Lindsay Clancy’s lawyer, Kevin Reddington, asks the court to remove a holdout juror during an 11th-hour appeal attempt while the jury remains deadlocked. The application is presented as a last effort to prevent the case from ending without a verdict.
Multiple reporting outlets describe the move as a “hail Mary,” reflecting the unusual timing and the sharp disagreement it has generated. The defense argues the juror is biased against people with disabilities. In contrast, the coverage emphasizes that the request has divided opinion, with no consensus in the reporting on whether the claim will succeed or how the court should weigh the allegation.
The articles provide limited additional detail beyond the defense’s stated grounds and the procedural posture of the appeal, including what evidence is cited to support the bias claim or how the prosecution responds. The focus remains on whether the juror can or should be replaced to allow deliberations to continue toward a verdict.
