2026-09-09T08:45:00-0400 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻
作者：马克·奥斯本
更新于：2026年9月9日 / 美国东部时间上午9:23 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻
林赛·克兰西的律师凯文·雷丁顿周三表示，在听取该案数名陪审员的陈述后，他将请求驳回对其当事人的指控。
雷丁顿在接受《哥伦比亚广播公司早间节目》采访时表示，他将于9月29日在原定的程序性听证会上提交驳回动议。
“这将是一项基于双重危险理由的驳回动议，因为不存在……显而易见的必要性，”雷丁顿说，“出于显而易见的原因，宣布审判无效必须具备显而易见的必要性——陪审员投入的时间、法院、工作人员、被告、检方，所有人都付出了很多。”
克兰西被控于2023年1月24日在马萨诸塞州达克斯伯里的家中谋杀了她的三名年幼子女：5岁的科拉、3岁的道森和8个月大的卡兰。她的律师辩称，她不应承担刑事责任，因为她服药过量且患有产后精神病。检方则称，克兰西计划勒死自己的孩子，且明辨是非。
这场备受关注的谋杀审判于9月4日宣布审判无效，原因是陪审员经过7天多的评议仍无法达成一致裁决。
2026年9月4日，林赛·克兰西的辩护律师凯文·雷丁顿与林赛·克兰西在马萨诸塞州普利茅斯的普利茅斯县高等法院。
陪审团显然以11比1的比例出现分歧，陪审团主席于9月3日向威廉·沙利文法官提交了一份便函，称有一名陪审员未遵守法院关于合理怀疑的指令。
“大多数人，无论他们站在哪一边，从一开始就坚定地坚持自己的立场和信念，”被称为5号陪审员的女性周二告诉哥伦比亚广播公司波士顿分台WBZ-TV。“那个孤立的陪审员并不是唯一不愿意从对方角度看问题的人。”
雷丁顿当时在法庭上表示，陪审团主席写道，该陪审员“曾表示存在怀疑，但拒绝按照法律规定将其适用于裁决”。
然而，沙利文驳回了雷丁顿罢免该陪审员的动议，并在9月4日拒绝了进一步询问陪审员相关情况的第二次请求。
“我会为那个人坚持一个月的权利辩护。这就是司法系统的意义所在，”雷丁顿在《哥伦比亚广播公司早间节目》中表示，“但当陪审团主席在陪审团问题中明确无误地表明，这个人存在合理怀疑——正如我们现在所知——却拒绝听从法官关于法律的指示时，我才感到愤怒，因为这正是我当时使用那些表述和措辞的原因。这就是不对。”
哥伦比亚广播公司新闻法律评论员卡罗琳·波利西称雷丁顿推动驳回案件的决定是“重大新闻”，尽管她将其称为“胜算渺茫的动议”。
“他将提出动议，禁止再次审判。通常情况下，当审判无效时，双重危险原则并不适用，这意味着检方可以立即回来以相同的指控提起诉讼，”波利西说，“他的动议基于双重危险原则，基于这名显然存在合理怀疑但拒绝将其良知适用于法律、且拒不妥协的陪审员。”
“所以他的论点是，法官宣布审判无效并非显而易见的必要之举，本质上，法官本应进一步询问该陪审员是否能够恪守其誓言，”波利西说，“这事关重大。……如果他的动议获得通过，她将被无罪释放。”
另一种选择是，马萨诸塞州普利茅斯地区检察官蒂姆·克鲁兹可能会达成认罪协议，对克兰西提出较轻的指控。
“这取决于蒂姆，”当被问及他希望在认罪协议中达成什么时，雷丁顿说，“他可以将指控降为二级谋杀……我很清楚，我想要什么并不重要。我只知道，我永远不会同意让这位年轻女士在监狱里待一天。”
当被问及克兰西近况如何时，雷丁顿表示她“状态不佳”。
“我的意思是，她很失望，很伤心，而且三年半以来她的情绪状态一直没有改变，”他说，“幸运的是，她在图克斯伯里接受了很好的精神疾病治疗和医疗护理。”
2026年9月4日，林赛·克兰西的辩护律师凯文·雷丁顿在法官宣布审判无效后做出反应，地点在马萨诸塞州普利茅斯的普利茅斯县高等法院。
陪审团需要在五种裁决选项中做出选择：因精神病无罪、无罪、一级谋杀、二级谋杀或过失杀人。
检方尚未表示是否会在审判无效后重新审理此案。雷丁顿表示，他不希望再进行一次审判。
他确实希望这场审判至少能让人们更加关注产后精神病以及精神治疗资源的匮乏。
“人们很容易说，‘哦，得了吧，你没有听到声音，你在编造，你在撒谎，你很邪恶’，”他说，“因为惩罚某人更容易。”
“如果我们能把林赛关进监狱，说这太可怕了，她很邪恶且有罪，很多人会觉得这很简单，”雷丁顿继续说道，“没有人会轻视那些孩子遭遇的可怕损失，更不用说林赛·克兰西了，她心知肚明，每天都活在这件事的阴影里。”
关于请求特朗普赦免
雷丁顿在周二接受美国广播公司新闻采访时进一步解释了他为何请求特朗普总统赦免克兰西，尽管特朗普总统只能赦免联邦罪行，而克兰西是被州政府指控的。
“如果我能联系到英国国王请求他帮忙，我会在这个案子上这么做，”雷丁顿周三在《哥伦比亚广播公司早间节目》中表示，“美国总统发表了相关言论，这表明他了解这个案子。我也知道他身边围绕着非常非常聪明的人，他可以很容易地对其中一个人说，‘你能帮我调查一下这件事，看看具体情况吗？’希望能层层传达给蒂姆·克鲁兹，解决这个案子。”
上周，总统在椭圆形办公室回答了有关此案的问题。
“听着，她做了一件非常、非常可怕的事。不能更糟了，”他说，“但你会知道要付出什么代价。会有代价的。要么进精神病院，要么进监狱，或者别的什么。”
总统指出，有可能再次进行审判，他称这“太糟糕了”。
雷丁顿表示，他尚未收到白宫的消息，但他“非常希望”特朗普先生能联系地区检察官。
当被问及这是否合适时，雷丁顿说：“如果这有助于解决这个悲惨的案子，我真的不在乎。”
Lindsay Clancy’s attorney says he’s going to ask for case to be thrown out after hearing from jurors
2026-09-09T08:45:00-0400 / CBS News
By Mark Osborne
Updated on: September 9, 2026 / 9:23 AM EDT / CBS News
Kevin Reddington, the lawyer for Lindsay Clancy, said on Wednesday he will ask for the case against his client to be thrown out after hearing from several jurors in the case.
Reddington told “CBS Mornings” he will present a motion to dismiss on Sept. 29 at a previously scheduled status hearing.
“It will be a motion to dismiss based on what’s called double jeopardy grounds, because there’s no … manifest necessity,” Reddington said. “You have to have a manifest necessity to declare a mistrial for obvious reasons — the invested time that the jurors put into it, the court, the staff, the defendant, the prosecution, everybody.”
Clancy is accused of murdering her three young children — 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson and 8-month-old Callan — in their Duxbury, Massachusetts, home on Jan. 24, 2023. Her attorneys argued she was not criminally responsible because she was overmedicated and suffering from postpartum psychosis. Prosecutors said Clancy planned to strangle her children and knew right from wrong.
The highly publicized murder trial ended in a mistrial on Sept. 4 after the jurors could not come to a unanimous verdict after more than seven days of deliberation.
Kevin Reddington, defense attorney for Lindsay Clancy, and Lindsay Clancy at the Plymouth County Superior Court in Plymouth, Mass., on Sept. 4, 2026. Greg Derr/Pool/AFP via Getty Images
The jury was apparently split 11 to 1, as the foreperson sent a note to Judge William Sullivan on Sept. 3 claiming a single juror was not following the court’s orders about reasonable doubt.
“The majority of people, it doesn’t matter what side they were on, were very firm in their stance and their belief from the beginning,” the woman known as juror No. 5 told CBS Boston station WBZ-TV on Tuesday. “The stand-alone juror was not the only one that was unwilling to see things from the other side.”
The foreperson wrote that the juror “has made statements acknowledging doubt but refuses to apply it to the verdict as the law states,” Reddington said in court at the time.
However, Sullivan denied a motion by Reddington to dismiss that juror and a second request on Sept. 4 to further question jurors on the matter.
“I would defend that person’s right to be a holdout for a month. That’s what the system is about,” Reddington told “CBS Mornings.” “But when the forelady indicated clearly and unequivocally in the jury question that this person had doubt, reasonable doubt, as we know now, and just refused to listen to the judge’s instruction on the law, that’s when I was upset, because that’s why I used the expressions and the terms I did. It just wasn’t right.”
CBS News legal contributor Caroline Polisi referred to Reddington’s decision to push for a dismissal as “huge news,” although, she referred to it as a “long-shot motion.”
“He’s going to make a motion to bar a retrial. Typically when you have a mistrial, double jeopardy doesn’t apply, which means the prosecution can come right back and charge on the same charges,” Polisi said. “He’s making a motion based on double jeopardy, based on this one juror who, apparently, had reasonable doubt but refused to apply his conscience to the law, and was a holdout.”
“So what he’s arguing is that it was not a manifest necessity for the judge to call a mistrial and, essentially, the judge should have inquired further as to whether or not this juror could maintain his oath,” Polisi said. “That’s a huge deal. … If he wins that motion, she would go free.”
The other option is Plymouth, Massachusetts, District Attorney Tim Cruz could work out a plea deal that would include lesser charges for Clancy.
“It’s up to Tim,” Reddington said when asked about what he would want in a plea deal. “He could reduce the charge to second-degree [murder]. … I know enough to know it doesn’t matter what I’d like. All I know is that I’m not ever going to agree this young lady do a day in jail.”
Reddington said Clancy is “not well” when asked how she’s doing.
“I mean, in the sense that she’s disappointed, she’s sad and she still has the same affect that she’s had for three and a half years,” he said. “Thankfully she’s getting great psychiatric treatment, medical treatment at Tewksbury.”
Kevin Reddington, defense attorney for Lindsay Clancy, reacts after the judge declared a mistrial, at the Plymouth County Superior Court in Plymouth, Mass., on Sept. 4, 2026. Greg Derr/Pool/AFP via Getty Images
The jury was faced with rendering a verdict on one of five options: not guilty by reason of insanity, not guilty, first-degree murder, second-degree murder or manslaughter.
Prosecutors have not yet said if they will retry the case after the mistrial. Reddington said he would not like to see another trial.
He does hope the trial at least makes people more aware of postpartum psychosis and the lack of psychiatric treatment.
“It’s so easy for people to say, ‘Oh, come on, you don’t hear voices. You’re making that up. You’re lying. You’re evil,’” he said. “Because it’s easier to punish someone.”
“It would be so easy for a lot of people if we could just put Lindsay in jail and say this is terrible, she’s evil and guilty,” Reddington continued. “No one is discounting the horrific loss of those kids, let alone Lindsay Clancy, who is well aware and lives with that every day.”
On asking Trump for a pardon
Reddington further explained why he asked President Trump for a pardon for Clancy in an interview Tuesday with ABC News, even though the president can only pardon federal crimes and Clancy is charged by the state.
“If I could reach out to the king of England and ask him for help, I would on this case,” Reddington told “CBS Mornings” on Wednesday. “The fact that the president of the United States made the comments that he did tells me that he is aware of the case. I also know that he’s an individual that is surrounded by very, very smart people and can very easily say to one of them, ‘Can you look into this for me and see what it’s all about?’ Trickling down to Tim Cruz, hopefully resolving the case.”
Last week, the president answered a question about the case from the Oval Office.
“Look, she did a horrible, horrible thing. Can’t be worse,” he said. “But you’ll find out what the price to pay is. There’ll be a price. It’s going to be mental institution or jail or something.”
The president noted another trial is possible, which he called “too bad.”
Reddington said he has not heard from the White House, but would “love to have” Mr. Trump reach out to the district attorney.
When asked if that would be appropriate, Reddington said, “If it helps resolve this tragic case, I don’t really care.”