If the lawyers for Lindsay Clancy want to engage in holy jihad against the one holdout juror in the case, it might not end well for their own cause.
According to a report from NewsNation, juror Michael P. Desronvil — who caused a mistrial by holding that Clancy murdered her three children in 2023 during a trial that riveted the nation — said that other jurors were using their phones during deliberations, violating court orders.
As the Daily Mail reported on Wednesday, this comes as Clancy lawyer Kevin Reddington is attempting to look at Desronvil’s phone data after he was the only vote for acquittal. Reddington has already asked to have the juror disqualified, unsuccessfully.
The other 11 had argued that Clancy was not guilty by reason of insanity due to postpartum psychosis when she strangled her three children in her Duxbury, Massachusetts, home before trying to kill herself.
However, jurors are prohibited from using their phones, in part because they may be researching information that’s inadmissible — and, if they were doing so, that would complicate any sort of attempt to change the mistrial called by the judge in the case.
The accusation came from Desronvil’s spokesman, Ray Marcel.
“Everybody had their phones on them,” he told NewsNation’s Brian Entin, who has been gathering numerous scoops in the case.
Should the judge look at all the jurors’ phones or none of the jurors’ phones?
“There were jurors who were posting on social media, allegedly, while deliberations were going on.”
This could complicate Reddington’s motion, which was filed last Friday. From The New York Times:
The motion from the lawyer, Kevin Reddington, dated on Friday, asks the judge, William Sullivan, to examine the juror’s mobile phone metadata during the time that the jury was deliberating over whether Ms. Clancy should be found guilty of murdering her three children.
It asks the court to preserve the original questionnaires for the deliberating jurors and alternates, and all the jury notes and the court’s responses.
It also asks the judge to examine the holdout juror on the record in front of lawyers, including asking him questions about the truthfulness of the information he provided during jury selection and the use of a phone or any other outside information during deliberations.
It’s unclear whether Sullivan will acquiesce. The judge blocked all previous attempts to remove Desronvil from the panel after it became clear that he believed strongly in her guilt while other jurors believed strongly in her innocence.
Other jurors questioned whether he understood the concept of “reasonable doubt” and told local news outlets that the horrors of the killings were a stumbling block for him.
“He had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children,” juror Kellie Farina told a local television station during an interview.
“He had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children.”
Lindsay Clancy jurors speak out, express their frustration with the lone holdout. pic.twitter.com/NehHv9qInV
— Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) September 8, 2026
Desronvil, in his first statement about the case released last week, said that the characterization of him wavering was inconsistent with the facts.
“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 present,” he said in a statement.
“Based on all the physical evidence, key witnesses, and what the prosecution presents, I thought it was enough proof that she [Clancy] knew exactly what she was doing and planned.”
At a micro level, this is all evidence that Reddington’s decision to try to open a can of worms won’t work out well for him. At a macro level, though, all of this fighting is proof of the institutional collapse that’s all around us in the low-trust, drive-by media age.
The Clancy case was tried in the media, both old and new, and opinions on the case were supercharged by a whole phalanx of woke influencers who came up with brilliant theories, like Patrick Clancy actually committing the murder because “women don’t strangle.” (Seriously, this was the actual opinion of a Hollywood actress of D-list provenance who’s probably doing some libel-lawyer shopping these days.)
And it turns out that Farina, the juror who came up with that grimly timeless quote about how “he had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously killed her children” turned out to be a true crime addict herself. Who the heck knows what the other jurors are up to? And, if Reddington really wants to go back to the courtroom now to punish a juror who didn’t vote how he wanted them to, how many others will get in trouble?
America is watching, and Reddington should know he still has a client to defend and that his decision to try to aim the legal system at citizens simply doing their job as jurors won’t end well for him.
He has Massachusetts’ insanely liberal insanity plea laws on his side and he probably shouldn’t hurt his cause any more than it’s already been hurt. If we find out that the jurors who were so outspoken in the wake of the mistrial were breaking the rules and doing research, that’ll look beyond terrible for them.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
