Legal commentator Nancy Grace called for contempt charges against defense attorney Kevin Reddington following the Lindsay Clancy mistrial in Plymouth, Massachusetts, a move that reignites debate over courtroom behavior and the limits of legal advocacy.
On Friday, Nancy Grace appeared on Fox News Channel’s “Hannity” to weigh in on the high-profile mistrial involving Lindsay Clancy. Grace argued that defense attorney Kevin Reddington’s actions, both inside the courtroom and on the courthouse steps, crossed a line and warranted contempt proceedings. She described Reddington as engaging in “drama” and accused him of treating the judge inappropriately after the mistrial was declared.
The situation unfolded at the Plymouth, Massachusetts courthouse, where Judge Sullivan presided over the case. Grace praised Judge Sullivan’s conduct, saying, “The judge has quite the judicial demeanor. I don’t know that I would have had the patience that judge had for Reddington.” She cited the judge’s direction to the jury, invoking Winston Churchill’s call to “brace yourself to do your duty”, as the right approach, and celebrated the “lone juror” who held out on principle. “That juror stood strong,” Grace said. “Nothing in the law says that you must bend to the will of the other jurors when it’s against your conscience.”
But Grace reserved her strongest criticism for Reddington, who she said attempted to derail the process at the last moment. She described how, as the jury was coming in and a mistrial was about to be declared, Reddington suddenly requested an immediate review and produced a multi-page document for the court. According to Grace, this document claimed, “with no factual basis at all”, that the juror was biased against the mentally ill. “It’s all technical legal term, Jason. B.S.,” Grace told guest host Jason Chaffetz.
Grace argued that Reddington’s behavior, including what she called “whining on the courthouse steps,” should have triggered contempt: “As much as that guy right there, Kevin Reddington, wants to throw a fit... he should have been held in contempt.” She contrasted the patience shown by Judge Sullivan with what she said would have been her own approach, making clear she would not have tolerated such conduct from a defense attorney.
Looking ahead, Grace dismissed claims from defense attorneys that the case would never be retried, saying, “Retrials work in the favor of the state. So, buckle up. It’s going to be a bumpy ride, Reddington.” She described the immediate-review tactic as a standard move when the defense disagrees with a judge’s ruling, but said the timing and substance of Reddington’s filing were both unusual and unsupported by facts.
“That’s what happened today. It’s not out of the ordinary,” she explained of the immediate-review process. “But what is out of the ordinary is the judge says, okay, we’re declaring a mistrial. Bring in the jury. And at that moment, that precise moment as the jury is coming in, he goes, wait, immediate review. And he just happened to have a multi-page document ready for the court in which he claims the juror was biased against the mentally ill.”
Grace made it clear she saw through these legal maneuvers, telling Chaffetz, “If Reddington doesn’t like it, sour grapes.” She repeated her belief that the case is far from over and predicted the state would have the advantage in any future proceedings.
Grace’s comments have put a spotlight on the sometimes-blurry line between zealous defense and disruptive conduct. Her insistence that Reddington “should have been held in contempt” comes as the legal world continues to debate how far attorneys can push in defense of their clients, especially in emotionally charged cases. While Reddington’s own statements were not quoted in the source, Grace’s recounting paints a picture of aggressive tactics and public displays that, in her view, undermine the process and disrespect the bench.
For Grace, the real hero of the day was the single juror who refused to yield. “That juror held out,” she said, emphasizing the importance of conscience in jury deliberations and backing Judge Sullivan’s original instructions to “brace for duty.”
The events in Plymouth stand as a sharp reminder that law and order depend on respect for the process, not courtroom theatrics or legal gamesmanship.
