Lindsay Clancy’s Lawyer Defies Judge in Explosive Hearing Over Holdout Juror and Double Jeopardy

Lindsay Clancy is aggressively fighting to ensure she is never retried.

Clancy and her growing defense team returned to Plymouth Superior Court on Monday with a fresh argument: She should never have to face another jury. During the November 2 hearing, her attorneys argued that putting Clancy on trial again would violate her constitutional protection against double jeopardy. This is following the September 4 mistrial in the case involving the deaths of her three young children.

Credit: Plymouth Superior Court

The issue for the defense is whether Judge William Sullivan was legally justified in declaring a mistrial on September 4, after jurors spent seven days deliberating and repeatedly reported that they could not reach a unanimous verdict. As previously reported, 11 jurors reportedly favored finding Clancy not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility. One now-infamous juror held out for a conviction. Kevin Reddington and Martin “Marty” Weinberg argue that Sullivan had other options before declaring the jury deadlocked, including further questioning of the holdout juror, whom fellow jurors accused of refusing to follow the law. Prosecutors disagree, arguing that Sullivan acted within his discretion and that the jury was genuinely deadlocked.

Imperative to Monday’s hearing were six notes sent to Sullivan during deliberations, including two bringing up concerns (by the foreperson) about the holdout juror’s understanding of reasonable doubt. On August 28, jurors requested evidence, specifically pill bottles and the knife Clancy used on herself. By September 1, they reported being unable to reach a unanimous verdict. They repeated that message the following day. On September 3, the tone of the jury’s notes changed. “A member of the jury is unable to follow the instructions regarding reasonable doubt. How should we proceed?” the foreperson wrote. A second note made an even more specific allegation: “Juror # [redacted] has made statements acknowledging doubt, but refuses to apply it to the verdict as the law states. This is why we cannot come to a unanimous decision.”

The defense argues those notes triggered a potential juror problem requiring further investigation, rather than an ordinary disagreement over the evidence. Sullivan questioned jurors, provided additional instructions and attempted to break the impasse. By September 4, the foreperson delivered the final message: “With a heavy heart that we report that we are unable to come to a unanimous decision and will not be able to.” Sullivan declared a mistrial.

The holdout juror, now publicly identified as Michael Desronvil, has argued against suggestions that he misunderstood the law or harbored doubts about Clancy’s guilt. In public interviews, he defended his position and said he believed Clancy should be convicted. Desronvil also retained an attorney as the defense sought an investigation into his jury questionnaire and cell phone, a request Sullivan previously denied.

On Monday, Weinberg urged Sullivan to reconsider decisions made “in the heat of battle,” arguing that further questioning could have determined whether the holdout juror was deliberating in good faith and following the law. He invoked John Adams, who described representative government and trial by jury as the “heart and lungs of liberty,” while arguing that double jeopardy protects defendants from giving prosecutors a second opportunity to secure a conviction. Weinberg maintained that questioning the juror was a viable alternative to declaring a mistrial and would not necessarily have resulted in his removal.

Sullivan pushed back. “Didn’t I do that? Didn’t I bring all the jurors in? Didn’t I question them? You’re saying I should have done it a second time?” Weinberg responded that the court needed to determine what was actually happening inside the jury room before declaring a mistrial. “The prosecutor must justify manifest necessity,” he argued, citing federal case law and the importance of establishing a sufficient record before ending a trial.

Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague countered that Sullivan had already taken the appropriate steps, including questioning jurors individually and reinstructing them on reasonable doubt. She argued that the notes reflected jurors’ perceptions, not proof that the holdout juror was biased or refusing to follow the law. Sprague also warned that a juror digging in on a position doesn’t have to mean that the juror misunderstands the law. It was possible, she argued, that the other 11 jurors were wrong. She maintained that post-trial interviews were irrelevant to the mistrial decision and noted that she could not find a case in which dismissal of all charges was the remedy for a declared mistrial. Sullivan took the double jeopardy motion under advisement.

The hearing then turned to the defense’s effort to obtain and preserve information concerning Juror Doe, resulting in one of the morning’s most heated and intense moments. Reddington argued that jurors are expected to honestly disclose information that could affect their impartiality. When he referred to Desronvil by name, Sullivan interrupted, appearing angry. “I’m going to stop you,” the judge said. “No, you’re not going to stop me,” Reddington fired back, drawing audible gasps from the courtroom gallery. Sullivan threatened to end the hearing on the spot.

Reddington alleged that Desronvil had used his cell phone to research filicide and questioned whether he had fully disclosed his background during jury selection. He also claimed the juror’s prior arrest involving his ex-wife had not been properly disclosed. At one point, Reddington slammed the podium and said he had evidence the juror lied on his questionnaire. He also referred to Desronvil’s attorney, Ed Paltzik, as “the Podcast Lawyer.” Sullivan agreed to admit several exhibits, including media interviews, juror notes and other records, with certain materials remaining under seal.

Sprague argued that the motion should be denied because the allegations were based on information that surfaced after the trial. She warned that opening an investigation into one juror could require similar questioning of all 12. Desronvil’s local attorney, Heather O’Connor, also pushed back, arguing that her client had not intentionally misled the court and disputed the defense’s allegations. “So why are we here?” she asked, arguing that the defense was targeting him because he did not vote the way it wanted. O’Connor warned that investigating a juror over his vote could send a troubling message to future jurors.

The final argument concerned the prosecution’s request for a gag order restricting public statements by attorneys. Sprague argued that Reddington’s media appearances could taint a future jury pool. She cited his public appeals for President Donald Trump to intervene, his description of Clancy as being like a daughter to him, his comments about whether the holdout juror could sleep at night, and his references to Sullivan as “Sully.” Sprague said both sides deserved a fair trial and emphasized that prosecutors had not publicly commented on the case, saying they were not seeking “15 minutes of fame.”

Defense attorney Laura McConnell argued that the Commonwealth had failed to demonstrate any actual harm from Reddington’s statements. No new jury has been empaneled, she pointed out, and no retrial date has been set. “We don’t know if any potential juror has been affected by this,” she said, arguing that prospective jurors could be questioned about media exposure rather than restricting the defense’s speech. Sullivan also took the gag-order motion under advisement.

As the hearing wrapped up, Sullivan brought up the possibility of setting a tentative retrial date. Reddington pressed prosecutors to clarify whether Clancy would face first-degree murder or lesser charges if another trial proceeds. He also brought up Sullivan’s anticipated retirement, calling it the “elephant in the room,” and said he wanted Sullivan to preside over any retrial. “I am not going to have this woman sit incarcerated for the next year or two or three,” Reddington said. “I want a date and I want it this spring.”

Sullivan scheduled the parties to return on November 16 at 9 a.m. for decisions on the pending motions and a possible new trial date. For now, Clancy’s defense is seeking something far more consequential than another date on the calendar: a ruling that would prevent prosecutors from trying her again.

But the drama didn’t end inside the courtroom. Outside Plymouth Superior Court, tensions boiled over as Lindsay Clancy supporters confronted and harassed the holdout juror’s legal team following Monday’s hearing. Amid the chaos, Clancy’s defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, now accompanied by security, expressed frustration with the Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office for failing to announce whether prosecutors intend to retry Clancy following September’s mistrial.

Meanwhile, the holdout juror’s attorney, Ed Paltzik, fired back at Reddington over allegations concerning his client’s prior arrest involving a domestic violence charge. Paltzik vehemently denied the allegations, claiming Reddington had fabricated them and that the accusations came from “his diseased mind.”

The post Lindsay Clancy’s Lawyer Defies Judge in Explosive Hearing Over Holdout Juror and Double Jeopardy appeared first on LAmag.