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.“
Did Lindsay Clancy make a deal with Satan on the witches Sabbath?
Copycat mom does it.
Mother, allegedly ‘invested’ in Lindsay Clancy trial, charged with murdering 2-year-old child.
It’s time for all states to adopt the Guilty but insane standard and do away with innocent by reason of insanity. A mob hitman could get off by hiring well paid psychiatrists. Guilty but insane at least guarantees you’ll spend most of your worthless life in a barred hospital for the criminally insane.
The decline of decorum and responsibility in the legal profession may be dated from 1977 when lawyers were first allowed to advertise. Shysterism became endemic from that year. Reddington should be disbarred.
I stand with the guy. A woman murdering her children would make me angry also. And I generally am opposed to children
.
Did you choose to become a lesbian because of children?
I don’t understand why 11 jurors wanted to acquit this woman? Insanity? .. I just assume most women are insane?
*if you want to know what God is thinking, ask a 4 year old.
What doubt? She knew she was killing humans. Or should we excuse all murderers, because the were having a bad day? She knew she was a drug addict. Hang her low
God those poor innocent babies. I can’t imagine the terror they endured as the mother they loved and trusted slowly strangled them one by one. If she was that crazy to do such a thing then she is too crazy to exist in society and should pay the ultimate price for her actions. Crazy throws shade on it but life in an insane asylum without parole is fitting whereas death would be a blessing.
Try her for Second degree murder x3.
Democrats support murder from 24 weeks to 120 years of age
Leftist democrats are fadcists
I wonder if the verdict would have been different if instead of proving she was a murderer [which he did] the prosecutor had also proven she is a monster?
As for the defense attorney, he needs a bar complaint and I am wondering if the juror can somehow find a cause of action against him for damages.
The cause of action would be defamation, and perhaps attempted extortion. The complaint could allege he violated the bar’s ethical standards.
Kevin,
That sounds good for a start. He might have to wait a bit to measure the damages. Depending on what happens they could be significant. That reckless attorney may have pinned a target on him.
Now there are copycat moms that want to eliminate their children.
Meanwhile Lindsay Clancy goes back the mad house.
I think Johnathan’s observations are spot on. This thought looks at what’s next. And to those on either side disappointed by the no verdict mistrial, let’s heed a deep value that underpins how we see criminal law. Better that 9 guilty go free than one innocent be convicted.
From: https://justicecaseanalysis.com: Now, as the criminal case against Lindsay Clancy moves closer to trial, newly unfolding civil lawsuits are revealing a far darker and more complicated picture — one filled with escalating mental health warnings, sleepless nights, powerful psychiatric medications, alleged hallucinations, and mounting claims that multiple medical providers failed to recognize a catastrophic psychiatric collapse before it was too late..
Now assuming she wins a 2nd trial, still ends up in Massachusetts nuthouse, gets out in 3, 5 7 years, the layers will extort all defendants (insurance, doctors, hospital) for millions. Clancy gets out, she’s is a millionaire, lawyers arrange lifetime care etc.
Gotta say that thought makes me sick. 3 dead children, lives destroyed. What happened to justice? How can that be possible?
Casey Anthony happened to justice.
“… 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. …” – JT
Ever since the OJ Simpson Trial, “visceral trial(s)” have become ‘The Thing’.
“Court TV – Your Front Row Seat to Justice”
Court TV Headlines:
What happens next after Lindsay Clancy’s mistrial?
A jury deadlocked 11-1 on the seventh day of deliberations in Lindsay Clancy’s murder trial; she is charged with killing her three children.
September 6, 2026
Lindsay Clancy’s attorney has message for DA: ‘You, Tim, were crushed’
A jury deadlocked after seven days of deliberation, causing a mistrial for Lindsay Clancy, who is charged with the murder of her three kids.
September 4, 2026
Judge promises more ‘pizzazz’ after Lindsay Clancy’s attorney accuses him of being ‘soft’ with jury
Judge William Sullivan refused to grant a request from Lindsay Clancy’s attorney to do an inquiry into one of the jurors on the panel.
September 4, 2026
Lindsay Clancy’s attorney wants no more sidebars, asks judge to handle things in ‘open court’
Lindsay Clancy’s attorney, Kevin Reddington, filed the motion following a heated sidebar during jury deliberations.
September 4, 2026
‘It’s a real shame’: Lindsay Clancy’s defense asks judge to remove single juror ‘who refuses to listen to the law’
Lindsay Clancy’s attorney was seen gesticulating and banging papers down on the desk during a sidebar after the jury sent a note.
September 3, 2026
Woman charged with intimidating Lindsay Clancy jurors claims she wanted to see the defendant
Police arrested a woman outside of the Plymouth County Courthouse on charges she was intimidating jurors in Lindsay Clancy’s case.
September 2, 2026
Jury says it can’t reach a unanimous decision in Lindsay Clancy’s murder trial
The jury returned to the courtroom after more than 17 hours of deliberation to say they were unable to reach a unanimous verdict.
September 1, 2026
Ref.:
https://www.courttv.com/latest-news/
[TO BE CONTINUED]
Please, please, spare us the stupidity.
Jonathan, this will be literally the first time I have ever disagreed with you. Reddington’s “beef” (and indeed the jury foreman’s complaint) concerning this juror is not that he found that he lacked reasonable doubt. According to the foreman, this juror agreed that there was reasonable doubt, but refused to vote accordingly. How can you leave that out of your article? Perhaps it is untrue and I’m sure the man will speak eventually for himself. But if by all accounts it IS true, then how can you leave that out of your article?
Because Turley, like the juror, is basing his ire on emotion, not the rational mind of of lawyer.
Oh oh, Crazy George is on a roll. George you are not a lawyer and you can’t think.
You wouldn’t say that to his face.
@Anonymous
I would absolutely say that to George’s face. Such comments can be delivered without hostility.
The Law is an Ass.
That’s not what the foreman wrote. He said the juror admitted to doubt, not reasonable doubt. The judge’s instructions specifically made clear that not all doubts were reasonable doubts. The juror could have said that of course he had some doubt but not a reasonable doubt.
Daniel,
There is a BIG difference between “some doubt” and “reasonable doubt,” but look closely at what the jury foreperson actually wrote to the judge. The note explicitly stated that the holdout “had acknowledged doubt but refused to apply it”—meaning the juror admitted the doubt was relevant to the case, but chose to ignore it anyway.
If a juror believes a doubt is just speculative or unreasonable, they don’t “refuse to apply it”—they have already applied the law by dismissing it as trivial. By stating the juror recognized a doubt but refused to use it, the foreperson was describing a juror who consciously chose to bypass the legal framework in favor of a personal outcome.
Furthermore, in a case centered on criminal responsibility (sanity), the burden of proof is unique. If the defense produces even a shred of evidence regarding insanity, the prosecution bears the heavy burden to prove the defendant was sane beyond a reasonable doubt. If a juror openly admits to the room that they harbor genuine, unresolved doubt about the defendant’s sanity, the law strictly commands them to acquit. Recognizing a doubt exists in a capital case and consciously choosing to vote “guilty” based on emotion or a refusal to accept the legal definition of sanity is a direct violation of the juror’s oath.
The foreman made the judgment that the juror “refused to apply it.” The juror may have simply believed that his doubt did not rise to the level of a reasonable doubt. That is perfectly legitimate.
Where did you come up with that? The foreman cannot go public with such info. Leave it out? May as well ask where you found that info?
That is what Reddington quoted in court. The foreman’s note said the juror admitted to doubt not reasonable doubt.
The foreperson’s note to the judge did not say reasonable doubt. It said doubt. You took as fact Reddington’s improper embellishment of the note’s wording as he characterized it to the trial judge. The legal standard is not doubt, but rather reasonable doubt. Reddington was attempting to manufacture jury nullification. When he did not get it in sufficient numbers, he attempted to nullify the juror en toto. He continued such conduct even after the jury was dismissed.
It’s now official. In blue states, a late-term abortion is now available up to five years after birth, longer if the group of cells is a Republican.
lol. Brilliant!
Turley spends far too much time gripping about Reddington’s “utterly reprehensible” behavior. While the defense lawyer’s conduct was questionable, Turley’s intense contempt feels more like an emotional outburst than a cold, objective legal analysis.
More importantly, Turley completely ignores the profound legal problem exposed by the lone juror—an issue a legal scholar should, at a minimum, grudgingly admit is significant. The jury foreperson’s explicit notes to the judge revealed a serious violation of the juror’s oath: the holdout verbally admitted he had doubt but refused to apply it.
The law is absolute on this point. If a juror acknowledges that the prosecution failed to eliminate all reasonable doubt, the law strictly and unconditionally mandates a vote for acquittal. A juror does not have the legal discretion to recognize doubt and choose to ignore it. By treating his own admitted doubt as irrelevant, this juror substituted personal emotion or bias for the absolute mandate of the law.
Turley would be hard-pressed to deny this truth. This was a difficult case where genuine doubt clearly existed within the jury room. Whether one dislikes Reddington’s tactics or not, a defense attorney’s sole job is to create reasonable doubt. Reddington succeeded. If that lone juror openly expressed doubt but refused to acquit based on personal feelings alone, he fundamentally failed to follow the law.
So you’re still using AI huh? Says the guy who’s not a lawyer. George you are a clown.
If a juror ignores his doubts , could it be he is unsure about his doubts. The phrase ” beyond a reasonable doubt ” comes to mind. We can’t possibly know what actually was in the jurors mind. I for one have no crystal ball. Given the facts I have seen in the media I’m truly glad I was not on that jury.
The juror admitted to doubt, not reasonable doubt. It was the foreman’s judgment that he refused to apply it. The juror could simply have felt that his doubt did not rise to the level of reasonable doubt. That is a perfectly legitimate conclusion for him to have reached.
What rubbish. AI makes for the worst legal arguments.
The foreman does not have the authority to determine if a jurors doubt is reasonable. Every judge in every trial makes that point. I’ve heard a it many times in the courtroom.
You don’t know what you are talking about. The foreperson’s note made a conclusion of law – for which she is not qualified. Only the trial judge could, and he properly did.
The whole thing is tragic.
And if there is a retrial, they are going to have to relive it all over again.
Says the guy who can’t spell. “Magna Carter” huh? Hows that missing high school going for you?
Oh, poor annony. Not smart enough to recognize a typo when he sees one. Must be that higher indoctrination at work.
Typo? That’s your rebut? Sure blame the keyboard, but who was typing? You, an idiot. You didn’t pick up the “typo” what does that say about you? You are utterly devoid of any intelligence, that’s why you’re a pig farmer. Gawd, you are stupid. Now go cry to uncle Olly. You’re out of your league you manchild.
Hey farmer, so you don’t take responsibility for your comments, with socalled typos and all? Is there a voice in your head to blame?
And you want to become a EMT? God help us all. Stick to farming. Please.
“they”? The twelve jurors? The defendant? The whole state of MA plus every law prof? Cry me a river.
Headlines from MASSDAILYNEWS:
Mass. mom who stabbed her 2 kids FIFTY times each awarded new trial after judge wrongly excluded her mental-illness records — same judge now has Clancy’s deadlocked jury.
Mass is on a roll.
The real question is why did 11 people, including 9 women, wanted to acquit Clancy of murdering her three young children. She claims to have heard an auditory hallucination from some source, much like Carlos Brown claimed to have heard a command in his head to murder Iryna Zarutska on a subway in 2025. (Brown has escaped criminal liability.)
In a criminal trial, the only question should be whether the murderer knew what he/she was doing, and it is clear Clancy did. Sympathy may affect the sentence, but should not affect the finding of guilt.
“Auditory hallucinations” may be a new tactic that defense attorneys are developing. It opens the door to jurors voting on whether they sympathize with the defendant or whether the defense attorney can deliver a tear-jerking performance. Did Jack the Ripper hear auditory hallucinations?
In MA, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (a) she knew what she was doing was illegal or wrong and (b) she was capable of conforming her conduct to law. The issue here was (b), and 11 jurors appear to have concluded that the prosecution did not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. One juror concluded that they did.
There was expert testimony on both sides of the issue. If a juror believed that the prosecution’s experts did not defeat the opinions of the defense’s experts beyond a reasonable doubt, she could easily conclude that the prosecution had not met its burden.
Most states require the defense to prove that the defendant was incapable of distinguishing right from wrong or was unable to conform her conduct to law, by clear and convincing evidence or something similar. Once the defense raises the insanity defense, the burden is on it to prove it. In this case, had this burden been on the defense, the jury might have come out the other way.
On the evidence, it is unclear to me whether she claimed to hear the voice before she arranged for her husband to be out or after. If it was after, that suggests she set the plan in motion before she heard the voice. Does anyone know?
I think.this hits close to the mark. The problem here is MA law. Now it is what it is. Prosecution must prove defendant mentally disturbed. The crime was so outrageous that it is easy for anyone to say I cant vote for acquittal. It could be considered jury nullufication by one juror.
Problem is MA law. Maybe its 9 female Mass. jurors.
Because the jurors had doubts about the prosecution’s arguments. It’s not that they “wanted” to acquit. They HAD to acquit. If they had reasonable doubt and not 100% sure she was guilty they had to acquit. That’s the law. The oath they took when they were seated is binding.
It does seem 11 jurors had some doubt. One juror openly expressed doubt, but chose to ignore it and that is a big problem.
It also means the defense succeeded in raising doubt on 11 jurors. Reddington did his job.
As the judge’s instruction explained, it is possible to have some doubt but still not have a reasonable doubt. That is what the juror could have been saying.
Daniel, The note explicitly stated that the holdout “had acknowledged doubt but refused to apply it”—meaning the juror admitted the doubt was relevant to the case, but chose to ignore it anyway.
If that is absolutely confirmed then it is a BIG problem. That would be a clear reason to declare a mistrial and justify Reddington’s statements about the juror. Not saying it was wise to make the statements, but they were perfectly within his right to say them. Turley’s reaction was more of an emotional outburst. Not a legal, professional analysis.
“Daniel, The note explicitly stated that the holdout “had acknowledged doubt but refused to apply it”—meaning the juror admitted the doubt was relevant to the case, but chose to ignore it anyway.”
This is the sentence from X, a more-intelligent-and-superior-in-legal-analysis-than-Turley guy who posts here regularly to make us all laugh at him.
His statements were highly unprofessional and dangerous to the holdout juror if he is identified. Moreover, those statement are gratuitous and dangerous to the legal system in general because they invite a strong if not violent reaction against the holdout.
Gawd what cra_p.
If Clancy prevails by virtue of this mistrial, or by the verdict in an equally unjust subsequent proceeding, and the father of those children chooses to take matters in to his own hands. That is the risk of a system of justice that consistently produces arguably unjust outcomes: that people will begin to dismiss that system as completely unresponsive to their interests and needs. This is probably an appropriate place for Olly to make one of his “formation” observations.
Prevail… if I were ever to see her on the street, I would kill her. Imagine how that trial would play out in Massachusetts.
It would be an open and shut case for you. All that would be needed is your open admission, that you would kill her. How would you be able to claim insanity?
Okay, so they would prosecute anon under the name “anonymous anonymous”? Claim insanity, a female voice in my head etc. And I’d use you as my defense lawyer, post trail claim incompetence from lawyer (you) and sue you for millions and any of your family (your cat namely) . Spend my final years in a state facility. One small problem, I already know you don’t have a pot to pi_ss in. Second, thought I’ll just dream about killing her.
The father already took matters into his own hands. He received $1.7 million from a GoFundMe. He moved to Manhattan, got (or rekindled) a love affair, is now married to that woman and in the process of building a family with her. Meanwhile Lindsay’s life is over. Children gone, career gone, hated by half the world, paralyzed and confined to a wheelchair for life. Her life is over. I would say “dead woman walking” but she can’t walk. I find it fitting that this trial was held just down the road from Salem.
I am in complete support of the decision of the recalcitrant juror. I also find the defendant’s attorney acted irrationally and reprehensibly in his actions at the conclusion of the trial. The attorneys should not be attacking the impartial jurors for their acts in debating the evidence that was presented. And if one juror actually votes with his/her conscience? Well, then you get a deadlocked decision. That lone juror did not waste anyone’s time; he just saw the same case, and he had a different opinion than his peers about the outcome.
Defense put on a remarkable show. Love it or hate it, he did his job. Any defendant should be so lucky. Also jurors cannot vote their conscience, they have to follow the judges instructions.
Yes, a remarkable show by the Defense Attorney. Of course, to the pink shirts and beta-males it doesn’t matter that she is a confessed murderer of three innocent children that were robbed of their lives by the one person in the world who should have protected them. I would have her publicly whipped before her hanging.