Lindsay Clancy case escalates as holdout juror's lawyers threaten to report her defense lawyer

PLYMOUTH, MASSACHUSETTS: The fight over the Lindsay Clancy mistrial has now moved beyond the courtroom.

Lawyers representing the lone holdout juror, on Tuesday, September 29, said that they plan to take their grievances against Clancy’s defense attorney to the Massachusetts bar, accusing Kevin Reddington of improperly singling out their client after the jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict.

The clash adds another legal battle to a case already headed toward a possible retrial.

Juror's lawyers threaten complaint

The planned bar complaint surfaced during Tyler Cox’s Tuesday interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity.

“We are going to file a bar complaint,” Cox said.

The lawyers oppose Reddington’s push to have the juror investigated following the mistrial.

They argue that the defense attorney crossed a line by targeting an individual juror over his conduct during the trial.

Reddington asked Judge William Sullivan to look into whether the juror misrepresented information on his questionnaire or improperly used his phone during deliberations.

The defense has also questioned whether the juror broke the law by refusing to join the other 11 jurors in finding Clancy not criminally responsible.

According to Cox, the issue was far bigger than the filing itself.

“He said that all he’s done is file a motion. Well, even if you take that as true, which it obviously isn’t, the motion that he filed was unprecedented,” Cox told Hannity.

“You don’t attack jurors this way, you don’t single them out,” he added.

The attorneys are now seeking a bar review of Reddington’s conduct.

Kevin Reddington pushes back in court

The latest clash comes after a heated court session on Tuesday, where Reddington strongly rejected claims that he had targeted or mistreated the holdout juror.

“I’m tired of hearing about me persecuting people,” Reddington told the judge.

Reddington has defended his decision to challenge the juror, arguing that his concerns are legitimate and stem from issues that contributed to the first trial ending without a verdict.

The juror’s attorneys see the situation differently.

They argue that singling out a juror simply because he reached a different conclusion from the rest of the panel could undermine the independence of the jury system.

They have also warned that pursuing jurors in this way could have a chilling effect, potentially making people reluctant to serve on juries in other high-profile criminal cases.

The dispute comes as Clancy’s defense team mounts a separate effort to prevent the case from going to trial again.

During Tuesday’s hearing, Reddington argued that prosecutors had not presented enough evidence to prove Clancy was criminally responsible for the deaths of her three children.

He questioned the strength of several pieces of evidence and characterized the prosecution’s case as resting largely on “speculation.”

The judge ultimately delayed further arguments over the defense’s request to dismiss the case.

The next hearing is scheduled for November 2, giving prosecutors additional time to respond to Reddington’s arguments.