Lindsay Clancy’s legal professional, Kevin Reddington, was destroyed by Fox News authorized analyst Jonathan Turley on a Thursday broadcast regarding Reddington’s demonization of a key juror.
When requested about Turley’s critique in a subsequent interview with Fox News, Reddington responded, “I’d like to fulfill with him someday and possibly debate a number of issues.”
In response to Reddington’s debate problem, Turley responded on X.com, “I’m curious as to what’s debatable in his view: the skilled obligation of attorneys to not gas the trend towards a holdout juror or his obvious self-exemption from that obligation.”
I used to be shocked to study this morning that Kevin Reddington challenged me to a debate in an interview with Fox Information reporter Bryan Llenas over my criticism of his assault, https://t.co/gCeRmYVEjQ, on the holdout juror within the Clancy trial. I’m curious as to what’s debatable in his view: the skilled obligation of attorneys to not gas the trend towards a holdout juror or his obvious self-exemption from that obligation …https://t.co/3aT3VFFAIU
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) September 10, 2026
Whereas a debate has not but occurred, Turley released a blog post on Friday morning detailing Reddington’s failures.
What had been these failures?
First, Turley questioned Reddington’s option to assault the juror in the course of the televised trial. He additionally known as Reddington out on his gloating “about how he ‘crushed’ the prosecution.” Whereas neither of those is an effective search for Clancy’s legal professional, these had been merely secondary points.
The first concern was about how Reddington spoke with reporters in regards to the one juror who prevented a “not responsible” verdict. “[The other jurors] know that they had been robbed by one man,” he mentioned. “I hope that man can sleep properly at night time.”
“It was taking that rage outdoors the courthouse that crossed the road for me,” Turley mentioned.
Zealously advocating to your consumer is one factor; publicly harassing a juror is one other. Whereas Reddington by no means revealed the juror’s id, Turley identified that there have been “simply three males on the jury. [Reddington] knew the juror’s identify would seemingly be disclosed in time, given the anger over the trial’s consequence.”
It seems as if Turley’s prediction will seemingly come true. Over the previous couple of days, lots of the different jurors have taken to common media, sharing their frustration with the holdout juror.
However they’re not simply sharing frustration; they’re additionally sharing figuring out options. Friday morning, jury member Paula Devlin revealed to CBS News that this juror was a black male in his 30s. It’s solely a matter of time earlier than an increasing number of data leaks out.
It’s appalling when an legal professional begins to fire up public hatred for a public servant.
That is why Turley rightly known as Reddington’s actions “repugnant and unprofessional venting” and mentioned that he needs to be “reaffirming the suitable of each juror to face with their convictions towards not simply the opposite jurors, however the world.”
The rationale such habits is “repugnant” isn’t nearly some arbitrary professionalism — it’s about security. “He put a goal on [the juror],” mentioned Turley, describing Reddington’s outburst as “outrageous and reckless” and a “remarkably harmful factor.”
Right here’s the primary concern: Blaming the juror moderately than the lady who strangled her three kids encourages delusional feminists to take issues into their very own palms.
Name the president a fascist, and somebody tries to kill him — saved solely by a flip of the top. Name a mainstream political organizer a Nazi, and a radical leftist murders him in entrance of his kids. Accuse a daily particular person of concentrating on an harmless lady; blowback is assured.
On the finish of the day, this situation is concerning the safety of the judicial course of. Jurors have to be at liberty to carry dissenting views with out going through extrajudicial retaliation.
When officers of the courtroom incite public outrage towards particular person jurors, they undermine the protecting ensures important to a good trial by jury.
We don’t wish to stay in a world the place unpopular jurors are doxxed, threatened, or worse. Such is the world Reddington is constructing.
That is why Turley closes his response with these phrases: “Sure, that’s certainly reprehensible. To paraphrase Mr. Reddington, it’s the kind of factor that might maintain most of us up at night time.”
This text appeared initially on The Western Journal.
Advert block customers: Some web site options could not work accurately whereas an advert blocker is enabled, as a result of they break scripts and content material this web site will depend on. If you cannot see feedback beneath, for instance, please disable your advert blocker.
