The Patriot Post® · Lindsay Clancy’s Lawyer Is Poisoning the Judicial System

Pop culture has glorified lawyers who overcome all odds and evidence to win a case. These characters, regardless of who they defend or the moral circumstances, can typically blend sharp intelligence and irresistible charm to get their client out of whatever hole he got himself into. Kevin Reddington is the staunch opposite of these characters.

Reddington found his way onto national airwaves by being the defense attorney of Lindsay Clancy, a woman who strangled her three children and pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. At first, nobody gave Reddington a second thought. Someone had to be her lawyer, and the postpartum psychosis argument he presented, while morally objectionable, was the only realistic way to argue the case from that perspective. It was virtually impossible to prove that Clancy didn’t commit the crime, so he took the next logical option. That is the business he is in. He has to do the job he was hired to do. He succeeded in getting a mistrial.

However, Reddington and his defense become problematic when he leaned into the highly public nature of this case and the largely brainless group of Clancy supporters.

His greatest offense by far was attacking the sole juror who voted that Clancy was guilty.

“The forelady of the jury, I was so proud when she indicated ... that one person would not listen to the law, and then she came back immediately, stating that this is 11 to 1 for an acquittal, there was one individual who recognized there was reasonable doubt, and refused to apply the law,” Reddignton said. “They know that they were robbed by one man for whatever his agenda was, who stole seven weeks of the life of these other jurors.”

On top of blatant accusations of time wasting and refusal to apply the law, he even maintained that not being convinced by his arguments was equivalent to leaving a racist on the jury.

This conduct is incredibly poor for a defense attorney. As a general rule, lawyers fight as hard as they can to win the case within the frameworks of the judicial system. They are required to be cordial and respectful to the opposition, the presiding judge, and especially the jury. It is a cardinal sin to attack members of the jury.

Furthermore, given the public nature of the case and how easy it is for internet sleuths to find people, these attacks have painted a massive target on the lone juror’s back. The damage this man may sustain because of the defense attorney’s pettiness could be devastating.

Reddington is also encouraging the social media lunacy: “Regarding the people on the internet, you know, I certainly don’t dismiss them. It’s amazing what people on TikTok and on Instagram — I do know those things, you know — it’s amazing how they’re able to ferret out facts, and they do investigations.”

As if it’s not bad enough that he is attempting to help a murderer go free, he is knowingly attempting to ruin those in his way.

Not only does the lead defense attorney in this case disregard the livelihoods of jury members who are legally supposed to remain personally unaffected by any case they decide, but the other jurors came out to berate the lone holdout.

While a few among the jury were certainly more respectful, one juror called the only dissenter “arrogant” and complained, “He really did not take anything that anybody said.” Another was quoted as saying, “He had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children.”

Yes, that was the point of the trial.

Yet this woman phrased her complaint in a way that portrays getting over violent, premeditated child murder like getting over eating a food you don’t like. It is utterly ludicrous.

As part of the jury in a court of law, one must act as unbiased as possible and interpret the law based on the story the evidence and testimony are trying to provide. Everyone on the jury is entitled to their own view of the situation, and I can respect that. What I can’t respect is when people who are a part of the case go out of their way to go in front of a national audience and humiliate and criticize someone who was supposed to be anonymous. It tarnishes this country’s great judicial institution and must not go unchecked, or the legal system may suffer dangerous consequences.