Legal Dispute over Jury Conduct in Lindsay Clancy Trial

An attorney for the single holdout juror in the Lindsay Clancy trial has criticized calls to investigate the juror’s conduct. Michael Desronvil was the sole juror advocating for the conviction of the Massachusetts mother in the tragic deaths of her three young children.

Clancy’s attorney, Kevin Reddington, filed a motion on Friday, which became public on Monday, asking the court to question Desronvil for allegedly using a cell phone during deliberations, and questioning his honesty when jurors were interviewed a day before the trial ended. The motion also seeks a review of Desronvil’s responses on a pre-trial questionnaire.

Reddington requested the court to obtain any records of texts or calls made by Desronvil during jury deliberation hours, from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. The use of phones during deliberation is prohibited by state law.

In a comprehensive statement released on X, Desronvil’s attorney, Edward Andrew Paltzik, whom he engaged following backlash for opposing Clancy’s acquittal, described the motion as “a direct challenge to the U.S. Constitution.”

“If jurors face harsh repercussions for disagreeing with a defense attorney, the Sixth Amendment is at risk,” Paltzik stated.

He criticized the motion to investigate, calling it “disgraceful” and deserving of sheer disapproval. Newsweek reached out to both Reddington and Paltzik for comments.

Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial on September 4, after the jury could not reach a unanimous decision following extensive deliberations. Eleven out of the 12 jurors were prepared to deem Clancy not criminally responsible for her children’s deaths.

Clancy has acknowledged killing her three children, Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months old, at their home in Massachusetts. Her attorneys argue she was not guilty due to insanity, claiming she suffered from postpartum psychosis.

The case has ignited a nationwide debate on postpartum psychosis and the treatment of defendants with severe mental illnesses within the criminal justice system. Prosecutors assert that Clancy planned the killings by sending her husband, Patrick, away to create an opportunity to strangle her children. Desronvil supported the prosecution in this view.

In a statement provided by his lawyers to Newsweek, Desronvil said, “I didn’t have any doubts. Attempting to explain different theories during deliberation was often interrupted, as if I had doubts. Based on all evidence, key witnesses, and what the prosecution presented, I believed it was enough to prove she acted knowingly and with intent.”

Clancy’s Defense Moves to Dismiss Charges

Separately, Clancy’s defense filed a motion on September 21 to dismiss first-degree murder charges based on double jeopardy. The attorney, Martin Weinberg, previously handled Karen Read’s double jeopardy claim.

The motion argues that the judge should not have declared a mistrial. It raises issues under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments, contending that the court had viable alternatives besides declaring a mistrial.

“There was no manifest necessity for declaring a mistrial, especially without a comprehensive inquiry into reports of a juror’s refusal to apply court instructions regarding reasonable doubt,” the filing states.

Future Proceedings

The case remains unresolved, with murder charges against Clancy still active. A status hearing is scheduled for September 29 in Plymouth Superior Court before Judge Sullivan.