Attorneys for Lindsay Clancy and the juror who stood alone during deliberations have traded sharply worded statements as prosecutors prepare to say at a Tuesday hearing whether they will seek a retrial.
Clancy acknowledges killing her three young children in 2023, but maintains she was heavily medicated and experiencing postpartum psychosis at the time. Prosecutors have contended that the deaths resulted from deliberate, planned actions rather than a psychiatric breakdown.
The five-week trial ended in a mistrial after jurors failed to reach a unanimous decision on whether Clancy, 36, was guilty of murder or manslaughter, or whether she was not criminally responsible for the killings.
The 12-member panel—nine women and three men—deliberated for more than 37 hours. Eleven jurors reportedly reached the same conclusion, but the 12th, later identified as Michael P Desronvil, refused to join them.
Following the mistrial, Clancy’s lawyer, Kevin Reddington, submitted two motions seeking dismissal of the case.
One motion invoked double jeopardy, the constitutional protection against being prosecuted or punished twice for the same offense. The second sought an investigation into Desronvil, alleging that he had violated jury rules.
Edward Paltzik, who represents the holdout juror, told Fox News host Kayleigh McEnany on Monday that prosecutors and Reddington had agreed to postpone the motion concerning an investigation into Michael.
Reddington disputed that account in a statement to the Daily Mail, describing Paltzik’s claim as “pure nonsense” and accusing him of being “a publicity-seeking opportunist.”
Prosecutors could announce Tuesday whether Lindsay Clancy will face a retrial. She admits killing her three young children in 2023 but says she was suffering from postpartum psychosis.
After Clancy’s trial ended in a mistrial, her attorney, Kevin Reddington, filed two motions to dismiss the case. One also sought an investigation of the holdout juror.
Edward Paltzik, the holdout juror’s attorney, said the investigation motion had been “adjourned.” Reddington rejected that characterization and called Paltzik “a publicity-seeking opportunist.”
Reddington requested an investigation into holdout juror Michael P Desronvil, pictured, alleging that he failed to follow the court’s jury rules.
“It has come to my attention that Ed Paltzik—the hoodie-wearing lawyer claiming to represent the obstructionist juror—has issued false and blatantly misleading statements regarding our motion to inquire,” Reddington said.
He said Paltzik’s claim that the motion had been postponed through an agreement between prosecutors and the defense was “absurd” and “pure nonsense.”
Reddington said he and prosecutors agreed, as a professional courtesy, to reschedule the motion so Paltzik would have sufficient time to review it and respond.
“The motion remains active, fully alive, and is currently pending a ruling from Judge Sullivan,” Reddington said.
He concluded that his legal team would not allow “a publicity-seeking opportunist” to portray a routine courtroom accommodation as a victory.
Paltzik escalated the dispute Monday evening in a post on X. He argued that Reddington had been able to remove Desronvil during jury selection but chose not to do so.
“Clearly, Reddington liked Michael well enough long before the mistrial,” Paltzik wrote.
He described Reddington’s criticism after the trial as “sophomoric whining” and “pure sour grapes” from an angry and exhausted attorney who believed a defense verdict was his by right.
Reddington is pictured looking defeated in court earlier this month as it became clear that the jury could not reach a consensus
Judge William Sullivan is expected to hear Reddington’s motions to dismiss Clancy’s case at the hearing on Tuesday
At the motion hearing scheduled for 9am on Tuesday, Judge William Sullivan is expected to hear the two motions to dismiss the case that were filed by Reddington.
It is also expected that the district attorney’s office will announce whether it plans to retry Clancy, and if so, on what charges.
Prosecutors may be inclined to reduce the charges they are seeking against Clancy to second-degree murder or manslaughter to increase the likelihood of a conviction.
Brad Bailey, a Boston defense attorney and former prosecutor who is not involved in the case, told the Daily Mail earlier this month that prosecutors could also offer Clancy a plea deal instead of a new trial.
‘Any time the threat of a retrial with murder one hanging over the client is re-interjected, defense lawyers will, at the very least, explore whether or not there’s any interest in a resolution,’ Bailey said.
The district attorney’s office could also decide not to retry the case.
Bailey explained: ‘Sometimes they decide not to, because of the sense that there may be the same result each time they try it, and because of the expenditures involved in trying the case to begin with, particularly when you have expert witnesses.’
If the district attorney’s office decides not to move forward with a retrial, then Reddington’s motions to dismiss the case will likewise not move forward, as they would become redundant.