A lawyer for Lindsay Clancy is asking a Massachusetts judge to investigate the Black juror who prevented the jury from reaching a unanimous verdict in the mother’s murder trial.
11 of the 12 jurors reportedly concluded she should not face criminal responsibility for the deaths of her three children.
The request centers on juror Michael Desronvil, who sided with prosecutors during deliberations.
Clancy’s attorney, Kevin Reddington, wants the court to question Desronvil about whether he used a cellphone while jurors were deliberating, as well as whether he provided truthful answers during jury selection and when questioned by the judge shortly before the trial ended, PBS News reported.
The judge declared a mistrial Sept. 4 after jurors said they could not reach a unanimous decision despite spending days attempting to resolve their disagreement. According to the filing, 11 jurors planned to find Clancy not criminally responsible, saying postpartum psychosis drove her to strangle her children.
Desronvil disagreed with them and supported the prosecution’s position that Clancy understood what she was doing at the time of the killings.
Reddington’s motion, filed Friday and made public Monday, asks the court to obtain records showing whether Desronvil made calls or sent text messages during deliberations. The attorney specifically requested records covering the hours between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on each day the jury deliberated. State law prohibits jurors from using phones during deliberations.
The jury foreperson previously told the media that Desronvil had acknowledged having “reasonable doubt” about Clancy’s guilt but still wanted to convict her. Desronvil disputed that account and said he believed the evidence supported the prosecution’s case.
“I didn’t have any doubts,” Desronvil said in a statement released on X by his attorney, Edward Paltzik.
“As I tried to explain different possible theories during deliberation, I kept getting cut off as if I had doubts based on the evidence presented,” Desronvil wrote. “Based on all the physical evidence, key witnesses, and what the prosecution presented, I thought it was enough proof that (Clancy) knew exactly what she was doing.”
No one has accused Desronvil of wrongdoing related to his jury service. Other jurors, however, criticized him for maintaining a firm position that Clancy was guilty.
His role in the mistrial has also drawn considerable public attention. Since the trial ended, Desronvil has faced both criticism and support, while media reports and online investigators have examined aspects of his personal history.
Those reports detailing his past have included a restraining order against him at the time of jury selection and an eviction dispute involving more than $12,000 in unpaid rent. Desronvil also faced a criminal charge for assaulting his wife in September 2021. A judge later dismissed the case.
People who believe Clancy should have faced a conviction have rallied around Desronvil.
A fundraiser intended to help with what organizers described as expenses for “security, lawyers, and lost work” has raised more than $380,000.
Reddington wants his motion considered at the next scheduled hearing on Sept. 29. Another Clancy attorney, Martin Weinberg, has separately asked the judge to dismiss the case instead of ordering a new trial.
Weinberg argues that the mistrial should not have happened because the judge had other options, including potentially replacing the holdout juror with an alternate after the jury foreperson raised concerns about that juror’s approach to reasonable doubt.
“Contrary to the court’s stated belief at the time, it did have viable choices other than declaring a mistrial,” Weinberg wrote.
Weinberg also argued that Clancy had a constitutional right to have her case decided by an impartial jury that followed the law as instructed.
“Ms. Clancy, like all criminal defendants, had a Constitutional right to have her fate decided by an impartial jury of her peers, faithfully applying the law as instructed rather than superimposing the juror’s own view of legal right and wrong,” he wrote, according to Fox News.
Desronvil’s attorney released a statement regarding the motion saying, “Kevin Reddington’s disgusting motion to investigate Michael is worthy of nothing but universal condemnation. This is certainly not the final word from us on this subject, but merely our first words. It’s all going to backfire spectacularly on sore loser Reddington.”
Under Massachusetts law, prosecutors were required to prove either that Clancy did not have a mental disease or defect or that, despite having one, she retained the substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness or criminality of her actions and to conform her conduct to the law. Reddington argues that prosecutors failed to establish either point.
Prosecutors have not announced whether they intend to retry Clancy. She still faces murder charges and remains in a psychiatric hospital as the case unfolds.
View on Threads
