Two days before Lindsay Clancy is due back in Plymouth Superior Court, her lawyer Kevin Reddington and the lawyer for the juror who held out for conviction are fighting in the press. Reddington told Fox News Digital that the juror should be called “the obstructionist juror,” not the holdout, and told the juror’s lawyer, Edward Paltzik, to “just shut up.” Paltzik answered that Reddington should “stop whining and go prepare for a retrial,” and said filings of his own are coming once he finds local counsel.
That last point is the one with legal consequences. Here is what each lawyer said, and what it would take for the juror’s lawyer to actually be heard in the case on or after Tuesday, September 29.
What Reddington said
The remarks appeared in a Fox News Digital article by Michael Ruiz published September 27, 2026, with video shot in Plymouth by David McGlynn for Fox News Digital. We reviewed the video. Reddington said:
- “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 to the media.”
- “I think the biggest misconception is that this individual is referred to as the holdout juror. He in fact is the obstructionist juror.”
- “Every motion that has been filed is legitimate. It’s all based on sound law, facts, jury questions, and I’m doing what I should do representing Lindsay.”
- “Ed, why don’t you just shut up, really. You foul individual.”
Fox reported that the “foul individual” remark followed Paltzik’s comments in an interview with a YouTube streamer who broadcasts as FugitiveTV, in which, according to Fox, Paltzik called for Clancy’s execution. Clancy has not been convicted of anything, and Massachusetts has no death penalty. We explain why in a separate piece.
What Paltzik said
Paltzik represents Michael Desronvil, the juror Paltzik has publicly identified as the lone vote to convict when eleven jurors were prepared to find Clancy not criminally responsible. According to Fox, Paltzik told the outlet:
- “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.'”
- “Kevin Reddington was doing his job but the problem is it’s off the rails now. … 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.”
In a separate Fox News preview released Sunday night of an interview airing Monday on Fox & Friends, Paltzik told host Kayleigh McEnany that his client had “zero doubt” and “a mountain of evidence” behind his vote. Paltzik thanked McEnany for the interview in a post on X.
Fox also reported that, in response to Reddington’s challenge to see him in court, Paltzik said “he’s working to find local counsel and that filings would be coming.”
Why the juror’s lawyer needs local counsel to file anything
A lawyer who is not a member of the Massachusetts bar cannot simply file papers in a Massachusetts court. He has to be admitted for that one case, which is called admission pro hac vice. The requirements are in Supreme Judicial Court Rule 3:15:
- A Massachusetts lawyer has to make the motion. The rule is direct: “Motions to a court for admission pro hac vice shall be made by a member of the bar of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.” That is why Paltzik is looking for local counsel.
- A fee to the Board of Bar Overseers. For the Superior Court, the non-refundable registration fee is $355 per case, unless the lawyer is providing free services to an indigent client.
- A sworn statement. The lawyer must state, under the penalties of perjury, that he is “admitted to practice and in good standing in every jurisdiction where the attorney is admitted,” and acknowledge that he “is subject to discipline by the Supreme Judicial Court and the Board.”
- The judge decides. Paying the fee does not admit anyone. The motion goes to the court, here Judge William Sullivan.
The acknowledgment matters in this setting. Today Paltzik is a lawyer giving interviews about a Massachusetts case. Once admitted to appear in it, he would be, in the rule’s words, “subject to discipline by the Supreme Judicial Court and the Board” of Bar Overseers.
The bigger obstacle: a juror is not a party
Rule 3:15 asks for “the name of the party to be represented.” Desronvil is not a party to Commonwealth v. Clancy. The parties are the Commonwealth and Clancy. A juror, a witness or a reporter can still come into a criminal case in limited ways, but not as a litigant with a general right to oppose motions.
As we explained when Paltzik first answered Reddington’s juror-inquiry motion with a statement to a television station rather than a filing, the usual routes for a nonparty are:
- Move to quash a subpoena, if one actually issues for his phone records or testimony.
- Ask for leave to be heard on the narrow question of his own records or privacy. A judge can allow that but does not have to.
- Rely on the Commonwealth. The district attorney is the party opposing the defense motions and has every reason to argue against reopening deliberations.
So “filings would be coming” could mean something narrow and ordinary, like a motion to be heard or to protect the juror’s records. It cannot mean a party’s opposition to the Rule 25 or double jeopardy motions, which are between Clancy and the Commonwealth.
What is on for Tuesday
Clancy’s case is scheduled for 9 a.m. Tuesday, September 29, in Plymouth Superior Court before Judge Sullivan. Three defense motions are pending: a renewed motion for a required finding of not guilty under Rule 25, Martin Weinberg’s double jeopardy motion to dismiss, and Reddington’s motion for a limited inquiry into the juror. Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz has not said whether he will retry the case. Our preview of the three motions explains why the Rule 25 motion, not the juror motion, is the one that could end the case.
Nothing in the public statements this weekend changes the legal standards for any of the three. The juror inquiry is still governed by the no-impeachment rule of Commonwealth v. Fidler, 377 Mass. 192 (1979), which allows inquiry into extraneous influences on a jury but not into how jurors reasoned.
Frequently asked questions
What did Kevin Reddington call the Clancy holdout juror?
“The obstructionist juror.” Reddington told Fox News Digital on September 27, 2026 that the juror should not be called the holdout, and told the juror’s lawyer, Edward Paltzik, “why don’t you just shut up.”
Who is Edward Paltzik?
The lawyer representing Michael Desronvil, the Clancy juror who held out for conviction. He has given interviews to TMZ, Fox News and a YouTube streamer, and told Fox he is working to find Massachusetts local counsel so he can make filings.
Can an out-of-state lawyer appear in a Massachusetts court?
Only if admitted pro hac vice for that case. Under SJC Rule 3:15, the motion must be made by a member of the Massachusetts bar, the lawyer pays a registration fee ($355 per case in Superior Court) to the Board of Bar Overseers, and swears to good standing and acknowledges Massachusetts discipline. The judge decides whether to admit.
Can the juror’s lawyer oppose Clancy’s motions?
Not as a party. The juror is not a party to the criminal case. He could move to quash a subpoena if one issues, or ask the judge for leave to be heard on his own records, which the judge can allow or refuse. The Commonwealth is the party opposing the defense motions.
When is Lindsay Clancy’s next court date?
Tuesday, September 29, 2026, at 9 a.m. in Plymouth Superior Court before Judge William Sullivan.
Sources: Fox News Digital, “Lindsay Clancy attorney Kevin Reddington fires back at lone holdout juror’s attorney after fiery interview,” by Michael Ruiz, September 27, 2026; Fox News preview of the Kayleigh McEnany interview with Edward Paltzik, September 27, 2026; Reddington quotations checked against the Fox News Digital video (David McGlynn), which we transcribed; Paltzik’s post on X, September 28, 2026. The FugitiveTV interview was not reviewed; the description of it is Fox’s. Text of Supreme Judicial Court Rule 3:15 read at mass.gov. General information about Massachusetts law, not legal advice.