Prosecutors Weigh Lindsay Clancy Retrial as Holdout Juror Goes Public

Massachusetts prosecutors have yet to decide whether Lindsay Clancy will face a second trial, as the lone holdout juror urged the public to keep its attention on the three “angels” who died.

The former labor and delivery nurse, 36, has remained in a psychiatric hospital since Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial in her case earlier this month.

Clancy appeared Tuesday at Plymouth County Superior Court wearing a short-sleeve blouse and her hair loose in waves, while her defense lawyers and prosecutors debated the next steps in a case that has drawn international attention.

The hearing concluded without a ruling from Judge Sullivan. He directed both sides to return on November 2 to discuss a possible trial date and several motions connected to Clancy’s first trial.

Plymouth County District Attorney Tim Cruz told CBS Boston afterward that prosecutors had not determined whether they would retry the mother of three over the strangling deaths of Cora, five, Dawson, three, and eight-month-old Callan.

Cruz said the office is waiting for the court to resolve the pending motions, while continuing to prepare as if a second trial could go ahead.

“We’re doing a very thorough review right now,” Cruz said. “And we’re going to continue to do our job and make sure we do what’s best in the interest of justice and the interest of the three children.”

His remarks came only hours after Michael Desronvil, the juror who refused to find Clancy not guilty of murder or manslaughter by reason of insanity, said he wanted public attention to remain on Clancy’s “three angels,” despite criticism from her defense team.

“I know the whole focus has been on me, but we want to reel everything back and put the focus on the three angels—the ones that cannot speak for themselves, the ones that can’t defend themselves, and the ones that cannot fight the battles. And those are Cora, Dawson and Callan,” Desronvil said in a video statement broadcast by Fox News on Monday night.

He also thanked God for “blessing me with the ability to love my daughter” and expressed gratitude to those who had supported him.

“Your prayers, your emotional support, your psychological support, is tremendous to my heart—that I feel, that I sense, that I know. I do want to thank you from the bottom of my heart. Thank you,” Desronvil said.

Desronvil’s conduct during the trial was among the issues discussed Tuesday, after defense attorney Kevin Reddington filed a motion seeking to have the case dismissed.

Reddington argued that Judge Sullivan did not adequately question the holdout juror or examine allegations raised by the jury foreperson before declaring a mistrial.

The defense attorney said a more complete inquiry could have prevented the mistrial from being declared.

He further contended that retrying Clancy would violate double-jeopardy protections and that the judge should therefore dismiss the case entirely.

Before the mistrial, the jury foreperson sent two messages to the judge accusing the then-unidentified holdout of voicing reasonable doubt but refusing to apply that standard under the law.

At the time, Reddington called for the holdout to be struck from the case or to at least face further questioning.

Judge Sullivan refused and hours later, when the jury returned deadlocked again, a mistrial was declared.

Desronvil has said through his attorney Edward Paltzik that he has ‘zero doubt’ about Clancy’s guilt, based on what he described as ‘mountains of evidence.’

KEEP READING: American Idol Murder Trial: OH v. Caleb Flynn

Outside the courthouse on Tuesday, Desronvil’s newly-appointed lawyer Heather O’Connor said she now opposes efforts by the defense team to further inquire about her client – including their request to access records from his cellphone in an apparent attempt to determine whether he was using it during jury deliberations, according to The New York Times. 

She also insisted Desronvil was honest when he filled out a jury questionnaire that asked him whether he had ever been arrested or charged with a crime.

Desronvil had been charged with a misdemeanor in 2021, after his wife claimed he grabbed her by the throat and threw her against a dresser.

But the charge was later dismissed, and O’Connor said it did not prevent him from serving on the jury.

She went on to say that her client just wants privacy for himself and justice for Clancy’s three children.  

‘He’s the only one being targeted here because his decision and his vote was different than everyone else’s. People should not have to worry – just as the commonwealth said – jurors should not have to worry about coming in and having them outed because they take a stance different than everyone else,’ she said.

The motion to investigate Desronvil was ultimately tabled, as was the defense motion to dismiss the case on double jeopardy grounds and a newly-filed motion from prosecutors requesting a gag order preventing Reddington from speaking out about the case.

Judge Sullivan said he will also take into advisement Reddington’s new argument in court that there is no evidence Clancy killed her children.

‘This entire case is based on speculation. Where is the admission? Where did she say that she did this?’ Reddington asked in court on Tuesday.

He noted there was no blood on Clancy’s socks after she cut herself and leaped from the bedroom window and claimed that when she woke from a coma, she had no memory of killing her children. Instead, she was simply told by police that she had killed her children despite there being issues with the timeline of that day, he argued.

‘It wasn’t even a horrendous investigation. There was no investigation,’ the lawyer claimed.

Because of the shoddy investigation, the state had no probable cause that she was even the perpetrator of the crime, he argued.

Prosecutor Shanan Buckingham branded his comments ‘laughable,’ saying this was the first time the defense had made this claim.

The defense team had previously said that Clancy admitted to killing the children, but argued at her first trial that she should be found not guilty of murder or manslaughter because she was suffering from post-partum psychosis at the time.

But Reddington said outside the courthouse that the argument Clancy did not kill her children is ‘not new rocket science by any means.

‘It’s the fact that they cannot prove probable cause,’ he argued.

Reddington further claimed there is not sufficient evidence to prove the 36-year-old is criminally responsible for the killings.

In an insanity case in Massachusetts, the state must prove someone is criminally responsible through two points: whether the person was suffering a mental defect or disease at the time, and, if they were, whether they could still control their actions or conform to the law despite this mental illness. 

Because the state failed to show evidence to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, Reddington argued, the judge must enter a finding of not guilty on all charges.

Firing back, Buckingham argued that a defendant who suffers from mental illness can commit crimes and still be criminally responsible.