The Lindsay Clancy Rule 25 Motion: What the Defense Actually Filed

When Kevin Reddington, Lindsay Clancy's attorney, filed a renewed motion for a required finding of not guilty, the media and online commentary described it as a dramatic double-jeopardy-style bid—arguing that his client had essentially been acquitted because eleven jurors wanted to find her not guilty by reason of insanity while one held out for improper reasons. That characterization was wrong. What Reddington actually filed is a routine, six-page, double-spaced motion that any competent defense attorney would file after a hung jury. It is not bombastic. It is not conspiratorial. It is a standard legal argument that almost certainly will not succeed.

The Legal Mechanism

Under Massachusetts Rule of Criminal Procedure 25(b)(2), a defendant whose case has been submitted to a jury may renew a motion for a required finding of not guilty within five days after the jury is discharged. This is the same motion defense attorneys make orally at the close of the prosecution's case—asking the judge to declare the defendant not guilty because the evidence, even viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, could not support a conviction. Judges almost never grant these motions during trial. They typically reserve decision and, after a verdict or mistrial, the defense can renew the request.