PLYMOUTH, Mass. — Lindsay Clancy’s defense attorney Kevin Reddington has fired back after the lawyer of the lone juror who wanted to convict her accused him of filing “Looney Tunes” motions that threaten the Constitution.
“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 told Fox News Digital.
Reddington’s remarks came in response to social media posts and a recent interview from the juror’s attorney, Edward Paltzik, who has argued that Reddington’s push for an inquiry into the holdout is “a full-frontal attack on the U.S. Constitution” and a threat to the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees due process rights to criminal defendants.
“Every motion that has been filed is legitimate,” Reddington said. “It’s all based on sound, law, facts, jury questions, and I’m doing what I should do, representing Lindsay. And I’m pretty sure that Ed would have probably done the same thing, were it in Houston, and he was representing his client.”
In an interview with Ray Marcel, a YouTuber who streams under the pseudonym FugitiveTV, Paltzik also called for Clancy’s execution, although she hasn’t been convicted of any criminal charges and Massachusetts does not impose the death penalty.
LINDSAY CLANCY HOLDOUT JUROR MAKES NEW PROMISE AS LAWYER WARNS OF PUBLIC ATTACKS
“Ed, why don’t you just shut up?” Reddington said. “Really, you foul individual.”
However, Reddington joked that he didn’t get Paltzik’s “Shooter McGavin” reference at first but agreed that it was a funny jab after having someone explain it to him.
Paltzik fired back on Friday.
“It’s really not complicated. I’m not backing down. I’m not backing off of it one inch. It should not be controversial at all that I called Lindsay Clancy a ‘demon.’ …She strangled her three innocent children,” he told Fox News Digital.
“My issue with Kevin Reddington is what happened after the mistrial when he got on the courthouse steps. He said Michael had an agenda. He said Michael robbed the other jurors. He said it. And you can’t do that as an officer of the court. It’s an attack on the system. And this motion to investigate him? It’s because Michael disagreed with Kevin Reddington.
“Kevin Reddington was doing his job but the problem is it’s off the rails now. I’m speaking as a criminal defense attorney for almost 20 years. I would never criticize a juror. And I would never file a post-trial motion to investigate the juror.
“My real advice to Kevin — I think he should stop whining and go prepare for a retrial. Stop complaining. You only got 11, you needed 12.”
FOLLOW THE FOX TRUE CRIME TEAM ON X
Reddington also took issue with the juror being described as the “lone holdout juror.”
LINDSAY CLANCY JUROR ADMITTED ‘REASONABLE DOUBT’ BUT STILL REFUSED INSANITY VERDICT, FOREPERSON SAYS
“He is the obstructionist juror,” Reddington said.
SIGN UP TO GET THE LATEST TRUE CRIME NEWS
The juror, identified by his attorney as Michael Desronvil, has said that he believes Clancy was guilty of the murder charges against her in the strangling deaths of her three young children, Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months.
JUROR ON LINDSAY CLANCY TRIAL SAYS ‘WE LET DOWN LINDSAY’ FOLLOWING MISTRIAL
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FROM THE FOX TRUE CRIME HUB
Eleven other jurors disagreed and wanted to find her not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, in alignment with Reddington’s defense argument that Clancy was suffering from postpartum psychosis and was not criminally responsible for her actions.
Due to the deadlock, Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial on Sept. 4 after a week of deliberations. Clancy is due back in court Tuesday for a hearing on several defense motions. Prosecutors may also announce plans to seek a second trial.
LINDSAY CLANCY PROSECUTORS FACE DILEMMA: RETRIAL OR PLEA DEAL IN CASE INVOLVING 3 STRANGLED CHILDREN
Reddington, in a motion filed last week, called for a “limited inquiry” into the holdout, for information about his background and potential criminal history, phone records, courthouse surveillance video and more.
LISTEN TO THE NEW ‘CRIME & JUSTICE WITH DONNA ROTUNNO’ PODCAST
In a separate filing, another attorney for Clancy, Martin Weinberg, argued that Sullivan’s decision to overrule a defense objection at trial should be grounds for dismissing the charges against the 36-year-old defendant on double jeopardy grounds. That motion also centered on the holdout juror and allegations that he ignored the judge’s instructions and the law.
LINDSAY CLANCY JUDGE CALLS MISTRIAL, THEN GRANTS DEFENSE ONE HOUR STAY FOR APPEAL
“The jury twice informed the Court that one of its members was refusing to apply the Court’s instructions regarding the fundamental concept of reasonable doubt,” Weinberg wrote. “After the first such report, the Court asked each juror individually whether he or she was able to apply the law. Upon receiving the second report, the Court tempered its response even further, simply reminding all jurors as a group of their obligation to follow its instructions generally. The Court denied Ms. Clancy’s explicit requests to go further.”
Weinberg’s motion argued that Sullivan’s decision to declare a mistrial before investigating the holdout is improper, alleging that the jury foreperson accused the holdout of making “statements acknowledging doubt but refus[ing] to apply it to the verdict as the law states.”
