Make No Mistake: Lindsay Clancy’s Second Trial Has Already Started

Lindsay Clancy’s murder trial ended in a hung jury and a mistrial — and while the prosecution must now weigh the potential costs and benefits of bringing the charges again, Clancy’s attorney and several members of the jury have already begun a second shadow trial designed to poison any future jury pool.

Within minutes of Judge William Sullivan’s ruling, attorney Kevin Reddington launched his second trial from the courthouse steps. When he criticized the lone holdout from the jury — the one man who’d pushed back against an emotional argument that was supposed to make him forget the underlying crime — he sent a clear warning to anyone who might serve on a future Clancy jury.

First, when he revealed that the holdout was a man, Reddington all but identified him by name. Because there were only three men on the jury, he had to be aware that internet sleuths would likely uncover the juror’s identity before too long — and that anyone who could serve on a future jury would know that the same fate awaited them.

“He effectively put a target on the back of a juror who committed the unpardonable sin of not being convinced by his arguments,” George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley wrote regarding Reddington’s comments.

Second, Reddington’s willingness to use his position and his platform to attack a man doing his civic duty — a man whose only “error” was in not being convinced that empathy should supersede evidence — also sends an unequivocal message to future jurors.

But in addition to telegraphing the likely consequences to any juror who might dare to fixate on the evidence, Reddington has taken every available opportunity to hammer away at the narrative he presented in court: Lindsay Clancy was a good mother who was victimized and rendered helpless by a combination of mental health struggles and inadequate health care.

During an NBC News interview on Wednesday, Reddington claimed that Clancy talks about her children “all the time,” quoting her as saying, “I want my babies. I want my babies.”

Clancy “has bad days and she has worse days,” he added, claiming that she is a different person than she was at the time of the killings and that she should not have the rest of her life defined by those crimes because “that was not the Lindsay that is now living amongst us.”

Several members of the jury have also gone public with their thoughts on the case, complaining to legacy media outlets about the lone holdout juror who wasted seven weeks of their lives and refused to allow a desire for compassion for Clancy to eclipse the need for justice for the three young children she murdered.

Simultaneously depicting themselves as victims of the lone holdout and heroes who stood up for Lindsay Clancy, the jurors who have spoken out thus far have made themselves the protagonists of the still-unfolding drama.

The prosecution, they said, was “harsh” and lacked compassion for Clancy because they did not spare her feelings when they described the murders — which she has never denied committing — in detail.

“I honestly think the prosecutor did themselves more damage than good by just not thinking about Lindsay, I mean, the whole picture,” one juror said.

She also asserted that it was obvious Clancy was out of her mind because no evidence had been presented to prove that Clancy was a bad mother: “There wasn’t one person on either side that could say anything bad about her. Even the prosecution really couldn’t point to anything.”

Another juror echoed that sentiment, saying, “I just found it to be harsh — very, very harsh. The fact that they had no character witnesses in regard to Lindsay being a bad mother. I mean … you’re presenting all these medical professionals, but nobody’s presenting, for the prosecution, a woman and a mother of three children.”

What they didn’t mention was that the defense called Clancy’s mother, her sister, a former colleague, and her former mother-in-law, all of whom testified to her devotion as a mother — and that prosecutors could not have opened with contrary character evidence under the rules of evidence regardless.

As the jurors continue to speak out — and Reddington jumps behind every microphone he sees — it’s not likely that the shadow trial will end unless and until another official trial begins.

More from this network:
Domains for Sale · GOTPeople.org · TheDSAPlatform · The Truth About Socialism

Donate to GOTPeople.org