The lone holdout juror who forced a mistrial in the Lindsay Clancy murder case is pushing back on fellow jurors' accounts of deliberations, insisting he never wavered in his belief that prosecutors proved Clancy killed her three children knowingly.
Michael P. Desronvil, 48, released a written statement through his representative Ray Marcel defending his refusal to join the other eleven jurors in finding Clancy not criminally responsible. In the statement, obtained by CBS News, Desronvil said flatly: "I didn't have any doubts." He added that the physical evidence, key witnesses, and the prosecution's case amounted to "enough proof that she knew exactly what she was doing and planned."
That account directly contradicts what other jurors have said publicly. Fellow juror Paula Devlin told "CBS Mornings" co-host Gayle King that the panel worked together to try to reach consensus, and that the split at one point stood at 10-2 before narrowing to 11-1, with Desronvil as the sole holdout. Several jurors and Clancy's defense attorney have described the final tally as 11-1 in favor of finding Clancy not criminally responsible by reason of insanity.
Desronvil's statement paints a picture of a deliberation room where he felt shut out. He wrote that as he "tried to explain different possible theories during deliberation, I kept getting cut off as if I had doubts based on the evidence present." His position, he maintained, never changed.
Devlin offered a different perspective. She acknowledged the difficulty of the dynamic, telling King:
"We all worked together to convince ourselves once we got to that point where it was 10 to 2. I felt very bad for them because they felt attacked. And there is no way to not do that."
The foreperson's earlier account alleged that Desronvil had at one point acknowledged reasonable doubt but still refused to join the majority, a claim Desronvil's statement now disputes.
The jury deliberated for more than 38 hours over the course of a week, according to Breitbart, which reported that Desronvil described eight of the twelve jurors as favoring a not-guilty verdict from day one. Through his representative, Desronvil characterized those jurors as behaving like "activists" pushing for acquittal before deliberations had meaningfully begun.
Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial after the jury reported being deadlocked three times, with September 4 marking the seventh day of deliberations. The deadlock and resulting mistrial left the case in limbo, with District Attorney Timothy Cruz still weighing whether to retry Clancy.
Since the mistrial, Desronvil has faced widespread criticism online. His attorney, Edward Andrew Paltzik, posted on X that Desronvil is now "safe and sound at an undisclosed secure location in a rural area of Northern New England." Paltzik added a pointed warning:
"Rest assured that the evil people who have so viciously attacked this American Hero and Champion of Justice will be held accountable to the maximum extent of the law and beyond."
The backlash has extended beyond opinion. CBS News reported that court records show Desronvil pleaded not guilty to a count of domestic violence assault and battery in 2021, after Brockton, Massachusetts, police said he was accused of grabbing his wife by the throat and throwing her into a dresser during an argument. That charge was later dismissed.
The New York Post reported that Desronvil also had an active restraining order at the time of his jury service, stemming from a 2025 alleged attack on his nephew. The Post identified Desronvil as a devout Christian, a self-described Republican, and a member of a Haitian immigrant family, details that have drawn additional scrutiny from critics questioning how he passed jury selection in a case involving violence against family members.
CBS News legal analyst Caroline Polisi identified the key legal question as whether Desronvil disclosed the 2021 domestic violence allegation on his juror questionnaire. But Polisi noted it remains unclear whether that issue would have any practical impact on the case going forward, given the mistrial has already been declared.
Lindsay Clancy pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder in the deaths of her three children, Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months old, at their Massachusetts home in January 2023. She admitted to the killings. The central question at trial was not whether she did it, but whether she was criminally responsible given evidence of mental illness.
The majority of jurors concluded she was not. Desronvil disagreed. And his position carried enough weight under the law to prevent a verdict entirely.
The defense has argued that Clancy's psychiatric treatment before the killings was inadequate, a point that shaped much of the trial's testimony about her mental state. Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley, commenting on the case, raised a broader question about any potential retrial:
"The question is whether they could ever get a jury, particularly in Massachusetts, that would unanimously vote against this defendant."
Fox News reported that prosecutors continue to weigh their options, while Clancy's attorneys have floated the possibility of resolving the case without another jury trial. The next court hearing is scheduled for September 29 at Plymouth Superior Court.
Clancy's defense team has also moved to block a retrial on double jeopardy grounds, adding another layer of legal uncertainty to a case that has already consumed years and divided public opinion.
Meanwhile, the father of the three murdered children, Patrick Clancy, has spoken publicly about the aftermath. He told interviewers he still talks to his children, a reminder that behind the jury-room disputes and legal maneuvering, three kids are dead and one man's life was shattered.
Desronvil's statement does not resolve the competing accounts of what happened inside that deliberation room. Eleven jurors say he wavered. He says he never did. Both sides agree on one thing: after seven days and three deadlock reports, no one moved.
Whether Desronvil was a conscientious holdout or a stubborn outlier depends on whom you ask. But the system worked exactly as designed. A unanimous verdict is a high bar, and one juror who believes the prosecution met its burden has every right to say so, no matter how many colleagues disagree.
The mob that chased him into hiding for doing his civic duty should consider what kind of jury system they'd prefer.
