Lindsay Clancy’s defense attorney launched a remarkable public attack Friday against the lone juror he says prevented his client from being acquitted in the deaths of her three children.
Lawyer Kevin Reddington accused the unidentified man of having an unexplained “agenda,” repeatedly said he had “robbed” Clancy and his fellow jurors, and directed a pointed personal remark toward him after the trial collapsed into a mistrial.
The comments came after Reddington had already unsuccessfully tried to have the juror removed during deliberations, arguing that the man was refusing to properly apply the judge’s reasonable-doubt instructions.
Judge William Sullivan rejected that effort, finding that the information before the court did not establish that the juror had refused to follow the law.
After the mistrial was declared, Reddington publicly blamed the single holdout and said Clancy had been “robbed by this man.”
Reddington then escalated his criticism by saying he hoped the unidentified juror could “sleep at night,” language that placed an extraordinary amount of public pressure on a private citizen whose role required him to independently evaluate the evidence.
The attorney also accused the juror of having some unspecified motive for refusing to join the other 11 jurors, despite no finding by Sullivan that the man had acted improperly.
“They know they were robbed by one man, for whatever his agenda was,” Reddington claimed of the remaining jurors, while praising the other members of the panel as attentive and dedicated.
Reddington went on to say that the holdout had “stole[n] seven weeks of the life” of the other jurors, effectively portraying the mistrial not as the lawful consequence of a divided jury but as the fault of one individual.
The rhetoric was particularly striking because unanimity is required for a criminal verdict, and every juror has the same legal authority to maintain a sincerely held conclusion even when or if a majority of other jurors disagree.
A jury foreperson had raised concerns before the mistrial by telling Sullivan that one juror had acknowledged doubt but was not applying it in the manner the foreperson believed the judge had instructed.
Reddington seized on that note and asked Sullivan to question or remove the juror, arguing that the man was refusing to follow the court’s explanation of reasonable doubt.
Sullivan declined to do so, reasoning that the note did not provide sufficient grounds to conclude the juror was deliberately disregarding his oath or the law.
Reddington’s attack on the holdout juror in front of the courthouse was, in my view, an outrageous and reckless moment. It would warrant a response from the judge about stoking the rage against this one juror.
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) September 4, 2026
The judge’s decision left the 12-member panel intact and sent jurors back to continue deliberating before they ultimately reported that they remained hopelessly divided.
After approximately 38 hours of deliberations over seven days, Sullivan declared a mistrial Friday when the jury said with a “heavy heart” that it could not unanimously resolve the case.
"They know that they were robbed by one man for whatever his agenda was."
Lindsay Clancy's attorney Kevin Reddington accuses one juror of costing the rest of the panel seven weeks of their lives and leaving fellow jurors visibly "defeated."
"I hope that guy can sleep well at… pic.twitter.com/LWvDdpXdCm
— Fox News (@FoxNews) September 4, 2026
Reddington said after the mistrial that the jury had been divided 11-1 in favor of acquittal on criminal-responsibility grounds, although the individual jurors have not publicly confirmed their votes.
“If I was [Cruz], I would probably say I don’t think I want to do a retrial because he’s going to lose,” Reddington told reporters.
Reddington’s decision to single out the holdout juror may now become part of the broader controversy surrounding a case already marked by intense public attention.
“They know that they were robbed by one man for whatever his agenda was.”
Nothing in Sullivan’s rulings established that the holdout juror had an improper “agenda,” and the judge specifically declined to find grounds to remove him despite repeated pressure from the defense.
This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
