Lindsay Clancy's Lawyer Denies Shifting Trial Strategy After Mistrial

Lindsay Clancy's defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, has pushed back against claims that he altered his legal strategy following a mistrial, asserting that his argument challenging the strength of the prosecution's case has been present from the outset.

Reddington, in a recent interview on the "Hot Mics" podcast with Fox News contributor Billy Bush, described the investigation into Clancy as "horrific" and "atrocious." He stated that his argument in court—that prosecutors had not presented enough evidence to prove his client guilty beyond a reasonable doubt—is consistent with his defense since the beginning of the trial.

"That’s exactly what I was saying," Reddington said during the interview, which took place shortly after Clancy's return to court for the first time since the mistrial was declared on September 4. "I’ve been arguing that from the very beginning. I argued it in a closing argument to the jury. I argued in our motions."

During a court appearance Tuesday, Reddington presented a Rule 25 motion, seeking a required finding of not guilty. He argued that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support a conviction, asking the judge, "Where’s the evidence that she did this?"

Reddington outlined what he described as insufficient evidence and faulty statements made during the case.

Judge William Sullivan did not make any rulings on the motion, postponing oral arguments on other pending motions until November 2. This decision left many following the case, including Bush, without immediate answers.

"He didn't get any answers on the insufficiency of evidence," Bush told Fox News Digital. "He wanted, immediately, her to be declared not criminally responsible because of that. I think that was a stretch. He probably knew it. He brought in his double jeopardy expert, Martin Weinberg. That was punted to Nov. 2. That wasn't immediately successful. And the alleged juror misconduct, we didn't get anything on that because Judge Sullivan, he's Reddington told us, impounded that information. We want to see the jury questionnaire. Everybody wants to see it."

The mistrial was declared on September 4 after a jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict following approximately one week of deliberations.

Rule 25 motions, while routine, are rarely successful, according to Carol Erskine, a retired Massachusetts judge and child welfare advocate. Erskine explained that Reddington's argument under Rule 25(b)(2) challenges the sufficiency of the evidence presented, stating that he had to argue that the prosecution did not prove each element of the crime as required by law. She also noted his challenge to what he perceived as a poor investigation by police.

Prosecutors in Plymouth County have characterized Reddington's argument as "a laughable argument" and urged the judge to deny his motion.

Clancy is scheduled to return to court on November 2 for a motions hearing. A date for a potential retrial has not yet been set.

Reddington has gained a notable public profile during the proceedings, with Bush noting that the attorney frequently engages with members of the press and has acquired nicknames such as "Big Red" and "Shreddington." Bush added that many observers, particularly women following the case, express support for Clancy and admire Reddington for his advocacy on her behalf.