Jonathan Turley Torches ‘Utterly Reprehensible’ Move From Lindsay Clancy Lawyer

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley tore into attorney Kevin Reddington over his post-trial comments about the lone holdout juror who forced a mistrial.

Turley asserted that Reddington — who represented Lindsay Clancy in the trial over the murders of her three young children — knew before he opened his mouth that his comments were likely to result in that lone juror being identified and harassed.

“For Reddington and others, the hung jury was less ‘Twelve Angry Men’ and more ‘One Angry Man.’ Yet, what he did in front of the courthouse was utterly reprehensible …” Turley wrote.

…The attack on the holdout juror that was a breathtaking abandonment of restraint and decency. Reddington knows it is very likely that the name of this juror (he has already been identified as one of only the three men on the jury) will eventually be uncovered by Internet…

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) September 5, 2026

“But it was his attack on the holdout juror that was a breathtaking abandonment of restraint and decency. Reddington knows it is very likely that the name of this juror (he has already been identified as one of only the three men on the jury) will eventually be uncovered by Internet sleuths,” he added. “He effectively put a target on the back of a juror who committed the unpardonable sin of not being convinced by his arguments.”

Reddington attempted a Hail Mary just before the judge officially declared a mistrial, demanding that the lone holdout on the jury be removed and replaced by an alternate — a move that ultimately failed, but not before Reddington used the filing to accuse the juror of inherent bias against people with disabilities or those who are suffering from mental illnesses.

Following the judge’s ruling declaring a mistrial, Reddington attacked the juror again. Claiming that Clancy and the other members of the jury were “robbed by one man,” Reddington clearly identified the holdout as one of the three men on the jury.

“They know they were robbed by one man, for whatever his agenda was, who stole seven weeks of the life of these other jurors that were so attentive, so beautiful, so wonderful,” he said.

“I hope that guy can sleep well at night,” Reddington sneered, boasting that he had “crushed” District Attorney Tim Cruz — who he claimed did not care about the children at all. Meanwhile, women who had showed up outside the courtroom to support Clancy shouted at Cruz that he “only cared about the [murdered] children” and had no compassion for their mother — who never denied that she was the one who killed them.

Drawing further on the comparison to the 1957 film “12 Angry Men,” Turley added, “The rising hatred toward this juror reflects how an act deemed noble in one context can be denounced as craven in another.”

“Viewers love to watch Henry Fonda stand alone against his fellow jurors to raise reasonable doubt in favor of the young defendant,” Turley continued. “But in this version, the sole juror believed that his fellow jurors were ignoring the defendant’s culpability.”

That movie, Turley argued, would have been dramatically different if an argument like Reddington’s had been accepted — if Henry Fonda’s lone holdout character had simply been replaced by an alternate juror who could be relied upon to fall in line. In the movie, an innocent man would have been convicted. In real life in 2026, the opposite scenario could have played out.

Concluding with a quote from another classic movie — “To Kill a Mockingbird” — Turley pointed out that the strength of American justice was built at least in part on the ability of an average citizen to take a moral stance even if it wasn’t a popular one.

“‘The one thing that doesn’t abide by majority rule is a person’s conscience,'” he quoted.