The attorney for the sole dissenting juror in the Lindsay Clancy trial has criticized efforts to probe the juror’s actions. Michael Desronvil was the only juror who sought to convict the Massachusetts mother for the deaths of her three children.
Questioning Juror Conduct
Lindsay Clancy’s attorney, Kevin Reddington, filed a motion requesting the court to question Desronvil. This motion, made public on Monday, accuses Desronvil of using a cell phone during deliberations. It further questions his honesty when jurors were interrogated just before the trial concluded, as well as his truthfulness on a pre-trial questionnaire.
The motion demands court access to any texts or calls Desronvil made on jury deliberation days, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., as phone use during deliberations is prohibited in Massachusetts.
Juror’s Attorney Defends His Client
In response, Desronvil’s lawyer, Edward Andrew Paltzik, issued a statement on X. Paltzik labeled the motion a blatant attack on the U.S. Constitution, declaring it would undermine the Sixth Amendment if jurors face reprisals for not siding with defense attorneys. He condemned the motion as “disgusting” and called for universal condemnation.
Newsweek has reached out to both Reddington and Paltzik for comments.
Mistrial and Clancy’s Defense Argument
On September 4, Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial after the jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict despite extended deliberations. Eleven jurors were prepared to absolve Clancy of criminal liability for her children’s deaths.
Clancy admitted to killing her children, Cora (5), Dawson (3), and Callan (8 months), in their Massachusetts home. Her defense argued she was not guilty due to insanity, citing postpartum psychosis. The case sparked national debate on how the justice system should handle defendants with severe mental illness.
Prosecutors alleged Clancy intentionally sent her husband out of the house to facilitate the killings, which Desronvil agreed with. Despite interruptions, Desronvil stated he didn’t doubt the evidence, asserting that physical evidence and witness testimony proved Clancy’s awareness and planning.
Defense Files Double Jeopardy Motion
Separately, Clancy’s defense filed a double jeopardy motion on September 21, seeking first-degree murder charges dismissal. Attorney Martin Weinberg, renowned for representing similar claims, argued against a new trial and the initial mistrial declaration, invoking the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
The motion asserts that the court had viable alternatives to declaring a mistrial and critiqued the lack of judicial inquiry regarding juror adherence to instructions on reasonable doubt.
Future Proceedings
Clancy’s case remains unresolved, with murder charges pending. The next court session is a status hearing scheduled for September 29 at Plymouth Superior Court before Judge Sullivan.
This article includes contributions from the Associated Press. Newsweek’s team used Martyn, our AI assistant, to generate this story.
Immigration Judge Allows Deportation of Wisconsin Mosque Leader Salah Sarsour 
Lindsay Clancy Faces Potential Retrial After Mistrial 
Tennessee Prepares for Rare Execution of Woman on Death Row 
Mistrial in Lindsay Clancy Case: Juror Speaks Out 
Utah Judge Orders Release of Man on Death Row After DNA Evidence Emerges 
Kurt Olsen Resigns from the Justice Department Amid Investigation