By finding the evidence sufficient for a jury to consider the charges, Judge Sullivan left open the possibility of further proceedings.
The ruling does not mean that the judge personally determined Clancy was guilty. In a criminal trial, the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the appropriate fact-finder must reach a legally valid conclusion.
The distinction between evidentiary sufficiency and guilt is fundamental to the justice system.
A judge may determine that evidence is sufficient for a case to proceed while leaving the ultimate question of criminal responsibility unresolved.
That is what happened here.
The decision also means that the defense may continue pursuing other legal arguments, subject to the court’s rulings and applicable procedures.
For the prosecution, the ruling preserves the possibility of trying the case again. However, it does not compel prosecutors to pursue a second trial.
As reported by Reuters and WBUR, the next steps depend on additional legal proceedings and decisions by the prosecution. WBUR
