Lindsay Clancy Bid to Probe Holdout Juror Hits Snag Ahead of Retrial

PLYMOUTH, Mass. — A Massachusetts judge is expected to hear arguments Tuesday on Lindsay Clancy’s motion to dismiss her case on double jeopardy grounds. A separate request to investigate the lone holdout juror from her mistrial may be delayed, at least temporarily.

Clancy is expected to appear in court in person for the first time since her trial ended with a deadlocked jury and the judge declared a mistrial on Sept. 4.

In the weeks following the mistrial, the case has continued to draw national attention. Several jurors and Clancy’s defense attorney have criticized the lone holdout, while the Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office has offered few details about whether it intends to seek a retrial.

Here is what to expect when Clancy returns to court:

Defense calls to investigate the holdout juror

Clancy’s attorney, Kevin Reddington, sought an inquiry into Michael Desronvil, the only juror who did not agree with the rest of the panel. Reddington has referred to Desronvil as “the obstructionist juror.” Desronvil opposed the other 11 jurors and remained the only panel member who wanted to convict Clancy.

But Edward Paltzik, the attorney representing Desronvil, said Reddington and Plymouth County prosecutors agreed to postpone the motion after he objected. Paltzik said he had not yet received access to impounded materials needed to prepare a response.

“The DA and Reddington consent to adjourn the motion to investigate Michael,” Paltzik told Fox News’ Kayleigh McEnany on Monday.

“If Judge Sullivan signs an order today, much of it could be adjourned,” Paltzik said. “Either way, a status conference is still likely.”

Reddington strongly disputed that characterization, while acknowledging that he and the district attorney’s office had agreed to move the motion at the request of the local attorney now representing the juror.

“Earlier today, both the government and I were contacted by a professional local attorney who represents Juror Doe,” Reddington said, avoiding the juror’s name because of a court impoundment order. “That attorney requested — as any qualified counsel would — adequate time to review our motion and reply.”

He continued: “As is professional courtesy, both the government and I agreed to continue this specific motion to a later date at their request. The motion remains active, fully alive, and is currently pending a ruling from Judge Sullivan. We will not allow a publicity-seeking opportunist to twist simple courtroom courtesy into a victory that does not exist.”

Although the terms “adjourned” and “continued” are sometimes used similarly, they have different legal meanings.

“Adjournment generally signifies that something like a hearing is off indefinitely, especially because no date is specified,” explained retired Massachusetts Judge Carol Erskine. “A continuance is a simple request by a party or two parties to get a new date. [Reddington] objects because adjournment is a misrepresentation of what is happening.”

If Reddington ultimately succeeds, the court could hold a Fidler hearing, during which the judge would question Desronvil.

“There are three phases to a hearing like that,” said Erskine, who is also a child welfare advocate and has closely followed the case. “This is something that could result in a strong manifest necessity claim, but it’s hard to tell until it happens.”

NEXT UP: American Idol’s Caleb Flynn Allegedly Prayed Before Wife’s Killing

Manifest necessity is the legal standard required to hold a second trial. Erskine said the motion is a long-shot but Reddington is likely laying the foundation for an appeal in the future.

“The big issue, in my opinion, is whether outside information came into the jury room and whether a judge can find that any ‘hypothetical juror’ would let it influence his decision,” she told News Outlet. “It’s definitely more complicated than that, but there is case law about it.”

Could the holdout sue Reddington?

“This is a strange new world in which disagreeing jurors and their surrogates conduct a public debate after the trial in the media and social media,” said Jack Lu, another retired Massachusetts judge.

Reddington’s request for an inquiry into Desronvil is largely based on allegations from other jurors who accused him of having reasonable doubt about the case and ignoring it. He is seeking phone records, his confidential juror questionnaire and police records.

However, he’s also called him an “obstructionist” outside the courtroom and accused him of having an “agenda.”

“[The other jurors] know that they were robbed — by one man — for whatever his agenda was, who stole seven weeks of the life of these other jurors that were so attentive, so beautiful, so wonderful and listened to this evidence,” he told reporters after leaving the courthouse on Sept. 4, the day the mistrial was declared. 

Still, he downplayed speculation from legal analysts about a potential defamation lawsuit from the holdout against Clancy’s team.

“Defamation law is textbook complex,” he told News Outlet. “Statements made in court proceedings are privileged.”

Statements made out of court that could appear to be “false statements of fact” may end up being considered opinions, he added.

“If a person says X happened, and we all know that person was not present, then it may be deemed to be an opinion,” he said. “This might apply to any alleged statements about what happened in the jury room.”

What’s next?

“I don’t think any of the legal maneuvering, double jeopardy, all that stuff, a hearing in the trial court with the juror, I don’t think it’s going anywhere,” said Mark Bederow, a New York-based criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor who is following the case.

“If you get down to brass tacks, once you get through all this, now you have to look at the DA and say, what are you doing?” he added.

Most prosecutors would not seek a second trial in a case where only one juror agreed with them, he said, but that appears unlikely in this case.

“At the first trial, the prosecution, in my view, failed miserably to satisfy their burden — but there is a credible argument that she’s guilty and intended to cause their deaths and knew right from wrong,” he said. “In order for them to win, they need to get better experts.”

The Commonwealth needs experts who can discredit Clancy’s defense experts, he said. And prosecutors also have room to improve their jury selection.

As for Reddington, he described him as “a titan of the Massachusetts bar” who is filing motions that make sense for his client’s benefit, regardless of his commentary outside the courtroom.

“That’s not frivolous, and any lawyer knows that,” he told News Outlet.