“WE ARE NOT THE SAME.” — NANCY MACE FIRES BACK AFTER LINDSAY CLANCY’S LAWYER NAMES HER IN COURT

“We are not the same.”

Nancy Mace had one message after Lindsay Clancy’s defense attorney brought her name into a tense courtroom argument:

She was not backing down.

On September 29, Kevin Reddington, the attorney representing Clancy, mentioned Mace while defending his public comments about the lone holdout juror whose position resulted in the mistrial.

Reddington told Judge William Sullivan that his public statements had come in response to politicians — including President Donald Trump and Mace — who had called for severe punishment for Clancy.

“Every comment I have made has been in reaction to people from Donald Trump on down to Nancy Mace down to Cruz ... calling for her execution,” Reddington said in court.

That reference did not end the confrontation.

It appeared to escalate it.

Mace fired back with a statement that turned the courtroom reference into a fresh public clash:

“Appreciated the shoutout in court this morning, Kevin, but we are not the same.”

And behind that sentence sits a much bigger fight over what happened after Clancy’s mistrial.

WHY DID REDDINGTON BRING MACE INTO THE COURTROOM?

The dispute was not originally about Mace.

It centered on the lone holdout juror from Clancy’s murder trial.

The six-week trial ended in a mistrial on September 4 after the 12-member jury failed to reach the unanimous decision required for a verdict.

Reports have said 11 jurors favored finding Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity, while one juror did not agree.

After the mistrial, Reddington publicly criticized the holdout and questioned the juror’s role in the outcome.

That generated criticism from prosecutors and the attorney representing the juror.

At the September 29 hearing, prosecutors raised concerns about public statements involving juror information and argued for protecting the juror’s privacy.

Reddington pushed back.

He said he was tired of being accused of attacking the juror and argued that his own public comments had been responses to politicians calling for Clancy’s execution.

That was when Mace's name entered the courtroom.

MACE HAD ALREADY MADE HER POSITION VERY CLEAR

This was not the first time Mace and Reddington had clashed publicly.

Earlier in September, Mace called for Clancy to face the death penalty and said she wanted the execution to be public.

Mace argued that such a punishment would serve as a warning against killing children.

Reddington strongly rejected those comments.

He argued that Mace had not seen the evidence or sat through the trial and noted that Clancy had not been convicted.

He also pointed out that Massachusetts has not had the death penalty for decades.

The dispute became increasingly personal.

Mace accused Reddington of using the case to defend Clancy.

Reddington accused Mace of inflaming public opinion against a defendant whose case remained unresolved.

Now, after Reddington invoked her name in court, Mace had another opportunity to answer.

And she took it.

“WE ARE NOT THE SAME”

Mace's September 29 statement was unusually direct.

She accused Reddington of defending someone who had been accused of killing her children and argued that the attorney had targeted the lone holdout juror.

Her statement said:

“Lindsay Clancy's attorney wants everyone to believe he never targeted the lone holdout juror. His own words say otherwise.”

Mace pointed specifically to Reddington's previous descriptions of the juror and argued that his public comments had placed attention on the juror.

She then delivered the line that immediately became the centerpiece of the response:

“Appreciated the shoutout in court this morning, Kevin, but we are not the same.”

The statement was not merely about the Clancy case.

Mace was also drawing a sharp distinction between her own public position and Reddington's role as a defense attorney.

She said she was calling for the execution of Clancy, while Reddington's responsibility was to defend his client.

That distinction is central to the rhetoric surrounding the case.

MACE THEN TOOK THE ARGUMENT TO CNN

The courtroom exchange did not stay inside the courthouse.

Later that day, Mace appeared on CNN and was shown the clip of Reddington naming her.

Her response went beyond the original statement.

Mace said she believed Reddington had played a role in targeting the holdout juror.

She also argued that prosecutors should consider a gag order while the question of a second trial remains unresolved.

Those are Mace's allegations and arguments, not a judicial finding.

The court has not determined that Reddington illegally targeted the juror.

That distinction matters because the dispute has moved rapidly from courtroom procedure into a highly public battle involving politicians, attorneys, jurors and television appearances.

REDDINGTON'S DEFENSE HAS ALSO CHANGED

While the public fight over the juror has intensified, something else has happened inside the actual legal case.

Clancy's defense has shifted its strategy.

During the original trial, Reddington's team argued that Clancy should be found not guilty by reason of insanity because she was suffering from severe postpartum psychosis.

But at the September 29 hearing, the defense made a much more fundamental argument.

Reddington questioned whether prosecutors had actually proven that Clancy committed the killings.

He argued that the evidence did not establish the case as firmly as prosecutors claimed.

That was a major change in emphasis because the defense had previously accepted the underlying acts for purposes of pursuing the insanity defense while disputing Clancy's criminal responsibility.

Prosecutors strongly disagreed.

They argued that substantial evidence supported the case and opposed the defense's attempt to prevent a retrial.

The judge did not immediately resolve that dispute.

THE MISTRIAL STILL HANGS OVER EVERYTHING

The reason all of this matters is simple:

There is still no final verdict.

Clancy was not convicted.

She was not acquitted.

The September 4 mistrial ended the first trial without a unanimous verdict.

That leaves the case in an unusual legal position.

The defense is asking the court to end the case rather than send it to another jury.

Prosecutors are seeking to preserve their ability to pursue another trial.

And the judge is still weighing motions that could determine whether the case moves forward.

A November 2 hearing is scheduled, and the court could address the possibility of a retrial then.

So while the public argument between Mace and Reddington is becoming louder, the underlying legal question remains unresolved.

THE HOLDOUT JUROR HAS BECOME A SECOND BATTLEFRONT

The lone holdout has become one of the most controversial figures surrounding the case.

After the mistrial, attention shifted toward why that juror refused to join the other 11.

The juror's attorney has emphasized the need for privacy and said the juror wanted justice for the children.

Reddington, meanwhile, has argued that he was responding to what he saw as unfair public pressure from political figures and others.

Mace sees the situation differently.

She argues that Reddington's public comments helped put a target on the juror.

Those competing narratives have not been resolved by the court.

And that is important.

A heated public exchange is not the same thing as a judicial finding about juror misconduct or improper targeting.

THEN THERE IS THE QUESTION OF TRUMP

Reddington's decision to mention Trump alongside Mace added another layer to the dispute.

Trump had publicly commented on the case following the mistrial, saying he had followed it and describing the situation as a terrible tragedy.

Trump also said he expected there would be consequences, mentioning the possibility of jail or a mental institution.

Reddington has criticized those public comments along with Mace's calls for execution.

But Trump's comments, like Mace's, do not determine what happens in the Massachusetts courtroom.

The legal decisions remain with the state court.

That distinction has become increasingly important as public figures continue to weigh in.

“WE ARE NOT THE SAME” — BUT THE CASE IS STILL THE SAME

Mace's statement delivered a clean political and rhetorical counterpunch.

Reddington had put her name into the courtroom argument.

She responded publicly.

But beneath the dramatic exchange, the legal questions remain remarkably concrete:

Will Clancy face another trial?

Will the judge grant the defense's request to end the case?

What happens to the motions involving the holdout juror?

And can either side persuade the court that its version of events should control what happens next?

Those questions have not been answered.

THE NEXT HEARING COULD CHANGE EVERYTHING

For now, the Mace-Reddington feud is producing headlines.

But the courtroom calendar is more important.

The next major hearing is scheduled for November 2.

By then, the judge could have more information on the defense's effort to prevent a retrial, the prosecution's position and the continuing dispute over the holdout juror.

Until then, the public battle will likely continue.

Mace has made her position unmistakable.

Reddington has made his.

But neither public statement decides the case.

And that may be the most important fact of all.

The words “we are not the same” may have won the latest headline.