Update, September 29, 2026. At the September 29 hearing, Judge Sullivan did not rule on the gag order request and set it for argument on November 2. We have now read the motion and proposed order; what they say.
Prosecutors walked into Lindsay Clancy’s hearing Tuesday morning with a new request: stop the lawyers from talking. The Plymouth County District Attorney’s office filed a motion on September 29, 2026 asking Judge William Sullivan to limit what the attorneys in the case and their agents can say publicly, after weeks in which defense lawyer Kevin Reddington has given interview after interview about the holdout juror.
Boston 25 News reported that prosecutors asked the court “to impose a gag order on the parties following Attorney Kevin Reddington’s media interviews,” and that they also filed an opposition to Reddington’s motions. The hearing was under way as this was published. Here is what the proposed order would do and the law a judge applies to it.
What prosecutors are asking for
According to a summary of the filing posted by independent reporter Charista Snell, who covers the case from Plymouth, the motion argues that the volume of media coverage, social media commentary about jurors and post-mistrial interviews could prejudice a future jury pool. The proposed order would bar the covered parties from discussing:
- the identity or conduct of discharged jurors;
- nonpublic evidence or investigative information;
- documents or recordings that are not part of the public record; and
- statements about parties, witnesses or jurors that could influence a future jury pool.
It would also restrict contacting or publicly identifying discharged jurors in ways that could cause harassment. We have not reviewed the motion itself; the description above is the reporter’s summary, and the judge had not ruled on it at publication.
The timing is not subtle. Over the weekend Reddington called the holdout juror “the obstructionist juror” in an interview with Fox News Digital and told the juror’s lawyer, Edward Paltzik, to “just shut up.” Paltzik went on Fox & Friends Monday and said he will “100%” file a bar complaint against Reddington.
The rule every lawyer in the case is already under
Massachusetts lawyers do not need a court order to be limited. Rule 3.6(a) of the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct already says:
“A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.”
Rule 3.6(b) then lists things a lawyer may always say, including “the claim, offense, or defense involved,” “the information contained in a public record,” and “the scheduling or result of any step in litigation.”
So the question for the judge is whether the ethics rule is enough, or whether the case needs a specific court order that spells out forbidden topics and can be enforced by the judge directly, through contempt, rather than later through a bar complaint.
Can a judge order lawyers to stop talking?
Yes, with limits. The Supreme Court drew the key line in Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030 (1991). The Court held that “the speech of lawyers representing clients in pending cases may be regulated under a less demanding standard than that established for regulation of the press in Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart.” It concluded that “the ‘substantial likelihood of material prejudice’ standard applied by Nevada and most other States satisfies the First Amendment,” because lawyers “are key participants in the criminal justice system, and the State may demand some adherence to the precepts of that system in regulating their speech.”
That is the same standard Massachusetts Rule 3.6 uses. The distinction matters here:
- The press is almost impossible to gag. Under Nebraska Press, 427 U.S. 539 (1976), orders restraining the media from reporting are presumptively unconstitutional. Nothing in the prosecutors’ request, as described, targets reporters.
- The lawyers in the case are a different matter. A judge can restrict what trial participants say when the speech is substantially likely to prejudice the proceeding, and a possible second jury pool from Plymouth County is exactly the kind of proceeding a court protects.
Who the order would and would not reach
- Reddington, Martin Weinberg and the prosecutors would all be covered. A gag order usually binds both sides, and the proposed order, as described, applies to “both sides.”
- The holdout juror himself is not a party or a lawyer. The proposed order, as described, is aimed at attorneys and their agents, not jurors.
- Paltzik is the open question. He is not a lawyer in Commonwealth v. Clancy and is not admitted in Massachusetts. Whether an order reaches a nonparty juror’s lawyer depends on its wording and on whether his local counsel formally appears.
What else happened this morning
Clancy was in court, seated between Reddington and Weinberg, according to Boston 25 reporter Bob Ward, who described a packed courtroom. She remains under 24-hour supervision at Tewksbury State Hospital. The defense motions for a required finding of not guilty, for dismissal on double jeopardy grounds and for an inquiry into the juror were pending. District Attorney Timothy Cruz had not announced whether he will retry the case. We will report the outcome of the hearing separately.
Frequently asked questions
Did prosecutors ask for a gag order in the Lindsay Clancy case?
Yes. On September 29, 2026, the Plymouth County District Attorney’s office filed a motion asking Judge William Sullivan to restrict public statements by the parties’ lawyers, according to Boston 25 News, citing Kevin Reddington’s media interviews and the risk of prejudicing a future jury pool.
Can a judge stop a lawyer from talking to the media?
Yes, within limits. In Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada (1991), the Supreme Court held that lawyers in pending cases can be restricted when their statements have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing the proceeding. Massachusetts Rule of Professional Conduct 3.6 uses that standard.
Can the court stop the media from reporting on the Clancy case?
Almost never. Under Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart (1976), orders restraining the press are presumptively unconstitutional. The prosecutors’ request, as described, is aimed at the parties and their lawyers.
Would a gag order cover the holdout juror?
Not the juror himself, who is not a party. Whether it would reach his lawyer, Edward Paltzik, depends on the order’s wording and whether his Massachusetts local counsel appears in the case.
Sources: Boston 25 News live updates, September 29, 2026 (prosecutors’ gag order motion and opposition; courtroom description by Bob Ward). Description of the proposed order from reporter Charista Snell’s summary posted on X, September 29, 2026; the motion itself was not reviewed. Massachusetts Rule of Professional Conduct 3.6 read at mass.gov. Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030 (1991), read; Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976), verified. Lindsay Clancy is presumed innocent. General information about Massachusetts law, not legal advice.