Attorney Kevin Reddington made the argument during the first hearing since Clancy's trial ended September 4. During that trial, Reddington had not disputed that Clancy killed the children at the family's home in 2023. Instead, the defense spent the trial trying to convince jurors that Clancy's mental state at the time should shield her from a conviction.
Now Reddington is taking a different approach. "This entire case is based on speculation," he said in court, arguing the evidence against the 36-year-old doesn't hold up.
The shift changes the entire legal strategy in a case that already ended in a hung jury. Instead of debating what was happening in Clancy's mind when her children died, her lawyer now wants the court to question whether prosecutors can prove she did it at all. Walking back a trial's worth of uncontested facts is no small move.
Whether a new argument that contradicts the old one persuades a judge or a future jury is the question hanging over what happens next.