Speaker 1: That I have is the defendant's.
Speaker 2: Motion for change and venue.
Speaker 1: A toney, ragged and I'll hear you on that.
Speaker 3: Think you you runner first of all, change a venue obviously,
as the court is certainly well aware from your own
defense practice, as well as as a judge, is a
matter that's really invested in the sound discretion of the court.
And as consul and her opposition noted that you are
more than capable of acquiring up jurors in a sensitive
way to feroughly probe them to any biases or prejudices
that may exist.
Speaker 4: We're all aware.
Speaker 3: I'm sure that you're associate judge for any are denied
the motion and change a venue. On another high profile case,
the Walsh Matter and Denham Superior Court a couple of
days ago, her findings were obviously very detailed, just.
Speaker 4: As your honner would make findings.
Speaker 3: As I stand here now, I understand that it's an
uphill battle to get a court.
Speaker 4: To change venue. I know this. I mean I represented
Thomas Tulan.
Speaker 3: I'm well aware of the issues that are involved in
a motion for a change of venue. I do not
have any concern about the people or the citizens of
the County of Plymouth and their ability to sit in.
Speaker 4: Judgment in this case and be objective at fair.
Speaker 3: My concern is the overwhelming nature of the publicity in
a case such as this, which is readily understandable. My
understanding of the law is that I have an obligation
that I have to file a motion for a change
of venue. Provide the court with exhibits or documentation that
would allow you to determine whether or not there's been
a saturation of the county, if you will. I've requested
that the matter be transferred to Suffolk Superior Court. I
think that the City of Boston is in a situation
where it would be more likely to obtain a jury
that would be less exposed to the hysterical.
Speaker 4: Publicity that has been involved with this case.
Speaker 3: Without understanding looking at the law, I understand that the
court is in a position where as many courts do,
can deny the motion and defer the matter to the
time of trial and see how it shakes out as
far as individual of what deal with jurors.
Speaker 4: I still have to file the motion.
Speaker 3: I still feel in good faith that it's a matter
that would be best sent to Suffolk County for trial
with the understanding that is in the instructions from the
Tooling case from the Supreme Judicial Court that in that case,
obviously I raised the issue I had the motion before
the judge was denied, and that ultimately it was flipped.
As Console points out, there was a number of other
issues that were involved with the actual and panel and
process in that case. But nevertheless it's a initie that
the court can consider. So I'm asking that you consider
the poluminous exhibits that have been attached.
Speaker 4: I know that.
Speaker 3: District attorney in opposition made note of the fact that
I was kind of holding court down the first full
there the day of the I think it was the
arrayment in this court. Anybody that knows me knows that
I generally do not court. If you will the media,
I'm generally know not to give interviews. I I quite
frankly don't like to do interviews.
Speaker 4: And things of that nature.
Speaker 3: I was confronted by a c in a wall of
reporters and cameras when I was trying to leave here
with doctor Ziazel after we did the arrayment in this case.
Obviously just grabbed understandably the emotions of the public, and
we had heard rightfully so, from the government as to
the police and the investigation and the emotion involved with
the police and the fire department, and we had the
chief of police making statements that she's going to be okay,
She's going to be walking and playing soccer within a week,
she's not paralyzed, everything's fine, which is all quite frankly
not true. I tried to respond to the questions that
were raised. Rather than just like Moses patting the red sea,
walking through the wall of people saying no comment, I
said simply that this is a case that involves itself
with medication over medication, Postpottum psychosis, Postpottum depression, all hot
button issues that certainly impacted on a woman who by
all accounts neighbors, friends, co workers, amazing individual and a
loving mother, that all of a sudden would be involved
with such a horrific act, and everybody wanted to know why,
what was the understanding as to what happened, Without getting
into the details of any investigation by the government or
by the defense. I tried to respond to that so
I was not creating a media frenzy by any means,
and that has carried through with the reporting everone knows
that we're in a very strange time as far as
electronic media, YouTube podcasts, people that criticize the clothes you
wear as an attorney, the way you walk around the
court room, the questions that you make, the electronic surveillance,
if you will, at the public it's amazing. So dealing
with that and understanding the intense publicity that has surrounded
this case, I think it is a legitimate motion. I
would ask that you act favorably on it, understanding if
you deny it, that it would be renewed at the
time of trial in accordance with cool.
Speaker 5: Alright, thank you, call m over, thank ron, I come mold.
Would ask that you deny the emotion forge to a venue,
mainly because the defendant has not met its his bird
and her burden based under under the law, there are
five characteristics or or criteria that the courts look at
that I I went into depth in my memos, so
I'll just highlight briefly, but the time that has lapsed
in this case has been three years, which is similar
to other cases that the SGC as upheld as enough
time has passed to not negate the impact of the
event on the community, but toul it uh dull the
impact somewhat. Also, uh the community size and make up,
this is a very different community and make up than
in the Tooling case. In the Tooling case, that defense
sites it wasn't overturned because of presumptive prejudice because of
the presumably the jury pool would be prejudiced, but actual
prejudice because it was such a small community of about
ten thousand people who all or mostly all new the
either the victim or her family, or interconnected with witnesses
in the police. So it's a very different situation in
that case. As well as Lady both site to Plymouth
County as being a different type of county that's more urban,
that's bigger in size, and the defendant will be afforded
a diverse jury pool in this county. Also, the circumstances
of the crime haven't set the community against this defendant.
There have been no protests, no marches, no demonstrations that
you can see in other cases that the s JAC
has determined that there needed to be a change of venue.
We don't have any of that here. As to the
word are, of course, RONA will do an in depth,
thoughtful Wardaiir to protect the defendant's right to a fair
and impartial trial. As as far as the media being
not being highly prejudicial, I think that's also true in
this case. Most of the reporting, even the articles that
defense is attached to motion, are not against the defendant.
They represent or they describe each side's view of the case,
but they don't give opinions as to which is corrector
or go into hyper into details about the case or
our positions. And Defense did participate.
Speaker 1: In some of that media.
Speaker 5: I understand that he said he went down after the arrangement,
was confronted with this wall of media and he felt
the need to clarify some things. But he did give
an interview to The New Yorker and that articles published
just about a year ago in October twenty twenty four,
where he gave some thoughts on this case. And one
of his expert, doctor Phil Resnik, was also interviewed by
The New Yorker and gave thoughts on this case. So
whatever is out there in terms of their defense was
put out there by the defense. I think we also
have to consider the fact that the day and age
we live in, it's not a day and age where
there's local media and everything's condensed in one area. Local
media even you know, the Patriot Letder or the Enterprise
can be read by someone in Germany. You know, it's
everything is everywhere, and moving it to Suffolk I don't
think would help in any way because many of the
articles are from the Boston Globe, the Boston Herald. The
media is you know, Channel five, all the local news
stations as well as national publications. So the entire commonwealth
has been exposed to all this media. It's nothing particular
that only citizens in Plymouth County have been exposed to.
So I think the fact that time has passed, the
size of the community, the nature of the press at
this point, and then the work your Honor will do
with Consul to ensure that we have the feared and
partial jury. I don't think it necessitates rises to the
level of needing a change of venue.
Speaker 2: All right, Well, I've had an opportunity to read the
definite's motion, along with the exhibits the almost opposition.
Speaker 1: At this point, I'm going to deny motion to change venue.
Speaker 2: I will issue a written decision on this in the
next day or two. But I just I had the
opportunity to review all the pleadings and all the case
law in regards to this, so that motion would be.
Speaker 4: Denied, all right.
Speaker 1: So the next issue that we have to address really
is again some.
Speaker 2: Of these just kind of the logistical issues in regards
to the transportation of the defendant.
Speaker 1: And other kind of related issues. Now I've asked and
the Sheriff's Offices.
Speaker 2: Is here represented by Turning Kenny, and I was hoping
that Turning Kenny you could kind of tell us what
would be available in regards to transportation of somebody like
Mss Clancy in her physical condition.
Speaker 6: Yes, thank you, or Jessica Kenny on behalf of the
Sheriff's Department in anticipation of behave that the department received.
Speaker 1: Originally we had been ordered to bring her here on
this day.
Speaker 6: I asked our medical department to reach out to the
medical department at Twoksbury Hospital. Is what often happens when
there's a continuity of care issue, and I did bring
with me our HSA, that's our Health Services Administrator in
case the court has any follow up. But she did
reach out to the medical team there and she did
learn that Mss Clancy is confined to a wheelchair. However,
she can self transfer and she can provide self care
in virtually all aspects of a day trip like this
to the courthouse. And the only thing that Tewksbury was
requesting was that we tr transport her via a wheelchair van,
which the Sheriff's Department does have one of those vans available.
She would be able to be put onto the van
in her wheelchair, understanding that there may be a very
rare instance where she made needs some basic medical assistance.
Speaker 1: We as well.
Speaker 6: I spoke with the HSA about having a nurse schedule
to go on the van as well. There's a drop
seat in the back of that van, so there would
be two deputies or corrections officers obviously in the front
of the van, and Ms Clancy would go in the
back of that van, and there could also be a
nurse that could accompany her in a rare instance where
she may need assistance.
Speaker 1: I won't discuss that here.
Speaker 6: If you'd like, I could go to side bar further.
Speaker 4: But and so that was all that the medical.
Speaker 6: Staff at Tuksbury indicated that she required. They did report
that she's pleasant, that she's.
Speaker 1: Quiet, that a wheelchair van was appropriate.
Speaker 6: She can independently move, she can independently transfer and the
vast majority of her medical needs that arise on a
day to day basis, she can care for herself. So
with that being said, that was our plan was to
send that van. Subsequently, I learned that mister Reddington filed
a request under the ADA. Interestingly enough, he filed it
to the trial court. He has not made that request
to the Sheriff's apartment yet. I did reach out and
try to contact mister Reddington answer. I did not hear back.
If the inmate were to Miss Clancy were to make
that request to the Sheriff's apartment, obviously we have many
inmates in our care that require an accommodation under the ADA,
we would engage in the interactive processes required under the
law with Miss Clancy through her attorney, mister Reddington. I
did review the report of the psychologist that was provided.
Speaker 1: You know what strikes me about it is.
Speaker 6: It doesn't seem as a request for a combination. It
re seems as a request for a change in custody status.
I don't know how someone can be in custody and
it acts as like a buffet. If you will, I
want you to pay for.
Speaker 4: My medical care. I want you to provide me protection.
Speaker 6: I want you to pay for my transportation, but I
don't want to be searched.
Speaker 1: I don't want the handcuffs.
Speaker 6: That's obviously very troubling from a correctional standpoint, because obviously,
if mss Clancy is remanded to our care, which she
is at this point because she's held without.
Speaker 1: Bail, we have received a hate from.
Speaker 6: The court to transport her. She becomes our responsibility, our liability.
She's in our care and custody, and our officers are
very good at what they do, and they weigh a
lot of security factors, and the courts, even in conducting
an ADA analysis, give a lot of deference to jails
and houses of corrections and the security measures that they employ.
I understand the doctor opines that she is not a
flight risk and she is not a harm a risk
of harm to others, and even taking all of that
at face value, assuming that's true, it really fails to
address two major components that the Sheriff's Department is concerned about,
and one would be a fear of harm to herself.
There is a history here that obviously would trigger certain
precautions from a security standpoint, to make sure that Miss
Clancy did not try to harm herself, and one I
think that often go overlooked would be the concern about
harm from others. This case has received worldwide attention, and
while certainly there are many sympathizers with mss Clancy, there
are certainly other people that very outwardly vilify her for
the charges that she has been indicted on, and so
there is always a concern with a high profile inmate
that someone may act out on those It'd be very unlawful,
but obviously could certainly act out on those impulses, and
that's one of the other things about having security in place.
I know there's been some talk about letting her walk
in the court or come in the courthouse from the front,
as opposed to the Sally Port