Crime18 September, 20263 min read
Lindsay Clancy’s Lawyers Seek Case Dismissal, Urge Judge To Probe Holdout Juror
This article is an automated aggregation of coverage from news outlets. Our editorials offer in-depth analysis curated by the NewsCord team.
Defense moves to dismiss charges, arguing retrial would violate double jeopardy. Lawyers seek judge to probe holdout juror’s conduct, including cellphone use.
Mistrial and Double Jeopardy
Lindsay Clancy’s defense attorneys Martin Weinberg and Kevin Reddington filed a motion to dismiss the murder case, arguing that a mistrial would violate double-jeopardy protections.
Reddington asked Judge William Sullivan to question a holdout juror about his "truthfulness" during the jury selection process and about some of his actions during deliberations.
Weinberg and Reddington argued that Sullivan failed to properly probe whether the holdout juror failed to follow the instructions on reasonable doubt and thus "extinguished a viable alternative to the declaration of a mistrial."
Clancy’s five-week trial ended in a mistrial on Sept. 4 after jurors failed to reach a unanimous verdict, and the jury deadlock came after seven days of deliberations that some jurors said produced an 11-1 split in favor of not guilty by reason of insanity.
Clancy pleaded not guilty to three murder charges for the deaths of her 5-year-old daughter Cora, 3-year-old son Dawson and infant son Callan, who were strangled at the family’s home in Duxbury, a Boston suburb, on Jan. 24, 2023.
Phone Use Probe
A lawyer for Lindsay Clancy asked a judge to investigate the conduct of the lone juror who wanted to convict her, including alleged use of a cellphone during deliberations.
Kevin Reddington asked the court to obtain a record of any calls or texts Desronvil made between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on each day the jury deliberated, because phone use during deliberations is prohibited in the state.
Reddington also asked the court to question juror Michael Desronvil about his truthfulness on a questionnaire prospective jurors filled out before the trial began and his truthfulness when jurors were questioned by the judge a day before the trial ended.
Desronvil said in a statement released by his lawyer last week that he "didn’t have any doubts," and he added that he kept getting cut off as if he had doubts based on the evidence presented.
Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial on Sept. 4 after the jury insisted it couldn’t reach a unanimous verdict, and prosecutors had not yet said whether they plan to retry Clancy.
Next Steps and Legal Fallout
Martin Weinberg asked the judge to dismiss the criminal case rather than put Clancy on a new trial, arguing that a mistrial shouldn’t have been declared in the first place.
Weinberg argued that the judge should have replaced Desronvil with an alternate during the deliberations after the jury foreperson complained he was refusing to listen to the law on reasonable doubt, and Weinberg wrote that "it did have viable choices other than declaring a mistrial."
A spokesperson for Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz would not comment on the motions, and Cruz had not publicly said whether he plans to retry Clancy.
Desronvil’s lawyer Edward Paltzik said the defense motion was a "Looney Tunes" attack, warning that if jurors face reprisals for disagreeing with a defense attorney, "you can kiss the Sixth Amendment goodbye."
Clancy’s case is set for a Sept. 29 court conference, when prosecutors could announce whether they plan to retry the case, and the defense also sought preservation of jury questionnaires, every jury note, and recordings of some sidebars.