Clancy Holdout Juror Had ‘Zero Doubt,’ Lawyer Says

The attorney for the lone holdout juror in Lindsay Clancy’s murder trial is pushing back on claims that his client refused to follow the law, telling Fox News host Kayleigh McEnany that the juror had no doubt about his decision. In a preview of an interview airing Monday on “Fox & Friends,” attorney Edward Paltzik said juror Michael P. Desronvil held firm because of what he described as overwhelming evidence, according to Fox News.

The dispute goes to the heart of a mistrial that has divided observers across the country and now threatens to complicate any effort to retry Clancy, who has admitted killing her three young children at the family’s Duxbury, Massachusetts, home in January 2023.

The Dispute Over Reasonable Doubt

Asked whether Desronvil ever had reasonable doubt after the jury foreperson sent the judge a note accusing him of refusing to follow the law, Paltzik was unequivocal.

“Michael had zero doubt,” Paltzik said, adding that his client had “a lot of evidence, a mountain of evidence” to back up his position.

That account is directly contradicted by the jury foreperson, Ronni Carlson, who told NBC10 that Desronvil “admitted he had reasonable doubt” during deliberations but still declined to find Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity. “I started filling out the forms, I was so excited… And then he said, ‘But I’m still not going to say that she’s not guilty by reason of insanity,’” Carlson recounted, as reported by Fox News.

Whether Desronvil genuinely held no doubt or acknowledged doubt and refused to apply it is more than a semantic dispute. If the foreperson’s account is accurate, it could support arguments that the deadlock was improper — the basis for a defense motion seeking to dismiss the case on double jeopardy grounds.

Eleven Against One

Clancy admitted strangling her children — Cora, 5; Dawson, 3; and Callan, 8 months — using exercise bands. She then cut herself and jumped from a second-story window in a suicide attempt that left her partially paralyzed. She is now 36.

Her defense argued that postpartum psychosis rendered her not criminally responsible for her actions. Prosecutors countered that she understood what she was doing and planned the killings.

After a roughly six-week trial before Judge William Sullivan in Plymouth County Superior Court, the jury deliberated for seven days and sent three notes indicating it was deadlocked. Eleven jurors favored a not-criminally-responsible verdict. Desronvil alone favored conviction. On Sept. 4, Sullivan declared a mistrial.

Massachusetts does not impose the death penalty. A murder conviction could bring up to life in prison, while an insanity acquittal could result in confinement at a mental health facility until evaluators determine the person no longer poses a danger.

Recriminations Escalate

The mistrial has given way to an unusually bitter public exchange between Paltzik and Clancy’s lead defense attorney, Kevin Reddington.

Reddington dubbed Desronvil “the obstructionist juror” and accused him of having an “agenda.” Paltzik responded sharply in his Fox News interview, attacking Reddington’s post-trial conduct.

“My issue with Kevin Reddington is what happened after the mistrial when he got on the courthouse steps,” Paltzik said. “He said Michael had an agenda. He said Michael robbed the other jurors… It’s an attack on the system.”

Reddington fired back at Paltzik in comments to Fox News Digital, calling him “a histrionic individual that’s just mouthing off for the media” and defending the defense’s post-trial motions as grounded in “sound law, facts, jury questions.” According to Fox News, the exchange included Reddington telling Paltzik, “Ed, why don’t you just shut up? Really, you foul individual.”

Paltzik, who describes himself as a criminal defense attorney of nearly 20 years, also offered blunt advice to his counterpart. “My real advice to Kevin — I think he should stop whining and go prepare for a retrial. Stop complaining. You only got 11, you needed 12,” he said.

A Widening Misconduct Inquiry

Desronvil’s account, first made public in mid-September through a statement from Paltzik, asserted that he never had doubts and that he was repeatedly cut off while trying to explain his reasoning.

“I didn’t have any doubts. As I tried to explain different possible theories during deliberation, I kept getting cut off as if I had doubts based on the evidence presented,” he said. “Based on all the physical evidence, key witnesses, and what the prosecution presented, I thought it was enough proof that she knew exactly what she was doing and planned.”

The allegations have expanded beyond the holdout juror. Paltzik’s side has raised claims that other jurors used their phones to research the case during deliberations — an allegation that, if verified, would broaden any misconduct inquiry and could undercut the defense argument that the deadlock was solely Desronvil’s doing.

Meanwhile, the defense has filed two separate motions ahead of a scheduled status hearing on Sept. 29: a request for a “limited inquiry” into Desronvil, including his phone records, background and courthouse surveillance; and a separate motion by attorney Martin Weinberg to dismiss the murder indictment on double jeopardy grounds. A ruling on the double jeopardy motion would be legally significant, as success would bar any retrial.

Prosecutors have not announced whether they will seek to try Clancy again. The Plymouth County District Attorney’s office declined to comment on the defense motions.

What to Watch

Desronvil’s identity became public after the mistrial, prompting what Paltzik characterized as intense pressure and scrutiny; the juror and his wife subsequently moved to an undisclosed rural location in northern New England, and Judge Sullivan sealed jurors’ identities. A GiveSendGo fundraiser for Desronvil raised more than $300,000 within days.

Amid the recriminations, the case’s human core has also surfaced. Patrick Clancy, the children’s father and Lindsay Clancy’s ex-husband, gave his first interview after the mistrial, explaining why he forgave her.

The Sept. 29 hearing in Plymouth Superior Court is the next inflection point. It will test whether the defense’s misconduct allegations gain traction and whether the double jeopardy motion reshapes the path forward. For now, the central question — what actually happened inside the jury room — remains legally confidential and fiercely disputed.