Lindsay Clancy’s Attorney Pushes Back Against Nancy Grace as Jury Deliberations Continue

As jurors continued deliberating in the high-profile case against Lindsay Clancy in Plymouth, Massachusetts, defense attorney Kevin Reddington turned some of his attention toward the media coverage surrounding the trial. On Monday morning, before entering court, Reddington delivered a pointed response to comments made by television personality and legal commentator Nancy Grace, arguing that her characterization of the case was inaccurate and potentially harmful.

Clancy, 36, a former labor and delivery nurse, is being represented by Reddington as a jury of nine women and three men weighs her fate. Court TV’s Terry Moran reported from outside the Plymouth courthouse as deliberations entered another day. According to Moran, Reddington has frequently spoken briefly to reporters while arriving at court, but this time his message was especially direct.

The controversy centered on comments Grace made on her “Crime Stories” program. In a clip played during Court TV’s coverage, Grace described Clancy as a “loving mom” who allegedly searched online for ways to kill before killing her three children in the basement using exercise bands.

Reddington strongly objected to that description. He said the claim was inaccurate and emphasized that comments like those can have an impact. In his words, “Things like that hurt.”

His reaction was not entirely surprising to observers who have followed the case closely. Reddington has shown that he is actively monitoring public discussion of the trial. Court TV noted that he had also criticized a podcaster the previous week. The longtime defense attorney has handled numerous high-profile cases and has never appeared reluctant to challenge public commentary when he believes it misrepresents evidence or risks distorting perceptions of his client.

Court TV panelists discussed whether responding publicly to such criticism is helpful.

Susan Hendricks noted that Nancy Grace is unlikely to be troubled by Reddington’s criticism. Grace, she suggested, has long been accustomed to intense debate and often appears comfortable with public sparring over controversial criminal cases.

At the same time, Hendricks said Reddington appeared noticeably different as the jury returned to deliberations. She described him as looking tired, perhaps reflecting the emotional and physical toll of a lengthy trial. Attorneys on both sides had spent weeks preparing and presenting evidence, and with the case now in the jury’s hands, there was little left for either side to do but wait.

Hendricks compared the moment to the aftermath of a major competition. The preparation, adrenaline and courtroom battles were over. Reddington himself had previously said he believed he had done the best he could for his client. Clancy, according to her attorney, was understandably nervous.

Attorney John Mobley offered another perspective, describing the exhaustion that can follow a long and demanding trial. He said lawyers involved in major cases can spend weeks sleeping only a few hours a night, constantly adapting to new developments and operating under enormous stress.

Mobley said he personally dislikes negative publicity surrounding cases he handles, but he questioned whether directly responding to every critical comment is worth the energy. In his view, confronting negative coverage can sometimes have the opposite effect by drawing even more attention to the statement being disputed.

Tara Coleman agreed that engaging with every negative comment may not always be productive, but she emphasized a separate point: accuracy in reporting matters.

Coleman said one thing she respects about Reddington is his apparent commitment to accuracy. For an attorney whose client’s liberty and future are at stake, inaccurate descriptions of evidence can be particularly frustrating, especially during jury deliberations.

Meanwhile, inside the courthouse, the case moved into the third day of deliberations.

Judge William Sullivan returned to the bench and confirmed that Clancy was present with Reddington. The Commonwealth was represented by Assistant District Attorneys Jennifer Sprague and Shannon Buckingham.

The 12 deliberating jurors and six alternates were brought into the courtroom, where the judge once again reminded them of their obligations.

Judge Sullivan asked whether any juror had read, seen or overheard anything from any source that might affect his or her ability to remain fair and impartial. No juror indicated that outside information had created such a problem.

He then asked whether there were any other serious concerns related to their service that needed to be brought to the court’s attention. Again, no significant issue was raised.

The judge thanked the jurors for continuing to follow his instructions and sent them back to resume their deliberations.

At that point, the jury had been deliberating for nearly 11 hours in total, with Court TV continuing its verdict-watch coverage.

The contrast between the two developments was striking. Inside the courthouse, jurors were being carefully shielded from outside influence and instructed to decide the case solely on the evidence presented at trial. Outside the courthouse, meanwhile, attorneys, commentators, journalists and the public continued debating how the case should be understood.

For Reddington, Nancy Grace’s comments represented more than ordinary media criticism. His response suggested that he believes public descriptions of the evidence must remain accurate, particularly in a case already surrounded by enormous emotion and attention.

For now, however, neither television commentary nor courthouse arguments can determine the final outcome.

That decision rests with the 12 jurors behind the courthouse doors.

And as the third day of deliberations continued, everyone else could do only one thing: wait.