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 into 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.”
“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.”
Since Turley has a JD and not an Md, I would say that opinions about the interactions of a long list of medications is beyond his ken.
Perhaps getting back to why Trump interfering with the DOJ and stopping the release of the properly redacted Epstein files would be a more on-point use of his time. I suppose it depends on where Turley’s funding comes from.
Trump is obviously protecting Bill Clinton from full disclosure of the Epstein files. Juanita Brodderick exclusive at 7:00!
If a meth head takes too much meth and kills 3 people it’s not their fault? Drunk driving?
Some people even OD on drugs. we gonna blame society or hormones or what?
The next edition of law books will detail the “Reddington Strategy” How to turn an admitted murderer into a celebrated victim in a murder trial.
apbd
” This juror was not convinced by his arguments”
It appears that the juror could not be convinced by any arguments, having already decided at the start of the trial that conviction was the only acceptable outcome.
Unlike Rumpelstiltskin, Turley will be unable to spin his straw man into gold.
“Having already decided…”
you do not know his mind.
Presumption is not fact
Maybe the arguments were weak. Maybe out of 12 people he’s the only one who can reason for himself.
I can think of 11 people right now that can’t reason for themselves so it’s not so unusual.
On this day, September 11th, Turley chooses to address a personal slight.
Must be a distraction from Trump offering a $5000 bribe to every adult in America.
Can the $5000 be applied directly to an EBT card?
Hmmm and all the cash biden gave the illegals…
No Chit Dusty
How much taxpayer dollars did Biden’s and Maoyorkas open border cost Americans? Let alone the ones that payed with their lives.
so if it happens you’ll refuse it, right? BAD $5000, bad mojo! Are you an adult? No $5000 for you. NEXT!
Don’t know about Dusty but I will take every cent of it as it is MY own money taken from me through taxation which Trump proposes to graciously give back to me.
I see taking .30 cents on every dollar earned out of my annual earnings as robbery. There should be a special tax applied to those in Congress of 70%, Pelosi would quit.
DSMIII and DSMIV include suicide gesture but DSMV does not. Hesitation marks on the wrists have been considered to be attention getting signs of borderline personality disorder. I wonder if the prosecutors were not able to find any experts willing to speak about multiple unsuccessful suicide attempts in this way or if the rules wouldn’t allow it. The three murders were successful first try.
My unschooled impression is that “not guilty by reason of insanity” is too unqualified in too many jurisdictions. I think in cases of kidnapping, rape, and murder (and possibly other high crimes), psychotic perpetrators should be confined for life to a high-security mental hospital. I suspect that had that option been available, the jury would have convicted on that basis.
Personally, I doubt Lindsay Clancy is representative of women in general (that’s my understatement of the day). I think she is a one-in-ten-million fluke whose behavior is violently unpredictable. I accept that she MIGHT have been prompted by post-partem depression, but the people who support her cannot really predict that she won’t kill again. Too many emotionally unstable women commit suicide during menopause, and that doesn’t get enough attention. What would she do under that emotional strain or other emotional strains? No one can say.
Given the lack of options, I would have voted guilty just to keep her confined. Sorry not sorry.
Your admission that you accept she MIGHT have been prompted by post partum-psychosis is essentially reasonable doubt. If you admitted that in jury deliberations you would have admitted you were not 100% sure she was guilty as charged. That’s the problem.
You did not have options the moment you admitted you might accept her mental condition prompted to do it. That’s not a full conscious decision under her condition.
Nope. Jurors have a wide latitude to go against a law they see as unjust, inadequate, or manipulated. Watch “The Verdict,” a great movie produced by liberals.
Using a fictional, scripted Hollywood movie from 1982 to argue actual constitutional law is embarrassing. The Verdict is a movie; we are talking about real-world legal mandates in a court of law.
You are completely wrong. Jurors do not have the legal right or ‘latitude’ to ignore the law just because they find it inadequate or personally disagree with it.
Before a trial begins, every juror takes a legally binding oath promising to render a verdict based only on the evidence presented and the law given by the judge. Failing to do so is a violation of that oath.
In a courtroom, the judge is the sole arbiter of the law, while the jury is the trier of fact. Allowing juries to rewrite or ignore laws on a whim would usurp the role of the legislature and create an unpredictable, lawless legal system
“…create an unpredictable, lawless legal system.” The Democrats engage in rioting, looting, cash-free bail, nullification, and wanton judicial obstructionism. In other words, it’s ok when we do it. I’m stunned. There’s so much irony in your comment that I don’t know where to begin.
They will never try the dissenting juror for breaking the law because you are flat mistaken.
Have you not heard of “the balance of probabilities”?
If she said “I blacked out”, well, that’s reasonable doubt! How do we KNOW she didn’t? Pay attention murderers! (we get a lot of them here).
post-partem depression is common. infanticide somewhat less so. How did all those other post-partem depression sufferers escape murdering?
I suspect that she will no longer allow medical professionals to drug her out of her mind, which was shown to be the primary driver of her actions.
How do I know diogenes will not kill someone tomorrow? Just because diogenes hasn’t killed anyone yet, doesn’t mean they won’t tomorrow.
I have no history of violence. She does.
. . . psychotic perpetrators should be confined for life to a high-security mental hospital. I suspect that had that option been available, the jury would have convicted on that basis.
You might be rights. If a state offered a “guilty but mentally ill” potential verdict, and it had any teeth – as opposed to the “but mentally ill” part being merely advisory – a system like that would be rational. It would strike a balance between the penological goal of incapacitation (protecting society from the defendant going forward) and the recognition that the person’s guilt is of a nature that should be met with treatment and confinement rather than retribution.
Exactly. The trolls are just being argumentative, as always. They’d be agreeing with me if the perp wasn’t high on intersectionality.
“Devlin told CBS host Gayle King that the ages of the jurors ranged from 22-70 years old, with “one person of color.” When she revealed that the holdout was a black man, King appeared visibly shaken.”
Source: Dailywire.com
This is an astounding fact. The holdout juror was a black man, and the only “person of colour” on the jury. So 11 white people, including nine white women, spent a week bullying a black man to conform to their views, and then tried to throw him out when they failed. Wow.
ABC News EXCLUSIVE: George Stephanopoulos speaks exclusively with Lindsay Clancy defense attorney Kevin Reddington about the case.
By: George Stephanopoulos – ABC Good Morning America ~ September 8th 2026
[Link] youtube.com/watch?v=8hMklH0I2o0
READ more from GMA (ABC’s Good Morning America):
Lindsay Clancy’s attorney Kevin Reddington asks Trump for pardon after mistrial: [Link] tinyurl.com/3t3dfd69
—
A President (Trump) cannot issue a pardon for a State’s case, of course He (Kevin Reddington) knows this.
AI String: ( Can a president issue a pardon for a state’s case )
No, a U.S. President cannot issue a pardon for a state crime or a state court case. Under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the president’s executive clemency power is strictly limited to federal offenses and crimes committed against the United States.
Constitutional Limits
• Federal Only: Under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the president’s pardon power is strictly limited to “Offences against the United States,” which means federal crimes and military courts-martial.
• Separate Sovereigns: The federal government and individual states operate as separate legal systems (sovereigns). The president has no authority over state prosecutors, state judges, or state prison systems.
Key Limits on Presidential Pardons
• Separate Sovereigns: The federal government and individual states operate under separate legal systems. A president has no jurisdiction over state laws, state courts, or local prosecutors.
• No State Interference: A presidential pardon cannot overturn a state conviction, wipe out a state criminal record, or stop a state from pursuing criminal charges.
• Alternative Authority: Relief or clemency for a state conviction must come from that specific state’s governor or a state board of pardons and paroles.
Who Has the Power for State Crimes?
• State Governors: If a person is convicted of a state-level offense, any legal pardon or sentence commutation must come from that state’s governor or a designated state board of pardons and paroles.
• Symbolic Pardons: While a president may issue a symbolic or political pardon for a state conviction, it carries no legal weight and cannot overturn a state court ruling or free an inmate.
The Lindsay Clancy case is a prominent example of the strict boundary between state and federal pardon powers.
On September 4, 2026, the Massachusetts triple-murder trial of the former nurse ended in a mistrial after the jury deadlocked following 38 hours of deliberation. Clancy is charged with first-degree murder in the 2023 deaths of her three young children. Her defense does not deny she caused their deaths but argues she was suffering from severe postpartum psychosis and lacked criminal responsibility.
Following the mistrial, the case gained widespread media attention again when her defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, publicly appealed to President Donald Trump to grant her a pardon during an interview on ABC’s Good Morning America.
Why the President Cannot Intervene
Because Clancy’s charges were brought by the Plymouth County District Attorney under Massachusetts state law, the U.S. president possesses no constitutional authority to pardon her or dismiss the charges. Legal experts quickly clarified that the power to grant clemency or a pardon in this specific case rests solely with the Governor of Massachusetts and the state’s governor’s council—and even then, only after a conviction has occurred.
A spokesman for Reddington later confirmed that the defense team was fully aware that the president lacks the legal power to grant a state pardon. Instead, the appeal was a strategic political move aimed at generating public sympathy and pressuring Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz to consider a merciful non-jail plea agreement rather than pursuing a second high-stakes trial.
You can watch coverage of the defense team’s public appeal for a pardon and their strategy regarding a potential plea deal or dismissal.
—
AI String: ( Are State Governors or Clemency Boards bound by the US Constitution to grant pardons and clemency )
No, state governors and clemency boards are not bound by the U.S. Constitution to grant pardons or clemency; instead, their powers are derived entirely from individual state constitutions and state laws.
Source of Authority
• The U.S. Constitution (Article II, Section 2) gives the President the power to grant pardons and reprieves, but that authority strictly applies only to federal crimes and offenses against the United States.
• The U.S. Constitution gives the federal government no role in, or control over, state-level criminal convictions or state clemency.
• Every state constitution explicitly creates its own executive clemency framework, defining whether a governor, a specialized board, or a combination of both holds the power to pardon.
How State Systems Differ
• Sole Governor Authority: In roughly 15 states, the governor has full, independent discretion to grant pardons or commute sentences without formal board approval.
• Board Recommendation Required: In several states (such as Texas), the governor cannot issue a standard pardon or commutation unless the state’s Board of Pardons and Paroles first issues a positive, formal recommendation.
• Independent Board Authority: In a few states, the power rests entirely with an independent board or parole authority, leaving the governor with no direct role in the decision.
Federal Limits on State Pardons
While state officials decide who receives clemency under state rules, their decisions are still subject to federal constraints:
• A state pardon cannot override or erase a federal conviction.
• State governors and boards cannot use clemency to violate federal civil rights laws or the U.S. Constitution (for example, a pardon cannot be granted explicitly to discriminate on the basis of race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause).
—
ABC’s George Stephanopoulos GMA interview:
No fing way will I read that comment. Brevity anyone?
Brevity might be merely Insipid. Not a fan of someone putting up a lot of AI, but if you won’t read a comment you should consider whether your own responding comment is necessary or useful.
I would think that it would be helpful to someone who wants his comments to be read to know that excessive length increases the chances that said comment will be ignored.
When I saw that interview, it was abundantly clear that Reddington was using the case and news pulpit as a political weapon. Another “it’s Trumps fault “ this murderer didn’t get acquitted for the uneducated dirty masses.
Crim def lawyers are intelligent, but that doesn’t make them wise?
The hold out juror had doubt, but not ‘beyond a reasonable doubt.’ There-in lyes the difference.
Anyone who murders their own 3 children deserves 1st degree murder. She planned it from the very beginning with her excessive seeking of medical services. And now the civil suit against those services. I personally have my doubts that the father played a role in this tragedy.
The Mob of middle-aged women on the jury broke the law when they went into deliberate with the mind set to acquit by reason of insanity, before any deliberations began.
They bullied other jurors to agree, that’s not how justice is done
God Bless the hold out juror. 🙏
Reddington was in fact in contempt when he accused the judge of glossing over the verdict allowing for a hung jury.
Clancy has already served 3 years in a mental facility, how many more would she serve with an insanity verdict? Three more?
He had reasonable doubt. 3 jurors confirmed he openly admitted to having reasonable doubt. That is all that is required by law where jurors must acquit. That lone juror chose to ignore his reasonable doubt against his oath.
You don’t base your verdict as a juror on feelings. You base it on the facts and the law. Period.
See the Mass. bar charges against Reddinton for attempted exortion.
You stated it, then you link it. Are you stoopid or sumptin?
“You stated it, then you link it. ”
A search quickly turned this up:
Bar charges against reddington for attempted extortion
https://search.brave.com/search?q=bar+charges+against+Reddinton+for+attempted+exortion&conversation=098da700822188a42866debeddd861609b17
Kevin Reddington, the defense attorney for Lindsay Clancy, is facing a four-count formal disciplinary petition filed by the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers (BBO) alleging professional misconduct, including claims of attempted extortion by his former client, Jasiel Correia II.
The disciplinary charges stem from accusations made by Correia, a former Fall River mayor convicted of fraud and corruption, who alleged that Reddington tried to extort an additional $50,000 and demand a 20% ownership stake in his defunct company, SnoOwl, shortly before Correia’s 2021 federal trial.
Correia claimed text messages showed Reddington attempting to renegotiate a previously agreed $150,000 flat fee into a higher amount as the trial approached, though Reddington acknowledged attempting to collect legal fees due to the case’s expanded scope.
The four-count petition includes:
The extortion-related allegations from Correia.
Three additional counts involving unrelated clients, which allege misuse of client funds and bad record keeping.
If found responsible, Reddington could face discipline ranging from private warnings to complete disbarment.
These charges were filed two years after Correia initially raised the accusations in a 2024 federal court motion while incarcerated, seeking a sentence reduction.
Well, I hope you take some comfort that the attorney criticizing you has reportedly also asked President Trump to pardon his client, Lindsay Clancy. The President can only pardon or commute those charged with federal crimes. Such a fundamental category error by Attorney Reddington undermines his knowledge, professional aptitude and his post-trial conduct.
I am struck by the simple-minded way in which you have swallowed an entire prosecution narrative based on one person’s testimony peppered with conjecture. “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 while he was building the crime scene on the telephone and kept him in the dark about her unfolding plans.” Oh, really? Patrick Clancy’s narrative is riddled with inconsistencies, which is not to say he did the murders but rather that any person subjected to an extreme event is capable of getting the details wrong in retrospect. If, as you say, Lindsay Clancy “took steps that showed planning and control” then please explain why she crammed her crime into a time frame that — by those calculations you claim she made — should have given her only 30 minutes to do everything. The fact that she ACTUALLY had 54 minutes is for the prosecution to explain, not the defense. What was Patrick doing for those extra 24 minutes? Also tell us why, if this was “planned”, Lindsay didn’t take one of his longer trips or outings as her opportunity? Reddington made this point very clearly in his “You were a busy guy” questioning of Patrick. Perhaps you missed that questioning. Also I must question whether you have listened to the accounts of other jurors in that room who are reporting that the “rogue” juror was scrolling on his cell phone while they were deliberating. Is that proper?
He was not supposed to have a cell phone while deliberating. That’s an issue. He could have been getting information from outside the jury room and seeing the reaction of the public to his refusal.
That could be a big problem for the prosecution.
Under Massachusetts law. Cell phones are strictly prohibited during deliberations and while they are in court. If that is the case this juror not only broke the law he may have been susceptible to outside influence.
George, what a sucker you are. There’s zero proof there was a cellphone. Think, if there was, the mob would had used that to get rid of him… a Black male. But maybe in Massachusetts he’s an untouchable. Hey, it is Massachusetts after all, crazier things have happened there.
The jurors who chose to be interviewed explicitly pointed out the lone juror chose to disengage from deliberations after admitting to having reasonable doubt and sat on his chair and started scrolling on his phone. That lone if confirmed will be used as grounds for dismissal of the case.
Nope! You don’t know how our legal system works, you should hang around here more often and learn.
Maybe he was admitting he would consider it after being hounded by a group of AWFULs and then he decided their periods had all synced.
Everyone knows X has no proof.
What we’re supposed to take 100% the word of the only person who witnessed a horror scene, but we can’t take the word of one of 12 jurors who can be corroborated (or not) by the others?
That’s not the only point the jurors were supposed to deliberate. They are supposed to deliberate on the facts all of the facts presented to them. Not feelings.
The only person ALIVE that witnessed it.
Lindsay Clancy sent Patrick to pick up a meal she had already ordered, and for ONE ITEM at a pharmacy. Honestly, “Professor”, if Lindsay Clancy was the criminal mastermind you try to paint her as, why didn’t she send to the pharmacy with a full list? I’ll tell you what inflames a mob. Not one frustrated lawyer venting, but people with the ability to see truth but refusing to see it.
“He had the hardest time getting over the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children.” That’s the truth. Can you see that, do you have the ability?
He based his reasoning on emotions. Not facts. The law requires you base your reasoning on facts.
Facts you say george.
Please tell us the facts that Prez Trump will keep the new 747-8.
Something you keep claiming, but never offering proof.
You must be terribly confused. This is about a murder case. Airplanes. Focus man. Focus.
Facts man, facts. focus. Slipping.
‘THREE Jurors SAID. ”
that’s not fact, that is hearsay.
You continually say you only deal with facts but you are,actually presenting “he said she said” as,fact.
Only his words verbatim can be used as fact, coming out of his mouth ,not other jurors’ claiming what he said
What ‘facts’ are those and how was the “Murder Club 11” reasoning those said facts?
Insincere AND slipping. You don’t have proof that he was basing it on emotions.
You need to learn something about the law.
“. . . the ability to see truth but refusing to see it.”
Speaking of which:
Why did you omit the fact that Clancy used a mapping app to estimate the amount of time it would take her husband to run the errands she sent him on?
Did that (fictitious) voice also command her to consult a mapping app? Or could it be that she was clear-headed enough to realize: I need enough time to murder my children.
That is a ridiculous claim and Reddington made a mistake by not attacking it hard. Why would she need a mapping app? They’d lived in the area for a year or more, and any mother with 3 children would have made dozens of trips to that CVS which was, what, one mile away? Not to mention that all her drugs were coming from there! And they had eaten IN at the 3V on several occasions, indicated by the fact that Patrick immediatel knew what dish he wanted. So clearly it was also a familiar trip. And by “mapping app”, name me a modern “mapping app” that doesn’t also give a phone number? In what universe does a person constantly coming & going and shopping and dining out not know how long certain errands will take? This whole line of non-reasoning from Lindsay haters is irrational
Yours is a delusional attempt to evade evidence that doesn’t fit your desire to sympathize with a *murderer*.
Her use of that mapping app is a fact of the court record: digital forensic evidence from her iPhone.
Have you ever waited in line at a CVS? Guaranteed 1/2 hour wait.
Anon, you should change your name to Columbo.
Any murderer who didn’t think their murderous plan through completely and perfectly deserves to get off the hook.
You ever seem the prices at CVS? She was trying to be frugal. Proof she was not crazy.
“. . . to do everything.”
Nice attempt to sanitize that: Clancy planned, then brutally murdered — in a very specific order — all three of her children.
Alright Karen, nice try, now use facts.
Another example of females lying.
“… 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?”
Now it’s a crime to seek justice for three innocent lives lost. Who knew?
Second sentence, 4th paragraph from the bottom doesn’t make sense-at least to me: “She spoke with him while he was building the crime scene on the telephone and kept him in the dark about her unfolding plans.”
“She spoke with him on the telephone while she was building the crime scene and kept him in the dark about her unfolding plans.”
That was what I think he meant. If I could have a nickel for every grammatical error I made commenting on this blog, I could pay for all the transitions of our trolls.
Think what he meant? So you admit you don’t know what he meant.
How can anyone justify a “grammatical error” as simply as unimportant? And you use a Greek philosopher as a meme?
An obvious admission that you’re stupid.
LOL. Whatever.
That’s okay, just your lack of education showing. A lot of commenters here are really dumb. You fit in.
Dear Mr. Turley, my question: why did this take so long to come to trial? Trying to make sense out of a case where only snippets of the case were played on the news is hard to do. Three young children are dead, she admits to the murders so, what’s the problem? Lindsay Clancy needs to be locked up and the key tossed into Boston harbor.
Mabye some jurors have an opinion but they are just not good at explaining their position to the rest of the jury.
Jury’s should not act like a mob.
It was not a mob it was a jury following the law. It was one juror expressing his opinion after admitting he had reasonable doubt chose to ignore the law. What he did was not only a breach of his binding oath. He ignored the judge’s instructions.
In my view that would constitute an unfair trail. They will have to address the fact that one juror who admitted he had reasonable doubt chose to ignore it and not render the what the law required.
As described by the 3 crazies in the news, they used intimidation. 11 v. 1 is not a mob George?
Following the law? Then why did the nurse jurors interject their lack of expertise into the deliberations? By all account improperly.
You must live in a house of all females?
Come on George, you can do better. An off day?
Off day? Nope. It’s clear you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You’re all about emotion. Not facts. They all had reasonable doubt. Even the lone juror. By law they were required to acquit. By law. When one juror admits to having reasonable doubt and refuses to follow the law like the 11 others who know what they are required to do according to…the law it is not intimidation. The nurses used their expertise to verify the facts. It allowed them to reach the conclusion there is reasonable doubt that her mental state could be caused by the meds. The KNEW what meds can do. That’s not being “crazy”. That’s being knowledgable and using the facts to determine if they could be 100% certain whether there could be reasonable doubt or not. They were the smart ones. The lone juror was basing his reasoning on his feelings, not the facts that the law requires of him to consider.
Write all the nonsense you want George you’re not making any sense.
So today is a big day for ya huh? All that pent up stupidity bursting forth.
No. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. To prove my point, you can barely muster an insult or anything of substance to present anything related to the facts of the case.
Those nurses were on meds themselves. Biased from day one
Or, as many of us have experienced in that last 20 years “explaining” yourself to a MOB is useless and a waste of time!
You don’t have to explain yourself to a mob. You have to justify your stance according to what the law requires. This juror could not do that after admitting openly he had reasonable doubts. He screwed himself by saying out loud the one thing that incriminated his intent. To ignore the law. Which was admitting he had reasonable doubt. That was all that law requires an automatic acquittal. It means they all had reasonable doubt. But he chose to ignore that and go with his feelings. Not the law. That would make a case for Clancy to claim she got an unfair trial. It adds to the legal reasoning to have the case dismissed.
Professor Turley is upset because Reddington pushed the boundary of what he could legally say about the jury. I would concede that there IS room to argue Reddington may have poisoned the jury poll because of his comments due to the fact that the case is going to be retried. To be fair to Turley he is partly correct. It may have been unethical or unprofessional, but only because Reddington did, as Turley openly admits, his job to fiercely defend his client. He can at least emphasize with that view.
However this is about the law, not feelings or offense about a lawyer pushing the absolute limits.
Reddington recently challenged Turley to a public debate because, from his vantage point, the rule violation did not come from the defense—it came from the juror.
Reddington intends to use the statements from the other 11 jurors to file a motion to dismiss the case. His logic is that the trial didn’t end in a legitimate deadlock; it ended because a juror committed misconduct by actively refusing to follow the judge’s instructions.>/b> In Reddington’s eyes, exposing a broken mechanic in the tribunal isn’t “prejudicing” a case—it is defending his client against an unconstitutional proceeding.
Once a judge officially declares a mistrial and dismisses the jury, the jurors become ordinary citizens. They are no longer under the court’s strict rules of isolation, and the lawyers are no longer under a gag order regarding the trial’s outcome.
Because Reddington did not release the juror’s name, address, or face, he did not violate any criminal harassment or doxxing statutes. He was exercising his First Amendment right to express frustration to the media. Turley is upset that the juror’s identity may be exposed by someone else and he wants to blame Reddington. It’s ironic because it flies in the face of Turley’s own views about free speech and how some consequences are sometimes inevitable.
Under the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.6 restricts lawyers from making public, out-of-court statements that have a “substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding.” But because the trial was over and jurors were no longer impaneled and under court rules Reddington was free to be critical of the lone juror. But…because the state intends to retry Lindsay Clancy, polluting the local jury pool by publicly attacking the mechanics of the first jury could be viewed as highly improper. Again…BUT it’s not just Reddington’s criticism that is the problem is everyone else talking about it..
What Turley did NOT say in his article is that Reddington subsequently walked back his most aggressive language, clarifying that he respects the constitutional right of a holdout juror. He argues that his public comments were not an attack on the jury system, but rather an exposure of a specific juror who abused the system by failing to apply the law as instructed.
Was Reddington’s ire and criticism of the lone juror justified? Yes.
According to notes sent by the jury foreperson and subsequent media interviews by three fellow jurors, the lone holdout admitted he had reasonable doubt about Clancy’s criminal responsibility, yet refused to vote for an acquittal. Jurors even noted he stopped participating in deliberations and just scrolled on his phone. From Reddington’s perspective as a defense attorney, a juror who openly admitsthere is reasonable doubt but refuses to acquit is violating their oath and breaking the fundamental rules of criminal law.
Turley never addresses this critical point. He’s only upset about Reddington legally expressing his frustration with that juror. It also expose the fact that the defense, Reddington, was indeed successful in proving reasonable doubt to 12 jurors, one chose to ignore the law and the judge’s instructions because he feltshe was guilty regardless of his reasonable doubt.
X. Must be nice living in your head with Peter Pan and the Easter bunny.
It must be nice not being able to discuss the facts like a grown adult.
Not all adults are grown, nor are all grown persons adults.
Just look at this blog. And your comments.
My comments are based on the facts. Not childish insults and weak come backs.
No they are not, X.
Your comments are constant attacks on Turley and other commenters, trying to pretend superiority when in reality, you are trying to ESTABLISH your notion of superiority by attempting to make other comments inferior to yours. You follow the media and then publish only those cherry-picked facts that might help you and you fool no one. Stop polluting this site, with honest lawyers and not wannabes.
OH, I RESCIND my comment. I meant to direct my criticism toward AI, which is your god.
Since I rescinded it, all is well. Move on.
George lives at home still with his 5 sisters. And mommy. get the picture?
“Rescind” as in “walked back,” like Reddington tried to do.
As usual you confuse criticism as an “attack”. Turley is absolutely fair game for criticism. Even you can’t deny that.
This has nothing to do with “superiority”. You just can’t admit you cannot argue on the facts. When you clearly can’t you resort to childish insults and weak ad hominem attacks.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. None.
george/X is absolutely fair game for criticism
Gee, thanks captain obvious. Did you think that one up all by yourself?
Insults and come backs? Obviously it hurts, then why respond you stupid cow?
George, one thing about your delsuional comments, they lack facts – you just lie.
Oh, did I mention, you’re not a (MA licensed) lawyer.
You haven’t provided anything to show what I posted is not factual. You either completely ignore it because you can’t offer a reasonable refutation.
You don’t have to be a lawyer to point out the facts.
You keep insulting and calling me names. You’re more frustrated than you care to admit because you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
You have no game in this argument.
YOU, yes YOU called Turley naive, disingenuous, dishonest, and hypocritical.
Why don’t you live by your own advice?
We tolerate you becaUse we must. Because Turley is man enough to put up with your little boy personality.
(or maybe you are a female pretending to be male)
Oh I see, you keep having problems with reading comprehension. It’s still criticism.
You don’t have to tolerate me at all. You can just ignore me, but for some reason you just can’t seem to. Big surprise. You just keep proving that you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about and all you have are pithy insults.
I’ve always adhered to the fact that Turley is always fair game for criticism. You just can’t handle the inconvenient truth.
” he admitted” is not fact, it is hearsay
You present it as fact because you believe ( emotion) what other jurors summarized what the lone dissenting juror said or didn’t say.
YOU are dealing in emotion not fact.
george
My comments are based on the facts.
_________________________
Show the proof that Prez Trump will keep the new 747-8.
FACT!
Huh? That’s not a fact. That’s a request.
You’re off topic by the way.
Did he really say Clancy was a ‘damn good mother’ who did ‘nothing wrong’” ? I thought the trial was about the murder of her 3 defenseless babies at her hands? Maybe the “hold out” juror was thinking the same thing? Then again didn’t Mass sign a bill providing abortion up to birth? Amazing how these states will consider the death of innocent babies but a convicted murderer is safe from a death penalty.
Of course, I disagree with the professor. His position is largely emotional—an outburst rather than a logical argument. Let’s not forget that Reddington’s criticism of the juror after the mistrial was simply venting about the fact that this juror was breaking the law and failing to follow instructions. Turley didn’t really address that point; he only tepidly acknowledged there was a reason to argue about the legality of what the juror did.
Nobody is saying it was okay to murder those children. Nobody—not even the jurors. We already know what the jury went through, and it was literally acknowledged that the holdout openly admitted he had reasonable doubt but chose not to adhere to the rules. Turley is big on sticking to the rules, yet this juror was clearly ignoring both the judge’s instructions and the law.Then there are the backbenchers heaping rants upon liberal jurors—professional nurses who understood the issue better than most people here. They explicitly acknowledged that the murder of the children was wrong and that she was guilty of killing her kids. However, the law is clear: if there is reasonable doubt, they must acquit. It may feel reprehensible and wrong to do so, but everyone else is operating on bias and emotion rather than the law.
It is similar to the Luigi Mangione case. Everyone wanted to acquit him regardless of his actions, except for those who wanted to hold him accountable strictly to the law. The same types of people are now in full support of that lone juror basing his reasoning on personal feelings instead of the legal framework.
Turley is upset that a lawyer was critical of a juror after a mistrial was declared. It is neither illegal nor wrong; the attorney was just expressing frustration. Turley, acting as the ‘civility guy,’ was merely upset that Reddington wasn’t more ‘professional.’ Yet, he never discusses the core problem: the juror’s refusal to follow the law and the judge’s instructions. Three of the jurors who spoke out confirmed that the lone holdout admitted to having reasonable doubt but chose to ignore it. Eleven agreed that there was reasonable doubt, but one chose to ignore his own assessment and outright refused to follow the law.
In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, juror service is a strict legal obligation governed by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 234A. When a juror is impaneled, they take an oath promising to well and truly try the issue between the Commonwealth and the defendant according to the evidence. Refusing to apply the law as given by the judge violates this oath.
Under the Massachusetts Model Jury Instructions, judges explicitly charge juries that they are the sole judges of the facts, but they must accept the law as the judge dictates it. In criminal cases, the standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If a juror leaves deliberations with an “abiding conviction to a moral certainty” that a doubt exists, Massachusetts law dictates they are legally required to acquit—they do not have the legal authority to vote “guilty” anyway out of emotional frustration.
Under Mass. Gen. Laws c. 234A, § 39, a judge has the power to conduct an in camera (private) hearing and actively discharge a deliberating juror if there is a compelling reason or evidence of misconduct. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) established in Commonwealth v. Torres (2009) that while a judge cannot remove a juror for simply disagreeing with the majority, a juror can be legally discharged if it is proven they are unwilling or unable to apply the court’s legal instructions. This is exactly why the judge in the Clancy case had to individually question the jurors when the impasse arose.
Turley is only upset because Reddington expressed his frustration to the media on a lone juror. Once the court declared a mistrial Reddington had every right to express his criticism however “detestable” it was to Turley.
The juror was breaking the law by voting his conscience?
Is he allowed to vote his conscience?
He broke the law because he admitted he had reasonable doubt and ignored it. By law he was required to acquit. He knew that. Every juror knew that. But he chose to ignore what the law required. He took a legally binding oath to follow the law. His feelings are irrelevant. The facts are. And the fact is he openly admitted he indeed had reasonable doubt. So he was required by law to acquit.
He would have been free from the kind of scrutiny he is getting if he kept his mouth shut about having a reasonable doubt. Obviously he didn’t and that is what started this whole mess. What matters is he openly admitted to having reasonable doubt. Three jurors confirmed it. That gives Reddington enough reason to have the case dismissed. Because Clancy despite murdering her kids which I don’t deny or condone, got an unfair trial.
It was Clancy’s dead children that got an unfair trial.
The kids were not on trial. Nobody, absolutely nobody is saying those kids deserved to die or that the killing of the children was not wrong. Absolutely nobody. What is absolutely relevant is what the law requires for he to be convicted and this is a jury trial. When jurors express or have reasonable doubt they MUST acquit. No matter how heinous or morally corrupt the crime is. Feelings have no place in a court of law. Period. Only facts. That is what nearly everyone is not grasping.
“Feelings” have no place in your criticism of Turley either, X-ie. You frequently tell us that Turley is “dishonest,” “weak,” “naive,” “disingenuous,” etc. Those are FEELINGS words, X, and YOU never produce facts to prove that anything Turley said is “dishonest,” “weak,” “naive,” “disingenuous,”
See how that works, X?
ROFL!!
Nope. That’s just criticism. Turley is a journalists who publishes articles and he’s absolutely fair game for all kinds of criticism, mockery, or ridicule.
I’m not a juror required by law to judge turley only on facts. I can criticize Turley for whatever reason. YOU can’t seem to handle that simple truth.
Obviously you have no idea how that works.
HAHAHAHAH George you fool
X is dishonest, hypocritical, naive, and weak. He extracts clever sentences from AI and claims them as his own.
We even proved it by copying the similar text on AI.
There you go, georgie. We are not engaging in ad hominem or childish insults. We are just engaging in criticism. So there.
Now beget thou to the convent.
You’re trying too hard anonymous. Way too hard. We? LOL!! You don’t have anything to offer besides insults. That’s pretty sad. Plus the childish taunts are hilarious.
More pedantic sophistry. I was saying that the trial was not fair to the murdered children for whom the trial was supposed to provide justice. But of course you knew that but chose to misdirect by pretending to think that I was saying the kids were on trial. So tiresome.
No, you saying the trial is unfair to the children is irrelevant. The trial is about the crime and determining if the mother was sane or not at the time it was committed. The core issue regarding this case is whether the jury believes the mother was sane enough to be found guilty of the crime. Obviously because the law requires that if there is reasonable doubt a jury member MUST acquit. 12 found reasonable doubt. ONE chose to ignore that openly and tell others he was not going to accept his own admission that he had reasonable doubt and decide on his own personal opinion.
That is not what the law requires of a jury. There are rules for a reason. If this juror admitted he had reasonable doubt and chose not to follow the law. Then the defendant did NOT get a fair trial. Therefore violating her constitutional right. That’s a problem. This is being decided on the facts and the law. Not feelings or the children.
Broke the law? Um… got some MA laws to prove that? MGL 234 does cut it. Oath then eh?
I already posted the law further up thread. Or….you can look them up yourself.
“What matter is he openly admitted to having reasonable doub”- but this means having to take on faith that the forewoman is telling the truth
He also requested the judge repeat the definition of reasonable doubt and the forewoman refused to support his request.
Why should I take the forewoman’s word as his truth and not her spinning?
Until it comes from his mouth I don’t believe any of the forewoman claims.
It wasn’t just the forewoman, it was all the other jurors. Three have already claimed to the press exactly what the lone juror did. There’s no longer doubt that he indeed expressed reasonable doubt.
And one juror said there were a few bullies on the jury
How do any of us know they did not try to bully others?
We weren’t there and i am not taking any of their words for fact
They claimed to the press well then it just be true!
While your post is “factual” in many aspects you gloss over the grandstanding and putting the full weight of the MOB as a warning to ANY juror who would do what they thought was right! You state that a juror can be legally discharged which is
simply nonsense no matter what the law for a particular region of the United States mandates. Go and be “informed” about the ability for jury nullification. Nullification that was sanctioned by our many of our Founders that including Jefferson, Hamilton and Adams just to name a few! Soooo….. YOUR statement that ….”the attorney was just expressing frustration” is simply nonsense and playing to the tyranny of the MOB is always a dangerous and degrading position! YOU seem educated
in many aspects of jurisprudence but evidently you forsake the idea that a jury system is meant to be a difficult hurdle to overcome but I would offer that before we take someone’s life, liberty or pursuit of happiness away from them that “hurdle”
is not only a proper one, but a moral one!
Clearly, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Putting ‘factual’ in quotation marks to dismiss actual facts doesn’t change reality. You cannot refute that these are hard facts—and they matter.
“You claim that a juror being legally discharged is ‘simply nonsense, no matter what the law mandates.’ That is an absurd statement.”
It is exactly what the law states, not me. A juror absolutely can be discharged for refusing to follow the law or the judge’s instructions. I literally posted the specific Massachusetts law that dictates exactly that.
You seriously need to educate yourself on what jury nullification actually is. For jury nullification to be legally binding, the entire jury must agree on the verdict—not a single, lone holdout. That’s a hung jury. If all 12 jurors chose to acquit Clancy despite the evidence and did not express any doubt about the facts, that would be jury nullification.
Reddington expressing his frustration is not illegal. Your emotional ‘mob’ is completely irrelevant. What matters here is what the law requires. Emotions do not matter. The only thing that matters is the facts according to the law.
Morality has no place in a court of law. That is exactly what you and the rest of your ‘mob’ completely fail to comprehend. The law does not care about your morality or your feelings; it only cares about the facts. Even Turley would tell you this. You argue in a courtroom based on facts and the law—not morality, feelings, or personal opinions.
One juror—just one—who swore under oath to follow the law and the judge’s instructions chose not to. That single juror admitted to having reasonable doubt but chose to ignore it, basing his vote entirely on personal opinion. That is a direct violation of what the law requires, and a violation of the very oath he swore to uphold when he was impaneled.
The undeniable facts are that 12 jurors expressed reasonable doubt, but one chose to ignore it because he couldn’t stomach the idea of acquitting a woman who killed her children. He based his decision entirely on emotion, completely disregarding the facts that led him to openly admit he had reasonable doubt in the first place. Under the law, that jury was required by law to acquit under the insanity rule.
What complete nonsense George.
Thanks for confirming that have absolutely no facts to refute what I posted. None.
“He admitted to reasonable Doubt” says other jurors.
That is not a statement of fact, that is hearsay. You are continually presenting other jurors’ claims of what he said as if it is fact.
Google is your friend. Video interviews show them stating he had admitted having reasonable doubt.
GSX: “Let’s not forget that Reddington’s criticism of the juror after the mistrial was simply venting about the fact that this juror was breaking the law and failing to follow instructions. “
So many words with so much garbage and ignorance. Let me take only the above words. The juror was not “breaking the law.” Didn’t you ever hear of jury nullification? Of course not. I’m not sure the words of this juror fit nullification, but they are not criminal and meet the 6th Amendment requirement of trial by an *impartial* jury. By saying the juror was breaking the law, Reddington ( or any other member of the court ), you are trying to dispel the idea that a jury should be impartial.
S. Meyer, do YOU know what jury nullification is? Please explain to us what exactly jury nullification is and how it works.
It’s so obvious you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. None.
Federal and state courts have consistently held that a juror has no legal authority to manufacture their own version of the law. If a judge discovers during deliberations that a juror is actively engaging in nullification or refusing to follow instructions, the judge can legally dismiss that juror immediately.
This juror openly admitted to to their jurors he had reasonable doubt. By law once that is in play he is required to acquit. Not ignore his doubt.
Do you even know what an “impartial jury” means. It does not mean only part of the jury can decide. It means a jury must be neutral, free of personal bias and feelings. Only the facts must be considered.
By saying the juror who is breaking the law is NOT being impartial based on the fact that he admitted to having reasonable doubt and choosing to ignore his doubt in favor of a personal view. That is breaking his binding oath and the judge’s instructions.
GSX: You don’t know what jury nullification is, but you can search and find the cases where jury nullification occurred. I do not believe that is what happened in this case, but it shows the wide latitude a jury has. You also don’t understand what impartial means. The meaning of an impartial jury exists in our history, since the time the Constitution was written, and I believe further defined in an early Supreme Court case.
The juror did what his conscience demanded. You have no conscience or morality, so you will disagree with the juror. I am not sure what I would have decided since I didn’t hear all the arguments, but I guess based on what I do know, that, like the lone juror, I too would have stood alone.
The judge has options, but he has to be careful not to step over the line. Take note: no matter his feelings, he was wise not to replace the juror. I’ve been on a jury where I thought I would be the lone juror demanding a conviction because I believe in the law, but when I heard the defendant, I realized I might be the lone juror to consider her innocent (despite the videotape of the theft). This jury fought for a long time over a relatively inconsequential case, finally finding her innocent despite the videotape. I was so dismayed that the case came to trial that I spoke to the judge, and he agreed.
I give the lone juror phenomenal credit and a loud cheer.
S. Meyer, you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. I showed you exactly what jury nullification is. You didn’t explain it yourself at all.
The jury doesn’t have “wide latitude” they are bound by the law and the judge’s instructions. That’s it.
They can’t vote their conscious Willy nilly, they are only allowed to look at the facts.
Your little “i was a juror” story irrelevant.
S. Meyer as always, you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about, none at all.
You don’t know what jury nullification is or what an impartial jury is. Good grief man.
GSX: You know nothing of value. Jury nullification demonstrates how much latitude a jury has. That you don’t recognize that proves you are an ignoramus.
The relevance of the story was only to applaud a juror for sticking to his guns where one’s belief is concerned.
I have shown you to be a fool, but the opposite has never happened and never will. You are simply too stupid. Live with it.
Don’t think that because you argue with a few smart bloggers that you are smart as well. You aren’t, but you are a useful idiot for them to promote their agenda.
“Jury nullification demonstrates how much latitude a jury has. That you don’t recognize that proves you are an ignoramus.”
Again. You have absolutely zero clue what you’re talking about.
The jury has as much latitude as the judge allows. Or what the law says. That’s it. You have not explained at all what Jury nullification is or what an impartial jury is. Because you don’t know.
You rarely make sense and when you are way in over your head your start saying the craziest things to look competent.
You have no idea what you’re doing. None.
GSX: “The jury has as much latitude as the judge allows.”
When it comes to conscience in the final decision, the juror has all the power and the judge none. But to your point about Judges, no, you cannot pee on the jury, whether your name be X, Svelaz, George, Peter Hill/Shill, or any other names or anonymous aliases you have used in the past and use in the present. The one true thing is that we can’t have you removed from the blog, but we can force you to eventually change your name or add an extra name because your reputation is sunk in a West Hollywood restroom.