I was surprised to hear on a flight this week that Lindsay Clancy’s defense counsel, Kevin Reddington, had unleashed a torrent of criticism of my commentary on the trial. In the interview with Fox News reporter Bryan Llenas, Reddington even suggested that we meet and debate these issues. I wanted to briefly respond to Reddington’s criticisms.
I actually praised Reddington’s handling through the end of the trial, until I felt he blew the summation to the jury. I was also critical of his motions to substitute a holdout juror with an alternate as running against the overwhelming authority in the area. However, what triggered Reddington was not my commentary on his trial performance, but what he did outside of the courthouse when he attacked the holdout juror. It was a repugnant and unprofessional venting by counsel who should be reaffirming the right of every juror to stand with their convictions against not just the other jurors but the world.
Reddington responded to my characterization of his conduct in front of the courthouse as “reprehensible” by calling my criticism reprehensible and adding, “maybe Jonathan Turley should check out the record before he makes his accusations.”
The “record” supporting this criticism is, in fact, his self-aggrandizing performance outside of the courthouse when he first said that the hung jury was “no time to gloat” and then gloated about how he “crushed” the prosecution in securing an 11-1 result. Yet, my objection was not to chest-thumping. It was a tad ungracious but unfortunately not entirely uncommon. Rather, it was the targeting of the holdout that left me floored as a fellow criminal defense lawyer.
Reddington had previously lit up the courtroom (which was being aired nationally) with his attacks on the juror. Reddington only knew that the other jurors were unhappy with the juror and said that he refused to follow the law. That is a common complaint against a holdout juror. This case turned on the credibility of the defendant and almost visceral reactions to a case where three innocent children were strangled by their mother, who planned the killings by sending her husband on errands.
I was mildly critical of the courtroom attacks, but I give leeway to a defense counsel who is fighting zealously for his client in seeking an acquittal. It was taking that rage outside the courthouse that crossed the line for me.
Reddington slammed the juror who was already identified as one of just three males on the jury. He knew the juror’s name would likely be disclosed in time, given the anger over the trial’s outcome.
We clearly disagree on what lawyers are expected to do in high-profile cases. This is not what I teach my students about the professional standards that govern our conduct as officers of the court. Most of those expectations are not directly enforced by bar or court proceedings. Rather, much of what we do is the result of self-regulation; seeking to reinforce the noble ideals of our profession.
Instead of reminding people that our system is based on this core belief in the right of any citizen to stand alone against the majority, Reddington shredded the juror as presumptively anti-disability and akin to a racist on the jury. In front of the cameras, he declared, “I hope that guy can sleep well at night.”
Reddington knew that he was playing to the mob. District Attorney Tim Cruz had just been heckled on the steps by women who protested throughout the trial in favor of acquittal of Clancy, with one yelling how Cruz “only cares about the three children. What about the Mom?”
Frankly, in the aftermath of the trial, the two things that surprised me most were not the verdict, but the absence of an immediate apology from Reddington for his gratuitous attack on this juror and the failure of Judge William Sullivan to publicly rebuke him for his comments.
While our disagreement focuses on the attack on the juror, Reddington returned to his claim that what this juror did was itself unethical and contemptible. This juror was not convinced by his arguments, but Reddington suggests that no reasonable juror could have reached such a view despite many in this country who saw his client as a troubled murderer, but a murderer nonetheless.
There was a good-faith basis for taking that view even if most people would likely see Clancy as not responsible by reason of insanity. The standard is not whether Clancy was medically ill. She was clearly a deeply disturbed individual who failed to receive adequate mental health treatment. However, you can be suicidal and mentally ill and still appreciate the gravity of your actions.
The defense position was not unassailable. The long list of medications ignored the fact that only a couple of those prescriptions would likely contribute to psychosis and it was not clear how many pills Clancy actually took. She also had a fairly unusual case of postpartum psychosis in terms of the passage of time and said that she first heard a commanding male voice for the first time just before she killed her children.
Most importantly, Clancy took steps that showed planning and control of her actions, including researching how long it would take her misdirected husband to return. She spoke with him on the telephone while she was carrying out the plan and kept him in the dark about her intent to kill their children.
Would that erase reasonable doubt in the minds of most jurors? Probably not. As I stated before the trial, the chances of getting a unanimous verdict in this type of case are slim. This is a visceral case, which is why I was not surprised that the jury asked only to see a couple of pieces of evidence. The views of most people were baked into this trial before it began, and frankly, that may have been true for some of the jurors.
Reddington has every reason to exploit those feelings and play to doubts among the jurors. What he did not have license to do was target and ostracize the one holdout juror. Rather than taking the high ground, he immediately ran for the lowest common denominator among a nation of rage addicts.
Yes, that is indeed reprehensible. To paraphrase Mr. Reddington, it is the type of thing that would keep most of us up at night.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
So the population is in an uproar over this drug addled woman not getting an acquittal for the unquestionable gruesome murders oh her own three children; meanwhile Derek Chauvin remains to sit in prison. The evidence coming out shows the entire prosecution was a lie, a political hit job violating Chauvin’s civil rights, no grand jury, false testimony, misleading autopsy evidence and total obfuscation by the Minnesota Chicom Waltz fraud machine. Where’s the outrage, where’s the movement to exonerate these police officers for simply doing their jobs, sacrificed to appease a bunch of riotous criminals.
The hypocrisy is astounding!
FREE DEREK CHAUVIN NOW !
100% agree.
Estovir, are you supporting Derek Chauvin? How serious are you??
There’s a 35 minute body camera video of the entire George Floyd incident. The body camera was Officer Kueng’s, one of the rookie first responders. Kueng, by the way, is the most sympathetic figure there. His partner, Lane, is fairly sympathetic as well.
George Floyd, however, comes across as a demon talking in tongues. While Derek Chauvin comes across as the false hero who is actually ‘another’ demon.
Chauvin totally self-destructs, on camera, by kneeling on Floyd’s neck long ‘after’ Floyd stops resisting. The crowd, with all their cell phone cameras, keeps pleading with Chauvin to ease up. But Chauvin continues like he honestly wants a murder rap.
But again, the 2 rookies are the ones deserving of sympathy; NOT Derek Chauvin.
The autopsy report indicated that absolutely nothing on the ground led to Floyd’s death. There were zero injuries to his neck by the control technique employed, a standard in police work.
Every enforcement technique used was within the parameters of acceptable force used by the police department.
Floyd was full of fentanyl, he overreacted and his heart gave out. Chauvin is innocent of murder and that’s just the tip of the injustice done to him over a career criminal to appease a bunch of their supporters by a bunch of corrupt politicians running Minnesota.
Estovir, you need to watch that whole video. It’s the rookies who deserve sympathy. Chauvin self destructed.
Floyd resisted arrest at every stage. He resisted getting out of the car where they found him in the driver’s seat and then he resisted getting in the police car to be transported. If he’d cooperated he might’ve lived.
I’ve watched it, I didn’t and don’t see anything wrong with Chauvin’s controlling the resistance of Floyd. He removed Floyd from the car at Floyds insistence. Floyd continued to fail to follow the officers lawful commands.
Prosecuting Chauvin for murder was and is ridiculous. It is nothing more than appeasement to a bunch of inner city thugs threatening to burn down the city.
My prayers are for his appeal to be heard and the entire case thrown out with restitution paid for his irreparable suffering and damages.
I am not surprised by any of the global left’s behavior anymore – they are all grifters, liars, and thugs, and this did not used to be the case, not thoroughly, anyway.
Between this, Hillary simping for the Iranian regime, or the guy who quit working at Anthropic due to claimed ‘existential threats’ perfectly timed with Bernie Sanders doing the same (not to say those companies aren’t reckless and feckless and on the verge of creating what could amount to super computer viruses) – there is no reforming the democrat party, they are lost, and they are lying to you and I every time they speak at this point about anything whatsoever.
They plant their operatives in other party affiliations. They want 2020-24 to be permanent and to be even more deeply egregious; in a word, they are fascists, full stop. No more mincing words. Their remaining stalwart voters are delusional and/or dumb – these people can’t win elections honestly in this country. Exhibit A: the DSA and Justice Dems doing a Spanberger, per Carville’s tutelage, to just lie about their pasts to get into office. Yes, they do think you are this stupid.
Forget it. May the rest of us in greater numbers hold the line of sanity and sense, at least in this country, as I have never seen things this bad in my lifetime. If they have any power again they will federalize it all and it will no longer matter which state you live in, as again, 2020 taught us. They have the will, and they will do it.
I have radical idea: get rid of the insanity defense. The body committed the crime, send it to prison. If the perp is not insane they are right where they belong. If they are nutz, well, let their mind do whatever it wants.
Dear Counselor: Should there be a cause of action against Reddington at some point, I will be happy to contribute to it. As would many others here, I’d wager.
Meanwhile, I believe “he” should be “she” in the following passage. Less critically, the clause “on the telephone” should follow “She spoke with him” not “building the crime scene”:
“She spoke with him while he was building the crime scene on the telephone and kept him in the dark about her unfolding plans.”
Reddington: “maybe Jonathan Turley should check out the record before he makes his accusations.”
That’s how a “Super Lawyer” rebuts an argument?! He’s ignores JT’s evidence and argument. Then he descends into childish deflection to rationalize his reprehensible behavior. No wonder the jury was confused.
A decent parent wouldn’t put up with that deception:
“Johnny, stop being a bully.”
“But mom, I get A’s in school.”
“Johnny, unless you want to grow up to be like Reddington, take responsibility for your bad behavior. And change it.”
Well stated Professor! What the defense attorney said is undefendable. I hope the bar in his state takes a look at his unethical comments about this juror after the trial.
One way of doling out justice against Reddington is to lover people who knew him before he became a lawyer, people who can opine about his nasty streak
Ms Clancy’s suicide attempt is clear evidence that she knew what she did was wrong. Evidence of a guilty mind.
Reddington’s actions are troublesome on several levels. This trial was not his first rodeo. We would expect his experience contained the ethics that infuse the privilege of being a lawyer. Reddington lost a not guilty verdict by one vote. Not to a guilty verdict but a mistrial. I submit that the first thing a lawyer does with an adverse jury action is ask self “how did this juror get past my part of the “voir dire”- examining the the jury panel members to find the truth by eliminating those disqualified to serve by peremptory strike or strike for cause for judge found incurable bias. “What did l not ask or did ask that l missed?” To complicate further, against that ethical soul searching is the question is there a remedy for a mistrial? What about juror misconduct? Recognized grounds for reversing a verdict for juror misconduct are fairly well developed for a tainted verdict. A juror’s vote without more is not one of them. Moreover, those rules grow out of a verdict, not a mistrial. And a bad verdict does not lead to the judge changing the “errant” juror’s vote to make a required unanimous verdict. Thats a 7th Amendment right to jury deprivation. The remedy is a new jury and a new trial. If the government so decides. Same outcome as mistrial. The broader level of troubling is Reddington’s treatment of the vote itself. And that gets to Johnathan’s point. The jurors vote belongs to the individual’s conviction. Without fear of reprisal or punishment. Sound familiar? It should. That’s the vote in the voting booth. Both votes run straight to the Preamble of the Constitution. To form a more perfect Union.
Lawyers do not participate in rodeos, BTW.
Figures of speech – idioms, similes, metaphors – are often difficult for low IQ retards to grasp.
So which one applies?
At least anon has an IQ. You just cut-n-paste, no brains required. Monkeys do better at it.
““how did this juror get past my part of the “voir dire””
That touches on something I have not yet read concerning the trial. Are attorneys in MA murder trials restricted to a set number of juror challenged, and, if so, had Reddington exhausted his allocation? Your question also raises the question of whether (or, at minimum, how much) of the mistrial result can be laid at Reddington’s feet as a result of less than optimal decisions that he made (i.e., incompetence) in some phases of the proceedings. Possibly he is blaming the juror holdout for drawing attention to his professional errors. Which would not excuse his conduct to the slightest extent, but if that is his motivation, defendants seeking representation in a high profile criminal case might do well to bypass him on the future on that basis.
Reddington admonished and berated the holdout for thinking critically, thinking for himself, and refusing to be manipulated the mob. Pretty standard tactic/approach for the left these days. Fortunately it failed….again.
Lots of words about what went on, just the words of 3 women and 1 man, and all liberals. Does anyone think they are beyond lying?
If she wasn’t insane, then nothing about the case makes sense.
If she was sane enough to plan the brutal horrific killing of their three babies while sending her husband out during the crime, she’s sane enough to spend the remainder of her miserable life in prison. She already carried out her self imposed death sentence and failed. Help her find her success.
If someone abuses alcohol and gets so drunk they commit a horrific homicide are they insane or a drunken idiot?
It’s called maternal filicide (both the act and a plan). It is tragically common. Sometimes the murderer’s (or attempted murderer’s) motivation is “unwanted-child filicide” or “spouse- revenge filicide.” (See the story of Jason and Medea.)
If you look at the creature’s motivation, the desire to murder makes perfect sense. What doesn’t make sense is granting the murderer unearned sympathy, by blaming the murders (or attempted murder) on some deterministic factor (drugs, the husband, social pressure . . .)
Many of those murderers are where they deserve to be: in jail. Which is where Clancy should be — for life.
It would be interesting to see what drugs she may have been abusing. Her being a nurse gave her access to a wide variety of medications. Drug abuse is the number one occupational hazard for them.
I remember Susan Smith killed her sons in 1994 by drowning them and the whole country wanted her hanged.
33 years years and look how far women will go to let a comrade off
All I get out of all this is he voted “wrong” according to one side.
What surprises me is the rapidity with which some of the jurors were willing to throw the 3 dead children under the bus and acquit the mother. Like the holdout juror I could not get past the 3 dead children and I commend the gentleman for his holdout. We don’t know his thoughts because he has said nothing. All we have is the point of view of other jurors who seemed to disagree.
Strange to me that several nurses were on the panel. If a physician was in the jury pool they would almost certainly have been excluded. My observations is that virtually never do attorneys want physicians on the panel. Never really heard an explanation as to why. Also, unless the nurses were psychiatric nurses or specifically ob-gyn, their expertise is very limited for a case like this.
M A S S A C H U S E T T S
M A S S H O L E S
Taxachussetts
Yankeeville
The Clancy case is further proof that females are emotionally and intellectually inferior to men.
Thinking SCOTUS
Maybe that’s why the left is quickly replacing all the women with newly-minted ‘men’.
toxic femininity?
The best woman is a man I guess. VERY new-fangled and futuristic!
Gloria Steinem’s legacy alone disproves that thesis!
The more that comes out on this trial we know the radical liberal nurses forced others to change their vote under duress. Thank god for a man of convictions that saw through her fake mental illness defense called a triple murder a triple murder.
Hopefully the next judge can take control of the courtroom, see an actual non partisan jury is seated, take control of the courtroom and properly instruct the jurors.
I agree. In fact, though I doubt it, I wonder if Reddington’s words were actionable, akin to doxing.
As to Clancy, while I usually agree with conservatives these days, I tend not to in this case. About 16 years ago I had to take powerful anti-pain meds after a surgery. The effect was so awful I just stopped taking them despite agonizing pain (throat surgery – every swallow was like swallowing glass). I had two people arguing in my head. I knew it was not real and I didn’t do anything bad or dramatic as a result, but I also could not stop them from arguing either. I stopped on my own after an exhausting week. I can’t imagine what that would do to someone long term, but I am sure I would have ended up at least temporarily “crazy” if I didn’t stop. The prosecution did not deny her problems or the heavy medications. She should not be in jail, but a hospital for a long time. This was a great tragedy, monstrous, in fact. If that were many people, I might consider continuing trying to kill myself. I can think of a mother (relative of a friend) who did something similar under similar circumstances years ago. She was never tried. But she will probably be in the hospital for life. You can argue that anyone who kills someone for no rational reason is crazy, even serial killers, and we don’t want it to become an excuse for every crime. I don’t think it would cover many murders, but some yes.
“I had two people arguing in my head. I knew it was not real and I didn’t do anything bad or dramatic as a result, but I also could not stop them from arguing either.”
Seriously? You regard an internal debate that articulates arguments for and against some proposition (rather than experiencing an instantaneous “gut reaction”) as evidence of insanity? That diagnosis would certainly fill up asylums quickly. I have those on an occasional basis, and I tend to suspect anyone who has never experienced that as suspect for total amorality. I also accept 100% responsibility for my actions, whether or not some aspect of those actions might have been subject to such an internal conversation.
No wonder no one wants to serve on a jury.
I do.
People with pre-conceived ideas on a case always want to serve on juries in hopes of nullifying the jury and getting the result they want whether it is conviction or exoneration. They lie during Voir dire and say they can judge fairly. These people nothing more than lying scum.
My gawd, what a totally, utterly, warped and stupid comment.
Pre-conceived? BTW spelt preconceived.
Potential jurors have no idea what sort of case they will be jurors in. So once they are selected the preconceived notion kicks in during Voir dir?
At first I thought you’re ex-criminal lawyer, but from the spelling error – not.
But one thing I know, never met a lawyer who ever thought highly of juries. And didn’t use mild descriptions of them.
But I think one thing that the smart pundits acknowledge, the jury system is fallible.
“the jury system is fallible”
That it is. But it is almost certainly less fallible as a general institution, implemented over a long period of time, than relying exclusively on judges’ verdicts would be. If for no other reason that it is easier to coerce or corrupt one person who is known, even if that person is supposedly qualified by a higher than normal degree of personal integrity, than it is to coerce or corrupt 12 persons selected more-or-less at random from the general population. Which I think is at least a large part of the point.
Criticism of Attorney Reddington aside- the juror did not stick to his convictions…the juror admitted reasonable doubt but in direct conflict with the Massachusetts Statute and the Judge’s instruction opted NOT to follow/abide by the law as written.
Not true. Not true at all.
The foreman claimed the holdout admitted to doubt. NOT TO REASONABLE DOUBT. Legally a massive difference.
Not all doubts are reasonable. Every jury instruction by every judge addresses this. I’ve heard it 100 times.
Don’t lie to people. Be better than that.
Admitted reasonable doubt? He did not. In fact no one knows. Those are the words of 3 crazy old divorced hags not above lying, and oblivious contempt of males, so character assassination is their forte, in front of a camera for all the world to see.
If Reddington is not disbarred for his plainly unethical conduct, for the good of the legal profession, he should at least consider implementing the act of “sleeping well” by himself taking a “dirt nap.” It is possible that the murdering mom was overcharged because of her mental condition, but that does not justify Reddington’s scurrilous attack on the one “holdout juror.” Far from it ….
Why? He shot his mouth off as any idiot would do and with spectacular results. He’s the darling of crazy females now. And the liberal contingent. Kudos for making an ass of himself.
He later eluded to asking for Trump to pardon her on National news?! Trump would have no ability to pardon her in a State case, what a joke this Reddington is.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
– attributed to Edmund Burke
America needs good men more than ever to lead by example of the good, so that evil is shown its proper place, subordinate to the latter.
Question 49. The cause of evil
Article 3. Whether there be one supreme evil which is the cause of every evil?
It appears from what precedes that there is no one first principle of evil, as there is one first principle of good.
First, indeed, because the first principle of good is essentially good, as was shown above (I:6:4). But nothing can be essentially bad. For it was shown above that every being, as such, is good (I:5:3); and that evil can exist only in good as in its subject (I:48:3.
Secondly, because the first principle of good is the highest and perfect good which pre-contains in itself all goodness, as shown above (I:6:2). But there cannot be a supreme evil; because, as was shown above (I:48:4), although evil always lessens good, yet it never wholly consumes it; and thus, while good ever remains, nothing can be wholly and perfectly bad. Therefore, the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 5) that “if the wholly evil could be, it would destroy itself”; because all good being destroyed (which it need be for something to be wholly evil), evil itself would be taken away, since its subject is good.
Thirdly, because the very nature of evil is against the idea of a first principle; both because every evil is caused by good, as was shown above (Article 1), and because evil can be only an accidental cause, and thus it cannot be the first cause, for the accidental cause is subsequent to the direct cause.
St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, First Part, Question 49
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1049.htm
NB: The “Philosopher” is Aristotle
What a heap of BS. Just another stupid cut-n-paste job with no relevance. This clown thinks he’s intelligent.
At least he signs a name instead of the cowardly “anonymous.”
waltrthompson is yours? Wanna prove that. I know you’re a very stupid person, so let try this on, you too are anonymous. Okay? You use a fake name and you think that gives you credibility. However your comment does reveal that you are in fact very stupid because you can’t understand that you are anonymous. You get that walt?
It seems Reddington is looking to the big time. No longer just an Massachusetts lawyer, he wants a press following – a national press at that. He wants accolades similar to the likes of Alan Dershowitz or yourself. However, he’s doing it in the style of a barroom fight, attacking, counterpunching, and throwing beer bottles, lately a couple at you.
One observation I noted during the trial and the film clips on TV every day. I never saw him consult with his client, nor did I see him comfort her during her sobbing spells. He kept his strict distance. It was almost as though he was defending her while still disgusted by her crime.
Consult with his client? He had all he needed for a defense. Its not like a case of this type – women killing children, happens all the time – was never adjudicated. His intent was to hide her in plain site, divert attention of the 9 women jury to the incompetent doctors (90% women BTW) and witnesses making her a pathetic victim of the system rather than a cold-blooded murderer. Clancy never uttered a word.
Reddington wrapped an exercise band around the neck of the judicial system of jury trials. He ought to be disbarred.
Or some type of punishment
In your case, bullet in the head. Please, please, please.
Ah! There is that infamous far illiberal leftist hate and rage we have all come to see!
Stay classy!
As usual Upstate. The left is full of hate.
Ano (In your case, bullet in the head. Please, please, please.)
Killed any Vietnam in Seattle dustoff. Folks, dustoff claims 33 kills in Vietnam. That includes women and children. Oh, and a Dishonorable Discharge. BTW, farmer got a General Discharge.
Try using Goggle you moron… Dustoff is the call sign for a medical airlift. (medics)
Ah, the pathological lying idiot. Can we see your high school diploma please? What, you don’t have one?
Now, about those billions you claim, got some spare change?
Oh, Magna Carter huh? Precious.
Anonymous,
Does your plea for a “bullet in the head” mean that you support and defend the Second Amendment?
Definitely. You should try and report back ok?
on brand commie. dirty murderous commie. back to commie-land with you peasant. you have no self-worth. disgusting. you disgust me.
haha you feel powerless. sucks don’t it. and there’s absolutely NOTHING you can do about it, just take it and take it and let it build up inside you.
Meant that comment for the Anon…
But why, and what would be the charge? More so because he acted like a clown and hurt Turley’s feelings?