The Lindsay Clancy mistrial is still sending shockwaves through America.
Megyn Kelly had some blunt advice for the defense attorney who helped produce this outrage.
And a guest on her show raised a legal wrinkle that changes everything about what happens next.
Kelly Tells Reddington to Walk Away
Megyn Kelly used her platform to go directly after Kevin Reddington, the defense attorney for Lindsay Clancy, who was charged with the murders of her three children — Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and infant Callan — in Massachusetts in 2023.
Kelly’s message was not subtle.
She urged Reddington to “take the L” and walk away from the case rather than push forward after the September 2026 mistrial that left the serious charges completely unresolved.
The mistrial itself is the scandal here.
A jury of nine women and three men deadlocked, with reports indicating eleven jurors — including all nine women — leaned toward a finding of not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility.
One holdout stood between the defense and an outright acquittal on charges involving the deaths of three children.
The reported willingness of nine female jurors to favor acquittal on charges of this magnitude is a moral failure, and it is the direct product of woke leftist feminism run amok inside the jury room.
Kelly’s frustration is warranted.
The defense successfully weaponized a postpartum psychosis argument — a contested legal claim, not established science — and nearly walked Clancy out the door entirely.
That argument is not a verdict. It is a theory advanced by the defense, and it has not been proven in any court of law.
The Double Jeopardy Question That Rattled the Room
But here is where the conversation took a turn nobody expected.
A guest on Kelly’s podcast raised the possibility that Kevin Reddington could attempt to invoke double jeopardy protections in connection with the case going forward.
Double jeopardy is the constitutional protection that bars the government from trying a defendant twice for the same offense after an acquittal.
The critical word there is acquittal.
A mistrial resulting from a hung jury is not an acquittal. Courts have long held that a deadlocked jury does not trigger double jeopardy protections the way a not-guilty verdict would.
So the guest’s suggestion that Reddington could “claim double jeopardy” raises a genuine legal question about what angle the defense might try to construct — whether through arguments about jury polling, the specific nature of the deadlock, or some other procedural hook.
It is not a slam-dunk argument. Not even close.
But the fact that it is being floated publicly tells the story of where the defense is headed.
Reddington is not walking away. He is looking for the next lever to pull.
And Kelly’s instinct to call that out directly is the right one.
Why the Mistrial Demands a Retrial
The three children at the center of this case — Cora, Dawson, and Callan — deserve a full adjudication of the charges against the person accused of ending their lives.
What the mistrial produced instead was a collapsed process, a hung jury driven by woke leftist feminism run amok, and a legal limbo that serves no one except the defense.
Prosecutors should retry this case.
The postpartum psychosis defense is a contested argument, not a medical verdict. It should be tested in full before a jury that can reach a decision, not used to produce a near-acquittal through a deadlock engineered by eleven jurors who reportedly agreed before a single holdout refused to go along.
The idea that a double jeopardy claim could somehow short-circuit that process should be examined carefully and rejected if the law does not support it — which, based on settled precedent around hung juries, it almost certainly does not.
Kelly is right to push back on Reddington’s posture here.
Taking the L, as she put it, would mean acknowledging that the defense got as far as it could get and that the justice system still has work to do on behalf of three children who cannot speak for themselves.
But defense attorneys do not take L’s when they believe there is another play on the board.
And Reddington clearly believes there is.
The double jeopardy angle, however creative, runs directly into the wall of established law on mistrials. A hung jury preserves the government’s right to retry. That is not a close question in American jurisprudence.
What is a close question is whether prosecutors have the stomach to go through this again — another trial, another jury, another round of postpartum psychosis testimony, and another group of jurors who will be asked to weigh the deaths of three young children against a psychiatric defense that the first jury nearly accepted in full.
That is the real fight ahead.
Not a double jeopardy claim that is unlikely to succeed, but a retrial that demands the kind of prosecutorial resolve that the first proceeding apparently could not deliver across the finish line.
Cora was five years old. Dawson was three. Callan was eight months old.
The charges remain unresolved. The mistrial is an outrage. And the argument that the defense should simply walk away — Kelly’s argument — is the right one, even if Reddington has no intention of listening to it.
Source: Mediaite, “Megyn Kelly Urges Lindsay Clancy’s Lawyer to ‘Take the L’ While Guest Says Kevin Reddington Could Claim Double Jeopardy”