PLYMOUTH, Mass. — Lindsay Clancy’s defense lawyer made a surprise shift in strategy Tuesday, according to legal analysts — shifting gears from his argument at trial that she was not criminally responsible because she suffered from postpartum psychosis.

"Where’s the evidence that she did this?" Clancy's defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, asked Judge William Sullivan in court Tuesday. "Where is the evidence she did this?"

Reddington made the argument while asking Sullivan to enter a not guilty finding after the jury deadlocked.

"I submit to the court there is no evidence she made any statements, as far as the actual killing of the children, which forms the basis of the indictments," Reddington said.

Plymouth County prosecutors countered, calling his assertion "a laughable argument." But it marked a striking change in the way he's argued the case in the past.

He pointed to what he described as gaps in the physical evidence, including the blood, DNA, timing and circumstances surrounding Clancy’s suicide attempt, which left her paralyzed.

"For the first time, we saw Rule 25(b)(2) motion — asking Sullivan to override the deadlocked jury and enter a not-guilty finding on the alleged grounds that the Commonwealth's evidence was legally insufficient to garner a conviction.

Such motions are routine but seldom successful, according to Carol Erskine, a retired Massachusetts judge and child welfare advocate who has been following the case closely.

"He is arguing that [they] did not prove each and every element as required by law," she told Fox News Digital. "I understand why people don’t get this, but he had to argue sufficiency of evidence under Rule 25(b)(2) case law. He told the judge he asked for a Bowden instruction and was denied, which meant he was challenging the poor investigation/search at the home by police. It’s a very nuanced argument."

It's also a different argument than the prior Rule 25 motion that Reddington filed at the end of Clancy's mistrial, which Sullivan denied.

"I will say it was a total surprise that his strategy changed from the original 25(b)(2) motion," Erskine said. "Did not expect it."

Clancy is due back in court on Nov. 2 for another motion hearing. She has pending motions to dismiss the charges on double jeopardy grounds and to open an inquiry into the holdout juror.

A new trial has not yet been scheduled. Both the prosecution and the defense told the court they needed more time, and Reddington said that he's not available to start one until June 2027.