Below is my column on the attack unleashed by defense counsel Kevin Reddington on the holdout juror in the Lindsay Clancy case. As I said immediately during the coverage, I considered the attack utterly reprehensible and worthy of intervention by Judge William Sullivan. Reddington went out of his way to fuel the anger against this one juror, a dangerous and unprofessional play to the mob.
Here is the column:
“I hope that guy can sleep well at night.”
Those words from Kevin Reddington on the steps of the Plymouth, Massachusetts Courthouse were part of a diatribe against the “guy” who was reportedly the sole holdout in the Lindsay Clancy trial. The scene was a fitting end to a visceral trial, but it added a vindictive element that should prompt Judge William Sullivan to call out the seasoned defense attorney.
After declaring that the 11-1 mistrial was “no time to gloat,” Reddington bragged repeatedly about “crushing” District Attorney Tim Cruz, whom he also attacked. He insisted that, in the trial, no one said a single negative thing about his client as a mother — ignoring that little matter of the three young children whom she had strangled to death, one by one.
But it was his attack on the holdout juror that was a breathtaking abandonment of restraint and decency. Reddington knows it is very likely that the name of this juror (he has already been identified as one of only three males on the jury) will eventually be uncovered by Internet sleuths. He effectively put a target on the back of a juror who committed the unpardonable sin of not being convinced by his arguments.
The fact that this is one of the three male jurors only ramped up the rage. This case prompted a striking gender divide between men and women, with many women expressing sympathy for Clancy and anger at the system for failing her.
For Reddington and many viewers, the hung jury was less “Twelve Angry Men” and more like “One Angry Man.” Indeed, in addition to attacking the juror, women outside of the courthouse heckled Cruz as he tried to speak to the press, shouting that he “only cares about the three children. What about the Mom?”
Reddington followed up by saying that Cruz really did not care about the children (because he looked down to read their names). He also accused the holdout jurors of wasting the time of the jury, complaining “that guy stole seven weeks from those jurors.”
It was an ironic twist on the 1957 classic. In that movie, Juror number eight (Henry Fonda) was repeatedly attacked for “wasting time” and not yielding to the majority — until he ultimately convinced all of his peers.
Earlier in the day, Reddington had asked a Massachusetts Supreme Court justice for an emergency order to force Sullivan not to declare a mistrial, and instead to remove the holdout in favor of an alternate. It was an utterly meritless effort, but Reddington used the filing to further denounce the juror. He compared the juror’s refusal to vote for his client as akin to leaving a racist on a jury. In this case, he suggested that the “guy” was a virtual anti-disability version of “Bull” Connor or some deranged “ableist.”
The rising hatred toward this juror reflects how an act deemed noble in one context can be denounced as craven in another.
Take the 1957 classic movie. Viewers love to watch Henry Fonda stand alone against his fellow jurors to raise reasonable doubt in favor of the young defendant. But in this version, the sole juror believed that his fellow jurors were ignoring the defendant’s culpability.
Imagine the movie’s outcome if Reddington’s approach had been accepted in 1957, where Fonda could be pulled into court, questioned about his intransigence, and ultimately replaced with an alternate in order to flip the vote.
For all of the anger it has generated, the Clancy trial shows the best of our justice system. We have a system in which a single juror can stand against not only the rest of the jury, but against the world. The trial showed zealous counsel on both sides and a conscientious judge who ensured a fair trial despite the powerful emotions in society.
You can disagree with this juror and the outcome but still celebrate that our legal system comes down not to judges or lawyers, but to simple citizens doing justice in thousands of cases a year. It comes down to whether every juror can vote not for a popular choice, but for a moral one.
That is why some of us were so shocked by Reddington’s public attack on this one juror. This is not who we are supposed to be as officers of the court. We stand in the path of the mob, not leading it. In another great movie, “To Kill a Mockingbird,” Gregory Peck captured that role from the novel most vividly as Atticus Finch, standing before a jail to stop a lynch mob.
Finch showed that the strength of any legal system is ultimately only as strong as each individual’s ability to stand alone. He tells his daughter Scout, “The one thing that doesn’t abide by majority rule is a person’s conscience.”
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.“
Since I know MAGA media won’t carry the story, 3 Clancy jurors were interviewed by NBC, including the foreperson, who said that the holdout male juror agreed with his fellow jurors that he had reasonable doubt, but that there was no way he would vote to acquit. He dug in and refused to further discuss the matter with the other jurors, even after the judge kept sending them back to keep deliberating. There was yelling and name calling and he just shut down and clammed up. The dispute got so loud that the alternate jurors in a nearby room could hear what was going on.
Clearly, his refusal to acquit was NOT the “moral choice” Turley proclaimed it to be, but rather, his arbitrary decision was that he wasn’t going to vote to acquit Clancy no matter what—despite admitting he had reasonable doubt. He should have been removed for refusing to follow the judge’s instructions. Jurors are not allowed to make up the law that governs their deliberations— they take an oath to follow the law as instructed by the judge. They were instructed that the couldn’t convict her unless they were convinced of her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Another point that came out in the interview was that Clancy had been described by witnesses as a good, loving mother, so they felt that she must have “snapped” to have done what she did. The prosecution couldn’t come up with any evidence that Clancy was a bad person or a bad mother before postpartum psychosis took hold.
Fox and RedState both carried the story but maybe you don’t think those are “MAGA.” I don’t know why you trust these three jurors to describe accurately the views of the holdout juror, with whom they were fighting for over a week
Why would you question the veracity of three of the actual jurors, including the foreperson, other than the MAGA indoctrination you obviously have been undergoing? The statements these jurors made are consistent with what they reported to the judge, who refused to individually question the recalcitrant juror.
I never heard of Red State. What spin did they put on what the jurors said? Knowing MAGA media, which, like Trump, can never be wrong, I’m certain that there had to be a spin because of the snarky way MAGA commentators implied that Clancy had to be guilty, that she was probably lying, she was trying to manipulate the jury for sympathy, on and on, just like some of the comments on this blog. Turley portrayed the holdout as standing on moral principle rather than arbitrarily deciding he wouldn’t acquit despite having reasonable doubt. That assessment was clearly wrong.
MAGA MAGA MAGA
Trump Trump Trump
What a broken record gigi is,
can she think it through without relying on everything pointing to MAGA or Trump?
Signs of low intelligence.
I just want to say it is so sad, actually disgusting, when so many people are making excuses for child murder. NOTHING should excuse that. There is no excuse.
It’s not “murder” if the conduct was the product of insanity.
Jury is unqualified to determine insanity. Move to sentencing phase. She’s guilty of murder. All insanity removed as evidence. The process failed.
The jury heard conflicting expert testimony about Clancy’s mental illness. They found the testimony of the defense expert to be more credible, because it was backed up by evidence that Clancy had been a nurturing mother who took good care of her children until postpartum psychosis took hold.
Why would a good mother suddenly kill her children unless she began hearing voices telling her to kill them and herself? I’m She did try to get help, and was hospitalized for a while, but was put on more and more medications.
Israel has murdered some 20-30,000 children in the last 2 years using American made munitions.
Lets clarify: Jennifer Tufts is not a doctor. She is a sales rep for Big Pharma. Her “science” identified 350 diseases without having a single test. Just trust-me-bro technique is employed.
Then, she met Lindsay for the first time in her life in person when testifying in court. What kind of medicine is this? Then, after 10 mins teleconference, she packs her with fistful of pills.
Then, another nurse, not even a doctor, pumps her with another fistful. And more, and more. Even when warning labels on these drugs warn about suicide. Now, imagine, your tire blew on the interstate, and your wise mechanic eyeballs via Zoom, looks up in his professional DSM-5-TR manual and recommends another tire with a warning that it will blow out and cause severe crash again.
Another angle worth visiting: Boston was identified as hotbed for MKULTRA experiments. What are the chances Lindsay was pumped with drugs like Tusko the elephant or Jimmy Shaver?
John Eastman was disbarred for making entirely reasonable arguments on behalf of his client, President Trump. Nothing will happen to Reddington. That shows how much damage we have to repair.
I knew very little about the case. Just what I saw on the news. I was surprised the vote was 11-1 to acquit. Three dead children regardless of the reason does not lend itself to sympathy in Florida.
Yet, one jury member stood firm on his convictions. All I want to know is if he truly believes she is guilty. If so, I have no problem with this verdict. I get there are plenty of people angry and that’s to be expected regardless of which way this case went. I hope the jurist can live his life and does not have to watch his back.
As for the defense lawyer, I am appalled at his behavior, but I wonder would I be appalled if he was my attorney. I do not know if this the very outer edge of zealous defense and his game plan is to poison the well, thus getting Anthony a better outcome or he is just out of control.
At the end of the day, the outcome is not nearly as important than if all jury members voted what they truly feel after hearing all of the evidence, because when it is all said and done, it always comes down to a jury decision.
I am very proud of that one juror who held out. Thank God we still have men of conscience who have the integrity to hold fast against emotional pressure to do the right thing. All anyone should see in this horrific case are the lovely, smiling faces of those three children – who I would have adopted instantly to raise myself – and the deliberate and cruel way in which they were murdered.
It wasn’t conscience, it was an unreasoned, emotional belief.
He knew it was wrong to convict her, but had decided to do so regardless.
Clancy should be publicly drawn and quartered, while alive.
Every serious adult institution runs on proportional judgment, not unanimity: Congress, state legislatures, constitutional amendments, corporate boards, military tribunals, and international courts all function on majority or supermajority rules, yet criminal juries alone cling to a unanimity requirement older than the printing press, ignoring the reality that 2/3 majority is how humans actually operate when meting out serious decisions.
Serious adult institution? Can’t find that in any dictionary. Is it a video game maybe? Or you’re an adult with a serious mental disorder?
Perhaps, following deliberations, jury votes should be anonymous.
Yes! But its Massachusetts.
Something tells me if it was 11-1 the other you’d be praising the system
Planned Parent… hood.
Know this: Iran can find a deliverable thermonuclear weapon from a number of nations which would love to destroy Israel and the U.S. We vow never to allow Iran to acquire a nuke, which is taken to mean, we will never allow Iran to build such a weapon.
In case you haven’t noticed, these particular religious zealots are more than thrilled to commit suicide for their interpretation of Islam. They are preparing at this moment, to usher in Armageddon. The Book of Revelation is often interpreted as a symbolic and apocalyptic work, with Armageddon representing the final cosmic battle between the forces of good and evil. It is associated with the end times and the second coming of Jesus Christ, signifying the ultimate triumph of righteousness and the establishment of God’s kingdom.
The kings of the earth are aligned and face total destruction.
The reasoning and motivation of the holdout juror are not clear. The brief remarks from other jurors to the judge are not reliable evidence of failure to follow instructions. The holdout juror could have found doubt, but not reasonable doubt. The holdout juror could have found reasonable doubt, but decided nullification based on his bias against the defendant. Jury nullification has been more common in some areas especially urban areas as a response to bias against the criminal justice system. Criticism of jury nullification is usually absent especially for individuals sharing a common bias.
From my following of the case, I would have voted guilty. She is responsible for her actions. She failed herself, not the medical providers. The lawsuits against the providers need a not guilty verdict. This ghoulish situation would reward the perpetrator and others around her while punishing medical providers acting in good faith.
A fairly recent survey measured the response of men vs women to the same trial scenario. The crime was a violent one; there was a clear victim; the verdict was guilty and quite justified. The sentence was severe. What the researchers sought was any difference between men and women regarding their attitude toward both the victim and the convicted.
Both men and women had essentially the same sympathy toward the victim, but they split markedly on the convicted. The men were supportive of the harsh sentence, but the women had nearly as much sympathy for him as for the victim.
Hmmmm . . .
Maybe that explains why so many female judges are releasing violent criminals back into the neighborhood, or giving them very light sentences.
#. Correction- 50,000 suicides annually. 2,000 infanticide documented annually with 5 identified explanations. Altruism or love of the children is one explanation. This case is too prepackaged. It’s a textbook rendition which can lead to reasonable doubt. Clancy’s case is textbook.
It’s too horrible so I’m done.
Unlike some commenters, I don’t this case has anything to do with women voting, women being President, abortion, leftists, Democrats, or Republicans.
The Clancy case has everything to do with abortions, leftists, and Democrats. Leftists and Democrats don’t think that Clancy murdered her three children. Rather, they think of the three young victims as merely “very, very late-term abortions”. It’s a woman’s choice according to the leftists and Democrats.
Totally agree. It’s another example of the diminution of the value of life in our society. Allowing late term abortions was expected. And already some states have laws that allow “healthcare providers” to give palliative care only to a baby that actually survives an abortion. We should not be surprised about the Clancy verdict. I’m surprised Susan Smith is still in prison. What she did to her children would not be lauded as–using your words–a very, very late-term abortion. Fortunately, she murdered her children in South Carolina, a state where society still treasures and protects young life. For now, at least.
Most of those replies are by men who think women should be property they can abuse and rape repeatedly without concern or consequence.
Liberals love jury nullification when the defendant is charged with assaulting a member of the National Guard in DC. But they are shocked, shocked that someone didn’t follow the judge’s instructions – in their imagination anyway. These people are hypocrites, and not to be take seriously.
I applaud the one juror who had a conscience. I want to know why the Judge picked the Foreman? I thought the jurors picked?
In most jurisdictions, you’re correct; that is, the jurors pick which juror will be the Foreman among them. But not so in the jurisdiction of the Clancy trial. According to Massachusetts General Laws (G.L. c. 234A, § 68A), the court shall appoint a foreperson after the jury has been impaneled and sworn, though common practice in trial courts is to make this appointment right before deliberations begin.
Thank you. Massachusetts is weird.
Ya think? After the Clancy trial, allowed very, very late-term abortions will be codified.
No, the lone juror who refused to acquite Lindsey Clancy was not angry. A strong opinion is not the same as being angry.
But, in stark contrast, we know that the eleven jurors who wanted to acquite Clancy were very angry with the lone juror who refused to give in to peer pressure and yield to Far-Leftist ideology. Jonathan Turley knows–but doesn’t want to directly say–that all of the jurors who wanted to acquite Clancy are Far-Leftists (IslamoCommuNazis), who also want to see Luigi Mangione and Tyler Robinson acquited. The eleven Far-Leftist jurors didn’t think of Lindsey Clancy as murduring her three children. Rather, they think of Clancy as simply performing “very, very, late-term abortions” of her three children.
Indeed, a screenplay is already in the works to dramatize the Clancy case, and it’s working title is “Eleven Angry Leftists”.
I am woman, hear me roar!
I’ve heard enough of that hysterical and incoherent howl.
At the inception of democracy in Greece in 508 B.C., women were not allowed to vote.
Did those Greeks know something we don’t?
Those Greeks knew that men should have sexual intercourse with teen and near teenage boys, possibly enslaved children.
Is that what you were going for?
It’s more like 11 angry jurors who want to go home and one man who was asked to vote his opinion on the case and did.
Isn’t that why we have 12?
Why do we know it’s a man and why do we know how he voted and why is that information relevant? He was asked to vote and he did. Problem?