Aug 26: Lindsay Clancy Trial

This is the Commonwealth’s response to Red’s Bowden argument. And their position is basically: The defense can argue whatever they want about failures in the investigation. But they do not think the judge should give the jury a specific Bowden instruction. The prosecutor pushes back on Red’s claim that there was “no investigation.” She says there was an investigation. She points to things that were examined and tested. And she says the real dispute is over certain pieces of evidence — like the drawer, pill bottles, and other items the defense says should have been handled differently. Then she adds something important: Some of those issues, according to the Commonwealth, only became significant later, after they learned more about the alleged medication ingestion. So their argument is: You can criticize the investigation all you want. You can tell the jury what you think police missed. But that does NOT automatically mean the judge needs to formally instruct the jury that the investigation itself can create reasonable doubt. That is the fight. Red: The investigation was so deficient the jury should specifically be instructed about it. Commonwealth: No. Let him argue it in closing, but don’t elevate it with a special instruction. And honestly? This is exactly the kind of legal fight that sounds small but can matter A LOT when the jury gets its final instructions tomorrow. #LindsayClancy #LindsayClancyTrial #KevinReddington #CourtTok #TrialTok