Lindsay Clancy lawyer tells holdout juror's attorney to 'shut up' in fiery legal clash

PLYMOUTH, MASSACHUSETTS: A bitter legal dispute surrounding Lindsay Clancy's mistrial has spilled into an unusually personal exchange between the attorneys representing opposing sides of the fight over a juror.

Speaking to Fox News on Sunday, September 27, Clancy's defense lawyer, Kevin Reddington, lashed out at Edward Paltzik, the attorney for the juror who stood alone in favor of convicting Clancy. 

Paltzik has publicly condemned the defense's effort to examine the juror, arguing that the move could have consequences far beyond the case itself.

Kevin Reddington's advice to juror's lawyer

Reddington pushed back against Paltzik’s criticism, arguing that the juror’s attorney should be making his case inside the courtroom rather than through media appearances.

“I think Ed ought to learn how to go into the courtroom and articulate his position rather than be a histrionic individual that's just mouthing off for the media,” Reddington said.

The dispute comes after the defense sought a “limited inquiry” into the juror.

The request seeks information about his background and possible criminal history, along with phone records and courthouse surveillance footage.

Reddington’s team has also challenged the circumstances that led to the mistrial and separately asked the court to dismiss the charges, citing double jeopardy protections.

Paltzik has highlighted the proposed inquiry as a constitutional issue. 

In a post on X, he attacked Reddington’s filing as the “Looney Tunes motion” and argued that investigating a juror simply for taking a dissenting position could set a troubling precedent.

He suggested the same principle could eventually be used against either side in a criminal case, including prosecutors whose preferred verdict is rejected by a lone juror.

Paltzik also invoked the Sixth Amendment, warning that jurors could be placed under pressure if lawyers were allowed to pursue them after they refused to follow the majority.

He argued that such consequences could have implications for the constitutional protections surrounding jury deliberations.

Reddington goes after juror's lawyer

Reddington pushed back against Paltzik’s description of his court filings, saying the motions were legitimate and part of his duty to defend Clancy.

“Every motion that has been filed is legitimate,” Reddington said, arguing that his filings were grounded in the law, the facts and questions surrounding the jury.

He maintained that he was simply doing what he was supposed to do as Clancy’s attorney and suggested Paltzik might have acted similarly if their roles had been reversed.

Reddington then turned his criticism directly toward Paltzik, taking a much more personal tone.

“Ed, why don't you just shut up?” Reddington said. “Really, you foul individual.”

He also challenged the way the juror has been described throughout the dispute.

Rather than referring to him as the "lone holdout juror,” Reddington gave the juror a different label.

“He is the obstructionist juror,” Reddington said.