PLYMOUTH, Mass. — Lindsay Clancy’s defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, has responded strongly after the lawyer of a juror—who was against convicting Clancy—criticized him for submitting what he deemed “Looney Tunes” motions that supposedly threaten constitutional rights.
“Honestly, Ed should probably focus on articulating his position in court rather than just making statements for the media,” Reddington shared in an interview.
His comments followed social media activity and remarks from the juror’s attorney, Edward Paltzik, who claimed Reddington’s request for an investigation into the holdout juror was a direct assault on the U.S. Constitution and jeopardized the Sixth Amendment, which protects the due process rights of defendants.
Reddington stood firm, asserting that each motion he filed was fully legitimate, grounded in law and facts. “I’m just doing my job by representing Lindsay. I think any attorney in a similar situation would likely do the same.” he added.
Paltzik, in a recent chat with a YouTuber known as FugitiveTV, mentioned something quite shocking. He suggested that Clancy should face execution, even though she hasn’t yet been convicted of any crime, and Massachusetts’ laws do not permit the death penalty.
Reddington did not hold back his feelings, telling Paltzik, “Ed, why don’t you just zip it? Seriously, you’re being quite abrasive.”
Interestingly, Reddington admitted he initially didn’t get Paltzik’s “Shooter McGavin” reference, but after it was explained, he found it amusing.
Paltzik also shot back, insisting he would not retract his statements and maintained that calling Clancy a “demon” was completely justified given the severity of her alleged actions. “She strangled her three innocent children,” he emphasized.
As for Reddington’s challenge to take the issue to court, Paltzik mentioned he is currently looking for a local attorney to assist in this matter, suggesting more steps were forthcoming.
“While Kevin was simply doing his job, there’s definitely been some derailment from normal proceedings,” Paltzik said. He expressed disbelief that Reddington would challenge a juror’s integrity, considering his own extensive experience in criminal defense.
The juror in question, identified as Michael Desronvil, has openly stated that he finds Clancy guilty in the tragic case involving her children, Cora, 5; Dawson, 3; and Callan, just 8 months old.
Meanwhile, eleven other jurors were inclined to find Clancy not guilty by reason of mental illness, aligning with Reddington’s defense, which argued that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis at the time.
The trial ended in a mistrial after the jury was unable to reach a consensus, with Judge William Sullivan announcing the mistrial after deliberations stretched over a week. Clancy is scheduled to return to court for a hearing on several defense motions. Prosecutors may reveal plans for a retrial as well.
Paltzik, not holding back, offered some advice to Reddington. “My suggestion is for Kevin to stop complaining and start preparing for a retrial. He only managed to sway 11 jurors, while he needed a full 12.”
Reddington has also contested the characterization of Desronvil as the “lone holdout juror,” instead labeling him as an “obstructionist juror.”
In legal filings, Reddington has pursued a limited inquiry into Desronvil’s background, requesting access to various records and evidence. Paltzik criticized this move, suggesting it was fundamentally flawed and that it raised serious concerns about the integrity of the juror process.
Additionally, another attorney for Clancy submitted a motion arguing that the judge’s decision to dismiss a defense objection during trial warrants dropping the charges due to double jeopardy claims. They highlighted that the jury expressed doubts about one member’s ability to follow the court’s legal instructions properly.
