Lindsay Clancy Lawyer Outlines Strategy Ahead of Retrial

Lindsay Clancy’s defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, is preparing a broad legal campaign aimed at preventing the Massachusetts mother from facing a second jury trial — and, ultimately, avoiding a prison sentence — as prosecutors decide whether to pursue the case again following last week’s mistrial.

Speaking with Fox News for the first time since jurors remained deadlocked after seven weeks of testimony, Reddington outlined several possible next steps. His strategy includes contesting a retrial, encouraging prosecutors to pursue lesser charges, requesting a judge-only trial and advocating for psychiatric care in place of incarceration.

Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial last week after the Norfolk Superior Court jury could not reach a unanimous decision.

Clancy has entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity in connection with the 2023 deaths of her three children. Prosecutors have not said publicly whether they intend to retry the case.

Reddington said his immediate focus will be a hearing later this month, where he plans to argue that another trial would violate Clancy’s constitutional protection against double jeopardy. He maintains that the mistrial was declared despite the defense’s objection. Should that argument fail, he said he wants Plymouth County District Attorney Tim Cruz to lower the charges to second-degree murder, which would allow Clancy to waive a jury and have a judge decide the case.

“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.

Rather than seek incarceration, the defense lawyer said he would pursue an outcome involving probation and court-ordered psychiatric treatment at a secure facility.

Reddington also defended his public comments about the jury’s lone holdout, dismissing claims that his remarks after the mistrial were intended to intimidate the juror.

“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.