https://www.facebook.com/852942437911705/

Elyse M. Hershon, Esq

Home
United States
Boston, MA
Elyse M. Hershon, Esq

Boston Criminal Defense Attorney and TV Legal Analyst

11/03/2026

The back-and-forth between Attorney Reddington and Judge Sullivan in Lindsay Clancy’s court hearing yesterday: is it real? Is it for show? is there animus here? Is this “normal?”
So many people want to know.
Part of being a defense attorney is putting on a show in court. That’s what this was. We, as defense attorneys, are advocates. We are there to zealously advocate for our clients and their constitutional rights. Sometimes this involves louder voices, more theatrics, more dramatics, and more aggressive arguing; and sometimes it does not.
The prosecution represents the state as a whole, not an individual person, and not always victims. We know this because when there is a case (and there are many I’ve dealt with) where a victim no longer wants to proceed with the prosecution, the prosecution can and will proceed to trial anyways.
Thank you Nichole Berlie and NewsNation for having me on to discuss.

11/03/2026

Lisa G. in Federal court yesterday for the Matthew Farwell/Sandra Birchmore trial, where 3 defense experts testified in contradiction to the prosecution expert’s opinion that Birchmore’s death was a homicide.
The defense does not have to prove anything or call any witnesses, it is entirely the prosecution’s burden of proof.
While the prosecution has been trying to shut the door on the possibility of su***de, the defense is presenting evidence that points to su***de as an alternate theory, hoping that it is enough for reasonable doubt to avoid a conviction.
Court ended with a charge conference between the parties, even though the evidence is not complete. Here, the parties discuss what jury instructions each wants to be given, both advocating for different instructions to be added or taken away. Jury instructions are such an important part of a trial: one wrong decision, or one missed objection, could create an appellate issue and lead to an overturned conviction and a new trial.
Closing arguments expected Friday.

11/02/2026

At Boston 25 News news desk with Nicole Gabe discussing what would happen in today’s court hearing for Lindsay Clancy.
Will there be a retrial in the Lindsey Clancy case? Will the judge allow the defense motion to dismiss, which would prevent a retrial, or will the judge deny that motion and then the DA’s office will decide to retry?
If this were to be a retrial - would a change of venue better protect Lindsey Clancy’s due process rights to a fair and impartial jury? Given all the national and international coverage - I say no. This trial will stay in Plymouth County and likely go in front of the same judge if it is before his expected retirement in June 2027.
We did not anticipate a decision being made today. This particular judge tends to take decisions under advisement. I expect we will hear more in writing within the next few days.

11/02/2026

What is one of the biggest takeaways from today’s hearing in Lindsay Clancy? That, according to Reddington, the 12th juror - aka juror “doe” - did not disclose an active restraining order on his jury questionnaire when asked, nor did he disclose this during the individual voir dire process during jury selection back in July of this year.
Could this lead to criminal charges against juror doe? It’s possible.
However…
Isn’t it a bit of a conflict for the DA’s office, where they would be the ones prosecuting Juror “doe” for possibly lying on a jury questionnaire, and yet this was the one juror that sided with them during deliberations for Lindsay Clancy and refused to acquit her?
And we know it is well within the discretion and power of the DA’s office to decline to prosecute or decline to bring charges.
In the context of Lindsay Clancy’s possible retrial, does the fact that juror doe possibly misrepresented or failed to disclose something under oath change this?
No, it does not. Because the remedy for this at this point would be to overturn a conviction and order a retrial. But there was no conviction, and Lindsay Clancy is already posited for a retrial. So in terms of her future, this piece is not so significant.

11/02/2026

Back in Boston 25 News with Nicole Gabe doing live coverage of the Lindsay Clancy motions in court today. Catch us on Fox 25 Channel throughout the day.

10/30/2026

Yesterday, a court hearing was held in the civil case where Patrick Clancy is suing the healthcare providers who treated Lindsay Clancy.
One of the issues they have to show is that she told her treating physicians that she was having homicidal ideations toward her children. The lawyer for Patrick Clancy stated that Lindsay will be coming in to testify to establish that fact.
Immediately following the hearing, Kevin Reddington issued a formal statement that she is absolutely not taking the stand, and that has never been promised or told.
I agree with Reddington for two reasons: 1.) the triple first-degree murder charges are still pending, and 2.) her unstable mental health. Her testifying could significantly jeopardize both of those things.
It is interesting that Patrick Clancy’s civil lawyer stated this in open court, when Lindsay Clancy is not his client, and he very well knows what she’s dealing with mentally. Was it perhaps to strategically put pressure on the case and on her to testify? Was it out of confidence? Or just wishful thinking?
Either way, it is not up to the civil lawyer because he does not represent Lindsay. But what we do know right now is Lindsay Clancy is not taking the stand anytime soon.
Thank you Bob Ward Boston 25 News

10/29/2026

Such a cool and totally candid behind-the-scenes video one of the producers took of my appearance at NBC10 Boston this week.
Much of the legal analyst work I do is by Zoom, remotely, but the times that I get to go into the news studios are my favorite.
In studio means: live, unedited, on the spot responses, no heads up as to what the questions are, and no notes - all brain, quick thinking, in-the-moment gut reactions.
Covering the Sandra Birchmore case on NBC’s “Commonwealth Confidential” show and discussing evidence as the case turns turns to the defense this week; closings are expected to be next week. See you soon!
Thank you NBC, jcmonahantv Glenn Jones

10/25/2026

Friday night with Joshua Ritter, Esq. on his show Courtroom Confidential covering the latest in the Sandra Birchmore/Matthew Farwell federal murder trial in Massachusetts.
Last week, the prosecution called three other affair partners of Matthew Farwell to counteract something the defense said in their opening statement: that Farwell wore a mask in the surveillance video at Birchmore’s apartment the night she died because of Covid/safety. In other words, not to conceal his identity.
The problem is, the three women who Farwell was also reportedly having affairs with all testified he never showed up in a mask to meet them.
And the prosecution did not stop there. They called multiple people from Farwell’s department to testify that Farwell despised masks and felt very strongly against them.
Farwell has been identified in the surveillance video by his colleagues. Farwell admits he was at Birchmore’s apartment that night she died. Does it really matter why he was wearing a mask? It depends.
It depends on how big of a deal it is made that he was wearing one. And now it seems like there has been a big detour trying to prove or disprove why he was wearing one.
We call this “opening the door” - and it can lead to a plethora of evidence, testimony, and witnesses coming in that otherwise would not have been a significant part of the trial.
trial

10/23/2026

As week two of the Sandra Birchmore/Matthew Farwell murder trial in Massachusetts federal court comes to a close, the prosecution reportedly only has four witnesses left before the case turns to the defense next week.
Today, a therapist who saw Sandra Birchmore the day before her death testified that although Birchmore was on medication - an antidepressant - up to and around the time of her death, there was no indication she had suicidal ideations at that time.
The prosecution also called the actual father of Birchmore’s unborn baby, that through DNA testing was determined not to be Matthew Farwell, - to testify under a grant of immunity that Birchmore was not having suicidal ideations, and a plethora of other witnesses to testify that there was no indication she was suicidal.
The prosecution needs to exclude su***de as a possibility in order to prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt, and it is their biggest hurdle.
There is a saying: the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
What does this mean? It means just because Birchmore did not tell anybody she was suicidal does not conclusively prove that it was not a su***de. It might make it less likely, but it is still possible.
And remember: the original death certificate from the medical examiner’s office determined su***de was the manner of death, and the original detectives that reported to the scene determined it was a su***de - and not a crime scene.
So, despite the fact that the prosecution is attempting to show the absence of evidence she was contemplating su***de, if it is still even a small alternate theory, they have not proved this case beyond a reasonable doubt.
The medical examiner is expected to testify next week, and that is expected to be very significant testimony in this trial. It is the biggest weakness in the prosecution’s case, and the biggest chance that the defense has to argue reasonable doubt.

10/21/2026

Breaking news: The Judge in Lindsay Clancy case denied a request for an “evidentiary hearing”.
What does this mean? There will still be a hearing, but the holdout juror - or any other juror or witness - will not be brought in and questioned as part of the hearing.
This comes as part of the defense’s request to question the basis and whether there was a bias in the jury room. The “double jeopardy” motion as to whether the juror should have been excused as a “manifest necessity” has not been ruled on yet, and has not been argued, but we learned today the juror(s) will not be brought in and allowed to be inquired as to what went on in that jury room.
On November 2, however, there still will be a hearing with the lawyers. It will be “non-evidentiary”, meaning the defense and the Commonwealth will still make their arguments to the Judge on the outstanding motions, including the gag order and discovery motions, as well as relating to the questionnaires and the jury notes that are still up for debate.

Address

240 Commercial Street
Boston, MA
02109

Website

facebook.com

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Elyse M. Hershon, Esq posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.