4.Mistrial Motion Denied Over Religious Testimony
26 linesBAILIFF: Court, all rise.
BAILIFF: Jurors have exited the courtroom. Court is in session.
THE COURT: All right. We'll be in a short recess, and I'll come out as soon as I can.
BAILIFF: Court, all rise.
BAILIFF: This court is back in session. Please be seated.
COURT CLERK: Your Honor, for the purpose of the record, we return back to the trial of Commonwealth versus Lindsay Clancy. All parties are present, excluding the jury.
THE COURT: All right. After the following sidebar conference, I think the defendant made a motion. I'm gonna allow a argument in regards to the motion. I'll hear first from the defendant, and then I will hear from the Commonwealth. Mr. Reddington.
MR. REDDINGTON: Thank you, Judge. Your Honor, this has been obviously a long trial and a lot of work on the part of everybody involved, from the court to the staff to the prosecutors to myself, and needless to say, the strain on Lindsay Clancy. I have to move for a mistrial reluctantly. The reason is that this is intentional misconduct on the part of the prosecution. You know that this whole idea of injecting Roman Catholic faith, the concept of mortal sin, into this trial occurred, I don't even remember now, about a week ago? And I objected, but before I could get the objection out, Your Honor had us at the sidebar at the same time, and very forcefully, in my opinion, indicated to the jurors that they should not consider that to any degree. At the time, I put on record the fact that I did not feel that— I felt that the court's instructions were sufficient. They were forceful. They were right on point. And I— we moved forward without a motion for a mistrial. I made a tactical decision. But unfortunately, at this point, it's a concern I have because this is just over the top. It's the same thing again, talking about religion, talking about heaven, talking about killing people and the impact or the effect it would have on Lindsay as well as her children. Ugh. The fact that this is not the first time that it occurred during the trial and the prosecution has previously brought up the concept of mortal sin, based on your ruling in the past, in conjunction with the fact that they brought it up again, I believe it was intentional misconduct, and I feel that the court should grant the motion for a mistrial.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Commonwealth.
MS. SPRAGUE: Thank you, Your Honor.
MS. SPRAGUE: The question I asked the witness did not ask for any testimony about religion, about Catholicism, about mortal sins or anything like that, and the slide is still up on the screen. There's nothing on the slide about Catholicism, about mortal sins, about any of that. The witness was explaining his reasoning. I don't think it was intentional on part of the witness either. If we look at his interview of Ms. Clancy, one of the things that this witness has to do is determine whether the defendant knew the wrongfulness of her conduct, and that can be either that it was criminally wrong or morally wrong. And he explored that with her in the interview, and asked her about whether she knew it was legally wrong, and she said she had no concept of legal consequences.
MS. SPRAGUE: And then he went on to ask her about moral wrongfulness and about her religion and whether she knew it was morally wrong, and she did say that she had knowledge that suicide was considered sinful. So I believe that's where the witness was going in trying to explain his reasoning. I don't think he was intentionally trying to inflame the jury or cause an issue in this case. I know I certainly wasn't because I didn't ask a question about her religion or a question that would invoke that kind of response. I asked him to explain what was on the slides, and that's not on the slides. So there was no intentional conduct by the Commonwealth. That was not where I intended to go with this questioning, and I don't think that the witness intended to do any harm either. He was just explaining his rationale. So I would ask that the jury be instructed to disregard the answer, and I can speak to the witness and tell him not to talk about that reasoning for behind his thoughts, that he can testify about his conclusions, but to leave that portion of his reasoning out of his testimony.
THE COURT: All right. Well, here's a concern I have, is what the witness did say in regards to go to- he said, "Go to God, baby. Go to God." That was statements that have been made in evidence already. And then he indicated that was part of her expectation, that she and the children would be together in heaven with God. All right. Now we're getting a little closer to problematic area. Then he testified she was raised as a Catholic, and as I understand Catholic considerations, that's not necessarily what happens. How is any of that proper at this point? But it was not... I'm not going to declare a mistrial at this time. What I am gonna do is I'm gonna bring the jury in. I'm gonna tell them to disregard it. I'm gonna tell them that's an inappropriate area of inquiry and that this witness's understanding of Catholic dogma or Catholic teaching is irrelevant. What's... You know, I mean, there's no evidence of his background or training or having been to the seminary or any of that. And so I think, so and that's where he injected that. And so I am giving that, but the Commonwealth, I'm gonna strongly, in perhaps the strongest language, talk to him and let him know that there's n- he can't go into that. And so, and then my thought is I'm gonna bring the jury back in, I'm gonna give him that instruction, and then I'm gonna send them home.
THE COURT: I don't want them leaving here today with the last thing they heard was a discussion about this witness's understanding of the Catholic teaching. That's not the last thing they're gonna hear. And so my thought is that, as best I can, is to address that and minimize the damage or prejudice, 'cause I do presume that this jury will be able to follow those instructions. And so, that would be my thought. We'll come back. That will give the Commonwealth plenty of time to talk to this witness, to let him know the areas that he should and should not go into. And then we can come back tomorrow, and we can resume his direct examination and cross-examination. All right? So that'd be my thought. We'll bring the jury in. I'll give him that instruction, and then we will recess until tomorrow. Okay?
MR. REDDINGTON: And then, Your Honor, and just for the record, could I note an objection?
THE COURT: Sure. Absolutely. All right. So we ready for the jury?
BAILIFF: Court, all rise. Jury's entered.
BAILIFF: This court's now in session.
COURT CLERK: Please be seated. Your Honor, for the purposes of the record, when we return back to the trial, Commonwealth versus Lindsay Clancy, all parties are present, including the defendant and including the 18 jurors.
THE COURT: All right. All right. Well, members of the jury, just before we broke, there was some testimony from that last witness, and I just wanna give you some instructions in regards to that testimony. And I just wanted to let... The religion that the defendant was raised with is absolutely an inappropriate area of testimony. It is to be stricken. It is not to be considered. I can't be any more clear than that. It cannot be considered. Secondly, the witness's understanding of Catholic teachings and considerations, again, is immaterial, it's irrelevant, it is to be disregarded based on that testimony. All right? And so, because we had a little bit of a delay due to this, what I'm gonna do is I'm gonna excuse you until tomorrow. All right? And so the thought is, we'll come in, we'll finish up with this witness. I believe the Commonwealth has another witness at that point, and then we'll talk about where we go. I apologize for any kind of confusion or delay, but I just wanted to make sure you had those instructions with you when you left here today. All right? So I'm sorry, but... So I'll see you tomorrow. Thank you.
BAILIFF: Court, all rise. Jurors, close your notebooks, place them on the chairs. This way, please.
BAILIFF: Jurors have exited the courtroom. This court's in session. Please be seated.
THE COURT: All right. Counsel, one more time, can I see you at sidebar?
THE COURT: All right, so we will be in recess till tomorrow. The anticipation is that the evidence will be done at some point tomorrow, with the thought that most likely we'll have a charge conference, sometime probably tomorrow afternoon, and arguments and charge would be on Wednesday. All right? Subject to change as they always are. So, thank you, everybody, and we'll see you tomorrow morning. Thank you.
MS. SPRAGUE: Thank you.
BAILIFF: Court, all rise.