In a Plymouth courthouse, the defense attorney for Lindsay Clancy — a mother accused of killing her three children — reversed course dramatically after a mistrial, now arguing the prosecution never proved she committed the act at all. This stands in stark contrast to his own earlier declarations that she 'owns it' and takes full responsibility. The law, in its long and winding search for truth, sometimes finds its advocates arguing from opposite shores of the same river, leaving courts and observers to weigh not just evidence, but the credibility of the arguments themselves.
Clancy's lawyer argues 'no evidence' she killed kids, reversing earlier trial position
Three children were killed; Clancy is the defendant in the case.
Where is the evidence that she did this? This entire case is based on speculation.
Mark
So his lawyer went from saying she takes responsibility to saying there's no evidence she did it. How does that even work legally?
Mimi
It's a motion for a required finding of not guilty—basically asking the judge to say the evidence was too weak for any jury to convict. It's a long shot, but if it works, it stops a retrial before it starts.
Luke
But he actually offered to admit she did it back in April. That's in the record. So what changed?
Mimi
He says he's splitting the argument—one part about whether she committed the act, another about whether she was criminally responsible. He's trying to preserve a mental state defense while also challenging the evidence.
Mark
And the prosecutors were surprised by this?
Mimi
Very. The prosecutor said the record is "voluminous" with evidence she did it. They seemed caught off guard that he was now denying it altogether.
Luke
But we should be clear—the jury didn't reach a verdict. There was a mistrial. So we don't actually know what they thought about the evidence.
Mimi
Right. That's part of why this motion exists. Without a guilty verdict, he's arguing the state never proved its case.
Mark
Is this likely to work?
Luke
Legal experts called it a long shot. But some think it might pressure the DA not to retry the case, which could be the real goal here.
El Pulso
- A mistrial has left three dead children without a verdict, and the legal machinery must now decide whether to grind forward or stand down.
- Defense attorney Kevin Reddington has made a stunning about-face — the man who once told a jury his client 'takes responsibility' now demands to know where the evidence even is.
- Prosecutors, caught off guard, point to a voluminous record and push back against what they call a first-time claim that Clancy didn't commit the killings at all.
- Legal analysts are openly calling the strategy 'bizarre,' seeing it as a long-shot bid to persuade the judge to bar a retrial on grounds of insufficient evidence.
- The District Attorney signals his office is weighing its next move carefully, with a November 2 hearing set to determine whether justice for three children will get another day in court.
In a Plymouth courthouse, the defense attorney for Lindsay Clancy — a mother accused of killing her three children — reversed course dramatically after a mistrial, now arguing the prosecution never proved she committed the act at all. This stands in stark contrast to his own earlier declarations that she 'owns it' and takes full responsibility. The law, in its long and winding search for truth, sometimes finds its advocates arguing from opposite shores of the same river, leaving courts and observers to weigh not just evidence, but the credibility of the arguments themselves.
At Lindsay Clancy's first court appearance since a mistrial was declared in early September, her defense attorney Kevin Reddington made a move that surprised nearly everyone in the room — he argued that prosecutors had never actually proven his client killed her three children. Challenging the state's reliance on body temperature evidence and testimony from Clancy's ex-husband Patrick, Reddington insisted the case rested on speculation rather than proof.
The argument was difficult to reconcile with his own prior statements. During opening arguments in July, Reddington had told the jury that Clancy 'knows what happened' and 'takes responsibility.' Even before trial, he had filed a motion offering to stipulate in writing to her culpability, seeking only to separate the guilt phase from the mental state phase — a request the judge denied. Now, facing a potential retrial, he was arguing the prosecution had failed to meet its burden entirely.
Reddington attempted to frame the two positions as compatible, explaining that a defense attorney faces a 'conundrum' when admitting culpability is necessary to argue lack of criminal responsibility. But prosecutors weren't buying it. Assistant District Attorney Shanan Buckingham noted that Clancy was, for the first time, claiming she hadn't done it at all — and pointed to an extensive record supporting the opposite conclusion.
Legal analysts described the reversal as deeply unusual, with some suggesting it may be less about winning the motion and more about pressuring prosecutors to walk away from a second trial. Plymouth District Attorney Tim Cruz said his office was conducting a thorough review with the interests of justice — and the three children — in mind. A November 2 hearing will likely bring the next turning point in a case that has already taken many unexpected ones.
Lindsay Clancy's defense attorney took an unexpected turn in court this week, arguing that prosecutors presented no credible evidence his client killed her three children. The move came at Clancy's first hearing since a mistrial was declared in early September, and it represents a sharp reversal from the position her lawyer had maintained throughout the trial itself.
Kevin Reddington stood before the judge and demanded to know where the evidence actually was. "Where is the evidence that she did this?" he asked repeatedly. "This entire case is based on speculation." He challenged the prosecution's reliance on Clancy's body temperature readings and testimony from her ex-husband, Patrick. He emphasized that Clancy had never admitted to killing her children, and that without such an admission, the state's case crumbled under scrutiny.
But Reddington's argument on Tuesday bore little resemblance to what he had said just months earlier. During his opening statement in July, he had told the jury that Clancy "knows what happened to those kids" and that "she takes responsibility." He described her as someone who "owns it" and is "not running away from anything here." In April, before the trial even began, Reddington had filed a motion offering to stipulate in writing that Clancy admitted to killing her children. That motion sought to split the trial into two phases—one on guilt, another on her mental state—a request the judge denied.
Now, facing the possibility of a second trial, Reddington was arguing the opposite: that the prosecution had failed to meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. He framed his new position as consistent with his earlier bifurcation request, claiming he was making two separate arguments—one that prosecutors hadn't proven she committed the killings, and another that they hadn't proven she was criminally responsible for them. "You're put in a conundrum when you have to admit culpability in order to raise a lack of criminal responsibility," he explained to the judge.
The shift caught prosecutors off guard. Shanan Buckingham responded by noting that Clancy was now, for the first time, arguing she hadn't done it at all. "I would suggest to you that the entire record is voluminous as to information supporting the fact that she did this," Buckingham said. When pressed by reporters outside the courtroom to clarify whether he was claiming Clancy did not kill her children, Reddington deflected, saying he had always argued this and that prosecutors simply couldn't prove probable cause.
Legal analysts found the strategy bewildering. Jennifer Roman, a legal analyst for WBZ-TV, called it "really bizarre" that Reddington had completely reversed course on something as fundamental as whether his client committed the killings. Experts view the motion as a long-shot gambit—an attempt to convince the judge that the evidence was legally insufficient, which would prevent a retrial. Some analysts suggest the move may also be designed to pressure prosecutors into abandoning plans to try the case again.
Plymouth District Attorney Tim Cruz said outside the courthouse that his office was conducting a thorough review of the case and would continue to do what they believed served the interests of justice and the three children. The next hearing is scheduled for November 2, when the judge will likely rule on Reddington's motion and prosecutors may signal their intentions about whether to proceed with a second trial.
Citas Notables
She takes responsibility. She, as the kids say, she owns it. She's not running away from anything here.— Kevin Reddington, opening statement in July (prior position)
Now for the first time the defendant is arguing that there's no evidence that she did this. I would suggest to you that the entire record is voluminous as to information supporting the fact that she did this.— Prosecutor Shanan Buckingham, responding to defense motion
Quieres la nota completa?
Lee el original en CBS News ↗
Crime & Justice