The lawyers representing Lindsay Clancy and the juror who remained opposed to the panel’s position have traded sharp statements ahead of Tuesday’s hearing, where prosecutors are expected to say whether they will seek a retrial.
Clancy acknowledges killing her three young children in 2023, but maintains that she was overmedicated and experiencing postpartum psychosis at the time. Prosecutors, however, argued that the deaths were deliberate and planned rather than the actions of a woman who had lost control.
The case ended in a mistrial after five weeks of closely watched testimony, when jurors failed to reach a unanimous decision on whether Clancy, 36, was guilty of murder, manslaughter or not criminally responsible.
The 12-member panel—nine women and three men—deliberated for more than 37 hours. The deadlock became clear after 11 jurors reportedly reached the same conclusion, while the 12th, later identified as Michael P. Desronvil, refused to join them.
‘Pure Nonsense’
Following the mistrial, Clancy’s attorney, Kevin Reddington, filed two motions seeking to have the case dismissed.
One motion invoked double jeopardy, the constitutional protection against being prosecuted or punished twice for the same offense. The second asked the court to investigate Desronvil over allegations that he failed to follow jury rules.
Edward Paltzik, who represents the holdout juror, told Fox News on Monday that the district attorney’s office and Reddington had agreed to postpone the motion seeking an investigation into Desronvil.
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.”
“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.
“Chief among his fabrications is the absurd claim that this motion was ‘adjourned’ by mutual agreement between the government and the defense. That is pure nonsense.”
Reddington said he and prosecutors agreed, as a professional courtesy, to move the motion to a later date so Paltzik would have sufficient time to review the filing and respond.
‘Pure Sour Grapes’
“The motion remains active, fully alive, and is currently pending a ruling from Judge Sullivan,” Reddington stressed.
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: Grandmother Shot Grandson and Kept Firing During His Desperate 911 Call: "I'm Gonna Die" – NewsFinale
“We will not allow a publicity-seeking opportunist to twist simple courtroom courtesy into a victory that does not exist,” he added.
Paltzik escalated the dispute later Monday in a statement posted to X. He argued that Reddington could have removed Desronvil during jury selection but chose not to do so.
“Clearly, Reddington liked Michael well enough long before the mistrial,” Paltzik wrote.
He went on to call Reddington’s criticism “sophomoric whining” and “pure sour grapes” from “an angry, mean, and tired old man” who acted as though a defense verdict was guaranteed to him.
Judge William Sullivan is scheduled to hear Reddington’s two dismissal motions at a 9 a.m. hearing on Tuesday.
The district attorney’s office is also expected to announce whether it intends to retry Clancy and, if so, which charges it will pursue.
Prosecutors could choose to seek reduced charges, such as second-degree murder or manslaughter, in an effort to improve their chances of securing a conviction.
Plea Bargain or Dropped Charges
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 might also offer Clancy a plea agreement rather than proceed with another 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.