Lindsay Clancy's lawyer praises rule of law, contrasting with Trump's rejection of legal outcomes

Kevin Reddington's media appearances this week Tuesday capped off a significant summer for the veteran Massachusetts attorney. Having practiced law in the state for 50 years, Reddington gained sudden fame for his swashbuckling defense of Lindsay Clancy, the Duxbury nurse accused of killing her three children in 2023.

The Trial and Its Aftermath

In a hard-fought trial, Reddington argued that Clancy was not criminally responsible for the murders because her mental illness had eclipsed her moral discernment. The trial ended with the jury deadlocked 11–1, with the majority evidently voting not guilty. In the aftermath, Reddington was also celebrated on social media for his passionate defense of women's mental health.

However, what stood out in Reddington's post-trial interviews was not his advocacy for women—but his advocacy for civics. For him to promote the duties of citizenship at such a low point for constitutional democracy was somewhat startling, offering a shred of faith in the benighted American experiment.

Two Key Lessons in Citizenship

1. Deference to the Rule of Law

When George Stephanopoulos pressed Reddington on his earlier boast that he had "crushed" the prosecution—a claim he had made outside the courtroom—Reddington dialed back his bluster.

"That was bravado," he said. "I could have been more circumspect."

This was not merely good manners; it is how due process works. The Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution safeguard an adversarial system in which legal opponents fight hard, aiming to crush each other's arguments. This is why courtroom trials play like thrill sports in America. But then comes the rule of law: When a jury—or an electorate—renders a decision, both sides must turn "circumspect" and accept the legal outcome.

Reddington's emphasis on deference to the rule of law stands in stark contrast to Donald Trump's chronic refusal to accept any law that disfavors him, most notably the outcome of the 2020 election, which has caused the slow-rolling constitutional crisis that continues to engulf the nation.

On September 4, Trump blew past the presumption of innocence on the subject of Lindsay Clancy, recklessly claiming she would have to "pay a price" because she had done a "horrible, horrible thing." Trump, Reddington's approach suggests, will always choose vigilantism over the rule of law.

2. Defending the Right to Dissent

Reddington also spoke insightfully about the holdout juror—the person whose refusal to vote with the majority cost Reddington a massive courtroom victory and a lifetime of book and movie deals. If Trump were in Reddington's place, this juror would be identified, maligned, and threatened.

But Reddington did nothing of the kind.

"I would defend that individual's right to be a holdout forever," he said.

"That's part of our judicial system," he continued. "I respect that."

As the Enlightenment principle holds: "I may disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

In a constitutional democracy, individuals campaign, compete, advocate, and argue. And when it comes to capitulating to a consensus or a decree, an American is indeed empowered to be a "holdout forever." To make this point, Reddington even cited Sidney Lumet's Twelve Angry Men, the patriotic 1957 film used to teach high schoolers about the duties of juries, constitutional rights, and the freedom to dissent.

A Procedural Twist Worth Examining

Reddington then turned to the law itself. His concern, he said, was that the holdout evidently "refused to apply the law of reasonable doubt" during deliberations. In her own post-trial appearances, the jury's foreperson has further said that the holdout harbored full-fledged reasonable doubt but still would not vote to acquit.

This procedural twist deserves more attention:

• Who decides if a juror's doubt is reasonable?
• If a juror acknowledges having reasonable doubt but will not acquit, is he engaged in some form of individual nullification?

These are the kind of thorny questions that should be discussed in civics classes, along with a screening of the Lumet film. They get at some of the Constitution's founding conceptions of universal rationality, individual rights, due process, and how deliberation works in America.