PLYMOUTH, Mass. — Lindsay Clancy’s defense lawyer made a surprise shift in strategy Tuesday, according to legal analysts — shifting gears from his argument at trial that she was not criminally responsible because she suffered from postpartum psychosis.
“Where’s the evidence that she did this?” Clancy’s defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, asked Judge William Sullivan in court Tuesday. “Where is the evidence she did this?”
Reddington made the argument while asking Sullivan to enter a not-guilty finding after the jury deadlocked.
LINDSAY CLANCY HOLDOUT JUROR ASKS FOR ONE THING IN NEW VIDEO AFTER MISTRIAL DRAMA
“I submit to the court there is no evidence she made any statements, as far as the actual killing of the children, which forms the basis of the indictments,” Reddington said.
Plymouth County prosecutors countered, calling his assertion “a laughable argument.” But it marked a striking change in the way he’s argued the case in the past.
He pointed to what he described as gaps in the physical evidence, including the blood, DNA, timing and circumstances surrounding Clancy’s suicide attempt, which left her paralyzed.
LINDSAY CLANCY ATTORNEY KEVIN REDDINGTON SIGNALS HE’S OPEN TO A DEAL, HOPES DA WILL ‘REVISIT’ CASE
“For the first time we saw Kevin Reddington say that there’s reasonable doubt as to whether Lindsay Clancy actually killed her children,” said former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani, who has been closely following the case. “He’s never said that in the courtroom, outside the courtroom — and in fact at the beginning of the first trial, he offered to stipulate to Lindsay killing her three children.”
Sullivan declared a mistrial on Sept. 4 after jurors could not agree on a verdict following roughly a week of deliberations. Since then, several jurors have spoken out publicly, describing an 11-1 deadlock with only one man voting to find her guilty of murder.
LINDSAY CLANCY JUROR ADMITTED ‘REASONABLE DOUBT’ BUT STILL REFUSED INSANITY VERDICT, FOREPERSON SAYS
The 11 sided with Reddington’s not guilty due to mental illness or defect defense. He argued that Clancy was not criminally responsible for strangling her children with exercise bands due to postpartum psychosis.
FOLLOW THE FOX TRUE CRIME TEAM ON X
Only one juror voted to convict, and Reddington started calling him an “obstructionist” — first last week when approached by Fox News Digital and again outside the courthouse Tuesday. During the hearing, Reddington also raised concerns about the prosecution’s case and the police investigation launched after Clancy was found in the backyard suffering from injuries that left her paralyzed.
LINDSAY CLANCY PROSECUTORS FACE DILEMMA: RETRIAL OR PLEA DEAL IN CASE INVOLVING 3 STRANGLED CHILDREN
SIGN UP TO GET THE LATEST TRUE CRIME NEWS
“This may just be a defense lawyer denying everything, using the kitchen sink approach, hoping one of these arguments would resonate with Judge Sullivan,” Rahmani said. “Or it could be a shift in defense strategy, where maybe instead of arguing insanity or lack of criminal responsibility at the retrial, they put on a third party culpability defense as well, arguing that maybe someone else is the real killer.”
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FROM THE FOX TRUE CRIME HUB
Reddington’s comments came during oral arguments on what’s called a Rule 25(b)(2) motion — asking Sullivan to override the deadlocked jury and enter a not-guilty finding on the alleged grounds that the Commonwealth’s evidence was legally insufficient to garner a conviction.
LINDSAY CLANCY LAWYER SAYS HE PLANS NEW MOTION TO DISMISS AFTER JURORS SPEAK OUT ON MISTRIAL: REPORT
Such motions are routine but seldom successful, according to Carol Erskine, a retired Massachusetts judge and child welfare advocate who has been following the case closely.
“He is arguing that [they] did not prove each and every element as required by law,” she told Fox News Digital. “I understand why people don’t get this, but he had to argue sufficiency of evidence under Rule 25(b)(2) case law. He told the judge he asked for a Bowden instruction and was denied which meant he was challenging the poor investigation/search at the home by police. It’s a very nuanced argument.”
LISTEN TO THE NEW ‘CRIME & JUSTICE WITH DONNA ROTUNNO’ PODCAST
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.
