Update, September 29, 2026. Read the full transcript of the September 29 hearing, including every argument on the not-guilty motion and the trial-date discussion.
“I’m just tired of hearing about me persecuting people.”
Kevin Reddington, Lindsay Clancy’s lawyer, stood up in Plymouth Superior Court on Tuesday, September 29, 2026 and let the judge know how he felt about the accusation that he has been attacking the holdout juror. Judge William Sullivan’s answer was short: “We’re talking about this motion.” Then he took it under advisement.
The outburst got the clips. The motion Sullivan was trying to talk about may matter more: the Boston Globe and WBZ asked the court to open sealed sidebar conferences from the Clancy trial, and that request sits on top of a 1982 Supreme Court case the Globe won against a Massachusetts court.
What Reddington said
We transcribed courtroom video of the exchange. Reddington said:
“… hearing persecution, attacking. I am doing all these terrible things to this juror. I filed one motion and said nothing. Every comment I have made has been in reaction to people from Donald Trump on down to Nancy Mace, down to Cruz, not the DA, but the politician, calling for her execution. I have responded to these outlandish comments, including the guy from Houston. I just wanted to say that, Judge.”
“Cruz, not the DA, but the politician” distinguishes Senator Ted Cruz from Plymouth District Attorney Timothy Cruz, who is prosecuting the case. Sullivan redirected him to the motion at hand, and when Reddington repeated that he was “just tired of hearing about me persecuting people,” the judge said, “No, listen, we’re talking about this motion. All right, I’m gonna take it under advisement.” LA Magazine described the judge as seeming “agitated but even.”
Why he said it now
The day before, prosecutors filed a motion to restrict what the lawyers say publicly. It accuses Reddington of statements that “inevitably tainted any further venire,” and says that “most disturbing,” he spoke about the deliberating jurors “in ways that ensured that the juror would be publicly identified,” including by calling the holdout “he” when the jury had only three men. It describes the first trial as a “carnival atmosphere.”
Reddington’s point in court was that he was responding, not attacking, and that he has filed only one motion about the juror. The gag order request will be argued November 2. An outburst in open court about public statements is not the ideal preview for that argument, but a judge decides a gag order on the standard, not on tone: whether the statements have “a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing” the proceeding, the test from Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada and Massachusetts Rule of Professional Conduct 3.6.
The motion he interrupted: the Globe wants the sidebars
According to LA Magazine, a lawyer for the Boston Globe and WBZ argued for access to certain sidebar discussions from the trial, clarifying that the media was not seeking every sidebar. The question he raised: at what point does handling substantive matters privately at sidebar interfere with the right to a public trial?
That question has deep roots in Massachusetts. In Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596 (1982), the Globe challenged a Massachusetts statute that closed courtrooms during the testimony of minor sex-crime victims in a Norfolk County trial. The Supreme Court struck it down. It held that when the government denies access to a criminal trial, “it must be shown that the denial is necessitated by a compelling governmental interest, and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” Two years later, in Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984), the Court extended the public’s right of access to jury selection.
Sidebars are the conferences at the bench that let the judge and lawyers talk without the jury hearing. The media’s argument is that when a sidebar is where a substantive decision happens, it starts to look like a closed courtroom. In the Clancy case, according to Fox News Digital’s Michael Ruiz, at least one note from the final days of deliberations was discussed at sidebar on September 3.
The sealed jury note
Separately, defense lawyer Martin Weinberg asked for access to that September 3 jury note and the related sidebar transcripts. He argued they could show whether there was truly “manifest necessity” for the mistrial, or whether the judge could have removed a juror and let deliberations continue. That is the heart of the defense’s double jeopardy argument.
Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague opposed it. According to LA Magazine, she argued that protecting the secrecy of jury deliberations serves a larger interest and questioned whether future jurors would feel comfortable sending notes to a judge if those notes could become public in a high-profile case. Sullivan took it under advisement.
What happens next
- Rulings on the sidebar and jury-note requests, which are under advisement.
- November 2: the gag order, double jeopardy and the juror inquiry.
- The not-guilty motion, also under advisement.
Frequently asked questions
What did Kevin Reddington say in court on September 29?
He said he was tired of hearing that he was persecuting or attacking the holdout juror, that he had filed only one motion about the juror, and that his public comments were responses to people including Donald Trump, Nancy Mace and Sen. Ted Cruz, whom he said called for Clancy’s execution. Judge Sullivan redirected him to the motion being argued.
What are the Boston Globe and WBZ asking for in the Clancy case?
Access to certain sealed sidebar discussions from the trial, according to LA Magazine. They said they were not seeking every sidebar.
Is there a right of public access to criminal trials?
Yes. In Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court (1982), a Massachusetts case, the Supreme Court held that closing a criminal trial requires a compelling governmental interest and a narrowly tailored order. Press-Enterprise (1984) applied the right to jury selection.
Why does the defense want the September 3 jury note?
To argue that the mistrial was not a “manifest necessity” because the judge could have removed a juror and let deliberations continue, which is the basis of the double jeopardy motion.
Sources: Courtroom video of the September 29, 2026 exchange, transcribed by us; LA Magazine, “‘Where Is the Evidence?’ Lindsay Clancy’s Attorney Takes Aim at Prosecution’s Case,” September 29, 2026; Commonwealth’s Motion to Preclude Prejudicial Extrajudicial Statements, filed September 28, 2026, read in full. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596 (1982), read; Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984), verified. Lindsay Clancy is presumed innocent. General information about Massachusetts law, not legal advice.