https://www.facebook.com/717385334796087/

Legallyatlaw, 1000 postal Road, Bethlehem, PA (2026)

09/05/2026

🚨 CLANCY JURY ROUND-TABLE — WHAT IS YOUR FINAL VOTE?

Put yourself in one of those 12 chairs. You sat through the entire Lindsay Clancy trial. You heard every witness, every expert, the Commonwealth’s case, the defense’s case, the medication evidence, the postpartum mental-health evidence, the alleged command hallucination, Lindsay’s statements, the evidence the Commonwealth argued showed planning and intent, the cross-examinations and both closing arguments.

Now strip away EVERYTHING that happened afterward. No mistrial. No juror controversy. No interviews. No social media. No news commentary. You get exactly what the jury had: the evidence admitted at trial and the law.

You deliberate. You argue your position. You listen to the other 11 jurors. You go back through the testimony. Finally, the foreperson goes around that table one last time.

You have to cast your individual FINAL vote. What is it?

1. FIRST-DEGREE MURDER — The Commonwealth proved beyond a reasonable doubt an unlawful killing committed with deliberate premeditation, and proved Lindsay was criminally responsible at the time.

2. SECOND-DEGREE MURDER — The Commonwealth proved murder beyond a reasonable doubt, including the required malice, but did not prove the additional element necessary to elevate it to first-degree murder. Lindsay was criminally responsible.

3. MANSLAUGHTER — The Commonwealth did not prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt, but proved the requirements for the lesser offense of manslaughter and proved criminal responsibility.

4. NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF LACK OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY — NCR — Because of a mental disease or defect, Lindsay lacked substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness of her conduct OR to conform her conduct to the requirements of law. Once criminal responsibility was properly at issue, the Commonwealth had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was criminally responsible.

5. NOT GUILTY — The Commonwealth failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the elements necessary to convict her of the charged offense or a lesser-included offense. This is different from NCR: an NCR verdict specifically concerns criminal responsibility because of mental disease or defect.

And remember: this was never simply “Did Lindsay kill her children?” The jury had to apply the law to the evidence and determine what offense, if any, the Commonwealth proved beyond a reasonable doubt — including criminal responsibility.

For purposes of this poll, there is no hung-jury option and no “I don’t know.” I want YOUR individual final vote after deliberating.

Drop the NUMBER and tell me WHY.

The foreperson gets to your chair. What’s your final vote?

09/05/2026

🚨 BEFORE LINDSAY CLANCY, BIG RED WAS ALREADY LITIGATING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN KILLING SOMEONE AND MURDERING SOMEONE

If you want to understand Kevin Reddington’s lawyering in Lindsay Clancy, look at what he was doing immediately before it. In 2025, Reddington represented Massachusetts surgeon Ingolf “Harry” Tuerk, who was charged with first-degree murder in the death of his wife, Kathleen McLean. This was not an identity case. Tuerk took the stand and admitted he caused his wife’s death. So Reddington did what good criminal defense lawyers do: he forced the jury away from the emotional question—Did something horrific happen?—and onto the legal question—Did the Commonwealth prove the crime it actually charged beyond a reasonable doubt?

That distinction matters. Causing a death does not automatically establish first-degree murder. The Commonwealth still has to prove the required elements and the defendant’s legally required mental state. Reddington attacked the prosecution’s theory of deliberate premeditation and argued that what occurred during the couple’s confrontation did not constitute a planned, premeditated killing. He wasn’t trying to erase the act. He was litigating the mens rea. That is a very different thing.

And Reddington did something I think we now recognize VERY well: he owned the facts he couldn’t reasonably fight. Instead of destroying his credibility with the jury by pretending the ugly evidence didn’t exist, he essentially drew a legal line around it: You can believe my client did this and still find that the Commonwealth has not proven first-degree murder. That is sophisticated criminal-defense lawyering because jurors have to decide the elements—not simply whether they hate what happened.

The jury ultimately rejected first-degree murder and convicted Tuerk of voluntary manslaughter. He later received 12–16 years. So no, Reddington didn’t obtain an acquittal. But when your client enters trial charged with first-degree murder and the jury comes back with voluntary manslaughter, the distinction you spent the entire trial asking the jury to make mattered.

Then comes Lindsay Clancy.

Different case. Different defense. Different law governing criminal responsibility. But look at Reddington’s approach: once again, he wasn’t asking a jury to decide whether children died or whether Lindsay caused their deaths. Those facts were not the ultimate legal dispute. He was demanding that jurors separate the horror of the acts from the legal determination the Commonwealth actually had to prove concerning Lindsay’s criminal responsibility and mental state.

And THAT is why I keep talking about Reddington.

A criminal trial is not a referendum on whether something terrible happened. The burden never becomes “this is horrific, therefore murder.” The Commonwealth has to prove every required element beyond a reasonable doubt, and the jury has to apply the law even when the facts make that extraordinarily difficult.

Big Red had literally just walked out of another Massachusetts courtroom after convincing jurors to make precisely that kind of legal distinction.

He didn’t learn how to walk directly into terrible facts during Lindsay Clancy. He walked into Clancy already knowing exactly how to make a jury look past the act and confront the law.

THAT is Kevin Reddington. ⚖️🔥

09/05/2026

🚨 SAME JUDGE. DIFFERENT CASE. AND THIS IS WHY THE RECORD MATTERS. 🚨

If you watched Kevin Reddington fight Judge Sullivan over EVERYTHING in the Lindsay Clancy trial, objecting, putting arguments on the record, fighting over the juror issue, seeking emergency appellate relief and continuing to make his arguments until the very end, let me introduce you to Commonwealth v. Latarsha Sanders. Because THIS is exactly why good defense lawyers preserve the record.

Latarsha Sanders was convicted in 2022 of two counts of first degree murder for killing her two young sons. The defense did not dispute that Sanders killed them. The central issue was criminal responsibility, whether severe mental illness rendered her not criminally responsible when she committed the acts. Sound familiar? And who was the trial judge? Judge William Sullivan. The same judge who just presided over Lindsay Clancy’s trial.

Then, in August 2026, literally while the Clancy trial was underway, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court VACATED Sanders’s murder convictions and ordered a NEW TRIAL. Why? The SJC held that Judge Sullivan wrongly excluded relevant mental health records from Sanders’s time in prison and a psychiatric hospital. Those records mattered because criminal responsibility was the central disputed issue in the case. The SJC determined the exclusion was prejudicial error. The SJC also addressed improper portions of the prosecution’s closing argument where prosecutors attempted to connect a Law & Order: SVU episode playing on a television during the investigation to Sanders’s claimed delusions without sufficient evidence establishing that connection.

Now fast forward to Lindsay Clancy. Same judge. Same courthouse. Another mother accused of killing her children. Another case where mental illness and criminal responsibility were at the absolute center of the defense. And now Clancy’s first trial has ended in a mistrial after the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict.

THIS is why you watched Reddington fight over the record. THIS is why you heard objections that may have sounded repetitive. THIS is why lawyers say, “I need to preserve my objection.” An appellate court cannot go back in time and recreate what happened in that courtroom. It reviews the record the lawyers created while it was happening. Sanders is one hell of an example of why that matters.

Now, before anyone twists this, Sanders was NOT acquitted. Her convictions were vacated and she was granted a new trial. And the Sanders decision does NOT automatically mean Sullivan was wrong about the issues in Clancy. They are different cases with different records and different legal issues.

But come on. Same judge. Same general criminal responsibility battlefield. Murder convictions already vacated because of prejudicial error involving evidence central to a mental illness defense. So when you watched Kevin Reddington refuse to let an objection disappear, fight the juror issue, seek emergency appellate intervention and continue building that record until the very end? That wasn’t theatrics. That was lawyering.

09/05/2026

🚨 LINDSAY CLANCY IS BACK AT THE HOSPITAL. WHAT DOES THAT ACTUALLY MEAN? 🚨

Lindsay Clancy has returned to Tewksbury Hospital following the mistrial, and before everyone runs with the headline, this does NOT mean she was found not guilty by reason of insanity, committed after a verdict, or suddenly transferred to a hospital because of what happened at trial.

The mistrial did not resolve the criminal charges against Lindsay. There was no guilty verdict. There was no not guilty verdict. There was no finding that she lacked criminal responsibility. The jury could not reach a unanimous verdict, the judge declared a mistrial, and the criminal case remains pending.

So why is she going back to a hospital instead of jail? Because Tewksbury Hospital is where Lindsay was already being held before and during the trial. Following the mistrial, she essentially returns to her existing custody arrangement while the case remains pending. She is still in state custody and she is not free to leave simply because the first trial ended without a verdict.

This is also VERY different from what would happen if a jury actually found Lindsay not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility. That type of verdict would trigger a separate legal process involving evaluation and potential civil commitment. We never got there because this jury never reached a verdict.

So when you see the headline “Lindsay Clancy returns to hospital after mistrial,” understand what it means legally. She was not “sentenced” to a hospital. She was not acquitted. She was not found insane. The mistrial basically hit pause on the prosecution, not reset on Lindsay’s freedom.

Her charges remain pending, she remains in custody, and the next question is what the Commonwealth decides to do with this case.

The trial ended. The case did not.

09/05/2026

⚖️ REDDINGTON’S NEXT MURDER TRIAL — WHO’S FOLLOWING ME OVER THERE?

Apparently Kevin Reddington said, “No rest for the wicked,” because after SEVEN WEEKS of Lindsay Clancy, he’s headed right into another murder case.

This time, Reddington is representing Kelsie Cote, who is accused of murdering her 74-year-old grandmother, Doris Cote, in North Adams, Massachusetts, in November 2022. Prosecutors allege Doris was attacked with scissors and a paperweight inside her home.

According to investigators, Kelsie was one of only two people with access to the home and was allegedly the last person to see her grandmother alive. She reportedly told police she discovered Doris at the bottom of the basement stairs around 10 a.m. but did not call for help until approximately 4 p.m. She also allegedly admitted to attempting to clean the scene and interfering with her grandmother’s body. Prosecutors have claimed the evidence did not match her account and have pointed to Doris’s approximately $1 million estate/inheritance as a possible motive.

And yes — this is one of the cases that was delayed while Reddington was busy trying the Clancy case.

After watching Reddington for seven weeks, I’m absolutely interested in seeing him handle a completely different murder prosecution. You don’t have to agree with his clients, the defense, or a verdict to appreciate watching a lawyer WORK. And if the Clancy trial taught us anything, it’s that Reddington is going to make a record, challenge the Commonwealth, and fight over every inch of that courtroom.

So… are we doing this one next?! Because I feel like at this point we’ve all accidentally enrolled in Kevin Reddington Law School. 😂⚖️

As always, Cote is accused of these crimes and is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

09/04/2026

🚨 CALL IT “PENIS BLUES” AND WATCH HOW FAST EVERYONE SUDDENLY TAKES IT SERIOUSLY.

Rosemary Scapicchio said what people apparently needed to hear: “Do you think for a second, if a man had an erectile dysfunction, they’d be calling it ‘pen*s blues’? No, because it minimizes what you’re suffering from.” And I genuinely do not care who that pi**es off.

She is right. We call it “baby blues.” What a cute, soft, harmless little phrase for a woman who just grew a human being, gave birth, had her hormones crash and may be experiencing very real changes to her mental health. We have normalized language that can make women’s suffering sound like something they should just push through. But imagine doing that with men. Imagine a man repeatedly telling doctors that something is seriously wrong and everyone shrugging their shoulders and calling it his “pen*s blues.” Imagine telling him it happens to lots of men, he’ll probably feel better soon, and sending him on his way. Sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it? THAT. IS. THE. POINT.

And before somebody intentionally twists this into something it isn’t: recognizing the seriousness of postpartum mental illness does not erase three dead children. It does not diminish their lives. It does not require you to excuse what happened to them. Those children deserved to live. But I have HAD IT with pretending we cannot say two things at once. Three children can be victims AND we can demand answers about the medical care their mother received before they died. Women can be held accountable AND the medical system can be held accountable for its own failures. We can grieve those babies AND ask why a woman who was repeatedly seeking help ended up where Lindsay Clancy did.

And now Lindsay’s civil lawsuit against her medical providers is continuing. Those questions about medications, diagnoses, warning signs, treatment and what her providers knew or should have known are not disappearing because the criminal trial ended in a mistrial. Call Rosemary vulgar. Call the comparison offensive. Clutch every pearl in the damn jewelry box. I. DO. NOT. CARE.

Maybe if hearing “PENIS BLUES” makes you uncomfortable enough to finally understand how dismissive “baby blues” can sound when we’re talking about women’s mental health, then Rosemary made her point. Women have been told to suck it up, calm down, sleep it off and deal with it for long enough.

09/04/2026

🚨 CRUZ VS. REDDINGTON: THE TRIAL ENDED IN A MISTRIAL. THE FIGHT ABSOLUTELY DID NOT.

If you watched Tim Cruz and Kevin Reddington speak after the Lindsay Clancy mistrial today, you basically watched two attorneys walk out of the same courthouse and describe two completely different cases.

District Attorney Tim Cruz brought the focus directly back to Cora, Dawson and Callan. His message was clear: this case was about three children who died, not an indictment of the healthcare system or the way women are treated within it. He defended his prosecutors, condemned the attacks directed at them, emphasized that prosecutors have an obligation to speak for victims who cannot speak for themselves, and said no decision has been made yet about whether Lindsay will be tried again.

Then Kevin Reddington walked up. And Kevin Reddington was having NONE of it.

Reddington did not speak like a lawyer who believed he had just lost. Quite the opposite. When asked what he would change if he had to try this case again, his response was essentially: WHY WOULD I CHANGE ANYTHING? I WON. He said he “crushed” the Commonwealth’s case. Why does he believe that? Eleven to one.

According to Reddington, 11 jurors were prepared to reach a verdict and ONE was standing in the way. He praised the foreperson for bringing the issue to the judge. He said Lindsay and her family were “robbed by one.” He questioned the holdout juror’s “agenda,” said that one person had taken seven weeks away from 11 other jurors, and even thanked the jury — minus one. Whether you agree with Reddington saying that publicly or think a lawyer should never go after a juror like that, there is no mistaking what he believes happened inside that jury room: he believes his defense worked.

Remember what happened BEFORE the mistrial was declared. Reddington argued this was not simply a juror who disagreed with everyone else. His argument was that the information coming from the jury suggested a juror acknowledged doubt but would not properly apply the reasonable-doubt standard. Reddington wanted an inquiry. He wanted the juror removed if legally appropriate. He fought the court’s instruction. He raised the ADA issue. He argued against ending deliberations. And when it appeared the mistrial was coming, he attempted an emergency trip to the SJC. This man fought the mistrial until there was essentially nowhere else to go.

Then he walked outside and basically told Tim Cruz: think long and hard before you do this again.

And THAT is where these two press conferences became so fascinating. Cruz’s position: Do not lose sight of the victims. Three children are dead. This prosecution was about Cora, Dawson and Callan. Reddington’s position: You cannot tell the story of how those three children died without examining what happened to their mother and the medical system treating her.

Reddington spoke emotionally about Lindsay. He called her brave and wonderful. He said “she’s like a daughter to me.” He said her life is a tragedy. And he pushed back against any suggestion that Lindsay or her defense somehow fails to recognize that Cora, Dawson and Callan are victims. His position is that Lindsay loved those children, grieves those children and lives every single day knowing they are gone.

Reddington then went bigger. He said he hopes this case forces America to examine what he believes are enormous deficiencies in postpartum mental-health treatment. He talked about other countries having systems designed specifically for mothers experiencing severe postpartum psychiatric crises and questioned why the United States remains so far behind. Cruz says this case wasn’t about the healthcare system. Reddington says the healthcare system is impossible to separate from this case. That may be the single biggest philosophical divide between the prosecution and defense.

And then there is the retrial. Cruz hasn’t announced whether he will retry Lindsay. Reddington basically dared him to think very carefully before doing it because, from Reddington’s perspective, he already knows what happened when the Commonwealth put its entire case before 12 people: he says 11 weren’t willing to convict. If Cruz decides to go again, Reddington says Lindsay will be ready. And perhaps the most Kevin Reddington answer of the entire afternoon came when he was asked what he would do differently the second time around: essentially, Nothing. Why would I? I won. He has even talked about seeking a sequestered jury if there is another trial because after seven weeks of nationally watched testimony, a mistrial, the juror controversy and the explosion of publicity, finding 12 people untouched by this case could be an enormous undertaking.

But here is the part everyone needs to understand: A MISTRIAL IS NOT AN ACQUITTAL. Lindsay Clancy was not convicted today. She was not acquitted today. There is no final verdict. The criminal charges remain pending, and absent some other legal ruling, the Commonwealth can try her again.

And Kevin Reddington is not simply sitting around waiting to see what Tim Cruz decides. September 29. Circle it. That is when this case returns to court, and Rule 25 is going to matter. Reddington intends to pursue a required finding of not guilty under Massachusetts Rule of Criminal Procedure 25. That means he will ask Judge Sullivan to determine that the Commonwealth’s evidence was legally insufficient to sustain a conviction. That is a different question from whether 12 jurors could agree.

And remember: Reddington spent the final hours of this trial doing something experienced trial and appellate lawyers do very intentionally — making objections, stating grounds, requesting relief and preserving the record. Because if Judge Sullivan denies the relief Reddington seeks, I have absolutely no doubt Reddington will examine every available avenue of appellate review.

So no, today wasn’t the end. Today was the end of Trial No. 1.

Tim Cruz walked out of that courthouse saying: remember Cora, Dawson and Callan. Kevin Reddington walked out saying, in substance: I already showed you my defense works. If you want Trial No. 2, I’ll do it again.

And somewhere between those two positions sits one of the most complicated criminal cases I have ever watched.

September 29. We ride again.

09/04/2026

🚨 WAIT — THE MISTRIAL DOESN’T MEAN REDDINGTON IS DONE: LET’S TALK RULE 25

Everyone is talking about a retrial after the mistrial in the Lindsay Clancy case, but there is another piece of Massachusetts criminal procedure you need to know about: Rule 25 — a Motion for a Required Finding of Not Guilty.

In simple terms, Rule 25 allows the defense to ask the judge to find that the Commonwealth’s evidence was legally insufficient to support a conviction. This is NOT the judge deciding whether he personally believes Lindsay Clancy, whether he agrees with the defense experts, or whether he thinks the prosecution’s witnesses were credible. The question is much narrower: Did the Commonwealth present enough evidence that a rational jury could find every required element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt?

And here is why Rule 25 matters after a mistrial. Under Massachusetts Rule of Criminal Procedure 25(b)(2), when a jury is discharged without returning a verdict, a defendant can renew a properly preserved motion for a required finding of not guilty within five days after the jury is discharged. That is a VERY short window.

So even though everyone is looking ahead to the September 29 status conference, there could be significant litigation before then. Reddington could renew his Rule 25 motion and essentially tell Judge Sullivan: the jury couldn’t reach a verdict, but regardless of that deadlock, the Commonwealth’s evidence was legally insufficient on one or more of these charges, and the court should enter a required finding of NOT GUILTY.

Important distinction: 11-1 does not win a Rule 25 motion. Nearly 40 hours of deliberations does not win it either. A hung jury does not automatically mean reasonable doubt legally requires an acquittal. Rule 25 is about the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial — not how the individual jurors ultimately viewed that evidence.

But the consequences could be enormous. If Judge Sullivan grants a required finding of not guilty on a charge, we are no longer simply talking about another hung jury on that charge. The judge has entered an acquittal based on insufficient evidence. That creates an entirely different legal posture than today’s mistrial and could dramatically affect what the Commonwealth is able to retry, subject to the specific ruling and any appellate proceedings available to the Commonwealth.

This is also why what Reddington did throughout this trial matters. Preservation. Preservation. Preservation. The emergency SJC fight today over the juror and mistrial was one issue. Rule 25 addresses something completely different: whether the prosecution’s evidence was legally sufficient in the first place.

So, yes, September 29 is the next scheduled court date. But I would absolutely be watching what Reddington files before then.

The mistrial ended Trial No. 1.

It did not end the legal fight.

09/04/2026

🚨 MISTRIAL IS OFFICIAL — BUT REDDINGTON MADE SURE THIS FIGHT ISN’T OVER

After an absolutely wild day in the Lindsay Clancy trial, Judge Sullivan has officially declared a mistrial. The jury has been discharged, and this trial is over without a verdict. But Kevin Reddington did something incredibly important before those jurors walked out of that courthouse: he preserved the record.

Reddington objected. He made his position clear on the record regarding the holdout juror and the reasonable-doubt issue. He argued for further inquiry. When Judge Sullivan was prepared to declare a mistrial, Reddington asked for time to seek emergency relief from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. He got an hour, filed the emergency request, argued it before a single justice of the SJC, and kept the jury from being discharged while that request was considered. Ultimately, the emergency relief was denied and the mistrial went forward.

But losing an emergency request does not erase the issue he preserved. And I do not doubt for one second that we have not heard the last of Reddington’s legal challenge to what happened with this jury. Whether that comes through further appellate proceedings, motions before a retrial, or both, he made sure there is a record of exactly what he believed the court got wrong. That is why you hear trial lawyers repeatedly object even after a judge has made it pretty clear how he is going to rule: you cannot appeal an issue you failed to properly preserve.

Now we look ahead to September 29, when Lindsay Clancy is scheduled to return to court for a status conference. That is not a second trial date. It is the next procedural date where the court and attorneys can begin addressing what happens after this mistrial — including the Commonwealth’s intentions regarding a retrial, scheduling, motions, and the procedural path forward.

Because a mistrial from a genuinely deadlocked jury does not equal an acquittal or conviction. The charges remain pending, and the Commonwealth can ordinarily retry the case. But after everything that happened during these deliberations, I would expect Reddington to litigate every viable issue before Lindsay Clancy ever sits through another trial.

Think about what happened today alone: mistrial imminent → Reddington objects → asks for an hour → emergency SJC filing → emergency argument → matter taken under advisement while the jurors literally sat waiting → relief denied → mistrial declared.

He did not win today’s emergency fight. But he made damn sure the fight was preserved.

Next stop: September 29.

09/04/2026

🚨 BREAKING: THE SJC HEARD ARGUMENT — NOW EVERYONE WAITS

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has now heard argument on Kevin Reddington’s emergency request and taken the matter under advisement.

That means there was no immediate ruling. The justice heard the arguments and is now considering what happens next.

And here is what makes this absolutely wild: the jurors are still there.

They have not been discharged. They are literally sitting in the jury room waiting while the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court considers whether to intervene in what was, earlier today, headed directly toward a mistrial.

Reddington’s entire objective was to get this issue in front of the higher court before Judge Sullivan discharged the jury. He got his emergency argument heard, and now the jury remains intact while everyone waits for the decision.

The issue centers around the holdout juror, the reported problem with applying the reasonable-doubt standard, and Reddington’s argument that further inquiry should occur before this case is simply declared a mistrial.

If the SJC grants Reddington relief, we have to see exactly what the justice orders — whether that means further proceedings before Judge Sullivan, additional inquiry, or some other direction. If the SJC denies emergency relief, Judge Sullivan can move forward with the mistrial process and discharge the jury.

Think about where we are right now: this morning we were on the brink of a mistrial. Reddington asked for time to seek emergency appellate intervention. The judge gave him an hour. He went to the SJC. The SJC heard argument. And now the jurors are sitting in a room waiting while a justice of Massachusetts’ highest court decides what happens to this trial.

This is an extraordinary procedural moment.

⚖️ The argument is over. The matter is under advisement. The jury is still intact. And everyone waits.

Legallyatlaw

09/05/2026

09/05/2026

09/05/2026

09/05/2026

09/05/2026

09/04/2026

09/04/2026

09/04/2026

09/04/2026

09/04/2026

Address

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Contact The Business

Shortcuts

Share

Category

Listing takedown request