Defense seeks probe of lone juror after 11-1 Clancy mistrial

For criminal defense attorneys and court officers, the Clancy case is becoming a case study in post-verdict juror scrutiny. A single holdout juror's alleged phone use during deliberations and possible questionnaire omissions raise questions about when a mistrial is truly "manifest necessity"—and when an alternate should have been seated instead. The defense is using these procedural failures to push for dismissal rather than a second trial.

In a development that could reshape the second half of one of Massachusetts' most closely watched criminal cases, attorney Kevin Reddington has asked the judge to investigate the conduct of juror Michael Desronvil, the single holdout who prevented an acquittal for Lindsay Clancy in the deaths of her three children. The motion, filed Friday and made public Monday, alleges that Desronvil may have used a cellphone during deliberations—a violation of Massachusetts court rules—and may not have been truthful on his jury questionnaire or during later questioning by the judge.

“

A second motion, filed Monday by Martin Weinberg, seeks an even more dramatic remedy: dismissal of the criminal case altogether.

The underlying case has already produced a mistrial. On September 4, after days of deliberation, the jury reported it could not reach a unanimous verdict. Eleven of twelve jurors were prepared to find Clancy not criminally responsible, accepting the defense's argument that she was in the grip of severe postpartum psychosis when she strangled her children. Desronvil alone sided with prosecutors, who contended Clancy knew what she was doing. The deadlock, and now the allegations about Desronvil's conduct, have injected a new layer of legal uncertainty into a case that pits criminal culpability against mental-health defenses.

The investigation request centers on three specific concerns: whether Desronvil used a phone during deliberations, whether he answered truthfully on the pretrial questionnaire, and whether he was truthful when the judge questioned jurors a day before the mistrial. Reddington specifically asked the court to obtain call and text records from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. during each deliberation day. If any phone use is established, it would constitute direct juror misconduct, not merely bias. Massachusetts prohibits phone use during deliberations to prevent outside influence and to preserve the secrecy and integrity of the deliberative process. Even a single juror's unauthorized communication with outside parties can taint the verdict process and provide grounds for a new trial or, in rare cases, dismissal.

Desronvil has not been accused of any wrongdoing; some other jurors complained that he was inflexible in his opinion. Through his lawyer, Desronvil said he "didn't have any doubts." That statement cuts both ways: it suggests sincere belief, but if combined with phone use or questionnaire omissions, it also reinforces the defense's argument that the jury was not impartial.

A second motion, filed Monday by Martin Weinberg, seeks an even more dramatic remedy: dismissal of the criminal case altogether. Weinberg argues the judge should not have declared a mistrial at all, but should have replaced Desronvil with an alternate. Under Massachusetts procedural law, a judge may replace a deliberating juror with an alternate only in limited circumstances, and doing so after deliberations have begun is rare because it can raise constitutional questions about the defendant's right to a unanimous verdict from the jury that was originally selected. Weinberg's argument implies the mistrial was a legal error and that retrying Clancy would be improper, even though a deadlocked jury normally permits retrial under the manifest-necessity exception to double jeopardy.