'The View' panel blasts Lindsay Clancy defense attorney for 'moving the goalposts' on evidence
This story discusses suicide. If you or someone you know is having thoughts of suicide, please contact the Suicide and Crisis Lifeline at 988 or 800-273-TALK (8255).
"The View" co-hosts criticized Lindsay Clancy's defense attorney Kevin Reddington on Wednesday for seemingly "moving the goalposts" by suggesting a lack of evidence that she killed her children.
During the show, the women of the ABC daytime talk show discussed Reddington appearing to change strategies after he submitted a motion for a required finding of not guilty on the grounds that the prosecution did not provide sufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt that Clancy killed her three kids.
"Where’s the evidence that she did this?" Reddington asked Judge William Sullivan in court Tuesday. "Where is the evidence she did this?"
LINDSAY CLANCY'S ATTORNEY ASKS JUDGE TO ACQUIT HER OUTRIGHT, ENDING CASE AND BARRING A RETRIAL
This marked a significant shift in Reddington's legal argument. During the trial, Reddington did not dispute that Clancy killed her children, but argued that she was not criminally responsible due to postpartum psychosis.
"The View" panel was skeptical of this new claim considering Reddington's previous argument already presumed that Clancy had, in fact, killed her children.
"My jaw was on the floor because the defense’s entire argument hinged on she had postpartum psychosis. She wasn’t responsible by reason of insanity but she — in a psychotic state — did this crime, and now he’s like, ‘We don’t even know if she did it,’" Alyssa Farah Griffin remarked.
Co-host Sara Haines suggested Reddington reasonably pointed out holes in the evidence but added that she knows no one who believes there should be no accountability.
"Now I feel like the lawyer is moving the goalposts a bit, but if you read his description ... there were a lot of holes. Everything was decided on that it was assumed she did it. But there was a question then about everything that she was repeating had been recounted to her because she had no memory in the hospital," Haines said.
Sunny Hostin, a former lawyer, had the harshest criticism against Reddington, calling his argument "a terrible take."
"I don’t understand how you can spend an entire trial arguing that she did it but she is not criminally responsible because she was suffering from a psychotic episode and postpartum psychosis and then turn around in front of the very same judge and say there’s no evidence she did it. I think that is a terrible take," Hostin said.
"I’m not convinced he’s not on TikTok," Haines replied.
"It feels very conspiracy theory and not grounded in the law and I don’t love this new position," Hostin added.
In a comment to Fox News Digital, George Washington University professor and Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley likewise criticized Reddington's new strategy.
"Kevin Reddington appears to be crafting a criminal defense like the 1985 screenplay of ‘Clue’ with different endings for different audiences. After insisting that Clancy did kill her children, he is now arguing that there is no evidence showing that she killed her children," Turley said.
He added, "Reddington says that the judge effectively prevented him from arguing that Clancy may not have committed the crime. If so, he should thank Judge Sullivan. His insanity defense built on a clearly sympathetic jury. Arguing this alternative theory would likely have alienated many jurors by insulting their intelligence."
Fellow Fox News contributor Gregg Jarrett also said Reddington has lost all credibility.
"At trial, he openly conceded that his client strangled her three young children. It was never in doubt or dispute. Now he's contradicting himself by saying something that's demonstrably untrue and utterly absurd. When you do that as a lawyer, you undermine the very argument you're making to the judge. And you've damaged your client in the process. But given the outrageous conduct of Reddington in publicly attacking the holdout juror, no one should be surprised."
Clancy is due back in court on Nov. 2 for another motion hearing. She has pending motions to dismiss the charges on double jeopardy grounds and to open an inquiry into the holdout juror.
A new trial has not yet been scheduled. Both the prosecution and the defense told the court they needed more time, and Reddington said that he's not available to start one until June 2027.