Lindsay Clancy trial: Why did the prosecutor ask for gag order? Kevin Reddington's remarks on holdout juror sparks row

On Tuesday, September 29, as Lindsay Clancy and her attorney, Kevin Reddington, returned to the court in Plymouth, Massachusetts for a status hearing, two major surprises emerged.

Lindsay Clancy looks on as Judge William Sullivan has declared a mistrial in Plymouth on September 4. (via REUTERS)Clancy returned to the court for the first time on Tuesday since the September 4 mistrial in the triple-murder trial. The proceedings mostly centered around Kevin Reddington's motions the mistrial verdict.

The first major surprise in Tuesday's proceedings came from the prosecutor, who asked Judge William Sullivan to impose a gag order, preventing stakeholders in the case from making comments about it in the media. The second came from Kevin Reddington, who argued that there is "no evidence" that Lindsay Clancy killed her three children.

Reddington's argument came as he pushed for a Rule 25 motion asking the Judge Sullivan for Clancy's acquittal. But it was a complete U-turn in the defense's stance, as Reddington previously argued around Clancy's postpartum psychosis diagnosis without disputing that she killed her three children.

Here, we will take a look at why Lindsay Clancy's prosecutor asked for a gag order.

The prosecutors in Lindsay Clancy's case requested a gag order in the case following the row that erupted over the lone holdout juror, Michael P. Dresnovil. The mistrial ruling came after the jury failed to reach a consensus because Dresnovil was the only one holding out.

The prosecutors claimed that Reddington revealed the gender of the holdout juror as male. Given there were only three male jurors in the case, they alleged that it enabled the media to identify Dresnovil. Questions have since come up about if Dresnovil followed the law while applying the reasonable doubt standard. Reddington has also accused Dresnovil of lying in the jury selection questionnaire.

In their filing Tuesday, the prosecutors argued that the remarks to the media got the case massive attention and they are trying to prevent that in the next hearing.

“In order to prevent the carnival atmosphere that was the trial between July 21, 2026, and September 4, 2026, as well as the aftermath since, this court can and should limit the extrajudicial statements made in this case," they wrote in the court papers on Tuesday, per the New York Post.

Shamik is a journalist covering the United States for Hindustan Times. He has more than four years of experience reporting on US politics, sports, and major breaking stories across fast-moving cycles. He previously worked at Times Now and Sportskeeda, building strong newsroom instincts and digital storytelling skills. At HT.com, he focuses on day-to-day coverage of US political developments while also handling high-impact stories that demand speed, accuracy, clarity, and context under pressure. Shamik has extensive experience covering NFL game days over the past two years, coordinating live updates, analysis, and explainers. He is particularly drawn to large news moments such as US elections and the Super Bowl, where he thrives at the news desk working alongside the team. He holds degrees in Media Studies from Jamia Millia Islamia and English Literature from Jadavpur University. Before entering journalism, he briefly worked in digital marketing and political consultancy roles. Currently a Senior Content Producer at HT Digital, he is driven by curiosity, discipline, and a constant desire to explore new and obscure topics. Outside work, he enjoys reading, films, sports, and learning continuously.Read More