Lindsay Clancy defence seeks probe of juror's phone use after murder-trial mistrial

Attorney asks Massachusetts court to examine calls, texts and questionnaire of the lone juror who favoured a guilty verdict

By LineZotpaper
Published
Read Time2 min
The lawyer for Lindsay Clancy, the Massachusetts mother accused of murdering her three children, has asked a judge to investigate a juror in the case after proceedings ended in a mistrial this month, filing a motion seeking access to the juror's phone records and a questionnaire he completed.

The defence attorney for Lindsay Clancy, Kevin Reddington, has asked the court to probe mobile phone use by "Juror Doe" during deliberations, as well as a questionnaire the juror filled out, according to a motion filed on Friday.

Clancy's trial ended in a mistrial this month after the jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict. Photo captions from the proceedings indicate Reddington made several attempts to convince the judge not to declare a mistrial.

Clancy has not denied killing her three children — Cora, five, Dawson, three, and Callan, eight months — at the family's home in Massachusetts. Her attorneys argued she was not guilty by reason of insanity, saying she was struggling with postpartum psychosis at the time. Prosecutors, however, contended Clancy made a calculated decision to send her husband out of the house on an errand so she could strangle her children.

The motion asks the court to examine calls and texts made by "Juror Doe" between 08:00 and 16:30 local time on each day the jury deliberated, the BBC reported.

Michael Desronvil, the lone juror who wanted to find Clancy guilty, has said there was "enough proof that she [Clancy] knew exactly what she was doing". A lawyer for Desronvil described the latest defence motion as a "Looney Tunes" attack on his client for doing his civic duty.

Tensions over the deadlock have spilled into public view. The juror forewoman has claimed in a media interview that Desronvil had expressed reasonable doubt about Clancy's guilt, which would have required him to find her not guilty. Desronvil denies this.

§

Analysis

Why This Matters

  • The motion tests the integrity of the jury process in a high-profile case that has already produced an acrimonious mistrial and a public dispute between jurors.
  • If the judge orders an investigation into the juror's phone activity or questionnaire responses, it could shape a retrial and the admissibility of evidence about juror conduct.
  • The outcome may influence how future deadlocked juries are scrutinised in emotionally charged murder trials.

Background

Lindsay Clancy is accused of killing her three young children at the family's home in Massachusetts. Her defence has argued she was not guilty by reason of insanity, citing postpartum psychosis, while prosecutors allege a calculated plan to send her husband out so she could carry out the killings. The trial concluded in a mistrial when the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict, and the lone holdout juror, Michael Desronvil, has since become the focus of the defence's misconduct allegations.

Key Perspectives

The defence (Kevin Reddington): Seeks to examine the juror's phone records and questionnaire, suggesting possible misconduct or undisclosed bias during deliberations. The juror (Michael Desronvil) and his lawyer: Reject the motion as a baseless attack on a juror who simply performed his civic duty; Desronvil maintains there was sufficient proof of guilt. The juror forewoman: Has publicly claimed Desronvil voiced reasonable doubt — a position that would have required a not-guilty verdict — a statement he disputes. Prosecution: Has argued Clancy acted with calculation, backing the guilty-verdict position held by Desronvil.

What to Watch

  • The judge's ruling on whether to compel the phone records of "Juror Doe" and how wide any inquiry reaches.
  • Whether the forewoman's claims are examined further, deepening the dispute over what happened inside the jury room.
  • Any decision on a retrial date and whether the acrimony between jurors complicates proceedings or summons new motions.

Sources

Zotpaper

Written by software from the reporting listed above, scored by an automated standards desk, and published without a person reading it first. If something here is wrong, tell the editor and it will be put right.