LINDSAY CLANCY MISTRIAL FALLOUT: Holdout Juror Speaks Out from Hiding as Defense Files Double Jeopardy Motion

DUXBURY / PLYMOUTH — Two weeks after the high-profile murder trial of Lindsay Clancy ended in a deadlocked jury and mistrial, the case has escalated into a fast-moving legal and public controversy. The lone holdout juror who blocked a unanimous verdict has gone into hiding following intense backlash, while Clancy’s defense team has brought on top constitutional legal counsel to prevent prosecutors from retrying the case.

The Mistrial & Deliberation Drama

On September 4, 2026, Plymouth Superior Court Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial after the 12-person jury spent seven days and over 38 hours in deliberations without reaching a verdict. Subsequent disclosures from panel members revealed the jury was split 11–1, with 11 jurors favoring a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity.

Clancy, 36, admitted to strangling her three young children—Cora (5), Dawson (3), and Callan (8 months)—at their Duxbury home in January 2023 before jumping from a second-story window in a suicide attempt. Her defense argued she was suffering from severe postpartum psychosis brought on by postpartum depression and a cocktail of prescribed medications, rendering her incapable of knowing right from wrong. Prosecutors argued the killings were deliberate and planned.

Holdout Juror Breaks Silence and Enters Hiding

The lone holdout juror, Michael P. Desronvil, 48, of Bridgewater, has broken his silence to defend his “guilty” stance following mounting criticism from fellow jurors.

• Rebutting Juror Claims: Disputing allegations from jury foreperson Roni Carlson and others that he admitted having doubts, Desronvil stated:“I didn’t have any doubts. As I tried to explain different possible theories during deliberation, I kept getting cut off as if I had doubts based on the evidence present. Based on all the physical evidence, key witnesses, and what the prosecution presents, I thought it was enough proof that she knew exactly what she was doing and planned.”
• Accusations of “Activist” Jurors: In an off-camera interview with true-crime host Ray Marcel (Fugitive TV), Desronvil described fellow jurors as “activists” who wanted to acquit Clancy from day one. He further stated he believes he became a target because he is a Black Republican holding conservative values on a predominantly Democratic jury.
• Relocation to Secure Location: Desronvil retained New York attorney Edward Andrew Paltzik, who dubbed his client an “American Hero and Champion of Justice” in a public statement. Citing online threats and doxxing, Paltzik confirmed Desronvil and his family have been relocated to an undisclosed “secure location” in rural Northern New England. A GiveSendGo campaign launched on his behalf has raised nearly $300,000 for legal and security costs.
• Past Legal History Resurfaces: Media inquiries subsequently uncovered court records showing Desronvil had a 2021 domestic assault and battery charge (which was dismissed) and an active civil restraining order involving his nephew that expired on August 11, during the third week of trial. Desronvil maintains he answered all voir dire jury selection questions truthfully.

Defense Mounts Two-Pronged Strategy to Bar Retrial

Clancy’s lead defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, has initiated two distinct legal maneuvers to shut down the possibility of a second trial:

1. Rule 25(b)(2) Motion for Acquittal: Reddington filed a renewed motion asking Judge Sullivan to enter a required finding of not guilty. The motion asserts that the prosecution failed to present legally sufficient evidence to prove Clancy was criminally responsible beyond a reasonable doubt, especially given testimony from both defense and Commonwealth medical experts regarding her psychiatric condition.
2. Double Jeopardy Motion & New Legal Counsel: To spearhead the constitutional battle, Reddington added prominent Boston defense attorney Martin G. Weinberg to the defense team. Weinberg, who previously mounted a similar double jeopardy challenge in the Karen Read trial, entered a limited appearance on September 15 to file a Motion to Dismiss based on Double Jeopardy. The defense argues that Judge Sullivan declared a mistrial prematurely without sufficient inquiry, lacking the “manifest necessity” legally required to subject Clancy to a second trial.

What Comes Next

The Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office has not yet announced whether it intends to re-indict or retry Clancy on three counts of first-degree murder.

All parties are scheduled to return to Plymouth Superior Court on September 29, 2026, where Judge Sullivan is expected to hear oral arguments on the defense’s Rule 25 acquittal motion and the double jeopardy challenge.