PLYMOUTH, Mass. — Lindsay Clancy’s defense attorney appeared to change course Tuesday, legal analysts said, moving away from the trial argument that she was not criminally responsible because she experienced postpartum psychosis.
“Where is the evidence that she did this?” defense attorney Kevin Reddington asked Judge William Sullivan in court Tuesday. “Where is the evidence she did this?”
Reddington made the claim while asking Sullivan to issue a not-guilty finding after jurors failed to reach a verdict.
Lindsay Clancy looks toward jurors as Judge Sullivan asks them to begin a sixth day of deliberations. The jury resumed deliberations Thursday, Sept. 3, 2026. (Greg Derr/The Patriot Ledger)
“I submit to the court that there is no evidence she made any statements regarding the actual killing of the children, which forms the basis of the indictments,” Reddington said.
Plymouth County prosecutors pushed back, describing the assertion as “a laughable argument.” Still, the position represented a notable departure from how Reddington had previously presented the case.
WATCH: Kevin Reddington spends 8 minutes, 27 seconds attacking the allegation that Lindsay Clancy killed her kids
He cited what he characterized as shortcomings in the physical evidence, including questions involving blood, DNA, the timeline and the circumstances of Clancy’s suicide attempt, which left her paralyzed.
“For the first time we saw Kevin Reddington say that there’s reasonable doubt about whether Lindsay Clancy actually killed her children,” said former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani, who has closely followed the case. “He’s never said that in the courtroom or outside of it. In fact, at the start of the first trial, he offered to stipulate that Lindsay killed her three children.”
Callan, left, Dawson and Cora Clancy. The three children were killed at their home in Duxbury, Massachusetts, in January 2023. (Lindsay Marie Clancy/Facebook)
Sullivan declared a mistrial on Sept. 4 after jurors remained divided following about a week of deliberations. Several jurors have since spoken publicly, describing an 11-1 split in which only one man supported a murder conviction.
The other 11 jurors supported Reddington’s defense that Clancy was not guilty because of mental illness or a mental defect. He had argued that postpartum psychosis made her not criminally responsible for strangling her children with exercise bands.
Lindsay Clancy’s defense attorney, Kevin J. Reddington, speaks to the media outside Plymouth Superior Court on Wednesday, Aug. 26, 2026. Clancy is on trial for the January 2023 murders of her three children. (David McGlynn for News Media)
MORE STORY: Supreme Court Revives Deportations to Safe Third Countries
Only one juror voted for conviction. Reddington has called that juror an “obstructionist,” first last week when approached by News Media and again outside the courthouse Tuesday. During the hearing, he also questioned the prosecution’s case and the police investigation that followed the discovery of Clancy in the backyard with injuries that left her paralyzed.
Lindsay Clancy is shown at Plymouth County Superior Court. (Pool)
“This may simply be a defense attorney denying everything and using the kitchen-sink approach, hoping that one of these arguments will resonate with Judge Sullivan,” Rahmani said. “Or it could signal a change in defense strategy. Instead of relying solely on insanity or a lack-of-criminal-responsibility argument at a retrial, they could also present a third-party culpability defense, suggesting that someone else was the actual killer.”
Assistant Plymouth County District Attorney Jennifer Sprague enters prescription pills that had been prescribed to Lindsay Clancy into evidence on the first day of her trial. (Greg Derr/Pool/The Patriot Ledger)
Reddington’s remarks came during oral arguments on a Rule 25(b)(2) motion. The request asks Sullivan to overrule the deadlocked jury and enter a not-guilty finding on the grounds that the Commonwealth’s evidence was legally insufficient to support a conviction.
Such motions are common but rarely successful, said Carol Erskine, a retired Massachusetts judge and child welfare advocate who has been closely tracking the case.
Lindsay Clancy listens as her attorney, Kevin Reddington, cross-examines a witness about her cellphone during her murder trial at Plymouth Superior Court in Plymouth, Massachusetts, on Monday, Aug. 17, 2026. (Greg Derr/Pool The Patriot Ledger via AP)
“He is arguing that the prosecution failed to prove every element required under the law,” Erskine told News Media. “I understand why people may not grasp this, but under Rule 25(b)(2) case law, he had to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. He told the judge he requested a Bowden instruction and was denied, meaning he was also challenging the police investigation and search of the home. It’s a very nuanced argument.”
It’s also a different argument than the prior Rule 25 motion that Reddington filed at the end of Clancy’s mistrial, which Sullivan denied.
“I will say it was a total surprise that his strategy changed from the original 25(b)(2) motion,” Erskine said. “Did not expect it.”
Clancy is due back in court on Nov. 2 for another motion hearing. She has pending motions to dismiss the charges on double jeopardy grounds and to open an inquiry into the holdout juror.
A new trial has not yet been scheduled. Both the prosecution and the defense told the court they needed more time, and Reddington said that he’s not available to start one until June 2027.