Lindsay Clancy’s attorney signaled Tuesday he would be open to a plea deal, saying he hopes the district attorney will “revisit” the case now that her murder trial has ended in a mistrial.
Kevin Reddington’s comments come after Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial Friday in Clancy’s murder case after jurors were unable to reach a unanimous verdict, ending in an alleged 11-1 divide.
Reddington argued that the one holdout juror acknowledged doubt, but was refusing to properly apply the judge’s instructions on reasonable doubt.
Clancy, 36, faced three counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of her children â Cora, Dawson and Callan, all under age 6 â who were found strangled at the family’s home in January 2023.
In an interview on “Good Morning America” on Tuesday, Reddington said he hopes the two sides can “work something out” when asked about a possible plea agreement.
“Im willing to listen to Tim. Ive known Tim for 30 years. Hes a very hard charging prosecutor,” Reddington said, referring to Plymouth County District Attorney Tim Cruz. “I hope, however, after sitting through this trial and seeing the evidence that was presented from the government as well as from the defense, that he would revisit that issue and hopefully would be able to work something out that would be acceptable to both sides.”
Reddington previously said that prosecutors weren’t open to a plea deal while talking to reporters on Sept. 2. He later said “bring it” when asked about the possibility of a retrial.
“There’s no plea bargaining, there’s nothing Cruz wants, his triple homicide convictions, consecutive life sentences,” Reddington said.
LINDSAY CLANCY JURY RECAP: DAY 5 ENDS WITH NO VERDICT AFTER RARE INSTRUCTION
Reddington also appealed to President Donald Trump for a potential pardon. However, Trump has no authority to issue a pardon since Clancy’s murder trial is being handled in state court, not federal.
“Mr. President, I would hope that you would consider this young lady, the type of person she is, what shes been through, and consider a pardon,” Reddington said.
Reddington also softened his criticism of the lone holdout juror, whom he had previously accused of having an “agenda” and of having “robbed” the other jurors of their time.
“I at the end of the case made statements to the effect that I was upset,” he said. “I would defend that individuals right to be a holdout for forever. Thats part of our judicial system. And I respect that. And I would certainly defend his right to do that.”
“What I was upset about was, after that lengthy trial and the work that everyone put into this case, including these jurors that spent literally almost two months away from their home, their job, their family, where a gentleman had an opinion, not that he was sticking like the movie ’12 Angry Men,’ but in fact he had agreed, according to the note from the forelady, that he had doubt, but he would not apply the law of reasonable doubt as presented by the judge. That’s not right. And that’s why I was upset,” Reddington explained.
FOLLOW THE FOX TRUE CRIME TEAM ON X
WATCH: Patrick Clancy declines to answer questions after mistrial
In a statement
