The legal representative for a lone holdout juror in the Lindsay Clancy trial has criticized calls for an inquiry into the juror’s actions. Michael Desronvil was the only juror advocating for a conviction of the Massachusetts mother in the deaths of her three children. Clancy’s attorney, Kevin Reddington, filed a motion urging the court to question Desronvil for allegedly using a cell phone during deliberations. The motion also questions Desronvil’s honesty in pre-trial and end-of-trial assessments. Reddington requested records of texts or calls made by Desronvil between deliberation hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. since phone use during deliberation breaches state rules.
In response, Edward Andrew Paltzik, Desronvil’s lawyer, condemned the motion in a statement on X. He called it “a full-frontal attack on the U.S. Constitution,” arguing that investigating jurors for disagreeing with defense attorneys threatens the Sixth Amendment. Paltzik deemed the motion “disgusting” and “deserving universal condemnation.” Newsweek has sought comments from both Reddington and Paltzik.
A mistrial was declared on September 4 by Judge William Sullivan after the jury failed to unanimously decide, despite extended deliberations. Eleven out of twelve jurors were inclined to absolve Clancy of criminal liability in her children’s deaths.
Clancy has acknowledged the killings of her children, Cora (5), Dawson (3), and Callan (8 months), in their Massachusetts home. Her legal team claims she was not guilty due to insanity, citing postpartum psychosis. The case spurred nationwide discussions on postpartum psychosis and criminal responsibility.
The prosecution argued Clancy intentionally instructed her husband, Patrick, to leave the house to carry out the crimes, and Desronvil sided with this stance. Desronvil previously stated to Newsweek, “I didn’t have any doubts. Evidence and witness testimony convinced me she knew and planned her actions.”
Separately, Clancy’s defense sought dismissal of first-degree murder charges through a double jeopardy motion on September 21, filed by attorney Martin Weinberg. This legal move challenges the necessity of the mistrial, suggesting the court had alternatives. It raises issues under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments, arguing, “There was no manifest necessity for the mistrial as other options were viable.” The document critiques the decision, noticing the lack of inquiry into a juror allegedly not adhering to instructions about reasonable doubt.
The case remains open, with murder charges against Clancy still pending. A status hearing is set for September 29 in Plymouth Superior Court before Judge Sullivan.