A Massachusetts judge has blocked Lindsay Clancy's attempt to investigate the lone holdout juror who refused to acquit her of murdering her three young children.
The U.S. Sun reported that Plymouth Superior Court Judge William Sullivan denied the defense request for an evidentiary hearing aimed at the juror who kept the jury from a unanimous verdict. The four-page order also rejected a bid to postpone the next court date.
Three murder charges against Clancy remain pending. Arguments on a separate double-jeopardy dismissal motion are still set for November 2. The ruling closes off one path the defense hoped would undercut the mistrial declared after a 26-day trial.
Clancy, 36, is charged with killing her children, Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months, at the family home in Duxbury, Massachusetts, on January 24, 2023. Prosecutors say the children were strangled with exercise bands. Clancy then jumped from an upstairs window and was left paralyzed from the waist down.
Her lawyers argued postpartum psychosis and said she could not be held criminally responsible. Prosecutors countered that she understood her actions and knew they were wrong. The jury split 11-1. Holdout juror Michael Desronvil, 48, refused to join an acquittal.
Defense lawyers wanted to question Desronvil over alleged dishonesty on the jury questionnaire, cellphone use, and failure to follow instructions. They sought confidential questionnaire answers, court officer logs, cellphone records from deliberations, and other materials. They also claimed the judge should have considered removing him and seating an alternate.
Sullivan rejected that path. He ruled that information uncovered after the mistrial could not be used to second-guess whether the mistrial declaration was justified. The decision, he said, must be judged on what was known at the time. The defense had not raised the questionnaire or phone concerns before the jury was dismissed.
Notes from the jury foreperson identified Desronvil as the lone holdout after substantial deliberation and deadlock. Sullivan concluded that questioning why the juror refused to agree would improperly interfere with the secrecy of jury deliberations. An additional hearing was unnecessary. He also denied the request to delay the next hearing.
Earlier this month the same judge denied a defense push for a not-guilty finding based on claimed insufficient evidence. He found prosecutors had introduced enough physical and circumstantial evidence for a jury to consider the murder charges.
Desronvil later broke his silence in a Fox News interview and defended his conduct. He insisted he told the truth on the questionnaire and did not use a phone during deliberations.
He said:
"What I did was I answered the questionnaire truthfully,"
On phones, he added:
"Everyone had their cellphones. Our cellphones were used when we had a break. Not during deliberations,"
Asked what evidence stood out, Desronvil pointed to the way the killings were carried out:
"How methodical I thought Lindsay was in the execution of the children,"
That account aligns with coverage of the holdout juror who blocked Lindsay Clancy acquittal and later explained his guilty vote.
The mistrial itself came after days of deadlock. Just The News reported that Sullivan formally declared the mistrial after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court denied an emergency stay sought by defense attorney Kevin Reddington. The defense had pointed to a jury note claiming one holdout refused to properly apply reasonable doubt and showed bias on mental illness. Clancy admits the killings but argues she is not criminally liable by reason of insanity.
Readers following the case have also seen the holdout juror break silence on evidence that, in his view, showed planning rather than pure loss of control.
Sullivan has not ruled on Clancy’s separate motion to dismiss the three murder charges on double-jeopardy grounds. That fight, along with the defense request for juror records, remains on the calendar for November 2. A win there would end the case. A loss leaves prosecutors free to retry her.
Jury secrecy exists for a reason. Courts do not lightly haul jurors back in to explain why they held out. Sullivan’s order treats that boundary as real, not optional. The defense had its chance to raise questionnaire and phone issues before the panel was sent home. It did not.
Separate reporting has tracked pushback from the other side of the aisle in the jury box, including a lawyer for the holdout juror rejecting claims that he refused to follow the law.
Husband Patrick Clancy discovered the children after returning home from collecting food and medication. The children’s deaths are not in dispute. The live fight is whether Clancy faces a second trial or walks free on a legal technicality.
Another juror’s account of deliberations, including claims the holdout reenacted child strangulation with an exercise band, has already circulated. None of that post-mistrial color changed Sullivan’s core ruling: the mistrial stands on the record as it existed when it was declared.
For families who lose children to violence, process arguments can feel endless. Here the judge drew a line. The holdout’s refusal to acquit still matters. The murder charges still stand. November 2 will test the double-jeopardy claim. Until then, the case remains open and the three young victims still have no final verdict.
Accountability does not vanish because one juror refused to join an acquittal and a judge refused to let lawyers tear up the jury room after the fact.
