Defense attorney Kevin Reddington appears to be moving from zealous advocacy to virtual stalking in the Lindsay Clancy case. Reddington is seeking phone records, surveillance, and criminal records of Michael Desronvil, the now-identified juror who held out in the 11-1 hung jury decision. Reddington’s demand follows his unprofessional attack on the juror on the courthouse steps after the trial.

In his filing, Kevin Reddington seeks to question Desronvil after reviewing his records to see whether he lied on his juror questionnaire, violated court rules by using his cellphone in the jury room, and failed to pay attention during jury deliberations.

The demand is highly unusual. Occasionally, defense counsel will raise later-discovered information on possible juror misconduct to challenge a criminal conviction. We discussed juror misconduct allegations in high-profile cases involving Ghislaine Maxwell, Roger Stone, and Derek Chauvin.

The First Circuit overturned the sentence of Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev due to juror bias.  Nevertheless, I have been critical of judges who turn a blind eye to juror bias, including false answers on jury forms.

However, most such cases do not result in overturned convictions, as shown in the Maxwell, Stone, and Chauvin cases.

What is different here is that there was no conviction and a new trial is likely to be scheduled. Reddington has been demanding that the Court declare his client acquitted, a move that would contravene both precedent and logic.

Moreover, Reddington himself has shown the danger of this course. Reddington undermined the filings after his unhinged attack on this juror after the trial. After fueling the rage against this juror (who had to go into hiding with his wife), Reddington is seeking the assistance of the Court to continue to pummel and punish a juror who had the temerity to reject his arguments in court.

It is also a slippery slope. Will Judge William Sullivan allow both sides to look at all of the phone records of all of the jurors as well as delve into their backgrounds?

If the court were to open up these deliberations, it could result in a cascading disaster. Some jurors suggested they viewed the case as a vehicle for sending a message as part of a movement supporting mothers like Clancy. That is also a concerning element in the jury deliberation that could lead to demands for questioning from the prosecution.

My past criticism of Reddington followed positive comments about his performance at trial. I felt that he did a better job than the prosecution until the very end when his summation was rambling and confusing. However, I felt his attack on the juror crossed the line for counsel. As a criminal defense attorney, I would never have contemplated such a reckless act. In an age of rage where people are routinely doxxed and harassed, it was both irresponsible and dangerous.

It is not uncommon for counsel to ask to question or poll jurors during or immediately after a trial. Reddington attacked this juror in the courtroom and even suggested that he was prejudiced against disabled individuals.

The combination of Reddington’s attacks in front of the courthouse and these new measures would send a chilling message to jurors in the next trial. It asks the court to join the mobbing of his holdout.

It sends a disturbing message to future jurors in high-profile cases that anonymity means nothing when you stand against the will of the majority. Imagine if this juror was the only holdout against conviction. Twelve Angry Men would have been a bit less inspiring if Henry Fonda were hauled first before the public and then the Court for his refusal to convict.

However, I have also been critical of Judge Sullivan, whom I also complimented throughout the trial for his skill and rulings. I was gobsmacked that Sullivan did not issue an immediate public rebuke of Reddington for attacking this juror.

Judge Sullivan will now have to address these issues in the upcoming hearing. He should make fast work of these latest motions. The prosecution is expected to seek a new trial. If so, the greatest concern may be a rogue counsel rather than a rogue juror.

Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.“