Clancy defense attorney rebuts juror's lawyer over post-trial motions
Attorney Kevin Reddington defended the legality of motions seeking information about the lone holdout juror in Lindsay Clancy's case, while juror counsel Edward Paltzik criticized the filings as an attack on constitutional rights.
Lindsay Clancy’s defense lawyer, Kevin Reddington, responded to criticism from juror-representative Edward Paltzik after filing motions that request a limited inquiry into the background of the juror who voted against a guilty verdict. Reddington said the motions are “legitimate,” based on “sound law, facts, jury questions,” and are part of his duty to represent Clancy.
Paltzik, who has represented the juror identified as Michael Desronvil, argued that the filings constitute a “full-frontal attack on the U.S. Constitution” and threaten the Sixth Amendment’s due-process guarantees. He also warned that the motions could set a precedent for post-trial investigations of jurors.
The case resulted in a mistrial on Sept. 4 after the jury deadlocked, with eleven jurors favoring a not-guilty verdict by reason of mental disease and the holdout juror maintaining a guilty finding. A hearing on the defense motions is scheduled for Tuesday, and prosecutors may seek a second trial.
In a separate filing, Clancy’s co-counsel Martin Weinberg argued that the judge’s decision to declare a mistrial without fully investigating the holdout juror should trigger a dismissal of the charges on double-jeopardy grounds. The defense maintains that Clancy’s alleged postpartum psychosis negates criminal responsibility.