Sep 18, 2026 · 57 min · 15 segments
We discuss Lindsay Clancy's Rule 25 motion, what it means, and what comes next. Check out our other show, The Prosecutors: Legal Briefs, for discussion on cases, controversial topics, or…
And Look, you might call us liars because we recorded a few days ago and we said we're done with the Lindsay Clancy case forever and ever.
Amen.
False.
We're back today.
You knew that wasn't going to happen.
There's always just such interesting things that come up.
There are such interesting legal and factual things.
But we may not be talking about the things you think we're going to talk about today.
Because what we love doing in Legal Briefs is breaking down legal things that happen in cases that are kind of blown wildly out of proportion in the news.
Now, I will say, Brett...
In the Lindsay Clancy trial, everything has been wild and crazy and there has been no room for cold water prosecuting.
But today we will go through the renewed motion for required finding of not guilty filed by Kevin Reddington, who represents Lindsay Clancy.
This is akin to the asking for a directed verdict case.
Asking the judge, even though the jury has done something to say, judge, look at the evidence.
It's so clear.
You should issue a ruling from the bench on this case.
And the reason we're going through it is actually because it's a relatively boring, straightforward motion that does not do any of the things that the media or online world claims it's asking for.
Yeah.
So when this was filed, it was presented as Reddington was asking for basically a double Jeopardy style finding that essentially his client had really been acquitted.
because 11 people wanted to vote not guilty by reason of insanity, and there was one person who was holding out for improper reasons, and so that's what he was seeking.
And it turns out that's not really what happened.
And what instead we have, as we're going to go through with you guys, is a pretty standard, as Alice said, motion for a finding of not guilty.
And it's interesting.
On Legal Briefs, we like to just do interesting legal things for you guys so you sort of have an idea of how the court system works.
This is an interesting one to go through and see how these work.
And Look, you might call us liars because we recorded a few days ago and we said we're done with the Lindsay Clancy case forever and ever.
Amen.
False.
We're back today.
You knew that wasn't going to happen.
There's always just such interesting things that come up.
There are such interesting legal and factual things.
But we may not be talking about the things you think we're going to talk about today.
Because what we love doing in Legal Briefs is breaking down legal things that happen in cases that are kind of blown wildly out of proportion in the news.
Now, I will say, Brett...
In the Lindsay Clancy trial, everything has been wild and crazy and there has been no room for cold water prosecuting.
But today we will go through the renewed motion for required finding of not guilty filed by Kevin Reddington, who represents Lindsay Clancy.
This is akin to the asking for a directed verdict case.
Asking the judge, even though the jury has done something to say, judge, look at the evidence.
It's so clear.
You should issue a ruling from the bench on this case.
And the reason we're going through it is actually because it's a relatively boring, straightforward motion that does not do any of the things that the media or online world claims it's asking for.
Yeah.
So when this was filed, it was presented as Reddington was asking for basically a double Jeopardy style finding that essentially his client had really been acquitted.
because 11 people wanted to vote not guilty by reason of insanity, and there was one person who was holding out for improper reasons, and so that's what he was seeking.
And it turns out that's not really what happened.
And what instead we have, as we're going to go through with you guys, is a pretty standard, as Alice said, motion for a finding of not guilty.
And it's interesting.
On Legal Briefs, we like to just do interesting legal things for you guys so you sort of have an idea of how the court system works.
This is an interesting one to go through and see how these work.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.