Lindsay Clancy Case: Defense Attorney Kevin Reddington Rebukes Holdout Juror’s Lawyer After Fiery Interview

PLYMOUTH, Mass. — Kevin Reddington, lead defense attorney for Lindsay Clancy, sharply rebuked Edward Paltzik, the attorney for the juror who pushed to convict Clancy, after Paltzik gave a combative media interview and posted on social media.

Reddington told Fox News Digital that Paltzik should "learn how to go into the courtroom and articulate his position rather than be a histrionic individual that's just mouthing off for the media." He defended the defense team's post-mistrial motions as legitimate and grounded in law and fact.

"Every motion that has been filed is legitimate. It's all based on sound law, facts, jury questions, and I'm doing what I should do, representing Lindsay. And I'm pretty sure that Ed would have probably done the same thing, were it in Houston, and he was representing his client," Reddington said.

Paltzik, who represents the juror identified by counsel as Michael Desronvil, criticized the motions as "Looney Tunes" and described them as "a full-frontal attack on the U.S. Constitution," arguing they threaten Sixth Amendment protections for criminal defendants. In a separate interview with YouTuber Ray Marcel (FugitiveTV), Paltzik went further and publicly called for Clancy to face execution — despite Clancy not having been convicted and Massachusetts not imposing the death penalty.

Kevin Reddington, defense attorney for Lindsay Clancy, and Lindsay Clancy look on as Judge William Sullivan (out of frame) instructs the jury to continue deliberating, during Lindsay Clancy's murder trial at the Plymouth County Superior Court in Plymouth, Massachusetts, on September 4, 2026.

Reddington responded bluntly to Paltzik's media remarks: "Ed, why don't you just shut up? Really, you foul individual." He later said he initially did not understand Paltzik's "Shooter McGavin" reference but found it amusing after someone explained it.

Paltzik said he will not retract his statements and defended his public posture, calling Clancy a "demon" and asserting she strangled her three children: Cora, 5; Dawson, 3; and Callan, 8 months. He also said he is working to secure local counsel and expects filings in response to the defense motions.

The dispute centers on juror Michael Desronvil, who reportedly believed Clancy was guilty of the murder charges. Eleven other jurors, however, wanted to find her not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, consistent with the defense's assertion that Clancy suffered postpartum psychosis and was not criminally responsible.

Patrick Clancy exits Plymouth Superior Court, Plymouth, Mass., Monday, July27, 2026.

After a week of deliberations and reports of deadlock, Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial on Sept. 4. Clancy, 36, is scheduled to return to court for hearings on multiple defense motions; prosecutors may announce plans to seek a second trial.

Reddington has filed a motion seeking a "limited inquiry" into the holdout juror that requests background information, potential criminal history, phone records and courthouse surveillance video. Separately, defense lawyer Martin Weinberg argues in a motion that the judge's handling of a trial objection and the jury deadlock could warrant dismissal on double jeopardy grounds.

"The jury twice informed the Court that one of its members was refusing to apply the Court's instructions regarding the fundamental concept of reasonable doubt," Weinberg wrote, urging the court to have pursued a fuller inquiry before declaring a mistrial.

The attorneys' public sparring and the pending legal filings ensure further contentious hearings as the court considers whether to investigate the holdout juror and how to proceed with the case.