Kevin Reddington called Edward Paltzik a ‘foul individual’ after the juror’s attorney called for Clancy’s execution

Lindsay Clancy’s defense attorney Kevin Reddington has fired back after the lawyer of the lone juror who wanted to convict her accused him of filing “Looney Tunes” motions that threaten the Constitution.

“I think Ed ought to learn how to go into the courtroom and articulate his position rather than be a histrionic individual that’s just mouthing off for the media,” Reddington told Fox News Digital.

Reddington’s remarks came in response to social media posts and a recent interview from the juror’s attorney, Edward Paltzik, who has argued that Reddington’s push for an inquiry into the holdout is “a full-frontal attack on the U.S. Constitution” and a threat to the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees due process rights to criminal defendants.

Defense attorney Kevin Reddington addresses reporters as jurors weigh the case against Lindsay Clancy in the 2023 deaths of her three children. (JOSEPH PREZIOSO / AFP via Getty Images)

“Every motion that has been filed is legitimate,” Reddington said. “It’s all based on sound, law, facts, jury questions, and I’m doing what I should do, representing Lindsay. And I’m pretty sure that Ed would have probably done the same thing, were it in Houston, and he was representing his client.”

In an interview with Ray Marcel, a YouTuber who streams under the pseudonym FugitiveTV, Paltzik also called for Clancy’s execution, although she hasn’t been convicted of any criminal charges and Massachusetts does not impose the dєatᩚh penalty.

Michael P. Desronvil, the lone holdout juror in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial, which ended in a mistrial. (Fugitive TV)

“Ed, why don’t you just shut up?” Reddington said. “Really, you foul individual.”

However, Reddington joked that he didn’t get Paltzik’s “Shooter McGavin” reference at first but agreed that it was a funny jab after having someone explain it to him.

Paltzik fired back on Friday.

“It’s really not complicated. I’m not backing down. I’m not backing off of it one inch. It should not be controversial at all that I called Lindsay Clancy a ‘demon.’ …She strangled her three innocent children,” he told Fox News Digital.

“My issue with Kevin Reddington is what happened after the mistrial when he got on the courthouse steps. He said Michael had an agenda. He said Michael robbed the other jurors. He said it. And you can’t do that as an officer of the court. It’s an attack on the system. And this motion to investigate him? It’s because Michael disagreed with Kevin Reddington.

“Kevin Reddington was doing his job but the problem is it’s off the rails now. I’m speaking as a criminal defense attorney for almost 20 years. I would never criticize a juror. And I would never file a post-trial motion to investigate the juror.

“My real advice to Kevin — I think he should stop whining and go prepare for a retrial. Stop complaining. You only got 11, you needed 12.”

Kevin Reddington, defense attorney for Lindsay Clancy, and Lindsay Clancy look on as Judge William Sullivan (out of frame) instructs the jury to continue deliberating, during Lindsay Clancy’s murder trial at the Plymouth County Superior Court in Plymouth, Massachusetts, on September 4, 2026. (Greg Derr / POOL / AFP via Getty Images)

Reddington also took issue with the juror being described as the “lone holdout juror.”

“He is the obstructionist juror,” Reddington said.

The juror, identified by his attorney as Michael Desronvil, has said that he believes Clancy was guilty of the murder charges against her in the strangling deaths of her three young children, Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months.

Callan, left, Dawson and Cora Clancy. The three children were killed at their Duxbury, Massachusetts, home in January 2023. (Lindsay Marie Clancy/Facebook)

Eleven other jurors disagreed and wanted to find her not guilty by reason of mєntal disease or defect, in alignment with Reddington’s defense argument that Clancy was suffering from postpartum psychosis and was not criminally responsible for her actions.

Due to the deadlock, Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial on Sept. 4 after a week of deliberations. Clancy is due back in court Tuesday for a hearing on several defense motions. Prosecutors may also announce plans to seek a second trial.

On January 24, 2023, Clancy fatally strangled her three children in the basement of their Duxbury, Massachusetts, home using exercise resistance bands. She then cut her wrists and neck and jumped from a second-story window in a sᩚuᩚiᩚcide attempt, leaving her partially paralyzed. (Greg Derr/Pool/The Patriot Ledger)

Reddington, in a motion filed last week, called for a “limited inquiry” into the holdout, for information about his background and potential criminal history, phone records, courthouse surveillance video and more.

In a separate filing, another attorney for Clancy, Martin Weinberg, argued that Sullivan’s decision to overrule a defense objection at trial should be grounds for dismissing the charges against the 36-year-old defendant on double jeopardy grounds. That motion also centered on the holdout juror and allegations that he ignored the judge’s instructions and the law.

Patrick Clancy exits Plymouth Superior Court, Plymouth, Mass., Monday, July27, 2026. (David McGlynn for Fox News Digital)

“The jury twice informed the Court that one of its members was refusing to apply the Court’s instructions regarding the fundamental concept of reasonable doubt,” Weinberg wrote. “After the first such report, the Court asked each juror individually whether he or she was able to apply the law. Upon receiving the second report, the Court tempered its response even further, simply reminding all jurors as a group of their obligation to follow its instructions generally. The Court denied Ms. Clancy’s explicit requests to go further.”

Weinberg’s motion argued that Sullivan’s decision to declare a mistrial before investigating the holdout is improper, alleging that the jury foreperson accused the holdout of making “statements acknowledging doubt but refus[ing] to apply it to the verdict as the law states.”