Kevin Reddington, the lawyer for Lindsay Clancy, has continued making his case in public. On Wednesday, he appeared on Fox News contributor Billy Bush’s “Hot Mics” podcast, where he pushed back on claims that he changed his strategy after the mistrial in his client’s case. The interview came days after Clancy returned to court for the first time since her mistrial, and Reddington used the platform to argue that the investigation into his client has been “horrific” and “atrocious.”
Reddington was arguing a Rule 25 motion for a required finding of not guilty. In court, he asked Judge William Sullivan, “Where’s the evidence that she did this?” He then ran through a list of what he described as insufficient evidence and faulty statements.
Motion Hearing Details
The mistrial was declared on Sept. 4 after roughly a week of deliberations. On Wednesday, Reddington argued the motion, asking the judge to find that the Commonwealth had not proven each element of the case as required by law. Carol Erskine, a retired Massachusetts judge and child welfare advocate, explained that Rule 25(b)(2) case law requires the prosecution to prove every element of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.
Erskine noted that Reddington told the judge he had asked for a Bowden instruction and been denied. That meant he was challenging the poor investigation and search at the home by police. The motion was heard in open court, and the judge made no rulings on it.
Sullivan made no rulings on Reddington’s motion and pushed oral arguments on other pending motions back to Nov. 2. A motions hearing is scheduled for that date, though a date for a potential retrial has not yet been set.
Prosecutors Push Back
Plymouth County prosecutors called Reddington’s argument “a laughable argument” and asked the judge to deny the motion. They have not commented publicly on the specifics of his list.
Reddington has nicknames such as “Big Red” and “Shreddington.” He regularly mingles with people covering the trial in the parking lot, sitting in a lawn chair and having coffee. Bush said a large proportion of women watching the case support Clancy and love Reddington for fighting for her.
What Reddington Said in Court
In court, Reddington raised several points:
- Insufficient evidence overall
- Faulty statements made during the investigation
He did not specify which elements of the case he believed were unproven, but his question to the judge—”Where’s the evidence that she did this?”—made his position clear. He was arguing that the Commonwealth had failed to meet its burden of proof.
Reddington’s argument was direct. He wanted the judge to rule that the Commonwealth had not met its burden on each element of the charges. He cited the Bowden instruction he sought but was denied, and he pointed to the poor investigation and search at the home by police.
Judge’s Reactions
Judge Sullivan indefinitely impounded juror names, citing safety and “divisive” attention. The juror misconduct issue remains impounded, and the judge’s decision on it has not been disclosed.
The judge made no rulings on Reddington’s motion. He pushed oral arguments on other pending motions back to Nov. 2. The motions hearing is scheduled for that date.
Next Steps
Reddington has not said whether he will appeal the denial of his motion. The judge has not ruled on the motion itself, and the case remains in limbo.
The prosecution has not commented on whether it will retry the case. The judge has not set a date for a potential retrial, and it is not known whether one will happen.
| Party | Position |
|---|---|
| Reddington | Filed a Rule 25 motion for a required finding of not guilty |
| Prosecutors | Called the motion “a laughable argument” and asked the judge to deny it |
| Erskine | Explained that Rule 25(b)(2) requires proving every element beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Judge Sullivan | Made no rulings on the motion, pushed arguments back to Nov. 2 |
The case has become a fixture of legal coverage. Reddington’s courtroom performance has drawn attention from media outlets, and his appearance on the “Hot Mics” podcast kept the story alive.
Reddington has been arguing the sufficiency-of-evidence point from the beginning, including in a closing argument to the jury and in motions. His motion hearing remains pending, with the judge pushing oral arguments back to Nov. 2. The retrial date has not been set, and the case waits on further hearings.
Where the paper stands
The paper backs the strict, certain punishment for violent crime that the judge’s rules require in a case like this and is against any claim that would let a person charged with violence go free before trial. The judge made no rulings on Reddington’s motion and pushed oral arguments back to Nov. 2, and the case remains in limbo pending further hearings.
Reddington’s motion under Rule 25(b)(2) asks the judge to find that the Commonwealth failed to prove each element of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. That is a proper legal argument, and the paper does not take a position on whether it succeeds. But the paper is against any claim that would let a person charged with violence walk free before trial. The judge’s decision on the juror misconduct issue remains undisclosed, and that matter is separate from the sufficiency-of-evidence motion now pending.
The prosecution’s description of Reddington’s argument as “a laughable argument” is not a ruling, and the paper does not weigh it here. The paper’s position on violent crime is fixed: strict, certain punishment for violent crime, no bail for people charged with violent crimes, no parole or early release for people convicted of them. This case concerns a sufficiency-of-evidence motion in a pending trial, and the paper’s position on that motion is neutral. What matters is that the judge has not ruled on it yet and has set the next hearing for Nov. 2.
Source material: “Lindsay Clancy lawyer pushes back on claims he shifted strategy after mistrial in new interview,” Fox News.
Get the Notebook.
The day's best stories and every fresh verdict, in plain English, in your inbox by seven. One email a day, no more.