Lindsay Clancy’s attorney acknowledged that she killed her children during trial. So why did he later argue that prosecutors failed to prove she committed the killings? And why did the judge reject his request for a finding of not guilty? I’m Nate the Lawyer, and in this video, I break down the courtroom clips, the defense’s Rule 25 motion, and the judge’s decision. There is a critical distinction between arguing that someone did not commit a crime and arguing that the government failed to prove its case. That distinction is at the center of this video. We examine the Massachusetts case Commonwealth v. Curtis, how it relates to the defense’s argument, and the evidence the judge cited when denying Clancy’s motion. We also cover the separate question of criminal responsibility and why the court allowed the charges to stand. Watch the opening clips, then follow the legal breakdown before deciding whether the defense’s argument was a contradiction. CHAPTERS 00:00 The attorney’s statements side by side 00:34 Court TV reacts to the defense argument 01:11 Judge denies Clancy’s motion 02:02 What is a Rule 25 motion? 02:38 Does an insanity defense settle who committed the act? 03:28 What Clancy’s attorney said at trial 03:52 Commonwealth v. Curtis explained 05:14 Why the underlying evidence still matters 05:31 The defense challenges the prosecution’s proof 06:06 Evidence the judge cited 07:01 “She didn’t do it” versus “They didn’t prove it” 08:09 The separate criminal responsibility argument 08:50 Why the judge denied the motion 09:18 Final thoughts Phat do you think? Did the coverage make the defense’s argument clear, or did it leave out the key distinction? Let me know in the comments. Subscribe to Nate the Lawyer for legal analysis, courtroom breakdowns, and a closer look at what the evidence actually shows. This video provides legal commentary and education, not legal advice. #LindsayClancy #NateTheLawyer #LegalAnalysis Need a lawyer? If you or someone you know