Lindsay Clancy’s Lawyer Outlines Defense Strategy Ahead of Retrial After Mistrial

Kevin Reddington is preparing a broad and forceful legal push aimed at keeping Lindsay Clancy from facing a second jury — and, in the long run, from serving time in prison — as prosecutors consider whether to retry the Massachusetts mother following last week’s mistrial.

Speaking to Fox News for the first time since jurors deadlocked after seven weeks of testimony, Clancy’s attorney outlined several next steps: fight any retrial in court, urge prosecutors to lessen the charges, pursue a bench trial rather than another jury trial, and press for psychiatric care instead of incarceration.

The case ended without a verdict last week when a Norfolk Superior Court jury failed to reach unanimity, leading Judge William Sullivan to declare a mistrial.

Clancy has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity in connection with the 2023 deaths of her three children. Prosecutors have not said whether they intend to bring the case to trial again.

Reddington said his immediate focus is an argument scheduled for later this month, in which he plans to contend that a retrial would violate Clancy’s constitutional protection against double jeopardy because the mistrial was declared over the defense’s objection. If that challenge does not succeed, he said he hopes Plymouth County District Attorney Tim Cruz will agree to reduce the charges to second-degree murder, allowing Clancy to waive a jury and have the case decided by a judge.

“I would like to see Tim reduce it to a second degree… and fashion something where Lindsay gets the mental, physical help that she needs rather than criminal prosecution, because I would not ever, ever in a million years have that woman go to Framingham State Prison,” Reddington said.

Under that approach, Reddington said, he would pursue a resolution built around probation and required psychiatric treatment in a secure facility, rather than a prison sentence.

Reddington also defended his public criticism of the lone juror who held out, pushing back on claims that his comments after the mistrial were intended to intimidate.

“I was angry because of his refusal to follow the law,” Reddington told Fox News. “That’s what I was angry about. That’s why I felt that the other jurors, after their seven-week sacrifice, were robbed. That’s why I felt for Lindsay, because she deserved to have the verdict that she was entitled to.”

He said he would have supported the juror’s right to stand apart from the rest of the panel if the disagreement had been based solely on the evidence and the merits of the case.

“If this guy just said, ‘look, I think the government proved their case, and I’m not bending,’ I would be the first person to defend his right to do that because that’s the jury system,” Reddington insisted.

Reddington also renewed his call for President Donald Trump to weigh in, saying he hopes the president will personally urge Cruz not to pursue another trial.

“I’d like the president to pick up the phone and speak with Tim Cruz,” Reddington said.

“If you do that, that’d be great. I mean, they’re both Republicans.”

Reddington argued such a conversation would not be improper because the decision over whether to retry Clancy rests with the district attorney, calling it “an executive decision.”

Despite repeatedly criticizing Cruz in the days following the mistrial, Reddington also offered a pair of rare public concessions, saying he regretted accusing the district attorney of not knowing the names of Clancy’s three children and boasting that he had “crushed” him at trial.

“I had no right to accuse the man of not knowing the names of those kids and I regret that,” Reddington said.

Reddington also said he “probably should have used a different set of words” after declaring he had “crushed” Cruz, adding that he should have simply said he believed the defense presented the stronger case while emphasizing that the burden of proof rested with the prosecution.

The comments mark one of Reddington’s first public acknowledgments that he went too far in some of his post-trial remarks, even as he continues to press for a resolution that prioritizes treatment over incarceration.