The attorneys representing Lindsay Clancy and the juror who stood apart from the rest of the panel have traded sharply worded statements as prosecutors prepare to reveal at Tuesday’s hearing whether they will seek a retrial.
Clancy acknowledges that she killed her three young children in 2023, but maintains that she was heavily medicated and experiencing postpartum psychosis at the time. Prosecutors, however, argued that the deaths were deliberate and premeditated rather than the actions of someone who had lost control.
The high-profile trial lasted five weeks, but the jury ultimately failed to reach a unanimous decision on whether Clancy, 36, was guilty of murder, guilty of manslaughter or not criminally responsible. The deadlock resulted in a mistrial.
The panel, made up of nine women and three men, deliberated for more than 37 hours. Eleven jurors had reportedly reached the same conclusion, while the 12th, later identified as Michael P. Desronvil, declined to join them.
Following the mistrial, Clancy’s lawyer, Kevin Reddington, submitted two motions seeking dismissal of the case.
One filing invoked double jeopardy protections, which generally prohibit someone from being prosecuted or punished twice for the same offense. The second sought an investigation into Desronvil over allegations that he did not comply with the jury’s instructions and procedures.
Edward Paltzik, who represents Desronvil, told Fox News on Monday that prosecutors and Reddington had agreed to postpone the motion concerning his client.
Reddington disputed that account in a statement to Our News Outlet, describing Paltzik’s characterization as “pure nonsense” and accusing him of seeking publicity.
Prosecutors could announce Tuesday whether Lindsay Clancy will face a retrial. She admits killing her three children in 2023 but says postpartum psychosis played a role
After the mistrial, Clancy’s attorney Kevin Reddington filed two motions to dismiss the case, including one requesting an investigation into the holdout juror
Edward Paltzik, who represents the holdout juror, said the investigation motion had been postponed. Reddington denied that characterization and accused Paltzik of seeking publicity
Reddington requested an inquiry into holdout juror Michael P. Desronvil, pictured, alleging that he failed to follow jury rules
Reddington said he had learned that Paltzik, whom he referred to as the “hoodie-wearing lawyer” representing the juror, had made statements about the defense motion that were false and misleading.
He particularly rejected Paltzik’s assertion that the motion had been postponed through a mutual agreement between prosecutors and the defense, calling that claim “pure nonsense.”
According to Reddington, the parties agreed only as a professional courtesy to move the matter to a later date, giving Paltzik additional time to review the filing and respond.
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: New Nancy Guthrie Ransom Note Emerges in Shocking Development
Reddington stressed that the request for an investigation remains active and is awaiting a decision from Judge Sullivan.
He concluded that the defense would not permit what he described as an attempt to portray a routine courtroom accommodation as a legal victory.
Paltzik responded later Monday in a post on X, renewing his criticism of Reddington. He argued that Clancy’s attorney had the opportunity to remove Desronvil during jury selection but chose not to do so.
“Clearly, Reddington liked Michael well enough long before the mistrial,” Paltzik wrote.
He went on to characterize Reddington’s post-trial complaints as “sour grapes,” accusing the defense lawyer of reacting angrily after failing to secure what Paltzik said he viewed as an expected defense verdict.
Reddington is pictured looking defeated in court earlier this month as it became clear that the jury could not reach a consensus
Judge William Sullivan is expected to hear Reddington’s motions to dismiss Clancy’s case at the hearing on Tuesday
At the motion hearing scheduled for 9am on Tuesday, Judge William Sullivan is expected to hear the two motions to dismiss the case that were filed by Reddington.
It is also expected that the district attorney’s office will announce whether it plans to retry Clancy, and if so, on what charges.
Prosecutors may be inclined to reduce the charges they are seeking against Clancy to second-degree murder or manslaughter to increase the likelihood of a conviction.
Brad Bailey, a Boston defense attorney and former prosecutor who is not involved in the case, told Our News Outlet earlier this month that prosecutors could also offer Clancy a plea deal instead of a new trial.
‘Any time the threat of a retrial with murder one hanging over the client is re-interjected, defense lawyers will, at the very least, explore whether or not there’s any interest in a resolution,’ Bailey said.
The district attorney’s office could also decide not to retry the case.
Bailey explained: ‘Sometimes they decide not to, because of the sense that there may be the same result each time they try it, and because of the expenditures involved in trying the case to begin with, particularly when you have expert witnesses.’
If the district attorney’s office decides not to move forward with a retrial, then Reddington’s motions to dismiss the case will likewise not move forward, as they would become redundant.
