Lindsay Clancy’s defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, responded strongly to Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley on Thursday. He disagreed with Turley’s criticism regarding his public remarks about a juror who was the sole holdout in Clancy’s murder trial and expressed an interest in possibly debating him.
When asked about Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, Reddington said, “I’d like to meet with him sometime and maybe debate a few things,” during an interview with Fox News correspondent Bryan Llenas.
Llenas pointed out Turley’s earlier comments where he had labeled Reddington’s remarks about the jury as “utterly reprehensible,” accusing him of targeting a juror who simply disagreed with his arguments.
Reddington, however, rejected Turley’s assessment, asserting, “Well, I guess Jonathan Turley was wrong, wasn’t he? Based on what we now know about why this jury did not vote as required by the law.” He suggested that perhaps Turley should review the trial’s records before making further accusations, adding that he found Turley’s comments to be rather offensive.
Llenas countered, highlighting that the public still lacks the holdout juror’s perspective. “We don’t really know what this one juror actually means or has said,” he noted.
In response, Reddington speculated that it was probably just a matter of time before the juror’s version of events would emerge in an interview.
This exchange is the latest development in a public disagreement that intensified after Clancy’s trial, where Reddington criticized the holdout juror who prevented a unanimous murder verdict. Turley had initially accused Reddington of lacking the professional restraint expected from attorneys regarding jurors after a trial.
Turley also reacted again on Thursday after Reddington’s comments made during the interview were released. He expressed surprise at Reddington’s challenge for a debate, questioning what aspects Reddington deemed debatable.
Turley has maintained that lawyers are ethically obliged to avoid inciting public hostility towards jurors who exercise their independent judgment during deliberations. Meanwhile, Reddington stands by his critique, claiming that the holdout juror did not adhere to the judge’s instructions, and he feels that new information is validating his position.
Clancy’s trial resulted in a mistrial after jurors were unable to reach a consensus on whether she was criminally accountable for the deaths of her three children. Prosecutors have announced plans to retry her on the murder charges.
