Attorney Kevin Reddington is mapping out a multi-front legal strategy to prevent his client, Lindsay Clancy, from facing a second trial and, if possible, from serving prison time, following last month’s mistrial in Norfolk Superior Court.
A jury deadlocked after seven weeks of testimony, leading Judge William Sullivan to declare a mistrial. Clancy has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity to charges connected to the 2023 deaths of her three children. The Plymouth County District Attorney’s office has not said whether it will retry the case.
In his first interview with Fox News since the mistrial, Reddington said his immediate priority is a motion, set to be argued later this month, that a retrial would violate Clancy’s constitutional protection against double jeopardy, since the mistrial was declared over the defense’s objection.
If that motion fails, Reddington said he hopes District Attorney Tim Cruz will agree to reduce the charges to second-degree murder, which would allow Clancy to waive her right to a jury and have the case decided by a judge instead.
“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.
He said he would push for a sentence built around probation and mandatory psychiatric treatment at a secure facility rather than incarceration.
Defending the Criticism of the Holdout Juror
Reddington also defended his earlier public criticism of the lone juror who prevented a unanimous verdict, rejecting the notion that his remarks amounted to intimidation.
“I was angry because of his refusal to follow the law,” Reddington said. “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 his criticism would not have applied had the juror simply disagreed with the other 11 on 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 said.
A Call to the President
Reddington renewed his hope that President Donald Trump would personally contact Cruz to urge against a retrial, noting that both men are Republicans.
“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 call would not be improper because the decision to retry Clancy is, in his words, “an executive decision” resting solely with the district attorney.
Rare Concessions
Despite his repeated criticism of Cruz since the mistrial, Reddington offered two public concessions in the interview. He said he regretted accusing Cruz of not knowing the names of Clancy’s three children.
“I had no right to accuse the man of not knowing the names of those kids and I regret that,” Reddington said.
He also said he “probably should have used a different set of words” after previously declaring he had “crushed” Cruz at trial, adding that he should have simply said the defense presented the stronger case while noting the burden of proof rested with the prosecution.
