The attorney for Lindsay Clancy’s lone holdout juror says his client had zero doubt and a mountain of evidence, rejecting claims he ignored the law.
After seven days of deliberations and a deadlocked jury, the lawyer for the single juror who would not clear Lindsay Clancy is drawing a hard line: his client did not walk away from the evidence, and he did not refuse the law.
Fox News reported that attorney Edward Paltzik, speaking in a preview with host Kayleigh McEnany ahead of a “Fox & Friends” interview, said juror Michael P. Desronvil stood on proof, not defiance, when the murder trial ended in a mistrial.
Judge William Sullivan declared that mistrial on Sept. 4. Clancy is due back in court on Sept. 29. Prosecutors have not said whether they will try her again.
Clancy, a former labor and delivery nurse, admitted killing her three children in January 2023 at the family’s home in Duxbury, Massachusetts. The victims were 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson, and 8-month-old Callan.
At trial, the defense argued postpartum psychosis left her not criminally responsible. Prosecutors argued she understood what she was doing and planned the killings.
After a full week of deliberations, 11 jurors were prepared to accept the defense theory. Desronvil was the holdout. He wanted a conviction.
That is the split that ended the case without a verdict.
During deliberations, the jury foreperson sent Judge Sullivan a note accusing Desronvil of refusing to follow the law on reasonable doubt. The note’s full text has not been made public in the reporting, but the charge was plain: the holdout, in the foreperson’s view, would not apply the standard the court required.
Desronvil later said he believed the physical evidence and witness testimony showed Clancy knew what she was doing. His lawyer is now answering the accusation that this was lawlessness rather than judgment.
Paltzik did not soft-pedal it with McEnany.
"Michael had zero doubt,"
he said, adding:
"A lot of evidence, a mountain of evidence,"
McEnany pressed the point in the exchange:
"Zero doubt. No doubt, and he had evidence to back up his position?"
Paltzik’s answer, in substance, was yes.
Fox News reached out to Clancy’s defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, for a response to the accusations surrounding the holdout. He did not reply.
That leaves the public record, for now, with a mistrial, an unresolved retry decision, a Sept. 29 court date, and a juror’s lawyer insisting the deadlock was about proof, not a juror gone rogue.
Reasonable doubt is not a slogan. It is the line between conviction and acquittal in a free country. Eleven jurors concluded Clancy’s mental state wiped out criminal responsibility for the deaths of three children she admitted killing. One juror did not. He said the evidence showed knowledge and control. His lawyer says that call came with zero doubt and a mountain of proof behind it.
Cora, Dawson, and Callan are not abstractions in a psychiatry debate. They were 5, 3, and 8 months old. Their mother admitted killing them in their own home. A Massachusetts jury then spent seven days arguing over whether she should be held criminally responsible.
Eleven were ready to say no. One said yes. The court declared a mistrial. Prosecutors have stayed quiet on a second trial. Clancy returns to court on Sept. 29.
Paltzik’s message is that Desronvil did not invent a private rulebook. He weighed what he saw and heard, and he would not join a verdict he did not believe the facts supported.
When a mother admits killing her three children, the public has a right to expect a jury that treats evidence as more than a hurdle on the way to a preferred outcome. One juror refused to rubber-stamp “not criminally responsible.” His lawyer says the record gave him every reason.
