Why does r/Lawyertalk seem so overwhelmingly supportive of Redd and the Clancy defense, even after the trial?
I’m genuinely curious about something I’ve noticed in this subreddit throughout the Lindsay Clancy trial and its aftermath.
During the trial, the overwhelming sentiment seemed to be admiration for Redd’s aggressive courtroom tactics, showmanship, and willingness to be absolutely cutthroat. I understand that. His job was to advocate for his client, and effective trial advocacy isn’t necessarily pretty. Winning matters. Jurors are human, susceptible to emotion, persuasion, and theatrics. I get why attorneys might appreciate someone who knows how to exploit those dynamics.
What I don’t understand is why that admiration seems to have persisted almost uncritically after the trial.
I’ve seen remarkably little condemnation of Redd’s continued behavior, including the controversy surrounding his public identification of the lone holdout juror. Instead, I’ve seen attorneys criticize that juror for admitting that the potential length of Clancy’s psychiatric commitment influenced his thinking.
Meanwhile, I haven’t seen nearly the same scrutiny directed toward the other jurors, some of whom have made media appearances and discussed their social media activity and deliberations. Why isn’t that attracting comparable professional criticism?
Then there’s the actual evidence.
I’ve seen attorneys confidently repeat claims that Clancy was heavily medicated for months, despite toxicology results and medication records that, to my understanding, substantially complicate that narrative. There is also evidence suggesting planning and deliberation, while the evidence supporting psychosis at the time of the killings seems far less compelling than the defense’s narrative would suggest.
Reasonable people can disagree about criminal responsibility. But I would expect attorneys, of all people, to distinguish between an effective defense narrative and what the evidence actually establishes.
Instead, some of the commentary feels almost like sports fandom. Redd is the impressive fighter, the defense is the team everyone is rooting for, and criticism of either is treated as though you’re missing the brilliance of the performance.
So my questions for practicing attorneys are:
Are lawyers generally more inclined to admire effective advocacy, even when they disagree with the facts, ethics, or ultimate outcome?
Does professional identification with a defense attorney make lawyers less willing to criticize his behavior outside the courtroom?
Why does skepticism about the defense’s psychiatric narrative seem so uncommon here, given the available evidence?
Is there a meaningful distinction in legal culture between admiring someone for winning and approving of how they conduct themselves?
I had always assumed attorneys, because of their training, would be particularly rigorous about separating evidence from persuasion. Some of the commentary I’ve encountered has challenged that assumption.
I’m not suggesting that every attorney must agree with my interpretation of the evidence. I’m asking why the discussion seems so lopsided, why questionable behavior receives so little scrutiny, and whether what I’m observing is representative of the profession or simply the particular lawyers participating in these threads.
I’d genuinely appreciate thoughtful responses, especially from attorneys who can explain this dynamic without reducing it to being on one side or the other.