Speaker 1: And I believe that is the defendants motion to limit witnesses.
Is that correct? That's the themotion we have all right
now when I'm gonna.
Speaker 2: I've read the motion, all right, I've read, I've read
the great jury minutes from all the individuals who have
scheduled to testify. So I'm going to hear from the
defendant just in regards to this. Then I'll hear from
the Commonwealth.
Speaker 3: So mister anything, thank you, and I will restrict the
hyperbolere This motion is asking that your Honor would direct
the Commonwealth since apparently the Commonwealth will not agree voluntarily
to restrict the presentation of a large number of first
responders to this tragic incident. First of all, you know,
let's face it, you know, firefighters, EMTs, police officers. You know,
they're all wonderful people. They're doing the Lord's work. What
these people have gone through and would go through and
have gone through in their jobs cannot be underscored, and
that's to be respected and embraced. But to present them,
one after the other in this trial to testify too,
and I would very briefly, I don't even have to
mention their names, but Duxbury Fire Department paramedic detail to
the home at forty seventh Summer Street. Dealt with dealing
with the defendant, Lindsey Clancy, treating with her outside with
her injuries. Ferry Police Department sergeant went to the house,
heard noises. Stephen Is, a Duxbury Police Department officer, saw
the defendant. Heard screaming in the basement. Duxbury Police Department
heard another individual heard screaming in the basement, went in,
saw the kids in the basement. Another firefighter heard noises,
was outside. Another firefighter Duxbury Fire Department e MT saw
Lindsay on the ground, was treating Lindsay who had screams
coming from the house. Went into the house. Describes the
basement scene. Robert another Pembroke Fire Department individual paramedic, same idea.
Another Pembroke Fire Department paramedic who's in the house. Duxbury
firefighter e MT. Saw the other EMT carrying two kids
out of the basement. Saw two children on the floor,
described the basement Marshfield. Marshfield Fired Apartment paramedic when in
the basement, saw the children laying on the floor in
the basement on their backs facing upward. So our blood
would appeared to be blood around the nose of one
of the children. Another firefighter Marshfield assisted in the basement,
heard the screaming, yelling and made his observations. Another firefighter
from Duxbury in the basement saw the children, little children
wearing onesies and feedies, laying on their backs on the
basement floor, assisted as he could. Another Duxbury Fire Department
individual basement. Another Kingston Fire Department mutual aid gentlemen assisted
in the basement, describes what he saw in the basement.
Another Kingston Fire Department individual had heard the screaming and
went downstairs, describes what he saw in the basement. Another
Duxbury Fire Department individual responds to the scene, describes the scene,
and then a Duxbury fightre Apartment individual responds saw Patrick
in the kitchen's arm sobbing and made observations of the scene.
So that was what was presented to the grand jury,
and is from what we can see, is what the
government would try to present at this trial. And I
suggest to the court without sounding as though I'm trying
to minimize the horror of what transpired here and what
these good employees of the municipalities had to endure and
see and probably to this day are suffering post traumatic
stress from it. Legally and objectively, I suggest to Urana
that it serves no purpose other than to inflame or
try to inflame the passions of the jury, one right
after the other after the other, offering them water or
offering them time to gather themselves. And it may have
worked on the grand jury, but it shouldn't work on
the jury trail counselate.
Speaker 2: Is this motion I understand the rational by, but isn't
this motion kind of a little premature because I I mean,
if you're talking about something being cumulative, don't have to
hear what the first witness says first and then ask
for the carwealth there's an offer of proof, there's anything
different that this witness saw.
Speaker 1: Or did or was going to bring to the jury.
It's it's and I guess what I'm saying.
Speaker 2: It's difficult for me sitting here right now to tell
the Callwell, you can't call witness number two without knowing
what witness number.
Speaker 1: One is going to say.
Speaker 2: This kind of flags issue for me helpful. You know,
I went back and pulled out proposed Rule four h
three that talks about, you know, needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,
so I could be aware of that, got the cases
pulled out for that, but.
Speaker 1: I don't have everything in front of me. That's why
that's the way I was looking at it right now.
But calmwell, thank you, honor.
Speaker 4: So in a typical murder case with one victim, we
would be proving deliberate premeditation and or extreme atrocity a cruelty,
either one of those. Proving for Storge murder, you'd have
to prove that the defendant's actions caused the death. And
the way we do that is with the person finding
the body, then the people who treated the body trying
to save that person, then the medical staff at the
hospital treating them and then declaring them dead, and then
the autopsy confirming that the actions of the defendant wore
the cause of the death. Here, unfortunately, we have three victims,
so that multiplies those witnesses by three. We also have
the defendant herself, who was treated at the scene, so
then that's a fourth multiplier. Then you also have Patrick Clancy,
who is so devastated upon finding his children in the
manner that he found them, that he was in an
awful state and had to be brought to the hospital
as well. So that's multiplying the people here by five.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 4: When the first responders arrived at the home that night,
they thought they were responding to one victim, the defendant.
Then they found out that the children were there, and
they found them in the state that they were in,
and it was a chaotic scene. They're asking for more help,
they're trying to figure out what's going on. They're trying
to treat these children, and so there's a lot of
handing off. People start CPR, people move on to another
child when someone else arrives who's better equipped to deal with,
say a baby versus a five year old, And so
we have multiple people working on these children, trying to
save their lives and then get them to the hospital
and get them and unfortunately none of them survived. But
the Commonwealth did not choose the number of victims. The
defendant did. The commult did not choose the ages of
the victims the defendant did. The Kammult did not choose
the horrific nature in which they died.
Speaker 1: The defendant did.
Speaker 4: It is not the Commonwealth putting on a circus or
a parade. It's the Commonwealth presenting the evidence in this
case to prove that the defendant killed those children and
the manner in which they were killed. Now, if defense
would like us to reduce some of these witnesses, that
would mean not talking about one of the children. So
if he would like to tell me which of these
children don't matter, you.
Speaker 1: Know what, let's say it. We don't need that, all right,
we don't need that.
Speaker 2: I The question right now for both of you is
this is emotion saying that there is going to be
cumulative evidence. I don't know what's going to be presented,
So how can I say that witness two doesn't bring
anything extra.
Speaker 1: After witness went.
Speaker 2: I understand the theory the Commonwealth, and I'm not telling
the Carwealth how to try their case. I'm not, and
I'm just i've been I guess the issue has been
brought up that the defendant views the Commonwealth's approach one way,
the Commonwealth views it a different way. I'm the one
who's going to have to decide, and I don't have
anywhere near enough information right now to determine if something
violates you know, Section four h three.
Speaker 1: But I understand the Carnwells position.
Speaker 2: There's a number of witnesses, and they all may very
well bring something unique to the Commonwealth's case.
Speaker 1: So it's really what I'm probably going to be doing.
Speaker 2: As we go through this is have everybody come over
here to the sidebar, hope fully calmly talking about an
offer proof, and is this witness bringing something? If they do, fine,
I'm not restricting the commonwealth thing.
Speaker 1: I just I appreciate the.
Speaker 2: Fact that it was brought to my attention. Now I
can be aware of it and we can just deal
with it as the trial goes on, just like you know,
I mean, like we said, all of us have tried
a number of homicides, so we know how they it's done,
and so I'm aware of how calmwealth it has to
prove multiple elements in every case, and so I'll be
cognizant of that. So I guess probably just be prepared
that the defense objection will be it's cumulative, and we
come over here and if there's some reason why there's
something else that this witness brings or reason why you
want to call, then we'll deal with it.
Speaker 1: At that point.
Speaker 2: We will be prepared, all right, all right, So I'm
not I'm gonna take no action on this, assuming that
it will be raised again in the next couple of weeks.
Speaker 1: We'll deal with it as it comes up. I appreciate
the parties raid.
Speaker 2: That is exactly why we have motions in elimonae, so
I know that this is an issue that's coming up.
I appreciate the Commonwealth setting out what their response is,
so I'm kind of ready for.
Speaker 1: That as well.
Speaker 2: So I'm gonna I'm not gonna take any action.
Speaker 1: On that motion in eliminade.
Speaker 2: Like I said, I'm sure we'll be talking about that
a little bit later. Anything else we need to address today.
Speaker 1: Council, all right, Defendant.
Speaker 2: All right, So the plan we're gonna be in recess
on this matter until Monday. Parties should be prepared to
uh give openings. I'll give a very brief pre charge
at that point, and then we will just begin with
the evidence, hopefully Monday morning, and I will probably get
that order out in regards to mister Clancy's requests sometime
tomorrow morning.
Speaker 1: All right, So again, I want to.
Speaker 2: Thank you everybody for kind of helping me get through
these issues today, and thank you for all your hard
work on this. So we'll be in recess until Monday
morning
Speaker 3: On this boy for this matter has continue to Monday
July twenty seventh, twenty twenty six at nine am for
the Jerry trial.