387. The Lindsay Clancy Trial Part 15

We talked about this yesterday.

I mean, here's the thing about this case, and, you know, I don't...

This episode's long anyways, so I'll try to keep this short.

[laughs]

But here's the thing about this case.

Those jurors and a lot of y- There are people who feel strongly one way or the other.

That's absolutely true.

But I think the vast majority of people, and probably the vast majority of the jurors, are really in this middle, and their views are sort of shifting back and forth as the case goes, as they're hearing things.

It's close for them.

Well, guess what? That's a good place to be if you're the defense because the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt.

And you have this expert who, yes, his conclusions are bad for Lindsay Clancy because his conclusions are that she's guilty.

But even he acknowledges how close it was and how hard it was to reach those conclusions and how thoughtful he had to be, and there is such a good argument there that Reddington could have used for reasonable doubt.

Respect your opinion.

Understand why you think that, but this was tough for you, too, wasn't it? It was really hard for you to get there, wasn't it? And you're a doctor with 30-something years experience.

I mean, there were so many opportunities there to take that approach, and instead we just got typical, standard Reddington defense attorney cross-examination theatrics.

And I just think it was a complete l- missed opportunity.

He really needed to come in.

H- he could have dealt with all of this with a scalpel because all he had to do was excise one little bit.

Essentially the ultimate conclusion.

All the things leading up to it stick for him.

He said there was a mental defect.

He said that at the end of the day, remember his words 'cause this stood out to me in the direct when she said, she asked the ultimate question, did she know the wrongfulness of her conduct? And he said, "I have to be very careful about this." Why do you have to be careful, good doctor? Is it perhaps because it was so close to the line? This is me being Reddington, what he should've done.

Is it because you're so close to the line that maybe one additional fact that you don't know could push you over to the fact that no, she is not criminally liable.

I think he would have said yes.

I truly do.

We talked about this yesterday.

I mean, here's the thing about this case, and, you know, I don't...

This episode's long anyways, so I'll try to keep this short.

[laughs]

But here's the thing about this case.

Those jurors and a lot of y- There are people who feel strongly one way or the other.

That's absolutely true.

But I think the vast majority of people, and probably the vast majority of the jurors, are really in this middle, and their views are sort of shifting back and forth as the case goes, as they're hearing things.

It's close for them.

Well, guess what? That's a good place to be if you're the defense because the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt.

And you have this expert who, yes, his conclusions are bad for Lindsay Clancy because his conclusions are that she's guilty.

But even he acknowledges how close it was and how hard it was to reach those conclusions and how thoughtful he had to be, and there is such a good argument there that Reddington could have used for reasonable doubt.

Respect your opinion.

Understand why you think that, but this was tough for you, too, wasn't it? It was really hard for you to get there, wasn't it? And you're a doctor with 30-something years experience.

I mean, there were so many opportunities there to take that approach, and instead we just got typical, standard Reddington defense attorney cross-examination theatrics.

And I just think it was a complete l- missed opportunity.

He really needed to come in.

H- he could have dealt with all of this with a scalpel because all he had to do was excise one little bit.

Essentially the ultimate conclusion.

All the things leading up to it stick for him.

He said there was a mental defect.

He said that at the end of the day, remember his words 'cause this stood out to me in the direct when she said, she asked the ultimate question, did she know the wrongfulness of her conduct? And he said, "I have to be very careful about this." Why do you have to be careful, good doctor? Is it perhaps because it was so close to the line? This is me being Reddington, what he should've done.

Is it because you're so close to the line that maybe one additional fact that you don't know could push you over to the fact that no, she is not criminally liable.

I think he would have said yes.

I truly do.