The judge overseeing the Lindsay Clancy case declared a mistrial Friday after only a single juror prevented a unanimous verdict, purportedly because he was willing to convict the self-admitted baby killer. In a seeming bid to discredit the juror, Clancy’s defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, appeared to suggest the holdout juror might be…
Page A2From§Eachthe milkman edition — 5 September 2026
Republicans demand justice for slain children; the juror trying to deliver it got called biased by the defense
As it ran on the front
"Victims deserved far, far better." That is the sentence Republicans released within hours of Friday's mistrial in the Lindsay Clancy case, and taken at face value it is hard to argue with — a jury heard weeks of testimony and did not convict, and the statement is right that this should trouble anyone. The trouble, as the statement frames it, sits with the jury. Hold that for a second.
Clancy admitted in court that she killed her three children in 2023. She argued she should not be held criminally responsible, citing her state of mind at the time. Her attorney made a last-minute attempt to head off a mistrial; the attempt failed, and the case ended in a hung jury, declared a mistrial Friday. First-degree murder requires a unanimous verdict, which means one juror who won't convict can hang the whole room — and that is what the reporting says happened. A single juror, purportedly willing to convict, stood alone against the rest of the panel. So the jury didn't fail to convict. One member of it tried to, and the rest could not be moved. That's not the system letting Clancy off. That is, as far as the record shows, the system doing exactly what a unanimity requirement does when the room disagrees.…
…(cont) The Federalist offered a second, sharper theory the same day: livestreaming trials emboldens lawyers to act out for clicks. They mean Kevin Reddington specifically, Clancy's attorney, who during the trial appeared to suggest the holdout juror might be biased against disabled people. Set that next to the first statement. The clicks theory blames the camera for a defense lawyer's attempt to discredit the one juror Republicans are, elsewhere in the same news cycle, angry didn't get a conviction. That's not the audience doing that. That's — that's the defense attorney, on the record, in the courtroom, camera or no camera.
Three children are dead. That fact sits under both statements, and neither one moves it. Everything printed Friday afternoon was aimed at the jury, the judge, or the camera. None of it landed on the one person in the room who tried, alone, to convict.
“They put out "victims deserved far, far better" before the ink dried, like the problem is a jury doing its job instead of the one juror who actually did it, standing alone against the rest of the panel. Same week the Federalist's blaming livestreaming for a defense lawyer trying to paint that same juror as biased against disabled people — pick a villain. Three kids are dead no matter which way they point the camera.”
“Look, the jury system failed these families, plain and simple, one juror short of justice — and if that juror had doubts, maybe you ask what kind of person gets seated on a case like this. The clicks theory, that's not controversial, cameras change behavior, Reddington was just doing his job when he went after — okay, he went after the juror who wanted to convict, that is in fact what he was doing.”
The receipts
A mistrial was declared in Lindsay Clancy's murder trial Friday, after her attorney's last-minute appeal failed.
Prominent Republicans on Friday criticized a Massachusetts jury for not finding Lindsay Clancy guilty of first-degree murder, after they failed to reach a unanimous verdict following the weekslong trial. Clancy admitted she killed her three young children in 2023, but argued she should not be held criminally responsible, claiming she was…
This page is a back-issue: the story as it ran, receipts as they were. The current edition is at the front.