Lindsay Clancy fights to end murder case after jury deadlock

One juror stood alone against the other 11 in a Massachusetts courtroom in September, preventing a verdict in the murder trial of Lindsay Clancy.

That single dissenting vote deadlocked the jury and ended the trial without a conviction or acquittal. Clancy, 36, has now returned to court in Plymouth to argue that the case should be dismissed entirely.

Her legal team filed a motion based on double jeopardy. They contend that the judge should have investigated the holdout juror more closely. If he had, they argue, the court could have removed him and continued deliberations. This would have avoided the mistrial and potentially spared Clancy a second trial.

Defense attorney Martin G. Weinberg told Judge William Sullivan that the judge stopped short of the necessary inquiry. Weinberg pointed to two notes sent by the jury foreperson. These notes indicated a juror was breaking rules. Weinberg argued Sullivan should have questioned the foreperson separately to uncover the details. "That's what the foreperson was asking the court to do," Weinberg said.

Sullivan responded that he spoke with every juror after receiving the notes. He reminded them of their duties and explained reasonable doubt. All jurors stated they could apply the law to the case. Sullivan said he credited their answers. He did not rule on the motion immediately but will take it under advisement.

The hearing turned heated when defense attorney Kevin Reddington criticized the holdout juror, Michael Desronvil. Reddington accused Desronvil of using a cellphone to research case terms. He also alleged Desronvil was untruthful about his criminal history during jury selection. Reddington called this a "fatal infection of the independence, the honesty and the integrity of this juror."

Sullivan intervened repeatedly as Reddington named Desronvil. The judge told the attorneys to dial back their volume. Sullivan called the lawyers to a sidebar after prosecutors objected. Reddington noted the juror's name was already "all over the internet" before he stopped using it.

Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague defended Sullivan's handling of the jury. She argued that pressing the foreperson further would have intruded into private deliberations. Sprague stated that Desronvil did not refuse to deliberate but refused to agree with the majority. "It is clear from the record that this juror did not refuse to deliberate," she said.

Clancy has not disputed killing her three young children in 2023. Her lawyers argue she suffered from postpartum psychosis and could not control her behavior. Prosecutors acknowledge her mental health issues but maintain she acted deliberately and knew her actions were wrong. Desronvil has said since the trial that he was certain of Clancy's guilt but that no one listened to him.

The court also considered a request from prosecutors for a gag order. They want to bar attorneys and supporters from making statements to the media that could prejudice the case. Clancy's lawyer Laura McConnell opposed the order. She wrote that the government bears a heavy burden to justify such an order and that the motion should be denied because there is no trial date.