by witnesses that in fact that she was suffering from mental disease, a defect.
And then ultimately this horrific incident. So under that Brunette-Silveira case, there's no evidence, I suggest, from the government that would rebut the fact that there is evidence of lack of criminal responsibility. So under Brunette-Silveira and the cases that were cited in that opinion, respectfully, I would suggest that a required finding of not guilty should be entered on the case. I also would argue to the court that, I think that under the Brunette-Silveira standard, and the evidence that Your Honor has before you, that the matter should be reduced down, if you will, from premeditated malice and forethought, cruelty and atrocity, to second degree. I'm not arguing at this stage Commonwealth versus Gray or any of its progeny as to manslaughter, but I think the court certainly in its wise exercise of discretion has the ability and the right to reduce the charge to second-degree murder or enter a required finding.
THE COURT: All right, counsel. Thank you. Commonwealth.
MS. SPRAGUE: Thank you, Your Honor. The case that defense counsel cited, there was a presentation of the Commonwealth's evidence. Commonwealth rested. Defense called an expert who said that the defendant was not criminally responsible, and the Commonwealth relied on a cross-examination of that witness and did not call any further witnesses. So the motion was filed for a required finding at the close of all of the evidence, which is what's required under Commonwealth versus Lawson, which Brunette-Silveira cites and is still good law, an NSJC case, 475 Mass. 806 from 2016, in which the court says that a motion for a required finding of not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility may only be brought at the close of all of the evidence, not at the close of the Commonwealth's case. In this case, as you're aware, defense plans on presenting experts to testify that the defendant was not criminally responsible, and then the Commonwealth will have a rebuttal case with their own experts. So I think the time and place for this, for the motion would be at the close of all of the evidence, and not now.
THE COURT: All right. Well, I owe you an opportunity to take a look at Brunette-Silveira. So, based on that and based on the standard, as described, that I have to apply at this point, I'm gonna deny the defendant's motion.
MR. REDDINGTON: I don't think I have to object, but I will.
THE COURT: All right. As we say, duly noted.
MR. REDDINGTON: Yes. Thank you, Judge. Your Honor, could we inquire, could I inquire? Emily Thorndike is here and has been here. I'm just wondering, is the government ready for us to do the voir dire to see if she can testify? Because she is self-employed.
THE COURT: Right.
MR. REDDINGTON: She has patients and has canceled them day after day. I'm just inquiring if we're ready to go on that.
THE COURT: Right. So the question I think that we had put this over was, in large part because of the records from McLean's. Do we know if those are in?
MS. BUCKINGHAM: I've been inquiring with Madam Clerk if there's been any status from the clerk's office, and I've been told they haven't received anything. We have a call over to McLean's. They've acknowledged the receipt. They were waiting for a call back from somebody at the office. They thought that the records were produced on Friday, but clearly that wasn't the case. So we have a call. We're waiting for a return call. I've provided people in my office the Madam Clerk's email address to get it expedited as quick as possible. So we are working to try to resolve the issue, and the hospital has acknowledged they received the subpoena. We just don't have a response yet. And I would just also remind that we've discussed this last week and talked about doing this tomorrow on Tuesday in order to get those records and have time for everybody to get them and review them so that a proper examination of the witness can be done in a voir dire.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. REDDINGTON: So this is—
THE COURT: Well, let's do this. Let's do this before we start going at each other. We'll see if the records come in. All right?
MR. REDDINGTON: All right.
THE COURT: The records come in, then we get to determine how long it takes for people to review it and get ready. So if we can do that this afternoon—
MR. REDDINGTON: Okay.
THE COURT: ... Great.
MR. REDDINGTON: All right.
THE COURT: If we can't, I'll hear from the parties as to why we can't. We may have to do it tomorrow. But if we can do that today, I do understand that that witness has been here a number of days. But at this point, it's a question of the records coming in, which really is out of both parties' hands. So if the records are in, the parties can get ready, we'll do that voir dire. If not, we may have to do that tomorrow.
MS. BUCKINGHAM: Thank you.
THE COURT: Okay. All right.
MR. REDDINGTON: Understood.
THE COURT: Mr. Reddington.
MR. REDDINGTON: Ready. Ready for the jury, Judge.
THE COURT: Yeah.