Lindsay Clancy attorney Kevin Reddington apparently isn't finished with the lone juror who refused to give him the verdict he wanted.
Nearly a week after Clancy's sensational murder trial ended in a mistrial, Reddington went on Fox News and once again accused the holdout juror of refusing to follow the law.
"I was angry because of his refusal to follow the law," Reddington told Fox News in an interview published Thursday. "That's what I was angry about."
He went further, saying the other jurors had been "robbed" and that Clancy "deserved to have the verdict that she was entitled to."
That's an extraordinary way for a defense attorney to talk about a citizen whose job was not to give Clancy, Reddington or the other 11 jurors the verdict they wanted.
His job was to reach his own verdict based on the evidence and the judge's instructions.
And there's another problem with Reddington's attack. The public still hasn't heard the holdout juror's side of what happened. And it probably won’t, given the mortifying display of controversy about the case.
While the lone holdout juror has not publicly explained his reasoning, several members of the 11-person majority have gone on television to give their version of what happened behind closed doors.
As RedState's Teri Christoph explained, there is one thing that the holdout juror did that seemed to enrage the others: He felt duty-bound to only follow the evidence.
Maybe the holdout wasn’t “playing detective” at all. Maybe he was the only person in that jury room willing to force everyone else to confront, in the most visceral way possible, exactly what Lindsay Clancy did to Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months.
Yet Reddington has already accused him of having an "agenda," claimed he "robbed" Clancy, and, immediately after the mistrial, delivered this parting shot: "I hope that guy can sleep well at night."
That's not exactly a defense of the sanctity and independence of the jury room.
Maybe it’s the attorney who should tread lightly when characterizing a juror who did not agree with the defense’s argument.
There's an unmistakable irony in Reddington accusing the holdout of failing to apply the law correctly.
Let's take the astounding statement by one juror that, “He would not interact with us... He had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children."
Female juror in the Lindsay Clancy trial BLASTS the lone male holdout that led to a mistrial:
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) September 9, 2026
“He had the hardest time getting over the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children.” pic.twitter.com/rHswqTuMNU
That is the central fact of the case. And “viciously” there is probably doing a lot more work than that juror thinks.
Listen to how the foreperson Roni Carlson publicly explained her own conclusion. She pointed to Clancy's journals and testimony describing her as a loving mother.
From that, she said: "So she had to have snapped, and not known what she was doing."
"To me, it was proof that she didn't know what she was doing," she added.
But that isn't what those facts necessarily prove. Evidence that Clancy loved her children could certainly be weighed with all the other evidence concerning her mental condition. It does not logically establish, by itself, that she was legally insane when she killed them.
The legal question wasn't whether Clancy had previously been a good mother. It wasn't whether jurors sympathized with her. And it wasn't whether killing children seemed so incomprehensible that a loving mother "had to have snapped."
The jury had to determine criminal responsibility under the law based on the evidence presented in court.
Now consider what jurors who sided with Reddington's client have admitted about their own deliberations. One juror, Paula Devlin, described a dispute over Clancy's medications and toxicology results.
The holdout apparently had questions about the drugs. So what happened? According to Devlin, the jurors went back to the South Shore Hospital toxicology report. Then the nurses on the jury weighed in.
"The nurses in the room spoke to that and talked to that," she said.
And when the holdout refused to accept what those nurses were telling him? Devlin complained that he "completely disregarded the information that they gave."
How dare he rely on the evidence that was presented in court and only the evidence in presented in court!
You know, just like the judge instructed the jurors to do. Judge Sullivan's instructions reportedly could hardly have been clearer: "If somebody has a question in that jury room, you are not allowed to try and answer it by anything other than through the exhibits and evidence you've heard."
There is another revealing comment from juror Kellie Farina. Farina criticized prosecutors for being "harsh," "biased," "unprofessional" and "cold."
She seems to be complaining that the prosecution didn't call character witnesses to assert Clancy was a "good mom." But it’s not the prosecution’s job to call character witnesses to support the defense’s claims.
So, any complaints about the lack of evidence saying that Lindsay Clancy was a “good mom” (the stubborn fact that she admitted to killing her children aside) is not admissible as a basis to render a “not guilty” verdict.
Therefore, the defense attorney is plausibly acting in a way that we have seen far too often in politics: Accuse your opponents of what your own side may be doing.
If anything, the lone holdout juror seems to have been the one juror who did follow the law. And now an attorney appears to be muddling that fact.
It is one thing to be a defense attorney and to litigate your side of a case; it is quite another to sully the public's minds about what constitutes justice.