PLYMOUTH, Mass. — Lindsay Clancy's defense attorney Kevin Reddington addressed claims that he altered his strategy in court on Tuesday by questioning whether prosecutors had proven that his client killed her three children. Reddington asserted that he has consistently challenged the strength of the Commonwealth’s case since the beginning. In an interview with Fox News contributor Billy Bush on the "Hot Mics" podcast, Reddington described the investigation into Clancy as "horrific" and "atrocious," emphasizing that prosecutors had not provided sufficient evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
"That’s exactly what I was saying," Reddington stated during the interview, following Clancy's return to court after her mistrial. He noted that he had made similar arguments in his closing statements to the jury and in prior motions.
Reddington was advocating for a Rule 25 motion, which seeks a required finding of not guilty, arguing that the evidence presented at trial was inadequate to support a conviction. He questioned Judge William Sullivan in court, asking, "Where’s the evidence that she did this?" and listing what he considered insufficient evidence and faulty statements.
Despite Reddington's comments attracting national attention, Judge Sullivan did not make any rulings and postponed oral arguments on other pending motions to November 2, which left some observers, including Bush, dissatisfied with the lack of clarity.
Bush remarked that Reddington was seeking an immediate declaration of Clancy's not criminally responsible status based on the insufficiency of evidence, which he considered a stretch. Reddington had also brought in double jeopardy expert Martin Weinberg, but that aspect was also deferred to November 2. Additionally, issues regarding alleged juror misconduct remained unresolved as Judge Sullivan impounded that information.
Sullivan declared a mistrial on September 4 after jurors were unable to reach a verdict following approximately a week of deliberations. Rule 25 motions are common but rarely successful, according to Carol Erskine, a retired Massachusetts judge and child welfare advocate who has been monitoring the case. She explained that Reddington was arguing that the prosecution did not prove each element of the case as required by law and that he had requested a Bowden instruction, which was denied, challenging the thoroughness of the police investigation.
Plymouth County prosecutors criticized Reddington's arguments, labeling them as "laughable" and urging the judge to reject his motion. Clancy is scheduled to return to court on November 2 for a motions hearing, but a date for a potential retrial has not yet been established. Reddington has gained a following outside the courthouse, with Bush noting that he interacts with those covering the trial and has developed a national reputation, earning nicknames such as "Big Red" and "Shreddington." Bush mentioned that many women are supportive of Clancy and admire Reddington for his advocacy on her behalf.