Elyse M. Hershon, Esq

Directions Contact the business

Elyse M. Hershon, Esq Boston Criminal Defense Attorney and TV Legal Analyst

10/08/2026

Matthew Farwell, a former Stoughton, MA police officer is accused of the murders of Sandra Birchmore and her unborn baby, with who he is alleged to have had a decades plus long relationship that begin when she was a minor. His murder trial begins jury empanelment this week in federal court in Massachusetts.
Federal court is a whole different ball game.
Jury selection when a former police officer is the defendant has a much different strategic process for both sides.
The original Medical Examiner in MA changed the autopsy finding of “suicide” for manner of death later to “undetermined”, creating a glaring issue that may need to be addressed upfront with jurors in voir dire.
For example: how would this prevent the juror from following the evidence to a conviction; and perhaps questioning whether they would be able to convict without direct evidence - meaning no eyewitnesses, video or confessions.
The jury questionnaires are impounded from the public. There will be no sidebars or very limited side bars according to the Judge. The trial will not be live streamed, making local media coverage the only way to gain information about this trial. Ryan Breslin for Boston 25 News News has been in court all week and will be reporting directly from what’s happening in the courtroom. We will be breaking it all down daily.
Openings are anticipated to possibly start as early as Friday this week.

10/06/2026

Prosecutors are not impartial. They do not claim to be. They are not supposed to be. That is not their job.
Their job is to build a case against a suspect. Their job is to support victims, and believe victims - that IS part of the job. Even though prosecutors technically are employees of and represent the state - most of the time they do support the victim and victim’s wishes. But not here.
Claims that the NY AG has undercut or tainted her ability to investigate the Cornell incident by posting about her support for Jane Doe are simply unfounded. This is her job: to reopen the investigation and do a full investigation based on what Jane Doe is claiming. Something that should have been done the first time around.
Prosecutors are not impartial. However, if a prosecutor exhibits a bias and/or has a conflict in the case, that would be grounds for someone else to be swapped in. That’s what happened here.
NY AG Leteisha James being appointed to takeover the Cornell case indicates the Governor believes the original District Attorney may have a bias and perhaps has a conflict that has interfered - and is interfering - with his ability to proceed with an investigation of this case.
Perhaps the DA has a connection to the case - to someone, or an entity involved. Perhaps he has a vested interest in an outcome. We don’t know. Yet.
Important to note: It is not up to the Governor or the AG or the DA to decide whether there is enough evidence to proceed with criminal charges. It is up to the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury decides whether there is enough probable cause to charge any of these individuals with any crime..
Thank you CNN Zain Asher Bianna Golodryga CNN_International
Disclaimer: These are my ideas, my thoughts and my legal analyses. Nothing contained in this post or in any post or story associated with my account is to be copied, distributed, or adopted as your own and is strictly prohibited.

10/05/2026

Where does the Lindsay Clancy case go from here? It all lies in the hands of the District Attorney’s office.
On with Laura Coates at CNN to break down the 4 possible paths this case can go from here on out, what Massachusetts law says, what the possible penalties are and what I see as the most likely and least likely scenarios.
Next hearing is on November 2. There could be more motions filed before then. Coverage continues next month. trial

10/03/2026

When they say the cover-up is worse than the crime.*
*(Alleged cover up of an alleged crime)
Cornell knew what the accusations were and did not push the investigation with the DA’s office. Instead, it had a university police officer speak with the accuser, and other employees of Cornell sit on a panel to decide what administrative punishment these men should face, if any.
The DA reportedly received her statement, but nobody from the state or city police spoke with her directly. Victims of sexual assault require specially trained interviewers. There are a lot of complicated factors at play, including public humiliation and shame, guilt and confusion, and other reasons for varying or delayed accounts.
One interview with university police - that’s it? Why?
And why are we all just hearing about this now? Why and how did Cornell close on the book on this so fast and so quietly? How many others?
And in a bizarre twist, why is it that the DA’s office is doubling down that they did not believe her, and they did not believe a crime had been committed. And in doing so, they are undercutting their case right now.

10/02/2026

Switching gears to the Cornell 7 investigation: I discuss with Laura Coates live on CNN the major concern with the lack of investigation and how/why NY two years later is reopening it.
How is it that there are serious allegations made against Cornell students that allegedly occurred on Cornell’s campus, and Cornell police is who investigated it and decided there was no real crime (or penalty) here?
And instead of the District Attorney’s Office falling on their sword and conceding that they should have investigated this in a serious way, the statement we heard this week was the DA doubling down on why they didn’t believe a crime had occurred.
The DA is now effectively undermining the strength of the case going forward, and creating doubt for defense attorneys to argue at trial. I know this because I am one.
This is pure CYA. A district attorney’s office has powers to investigate. They have powers to send detectives out. They have the power to talk to victims directly. There is a victim/witness advocate division within the district attorney’s office. The police essentially work under the umbrella of the district attorney’s office.
Unless of course, it would create really bad publicity for a very credentialed Ivy League school that could jeopardize millions and billions of dollars of donor money.

10/01/2026

Why did the prosecution act surprised at Reddington’s argument in court that they did not “prove she did it”?
This is a great question NewsNation , because the prosecution knows it is required to prove that Lindsay Clancy murdered her children as part of the case.
Whether or not a defense attorney concedes that their client “did it” in order to assert a lack of criminal responsibility defense, the prosecution still needs to prove each element of the charge. Including that Lindsay Clancy did it. The jury instructions explicitly say this and were given to the jury at the first trial.
Most lay people and non-lawyers and even lawyers from other states do not understand this legal conundrum.
But the prosecution here does.
Any of us would want a defense attorney that is going to explore every possible remedy, every possible creative, legal, procedural option, and alternative to hearing the word no. Atty Reddington is doing his job. I would advise not to blink or you’ll miss his next move.

Is a criminal responsibility defense contradictory to a reasonable doubt defense?It is and it isn’t.Here I explain in wr...
09/30/2026

Is a criminal responsibility defense contradictory to a reasonable doubt defense?
It is and it isn’t.
Here I explain in writing to CNN what happened in the Lindsay Clancy hearing yesterday. (Link: https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/29/us/lindsay-clancy-hearing-murder-evidence?cid=ios_app)

To a lot of people this is extremely confusing. Of course it is! This is exactly why lawyers exist, and this is exactly why the law requires advanced degrees.
Reasonable doubt has to be overcome in any criminal case no matter what the defense is. The prosecution still has to prove that this defendant did the crime charged, whether or not the defense lawyer - because of the law - has to concede such in the trial. The defendant, however, is presumed innocent, and it does not take away from the high burden of proof that the prosecution is required to reach.
Take a self-defense case for example. The Commonwealth in Massachusetts has to prove that it was not self-defense to convict. But they also have to prove that the defendant did it.
Arguing reasonable doubt (in the context of sufficiency of evidence) in the 25B2 motion was more blunt and more detailed than we heard during the trial.
But Reddington argued this before the trial, when he requested to split the trial into 2 phases.
The judge understands that these two defenses that may seem to be contradictory to each other, are not actually incongruent in the law.
But if you argue both of these to a jury - you’ll lose. Why? Just look at all the confusion yesterday.

**These are my ideas, my thoughts and my legal analysis. Nothing contained in this post or in any post or story associated with any of my accounts is to be copied, distributed, or adopted as your own, and is strictly prohibited. None of what is contained in my communications is legal advice.

09/30/2026

Why did Reddington argue there was not enough evidence to prove Lindsay Clancy did it?
I explain! We also talk about the “gag order” motion, and what to expect on Nov. 2.
I was in Boston 25 News studios all day with Amal Elhelw | امال الحلو breaking down the very complicated legal arguments and strategy that took place in court for Lindsay Clancy yesterday.
The biggest question on everyone’s mind: why is Patrick exposing all the holes in the Commonwealth’s case about Lindsay’s guilt NOW?
He is arguing what the Commonwealth was required to prove all along: that the prosecution failed to prove (or even show probable cause) Lindsay Clancy murdered her children.
Go back to the Massachusetts homicide instructions that were read to the jury. The Commonwealth is required to prove each element of each charge that Lindsay faced (murder 1), plus prove she’s criminally responsible. AND prove beyond a reasonable doubt no mitigating factors are present (such as mental disease or defect).
They did not.
By definition, that means the Commonwealth should not have been surprised about this argument yesterday. It was their job all along. That is the law. That is their burden.
And no, Reddington is not pointing the finger at somebody else specifically.
If you have any more questions, comment below or send me a message. This is complex, but this is exactly why Reddington wanted to bifurcate this trial in the first place - so he could really argue reasonable doubt, and if convicted, then criminal responsibility.
These are my ideas, my thoughts and my legal analysis. Nothing contained in this post or in any post or story is to be copied, distributed, or adopted as your own.

09/30/2026

The question everyone wants to know: WHY did Reddington argue there was reasonable doubt that Lindsay Clancy did it?
I’ll tell you exactly why. Wolf asked me this very question earlier today on CNN “The Situation Room”. See above.
Although this seems like a curveball at first, it makes sense: most of the time these 25B2 motions are argued as to reasonable doubt, lack of evidence, no rational jury could convict.
Just because Reddington pursued a different defense at the last trial does not mean he waives this argument in the future. Nor has Clancy at any point changed her “not guilty” plea to guilty. So reasonable doubt and sufficiency of evidence is still at play.
It is important to understand that a lawyer would lose all credibility in arguing to a jury that there was reasonable doubt (your client didn’t do it), AND that she did it but there was a defense of criminal responsibility in the same trial.

09/29/2026

Live coverage of today’s motion hearing in the Lindsay Clancy case with Amal Elhelw | امال الحلو at Boston 25 News news desk.
First off: what exactly happened today?
Two motions were argued in court: re: impoundment of juror notes/sidebar conversations, and the 25B2 Motion to direct the judge to a required finding of not guilty.
The Double Jeopardy motion, the discovery motion relating to juror doe’s phone and questionnaire, and a newly filed “gag order” motion by the DA’s office were all continued to November 2nd, as requested by the prosecution.
The lone juror “doe” as he is now called, retained a lawyer recently who has been speaking to the press but is not licensed to practice law in Massachusetts. This means this lawyer has no standing to file motions, or speak in court here on his own. As of last night, that lawyer hired another lawyer who is a licensed lawyer in MA, to go into court today and ask for a continuance on the discovery motion pertaining to juror doe. I expect this lawyer will want to speak at the next date, and will ask the Judge to allow this. Juror Doe is not a named party to this case.
The motions that were argued today were taken under advisement, which means the judge will issue orders on those sometime in the future, likely in the next few weeks.

Address

240 Commercial Street
Boston, MA
02109

Website

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.

Contact The Business

Send a message to Elyse M. Hershon, Esq:

Shortcuts

Share

Category