Jonathan Turley Rebukes Lindsay Clancy’s Attorney Over Attacks on Holdout Juror

Fox News legal analyst Jonathan Turley delivered a forceful response to Lindsay Clancy’s attorney, Kevin Reddington, after the defense lawyer publicly criticized the juror who prevented the trial from ending in a unanimous verdict.

During a subsequent Fox News interview, Reddington responded to Turley’s criticism by suggesting the two legal figures discuss their differences publicly.

“I’d like to meet with him sometime and maybe debate a few things,” Reddington said.

Turley accepted the challenge with a pointed question on X.

“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.”

Although no debate has taken place, Turley published a detailed response Friday morning laying out what he considered serious failures in Reddington’s conduct.

Turley first questioned the attorney’s decision to criticize a juror during a nationally televised trial. He also objected to Reddington allegedly boasting “about how he ‘crushed’ the prosecution.”

Those concerns, however, were secondary to what Turley viewed as the far more troubling issue: Reddington’s public remarks about the sole juror who stood in the way of a “not guilty” verdict.

“[The other jurors] know that they were robbed by one man,” Reddington 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 responded.

A defense attorney has a professional obligation to advocate aggressively for a client. That responsibility does not grant an attorney license to direct public anger toward a citizen performing his civic duty as a juror.

Although Reddington did not disclose the juror’s name, Turley noted 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.”

That warning now appears increasingly relevant. Several jurors have spoken publicly about their frustration with the man who refused to join the others. During a Friday appearance on CBS News, juror Paula Devlin reportedly identified him as a black man in his 30s.

With each additional detail made public, the possibility that the juror could be identified grows. That makes rhetoric capable of inflaming public hostility especially irresponsible.

Turley characterized Reddington’s remarks as “repugnant and unprofessional venting.” He argued that an officer of the court should instead be “reaffirming the right of every juror to stand with their convictions against not just the other jurors, but the world.”

The issue goes far beyond legal etiquette. It concerns the personal safety of jurors and the integrity of the American judicial system.

“He put a target on [the juror],” Turley said, describing Reddington’s comments as “outrageous and reckless” and a “remarkably dangerous thing.”

Recent political violence has demonstrated how heated accusations can carry consequences outside the courtroom. When influential figures repeatedly portray an individual as evil, corrupt or responsible for a perceived injustice, unstable people may interpret that rhetoric as permission to act.

That danger is particularly serious when the target is an ordinary citizen who answered a jury summons and reached a conclusion others disliked.

The constitutional right to trial by jury depends upon jurors being free to examine the evidence, follow their consciences and dissent from the majority without fear of retaliation. A unanimous verdict means little if unanimity is achieved through intimidation rather than honest deliberation.

When attorneys turn public frustration against a holdout juror, they risk weakening one of the justice system’s most fundamental safeguards. America cannot accept a culture in which jurors who reach unpopular conclusions are exposed, threatened or subjected to mob pressure.

Turley concluded his response with an unmistakable condemnation of Reddington’s conduct.

“Yes, that is indeed reprehensible. To paraphrase Mr. Reddington, it is the type of thing that would keep most of us up at night.”