legally_cortney
Region: US
Thursday 08 October 2026 16:33:21 GMT
2318
155
25
6
Music
Download
Comments
Sara Danis :
I mean this in the nicest of ways and I’m not claiming to be the smartest person in the room here . I’ve watched your entire video twice and what I got from it was Kevin reddington had a better alternative and didn’t go for it ? So he could have a mistrial and start over again ? Why would he say multiple times during the trial that she was in psychosis when she did it ? Why would he bring up the fact that she said “Go to God baby” while she did it ? Why would he bring up the fact that she said she had thoughts of “haming the children “ . I’m not saying Lindsay did it but everything Kevin reddington did and said during the trial basically insinuates that Lindsay did it but she was not in the right state of mind when she did it . Can’t all of that be used in the next trial ?
2026-10-09 03:27:27
0
Kara✨|4dollChaos👧|🛍️ :
Omg I have been saying this allllllllllll along… people don’t get it
2026-10-09 03:16:59
0
emiliasc_424 :
Everything he poked holes on was related to Patrick’s testimony that could support premeditation though. I don’t think he was trying to point a finger at Patrick
2026-10-08 18:05:39
1
Joe Kline :
He’s playing 4D chess
2026-10-08 20:08:09
8
user9303370051155 :
So if Lindsay is found innocent, can Patrick be prosecuted later? Or with Da have to bring those charges?
2026-10-08 16:42:48
0
SlytherDiva :
THANK YOU!!! I’ve been trying to explain this to people
2026-10-08 16:46:19
6
Kevin Johnston :
This is factually correct. However, I do not think Reddington is introducing any new evidence during his arguments for a directed verdict motion for rule 25. He is using a Bowden-centered approach to his arguments similar to what we saw in closing arguments. Which IS different from the defense strategy primarily used in his case in chief but not new evidence. What I find interesting is that Reddington did NOT raise the Bowden defense during his case in chief. Which, to my understanding, is why Judge Sullivan denied his motion for reading the Bowden instruction to the jury. Reddington is a great attorney. I think he knew better than to raise the Bowden defense during witness testimony because he did not want to trigger the Commonwealth’s ability to present prejudicial evidence in dispute of a Bowden defense. The Two-Edged Sword I think it’s called. Reddington seems to intentionally walk this line carefully to avoid the Two-Edged Sword. That indicates to me that he will not use the Bowden Defense during his case in chief for this retrial either but may repeat his willingness to present a Bowden defense of sorts during closing arguments only. Jurors are specifically instructed not to take closing arguments as evidence. So it seems to be a weak attempt at appealing to the jurors’ feelings about the case since no arguments were made during testimony in support or dispute of the adequacy of the investigation.
2026-10-08 17:11:47
0
Vincent Zahler :
this would make sense if Patrick was the star witness for the prosecution but he was actually the star prosecution for the defense
2026-10-09 02:30:20
0
ohtoodles9000 :
So what you’re trying to say is that Reddington was just trying to fatten his pockets one last time before retirement, got ya. lol
2026-10-09 01:14:46
1
user9780268130227 :
He needed to put Patrick in the stance
2026-10-09 04:43:43
0
Raul Salas :
@KTcrimlaw
2026-10-09 00:16:13
0
Raul Salas :
@Stephanie, Esq.
2026-10-09 00:11:41
0
To see more videos from user @legally_cortney, please go to the Tikwm
homepage.
