Lindsay Clancy Lawyer Questions Evidence of Her Guilt After Mistrial

Lindsay Clancy’s defense lawyer, Kevin Reddington, has asserted that prosecutors have not presented sufficient evidence to prove his client killed her three children. The argument marks a strategic shift from his previous defense, which centered on Clancy suffering from postpartum psychosis.

"Where’s the evidence that she did this?" Reddington asked Judge William Sullivan in court Tuesday, according to legal analysts. He made the statement while asking Sullivan to enter a not-guilty finding after a jury deadlocked.

Reddington pointed to perceived gaps in the physical evidence, including blood, DNA, and the timing and circumstances surrounding Clancy’s suicide attempt, which left her paralyzed. He argued that there is no evidence that Clancy made statements admitting to the killings, which form the basis of the indictments.

Prosecutors called his assertion "a laughable argument." However, legal experts noted this is a significant departure from Reddington's prior stance. "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 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 September 4 after jurors could not reach a verdict following roughly a week of deliberations. Reports indicate an 11-1 deadlock, with only one juror voting to convict. The majority of the jury sided with the defense’s argument of not guilty due to mental illness or defect, which posited that Clancy was not criminally responsible for strangling her children with exercise bands due to postpartum psychosis.

Reddington has referred to the single holdout juror as an "obstructionist." He also raised concerns about the prosecution’s case and the initial police investigation.

Reddington's comments were made during oral arguments on a Rule 25(b)(2) motion, which asks a judge to override a deadlocked jury and enter a not-guilty finding if the prosecution's evidence is deemed legally insufficient to support a conviction. Such motions are uncommon and rarely successful, according to legal observers.

This argument differs from a previous Rule 25 motion Reddington filed after the mistrial, which Sullivan denied. Clancy is scheduled for another motion hearing on November 2, where pending motions include dismissal on double jeopardy grounds and an inquiry into the holdout juror. A new trial date has not yet been set, with Reddington indicating he is unavailable until June 2027.