@kara_marlene: This carousel is not saying Judge Sullivan was required to grant every motion Kevin Reddington filed. He wasn’t. But taken together, these rulings shaped the trial in a BIG way. Reddington asked to separate the questions of whether Lindsay committed the acts and whether she was criminally responsible. Denied. He asked to sequester the jury during one of the most publicly discussed trials in the country. Denied. He asked for a required finding of not guilty after the Commonwealth rested. Denied. He sought an additional McLean witness to challenge the picture of Lindsay’s hospitalization presented to jurors. Denied. He asked for a mistrial after religious testimony the judge later told jurors to disregard. Denied. And he asked for a Bowden instruction specifically telling jurors they could consider alleged failures in the police investigation when evaluating reasonable doubt. Denied. Each ruling can be defended individually under courtroom procedure. But I think the more interesting question is what happens when you stack them all together. Because every one of these decisions affected what the jury heard, how they were instructed, what evidence the defense could present, and how the case was ultimately framed. And after all of that? The trial still ended in a mistrial. So swipe through and look at the rulings one by one. Then tell me: Do you think Lindsay Clancy received the fairest possible trial? #LindsayClancy #KevinReddington #ClancyTrial #CourtTok #TrueCrimeCommentary

Phyllis Boyd490 :

No is was based on what someone else said. The whole trial.

OhHellNo :

Let's not forget that the judges's nephew is married to Patrick's sister. How is that not a conflict of interest??

JuneBug🪲 :

The judge is retiring, he’s going out on the arm of the DA 😏

Louise :

Sullivan is for the DA period

Olivia :

rainy :

That judge should be replaced!

LaLa :

No

SJGS :

1.- I understand why they didn't bifurcated the trial: if she was found guilty, how can you change from: she didn't do it to: oh nevermind, she did it but she was insane. HOWEVER, this had to be carefully explained to the jury at least. 2.- YES. THEY HAD TO BE SEQUESTERED. Although I believe she didn't do it, it's not. for trial if you could see a bunch of people dressed in pink outside the courthouse. Fair doesn't equal what we want. It equals the truth. 3.- Legally, I agree it is a mistrial, however the Judge should've made the lone juror explain his point on why he found her criminally guilty. 4.- The McLean former employee did a really poor job presenting herself. 5.- Yes, it was ground for mistrial. 6.- It was very obvious the negligence in the investigation. Agreed the Bowden Instruction should've been approved.

Daxen :

cuz if you go look up each of those things..reddington was trying to get the judge to say something that could bias the jury...jusy like in every court case the judge has to say the innocent line...but doesnt mean it applies to every case evenly. cuz some start with non affirmative def and some do affirmative def.. but judge still required to say certain things..

TheDailyFl3x :

Nope

Michelle :

He allowed hearsay on the stand!! I’ve never heard of that before 😳

CJ :

I know why they matter. Reddington needs to ask for a conflict of interest towards this judge

Bay’s Creative Corner :

I don’t think she got a fair trial. I feel the judge was biased. I am going through that now with probate case.

Adelfa Carranza :

Absolutely not, Sullivan horrible judge major conflict

okieteacherboymom :

[Tears of joy][Tears of joy][Tears of joy]

Kirsty Mills :

😳😳😳