Defense attorneys for Lindsay Clancy have asked a Massachusetts judge to investigate juror Michael Desronvil, the lone holdout who blocked her acquittal in a murder trial. The request, filed in September 2026, seeks to probe whether Desronvil secretly used a cellphone during deliberations and lied on pre-trial questionnaires.
The high-profile trial of Lindsay Clancy, a mother accused of strangling her three young children in 2023, ended in a mistrial on Sept. 4 after the jury reached an irreparable deadlock. While 11 of the 12 jurors favored finding Clancy not criminally responsible due to postpartum psychosis, Michael Desronvil stood alone in siding with prosecutors.
Allegations of Juror Misconduct and Phone Use
Defense attorney Kevin Reddington has requested a formal inquiry into Desronvil’s conduct, specifically targeting the alleged use of a cellphone during deliberations. Under state court rules, such phone use is prohibited. Reddington has asked the court to subpoena Desronvil’s phone and text records between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. for every day the jury deliberated.
The defense’s scrutiny extends beyond the deliberation room. The motion asks the judge to examine the truthfulness of Desronvil’s responses on his prospective juror questionnaire and his statements during a judicial inquiry held the day before the trial concluded. This move follows reports from other jurors who claimed Desronvil remained unyielding
in his belief of Clancy’s guilt.
Desronvil has since hired legal representation to combat the backlash. His attorney, Edward Paltzik, has characterized the defense’s motion as a Looney Tunes
attack on his client for performing his civic duty.
If the new normal is that jurors are going to face brutal reprisals for disagreeing with a defense attorney, you can kiss the Sixth Amendment goodbye.
Edward Paltzik, attorney for Michael Desronvil
Conflicting Accounts of the Jury Room
The deadlock was not merely a difference of opinion on the evidence, but a conflict over the application of the law. The jury forewoman, a retired fifth-grade teacher, told NBC that Desronvil had admitted he had reasonable doubt about Clancy’s guilt but still refused to find her not guilty by reason of insanity.
Desronvil denies this account. In a statement to CBS News, he claimed that as he attempted to explain different theories during deliberations, he was getting cut off as if I had doubts based on the evidence presented
. He maintains he had no doubts
about Clancy’s guilt and believes there was enough proof that she knew exactly what she was doing.
This internal friction reached the judge before the mistrial was declared. The jury foreperson had previously sent a note to Judge William Sullivan stating that a single juror would not follow instructions regarding reasonable doubt. While the defense argued the juror should have been dismissed, Sullivan declined, stating that removing a deliberating juror is a sensitive undertaking
.
Defense Motions to Dismiss the Case
Beyond the investigation into Desronvil, Clancy’s legal team is pursuing a rare strategy to end the prosecution entirely. Attorney Martin Weinberg has asked the judge to dismiss the criminal case rather than permit a retrial.
The defense argues that the mistrial was improperly declared. Weinberg contends that the judge had viable options other than a mistrial, specifically the replacement of Desronvil with an alternate juror after the foreperson reported the juror’s refusal to follow the law on reasonable doubt.
Simultaneously, Kevin Reddington has made a public plea for executive clemency. Appearing on Good Morning America, Reddington asked President Donald Trump to grant Clancy a pardon, urging him to consider the person she is
and what she’s been through
.
However, this request faces a significant legal hurdle: Trump’s pardon authority is limited to federal offenses, while Clancy is facing state charges in Massachusetts. Trump responded to the mistrial by calling the case a horrible tragedy
and stating that there will be a price
to pay, whether in a mental institution or jail.
The Stakes of Postpartum Psychosis
The central tension of the trial rests on the distinction between a calculated crime and a mental health crisis. Prosecutors argued that Clancy planned the killings, noting she sent her husband out of the house on an errand to ensure she was alone. The defense countered that she was suffering from severe postpartum psychosis, a condition that emerged after the birth of her youngest child.
Evidence presented during the 21 days of testimony included excerpts from Clancy’s journal and testimony from clinicians who treated her. It was revealed that Clancy had been released from a psychiatric hospital less than three weeks before the deaths of her children: Cora (5), Dawson (3), and Callan (8 months).
Patrick Clancy, the children’s father, has since spoken about the tragedy and his decision to forgive his ex-wife. He admitted he did not know how to manage a postpartum illness, noting that mental illness has this ability to be tragically deceptive
.
Clancy remains committed to a psychiatric facility. The outcome of her case depends on whether the judge grants the motion to dismiss or if the Plymouth County District Attorney’s office decides to proceed with a second trial. As of late September, prosecutors have declined to comment on the defense motions or announce their intentions for a retrial.