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.“
“Reddington went out of his way to fuel the anger against this one juror, a dangerous and unprofessional play to the mob.”
It would seem as if Reddington was just doing his progressive democrat ‘thing’.
One must admit that both sides of the political spectrum to invigorate their base with hyperbole, but the difference lies in the quality of the mob so addressed.
Conservatives may listen to their orators instruct them as to the mounting dangers of communism, islamism, radical feminism and antisemitism; the qualitative difference is not in the level of heat of the rhetoric but in the ability of the mob to rationally receive the information but not “lose their sh*t” over it and commit acts of violence and damage against their opponent.
The dems, alternatively, have cultivated hordes of the ignorant, the uncivilized, the uncontrollable who lack that sense of rational comprehension and logical actions and therein lies the inherent dangers of the dem mob base that moves that political party.
The doxers and stalkers of the dem party were encouraged by, not only this egregious lawyer, but by the multiple progressive postings and iterations to react in provocative ways to instigate chaos.
“It would seem as if Reddington was just doing his progressive democrat ‘thing’” What a stupid ignorant comment. It reeks of hate.
Still doing the postpartum thing I see. How many years has it been… 50?
You are a perfect example of what happens when they confuse the baby with the afterbirth.
At least he’s perfect in some way eh? You? A pompous troll who thinks hiding behind a Greek philosopher meme makes you somehow smart?
BTW, he was also a pedophile. Didn’t know that eh? So much for smarts.
Waziristan called. They want their dancing boy back.
At least my 2 sons are still alive.
And living far, far away.
Sons? God help them.
Wait a minute, last week you wrote about that you handed off (forced out most likely) your business to your daughter. Did one of your boys transition?
“Still doing the postpartum thing I see. How many years has it been… 50?” PRECIOUS!
So in 2026 a female takes pills to prevent contraception, takes pills to abort a fetus, can kill a baby at birth, if born it can kill a child without consequence. When it grows up females will force a child into a sex change. If the child makes it to school, it’ll be raped by female teachers. When the child becomes a reaches middle school the educational system will drug boys to inhibit their developing egos, then demasculate them in high school. Then in adulthood… well I guess we all know what can happen.
Good comment. The war on boys continues.
Indeed
What happens then is that the boy becomes representative Mr. McBride.
Or transitions to a 75 year old witch.
I would like to know what became of the assertion that I saw reported early in this trial that Clancy had received an email from a man shortly before she murdered her children that “this is your last chance”. That doesn’t prove or demonstrate anything concrete, but does to some extent suggest, that she may have been fostering a romantic relationship with a lover who did not want children, and chose that prospective lover over her kids. Maybe that report was completely false, or maybe my speculation is faulty (I will freely admit that it is very much subject to question), but I would be much more comfortable with the conduct of this trial by all parties if I had an answer to that question.
I will also state that I find the outcome of this case is very chilling in terms of what it suggests about the current mindset of the public in general in regard to personal responsibility for actions taken. Both prosecution and defense are involved in jury selection, so to a large extent we may conclude that the jurors were at least somewhat representative of the general public/jury pool. Crucial midterm elections are coming soon, and the attitudes of the public in general will have a large bearing on the outcome. Now, MAssachusetts has been on the liberal end of the political spectrum for a very long time, but imo it would be a mistake to assume that there is zero crossover in public attitudes and perceptions between it and less liberal jurisdictions. To me, that is cause for considerable concern, in addition to the obvious miscarriage of justice in favor of the defendant in this case.
Mindset… 9 females on the jury.
Um, woman have had the vote since the ratification of the 19th Amendment, like it or not (I approve of that, as a standalone proposition). So, how does your point negate my midterm election concern?
A difficult case and trial. Beyond a shadow of a doubt in a murder case and with what I have read there was reasonable doubt. It was not popular but there are 3 dead children and a lot of planning went into her removal of her husband from the scene so she could commit the murder without interference.
I would also count her jumping from a 2nd story as a suicide gesture and not a true suicide attempt. She could have miscalculated and ended up far major injured than she planned. If she really wanted to commit suicide she would have jumped from a 4th or 5th floor.
We had a similar case in our town years ago of a lady who had started antidepressants but then jumped from the 4th-5th floor of a parking garage, killing herself and both her children but passed on jumping from the 2nd floor. Unless there was more to say other wise I would have voted for murder.
I have treated many people who were depressed, suicidal, bipolar, psychotic and they were seldom that organized. And there are many who fake mental illness or the severity of it for secondary gain.
“with what I have read there was reasonable doubt.”
That is confusing. None of the examples you cited suggest that there was reasonable doubt that Clancy was guilty of homicide, and, in fact, support a guilty verdict.
GEB wrote: “with what I have read there was reasonable doubt.” Emphasis on “what he read”.
The jury system will continue to be under attack by the elites in the judicial system (lawyers, Judges, Pres. Trump).
It’s totally infuriating to elites when they don’t control the outcome, but rather ordinary citizens. Reddington going to the state Supreme Court to tamper with the jury is a perfect example. Or, Trump expecting the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn his sexual assault and defamation verdicts, deluding himself that appeals Judges can simply tear up the facts as sorted out by the Jury after hearing all the evidence. Or, by D.A.s who refuse to have opposing viewpoints and questions raised during Grand Jury proceedings. Be prepared to stand up for jury power…it will continue to be whittled down by 1000 cuts at the hands of the legally trained.
Really pushing that nutty theory eh? Elites can’t control. “the outcome’?
BTW, several European countries do not use a jury system Germany, Italy, France, Netherlands, Spain etc.. and Japan. Why might that be?
And what does Trump have to with the Clancy trial?
Just what I said. Trump doesn’t like the jury system. He has publicly denounced it as untrustworthy, claiming that jurors vote their politics rather than the facts and the law. He thought he could get an appeals court to overturn the facts as decided by Jury in the E Jean Carroll case (appeals courts can’t do that). Reddington thought he could get the State Supreme Court to modify the Clancy jury to get the verdict hew wanted. Both demonstrated a profound distrust and disrespect for the Jury system.
Doesn’t like… “untrustworthy”? He says a lot of stupid stuff but that does not qualify as definitive proof. Anecdotes don’t count as proof.
Yes, people may have a distrust of the jury system because it’s about attorneys , how well they perform and not about justice? Look cute when putting on a stocking cap and it’s done? Maybe a wink?
I found Reddington’s comments to the public very jarring as well. He was obviously rankled at having just lost what was perhaps his client’s best chance at a bad, but not as bad as it could have been, outcome. I was also quite unhappy with the various notes sent to the judge by the foreman. They were highly inappropriate, I thought, especially the one where she identified a specific juror. That alone should have been cause for censure by the judge, I thought.
In a state that allows abortion up to birth i’m surprised there was a trial. I suppose we’ll see a rash of “Psychosis” defense in the future as a reason for child abusers? It’s really a shame that the trial focused on Clancy and not her murdering her own defenseless babies.
Yes, you will and a denigrated rule of law regarding murder.
The defense’s entire case turns on this: That Clancy “was unable to understand the nature of her actions at the time of the killings.”
And yet, on the day that she murdered her three children, she showed ample knowledge aforethought that she had a *plan* to murder her three children — a plan that she executed with *calculating* precision:
“She had to choose where—the basement. She had to choose how—strangulation. She had to choose with what—exercise band.” (the prosecution) She plotted to be alone with the children by sending her husband on errands, after *researching* how long those errands would take and *therefore* how much time she would have to murder her children. Finally, she *chose* to murder the middle child first, *because* that child was more likely to struggle.
During a psychotic break, which is the defense’s allegation, a person’s sense of time is “distorted, fragmented, or shattered.” Yet Clancy’s sense of time was like clockwork.
Clancy’s is the essence of a wicked plan to murder, executed with cold-blooded precision. If she needs meds, she can get them — from the prison infirmary, until the day her murderous life is over.
Besides the fact that this Lawyer should have been found in criminal contempt, he is laughable in his argument. Had this been the lone juror to acquit his murdering client, he would have been celebrating this juror as the bravest of the brave. I thank God for one Man to stand up and say Jury Nullification will not happen on my watch!!!
Contempt. Please tell me you’re not a lawyer.
Well said Professor
Though it is reckless, it is also calculated. This is just who the modern left are. Thugs, basically. It’s like the Teamsters, the segregationists, the fascists, and the Manson Family all decided to breed. I am no longer surprised. I am still bewildered anyone that knows better blindly supports them out of ignorant hatred.
On an unrelated note, feel free to stop reading if you’d like, there is a BBC show my wife and I enjoy called Trigger Point about a bomb squad. In the new season (SPOILER ALERT) the people who defend rape in their streets paint modern America as money grubbing terrorists trying to detonate a nuclear weapon inside Britain and blame it on Iran in an attempt to start a world war for the money. This is a popular, mainstream British show.
I don’t think we and Britain are mates anymore. I also think they’re still angry we didn’t bend the knee 250 years ago while their country follows their colonialist empire and disintegrates. The sideways implication that Iran is a victim is hysterical.
“This is just who the modern left are.” What an utterly stupid comment to make. Go watch more TV and stay off the internet. You idiot.
“paint modern America as money grubbing terrorists trying to detonate a nuclear weapon inside Britain and blame it on Iran in an attempt to start a world war for the money.”
OT, but do you think that could be a blatant propaganda attempt fostered by the UK government to deflect from the very real situation where the UK is greatly increasing the risk of a world war by its continued military support for Ukraine while hyping the purported danger of Russia attacking NATO countries?
“a single juror”
leftys hate that an individual would dare challenge their collectivist narrative.
@Anonymous
In a nutshell, yup. How dare we insult the aristocracy by actually thinking? Heathens!
You obviously don’t have the capacity to think James.
If anything, this trial illustrates how dysfunctional our criminal justice system is. Mom admits to killing her 3 kids, goes on trial for 7 weeks and the result is what? Let’s do it all over again.
Its not the justice system that the defense, its the medical system he attacked. What I reda Reddintion has another team of lawyers at the civil level to sue the Drs. and hospitals, insurance companies involved. They failed her – is their point.
Come On Man!!! Massachusetts is the Home of Pro Choice, right? A woman has the right to kill her children at ANY TIME according to Leftist Orthodoxy- not just in the womb! Combine that orthodoxy with a WIN ANY WAY POSSIBLE Ambulance Chaser Defense attorney and you have the magic of the Clancy Clown Show. His client knows she will be walking free soon even on a retrial because AIN’T NO NEW JURY SIGNING UP FOR MORE SEINFELD EPISODES!!!
Gonna give eight-to-five odds that Reddington is a Democrat.
What difference does that make to the trial? If anything Reddington gave a spirited defense. Should hope the day you kill 3 babies your defense lawyer shows the same spirit.
The jury was given a list of possible verdict options, including acquittal and guilty with mitigating circumstances, and a guilt, Eleven of the 12 jurors agreed on some form of Not Guilty.
The actual verdict was rendered by one vote. This turns the 6th Amendment on its head. Seeking one trial after another in order to find 12 Guilty votes also multiplies the concept of Double Jeopardy into Unlimited Jeopardy.
Reddington was right.
“The actual verdict was . . .”
You do not understand the concept of “mistrial.”
And neither do you Sam.
You should refrain from commenting on the law in the future since you clearly don’t understand it.
And… somehow you’re a criminal lawyer? What you don’t understand, you are the fool in that interaction.
@Anonymous
Spoken like a true fan of the mob or a typical modern college student (but I repeat myself). There was no verdict, and none was forthcoming, hence the mistrial. You do not appear to understand the definition of ‘verdict’, let alone, ‘mistrial’, nor the reasoning behind being tried by a jury of peers.
As already noted, the 6th amendment was doing its job. You however appear to have been dropped on your head. Would you hold the same opinion had the lone juror prevented a guilty verdict?
And what job was that Olly? Please tell us you’re a constitutional lawyer.
What time is it in SoCal? 5 am? Bit eager today eh?
Yes
@GStreet – “The actual verdict was rendered by one vote.” – Verdicts (guilty/not guilty) must be unanimous. Without all 12 agreeing, there is no verdict either way – just a mistrial.
I get the impression from your comment that you believe the jury could have found Clancy “not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility”, for each of the children she killed – without having to first come to a unanimous verdict on the first degree murder charge. IANAL, but the judge is, and I’m sure that is not the case.
I’ve been a juror in a murder trial before. As in this case, we were given a menu of charges we had to decide between – murder 1, murder 2, manslaughter, etc. As all the charges were based on the same actions, we could only find the accused guilty of one of the crimes. We were told to decide guilty/non-guilty on each charge in the order they gave us (from most to least severe). Only after deciding they were not-guilty of the first charge could we move on the the second. As soon as we found them guilty of any charge, or not-guilty of all charges, we were told to stop and inform the judge. So, for instance, we could not find them guilty of manslaughter unless we first unanimously found them not-guilty of murder, etc.
If you understand those mechanics and still don’t like the way that works, your problem is with the US jury trial system as it has always been, not how just how it played out in this case.
As I understand the 6th amendment the only gripe possible here is that the holdout juror was not impartial. The allegation, based on the forepersons non-public note, was that the holdout was either refusing to follow instructions and/or did not understand reasonable doubt. Judge Sullivan individually questioned the jurors, reminded them of the reasonable-doubt standard, and received assurances that they could follow his instructions. He therefore treated the matter as a disagreement within deliberations, not demonstrated constitutional disqualification.
A certain type of person (who is becoming more and more common, more and more influential) truly believes that he or she alone is the be all and end all of what is right and just. We’re watching the demise of our social compact, in real time.
Reddington should be disbarred. His reprehensible comments wrapped an exercise band around the neck of the American jury system.
Absolutely agree.
If you read what Turley wrote you would understand what Reddington did is acceptable in MA. Disbarred huh?
Reddinton is a lawyer, rather proud of his case, and most certainly advertising his future services. To him, to denounce a juror is an acceptable loss in these days of public human trashing. It is also a signal to the prosecution that if they prosecute again, his strategy is clear. Divide and conquer.
Of course, it is unethical, but ethics seem to have less and less value, under the withering onslaught of hate. At least the women came out in full force, giving birth to a revised and “me too” movement.
If the State prosecutes again, they will have to change their strategy, and for one thing, getting a sequestered jury.
And bring in outside lawyers. The prosecution utterly failed.
The whole state of Massachusetts is a woke insane asylum with one sane man. What did you expect? Justice? LOL
Interesting observation. It brings into the conversation the matter of the ‘reasonable person’ standard which, on further investigation revealed that arguments as to whether it fully accounts for different backgrounds, disabilities, or lived experiences. Hence, what is the true benchmark of ordinary prudence and care in the culture of Massachusetts as compared to North Dakota or in the face of the ‘gender wars’ of the 21st Century during which the Senate Minority Leader, in words not so well chosen, advised the Supreme Court that they would face political and public opinion consequences if they voted to uphold abortion restrictions? Certainly supports the role of choice of venue when it comes down to it.
well said.
Adding further, the never-ending abortion issue is likely the most glaring example of how a ‘reasonable person’ standard’ was obliged to yield to the Supreme Court to establish a national standard of sorts in that the recent MA ‘at time of birth’ ruling renders hopeless that a reasonable person standard could ever be devised.