Kevin Reddington is laying out an aggressive, multi-pronged strategy to keep Lindsay Clancy from facing another jury — and, ultimately, from going to prison — as prosecutors weigh whether to retry the Massachusetts mother after last month’s mistrial.
In his first interview with Fox News since the jury deadlocked after seven weeks of testimony, Clancy’s attorney detailed his plans to challenge any retrial in court, push prosecutors to reduce the charges, seek a bench trial instead of a jury trial and argue for psychiatric treatment rather than incarceration.
A Norfolk Superior Court jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict last month, prompting Judge William Sullivan to declare a mistrial.
Clancy has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity to charges stemming from the 2023 deaths of her three children. Prosecutors have not yet announced whether they will retry the case.
LINDSAY CLANCY JUROR WHO BACKED THE DEFENSE ALSO PUBLICLY CHEERED KAREN READ’S ACQUITTAL
Reddington said his first priority is arguing later this month that a retrial would violate Clancy’s constitutional protection against double jeopardy because the mistrial was declared over the defense’s objection. If that effort fails, he said he hopes Plymouth County District Attorney Tim Cruz will reduce the charges to second-degree murder, so Clancy could waive her right to a jury trial and instead have her 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.
He said he would seek a sentence centered on probation and mandatory psychiatric treatment in a secure facility rather than incarceration.
LINDSAY CLANCY LAWYER SAYS HE PLANS NEW MOTION TO DISMISS AFTER JURORS SPEAK OUT ON MISTRIAL: REPORT
Reddington also stood by his criticism of the lone holdout juror, rejecting accusations that his post-trial remarks amounted to intimidation.
“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 added that he would have defended the juror’s right to hold firm if he had simply disagreed with the other 11 jurors 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 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.
