Lindsay Clancy trial holdout juror defends vote
The mistrial in the Lindsay Clancy case has prompted the lone holdout juror, Michael P. Desronvil, to defend his position in a public statement. Criminal defense attorney Mercedes Colwin examines the juror’s reasoning and discusses what prosecutors in Massachusetts could do next, including pursuing a retrial or negotiating a plea agreement as the closely watched case moves forward.
Lindsay Clancy’s defense team is seeking an investigation into the holdout juror who wanted to convict her of murdering her three young children by strangulation.
Clancy attorney Kevin Reddington has asked a Massachusetts judge to preserve records involving all 12 jurors and six alternates. The requested materials include juror questionnaires, hallway surveillance footage recorded outside the deliberation room and cellphone sign-in sheets.
Reddington is requesting a “limited inquiry” into the holdout juror, along with information about any background checks connected to a February motion by Plymouth County prosecutors seeking access to prospective juror records.
Michael P. Desronvil, left, the lone holdout juror who forced a mistrial in the Lindsay Clancy case, has retained an attorney who once represented President Donald Trump. Clancy, right, faced three counts of first-degree murder in the strangling deaths of her three children. (Facebook/Brittany K and Greg Derr/The Patriot Ledger via AP, Pool)
The defense also wants the holdout’s juror questionnaire, supplemental filings, probation records and “Juror Doe’s record from the statewide domestic violence registry.” Reddington is asking the judge to require prosecutors to disclose whether they have had contact with the juror as a defendant, complainant or subject since January 2021.
In addition, Reddington is seeking the juror’s phone records from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on each day of deliberations. He also wants the court to order an independent review of the juror’s phone activity during that period.
The defense further wants the holdout questioned about the accuracy of his answers on the juror questionnaire and during voir dire, his statements to the court on Sept. 3, and whether he used a phone or relied on outside information during deliberations.
Michael P. Desronvil, the lone holdout juror in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial, which ended in a mistrial. (Fugitive TV)
“The court may also hear from Juror No. 10 limited to what he observed of Juror Doe’s phone use,” Reddington wrote in the filing.
EXPLORE MORE: Beau Lamarre-Condon: Inside the Mind of an Accused Killer
Defense attorney Kevin Reddington addresses reporters as jurors weigh the case against Lindsay Clancy in the 2023 deaths of her three children. (Photo by JOSEPH PREZIOSO / AFP via Getty Images)
Clancy’s trial ended in a mistrial on Sept. 4, after the jury reached an 11-1 deadlock in favor of finding her not criminally responsible because of mental illness or defect. Her attorneys argued that she was experiencing postpartum psychosis and had repeatedly sought help without receiving adequate assistance.
Prosecutors, however, contended that Clancy acted intentionally and understood that strangling her children one at a time with exercise bands was wrong.
Judge William Sullivan indicates he was going to declare a mistrial before changing course and giving Lindsay Clancy’s defense attorney one hour to appeal, as the jury in the case has indicated that they are unable to reach a verdict on Friday, Sept. 4, 2026, in Plymouth, Mass. (Greg Derr/The Patriot Ledger via AP, Pool)
The sole holdout is identified as “Juror Doe” in the motion because a court impoundment order protects the identities of the jurors.
Callan, left, Dawson and Cora Clancy. The three children were killed at their Duxbury, Massachusetts, home in January 2023. (Lindsay Marie Clancy/Facebook)
Prosecutors have not officially said whether they will seek a new trial for Clancy, who faces three first-degree murder charges in the deaths of Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months.
Clancy’s attorney has also asked the court to override the holdout juror and enter a not-guilty verdict. Although such a motion is routine, legal experts have said it rarely succeeds.