Defense attorney Kevin Reddington made a dramatic last-ditch effort in Lindsay Clancy’s trial, arguing that the lone juror preventing a verdict was prejudiced against people living with mental illness or disabilities.
On Friday, Reddington rushed an emergency appeal to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, seeking to halt the proceedings and require jurors to keep deliberating after they reported an 11-1 split. Judge William Sullivan had declared a mistrial, but gave the defense one hour to challenge the decision.
In the emergency filing, Reddington claimed the holdout juror appeared to harbor “a bias against those who suffer from debilitating mental illness.”
The veteran lawyer argued that ending the Lindsay Clancy case without a verdict was unnecessary, writing that a “mistrial at this point is entirely avoidable, but only if the court does its job.”
Reddington also invoked the Americans with Disabilities Act in his request to Judge Sullivan, saying he believed there was “a clear and present danger” that the holdout juror had taken an unmovable stance “regardless of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”
The unusual legal maneuver quickly sparked debate, with critics questioning what role the Disabilities Act could play in jury deliberations and supporters saying Reddington was simply exhausting every possible avenue for his client.
Journalist Gerry Callahan sharply criticized the tactic, writing: “The Disabilities Act? Reddington is desperate and shameless. I wouldn’t be surprised to hear him ask for sympathy for Clancy because all her kids are dead.”
Court TV managing editor Cathy Russon offered a different view on X, posting: “No one can ever accuse Kevin Reddington of not doing everything he possibly can for his client.”
Attorney Jason Goldman, who is representing convicted murderer Bryan Kohberger in his ongoing appeal, told Our News Outlet that Reddington’s efforts were an ‘extreme long shot’ to try and save his case.
‘It’s definitely a hail Mary,’ Goldman said.
Clancy is pictured with her attorney Kevin Reddington on Friday morning. He was staunchly opposed to Judge William Sullivan’s decision to declare a mistria
Clancy was charged with murder for strangling her three children, Cora, five, Dawson, three, and eight-month-old Callan in 2023
Goldman explained that Reddington is ‘clearly confident this is an 11-1’ in his favor, and is trying a ‘long shot’ to try and secure a victory.
Goldman added that the legal precedent for trying to remove a juror at the 11th hour is ‘few and far between’, but ‘there is no downside’ for Reddington at this point.
‘I can’t imagine it working, but the judge is hearing it to try and protect the record. (The judge) is being extra cautious’ in case of a future appeal, he said.
Reddington’s last-ditch legal filing came after over 37 hours of deliberations from the jury, which had previously sent notes to Sullivan on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday saying they were unable to reach a unanimous verdict.
Reddington must now appeal to Massachusetts’ Supreme Court for an emergency stay. If he is successful, the same jury could be sent back to deliberate the case yet again. If Reddington fails, Clancy faces a grueling retrial.
She is on trial for killing her three children, Cora, five, Dawson, three, and eight-month-old Callan, at her home in Duxbury, Massachusetts, in 2023.
Attorney Jason Goldman, who is representing convicted murderer Bryan Kohberger in his ongoing appeal, told Our News Outlet that Reddington’s efforts were an ‘extreme long shot’ to try and save his case
She admitted to killing her children but pleaded not guilty to murder by reason of insanity, citing postpartum psychosis as a result of overmedication.
A few moments before the mistrial was declared, Reddington suggested to Judge Sullivan that he still had the power to send the jury back out to deliberate again one final time.
The panel could not agree on whether Clancy, 36, is guilty of murder, manslaughter, or not criminally responsible for her actions by Friday morning.
Prosecutors pushed for a mistrial and will likely want to retry Clancy, but have yet to offer further insight into possible future plans.
During the sensational five weeks of testimony, prosecutors argued the killings were intentional and well planned, not the work of someone who had lost control.
