Criticism of Lindsay Clancy's Defense Attorney on 'The View'

<p>This story discusses suicide. If you or someone you know is having thoughts of suicide, please contact the Suicide and Crisis Lifeline at 988 or 800-273-TALK (8255).</p><p>On September 30, 2026, the co-hosts of "The View" criticized Lindsay Clancy's defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, for allegedly "moving the goalposts" regarding the evidence in her case. Reddington suggested in court that there was a lack of evidence proving Clancy killed her children, which marked a shift from his previous argument that she was not criminally responsible due to postpartum psychosis.</p><p>During the show, the panel discussed Reddington's motion for a required finding of not guilty, arguing that the prosecution did not provide sufficient evidence to prove Clancy's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Reddington questioned the evidence presented, asking Judge William Sullivan, "Where’s the evidence that she did this?"</p><p>Reddington's new claim raised skepticism among the panel, as it contradicted his earlier position that Clancy had killed her children but was not criminally responsible. Co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin expressed disbelief at the change, stating, "My jaw was on the floor because the defense’s entire argument hinged on she had postpartum psychosis. She wasn’t responsible by reason of insanity but she — in a psychotic state — did this crime, and now he’s like, ‘We don’t even know if she did it.’"</p><p>Co-host Sara Haines acknowledged that Reddington pointed out gaps in the evidence but noted that accountability should still be considered. She remarked, "Now I feel like the lawyer is moving the goalposts a bit... there were a lot of holes. Everything was decided on that it was assumed she did it."</p><p>Sunny Hostin, a former lawyer, criticized Reddington's argument as "a terrible take," questioning how he could argue both that Clancy committed the act but was not responsible due to a psychotic episode, and then claim there was no evidence of her guilt. She added, "It feels very conspiracy theory and not grounded in the law and I don’t love this new position."</p><p>George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley also criticized Reddington's strategy, comparing it to a screenplay with different endings for different audiences. He noted that Reddington's insanity defense relied on a sympathetic jury and that arguing an alternative theory could alienate jurors.</p><p>Fellow Fox News contributor Gregg Jarrett stated that Reddington has lost credibility, asserting that he previously conceded Clancy's actions and that contradicting himself undermines his argument. Clancy is scheduled to return to court on November 2 for a motion hearing regarding pending motions, including a request to dismiss charges on double jeopardy grounds.</p>