One prominent legal commentator is now urging the judge to condemn Reddington’s conduct, arguing that the veteran defense attorney crossed a line when he personally targeted a private citizen for refusing to join the other 11 jurors.
Reddington unloaded on the unidentified man outside Plymouth Superior Court after Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial Friday, accusing the juror of having an “agenda” and of robbing Clancy and the rest of the panel.
He ended the attack with perhaps his most controversial remark: “I hope that guy can sleep well at night.”
Reddington claimed the panel had been divided 11-1, with the other jurors prepared to find Clancy not criminally responsible for killing her three children.
“They know that they were robbed by one man, for whatever his agenda was,” Reddington said, accusing the holdout of wasting weeks of the other jurors’ lives.
The attorney’s comments drew particular concern because the identities of jurors have been protected and the juror list was ordered impounded for at least 14 days following the trial.
Legal scholar and commentator Jonathan Turley sharply criticized Reddington’s behavior, arguing that Sullivan should formally call out the defense attorney over what Turley characterized as a vindictive attack on a juror performing his civic duty.
Reddington had already revealed during the proceedings that the holdout was male, narrowing the unidentified juror to one of three men serving on the panel.
Before the mistrial, Reddington repeatedly sought to have the juror investigated and ultimately removed after the foreperson reported concerns that one panel member was not properly applying the court’s instructions concerning reasonable doubt.
Sullivan refused to remove the juror, explaining that the information before him did not establish improper bias or provide sufficient legal grounds to interfere with jury deliberations.
Reddington then pursued an emergency appeal to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in an attempt to stop Sullivan from declaring a mistrial and force further consideration of the juror dispute.
That effort failed Friday, clearing the way for Sullivan to formally declare a mistrial after approximately a week of deliberations.
Turley’s criticism focused on the principle that a juror does not commit misconduct merely by disagreeing with the majority, comparing the controversy to the premise of the classic film “12 Angry Men,” in which a lone juror initially stands against the other 11.
The difference, Turley argued, was that Reddington portrayed the holdout’s refusal to acquit Clancy as evidence of an improper agenda rather than recognizing the juror’s right to independently assess whether prosecutors met their burden.
The backlash has also produced calls on social media for professional discipline against Reddington, including demands that he be disbarred.
Reddington should be disbarred https://t.co/dQ6T6ogwte
— Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) September 4, 2026
KEVIN REDDINGTON SHOULD BE DISBARRED! pic.twitter.com/xCfhRByQPp
— Jay Gatling (@apinionsvary) September 4, 2026
Let’s call this what it is, the defense attorney in the Lindsay Clancy trial just doxxed the lone member of the jury that led to this mistrial. By publicly pointing out that the single holdout in the 11-1 mistrial was one of only three men on the jury, he put a massive, dangerous…
— Glenn Beck (@glennbeck) September 4, 2026
Reddington has outed the juror as a man. He should absolutely be disbarred and I hope someone is preparing a bar complaint.
— Douglass Mackey (@douglassmackey) September 4, 2026
Clancy is scheduled to return to court September 29 as prosecutors and the defense consider what comes next.
Reddington may therefore soon find himself preparing to defend Clancy before another jury, but his treatment of the juror from the first trial has now created a separate controversy of its own.
