Lindsay Clancy’s attorney, Kevin Reddington, was destroyed by Fox News legal analyst Jonathan Turley on a Thursday broadcast concerning Reddington’s demonization of a key juror.
When asked about Turley’s critique in a subsequent interview with Fox News, Reddington responded, “I’d like to meet with him sometime and maybe debate a few things.”
In response to Reddington’s debate challenge, Turley responded on X.com, “I am curious as to what is debatable in his view: the professional duty of lawyers not to fuel the rage against a holdout juror or his apparent self-exemption from that duty.”
I was surprised to learn this morning that Kevin Reddington challenged me to a debate in an interview with Fox News reporter Bryan Llenas over my criticism of his attack, https://t.co/gCeRmYVEjQ, on the holdout juror in the Clancy trial. I am curious as to what is debatable in his view: the professional duty of lawyers not to fuel the rage against a holdout juror or his apparent self-exemption from that duty …https://t.co/3aT3VFFAIU
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) September 10, 2026
While a debate has not yet happened, Turley released a blog post on Friday morning detailing Reddington’s failures.
What were these failures?
Will Lindsay Clancy be re-tried?
Yes: 84% (21 Votes)
No: 16% (4 Votes)
First, Turley questioned Reddington’s choice to attack the juror during the televised trial. He also called Reddington out on his gloating “about how he ‘crushed’ the prosecution.” While neither of these is a good look for Clancy’s attorney, these were merely secondary issues.
The primary concern was about how Reddington spoke with reporters concerning the one juror who prevented a “not guilty” verdict. “[The other jurors] know that they were robbed by one man,” he said. “I hope that guy can sleep well at night.”
“It was taking that rage outside the courthouse that crossed the line for me,” Turley said.
Zealously advocating for your client is one thing; publicly harassing a juror is another. While Reddington never revealed the juror’s identity, Turley pointed out that there were “just three males on the jury. [Reddington] knew the juror’s name would likely be disclosed in time, given the anger over the trial’s outcome.”
It appears as though Turley’s prediction will likely come true. Over the past couple of days, many of the other jurors have taken to popular media, sharing their frustration with the holdout juror.
But they’re not just sharing frustration; they’re also sharing identifying features. Friday morning, jury member Paula Devlin revealed to CBS News that this juror was a black male in his 30s. It’s only a matter of time before more and more information leaks out.
It’s appalling when an attorney begins to stir up public hatred for a public servant.
This is why Turley rightly called Reddington’s actions “repugnant and unprofessional venting” and said that he should be “reaffirming the right of every juror to stand with their convictions against not just the other jurors, but the world.”
The reason such behavior is “repugnant” isn’t just about some arbitrary professionalism — it’s about safety. “He put a target on [the juror],” said Turley, describing Reddington’s outburst as “outrageous and reckless” and a “remarkably dangerous thing.”
Here’s the main concern: Blaming the juror rather than the woman who strangled her three children encourages delusional feminists to take matters into their own hands.
Call the president a fascist, and someone tries to kill him — saved only by a turn of the head. Call a mainstream political organizer a Nazi, and a radical leftist murders him in front of his children. Accuse a regular person of targeting an innocent woman; blowback is guaranteed.
At the end of the day, this issue is about the protection of the judicial process. Jurors need to feel free to hold dissenting views without facing extrajudicial retaliation.
When officers of the court incite public outrage against individual jurors, they undermine the protective guarantees essential to a fair trial by jury.
We do not want to live in a world where unpopular jurors are doxxed, threatened, or worse. Such is the world Reddington is building.
This is why Turley closes his response with these words: “Yes, that is indeed reprehensible. To paraphrase Mr. Reddington, it is the type of thing that would keep most of us up at night.”
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
