Full Breakdown
Massachusetts Judge Bars Inquiry into Holdout Juror in Lindsay Clancy Murder Trial
By Drooid · · How we work
Core Event – Denial of Evidentiary Hearing
On October 21, 2026, Plymouth Superior Court Judge William Sullivan issued a five-page order rejecting defense attorney Kevin Reddington’s request for an evidentiary hearing to investigate the lone juror who forced a mistrial in Lindsay Clancy’s triple-murder case. The judge held that allegations emerging after the mistrial—such as claims the juror lied on his questionnaire or used a cellphone during deliberations—were “not relevant” to determining whether a manifest-necessity mistrial was required.
Background & Context – Trial, Mistrial, and Insanity Defense
Lindsay Clancy, a former nurse from Duxbury, Massachusetts, was charged with three counts of first-degree murder for the deaths of her children—Cora, Dawson and Callan (8 months)—in early 2023. Clancy pleaded not guilty and asserted that postpartum psychosis rendered her criminally irresponsible.
The trial lasted seven weeks in the summer of 2026. After roughly 38 hours of deliberation, the jury was deadlocked 11-1; eleven jurors favored a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity, while the holdout juror, identified in filings as Juror Doe and later named as Michael P. Desronvil, voted for conviction. Judge Sullivan declared a mistrial on September 4, 2026.
Data & Statistics
- Charges: Three counts of first-degree murder.
- Jury composition: 12 jurors; vote split 11-1.
- Deliberation time: Approximately 38 hours over seven days.
- Key dates: September 4 (mistrial); September 29 (Clancy appears in court); October 21 (judge’s denial of hearing); November 2 (scheduled hearing on double-jeopardy motion).
Official Statements & Responses
The judge concluded that the defense had not demonstrated entitlement to an evidentiary hearing. Defense counsel Kevin Reddington argued that the holdout juror may have misrepresented his background on the questionnaire, used a cellphone during deliberations, and failed to follow the judge’s instructions on reasonable doubt. The prosecution and the defense declined to comment on the ruling. The district attorney’s office has not yet decided whether to retry Clancy on the original charges or pursue a reduced charge that could allow a bench trial.
Verbatim Quotes
- “This Court concludes that any further judicial inquiry is inappropriate, given the mandate that the court must not delve into a juror's subjective reasoning, thought process, view of the case, or relationship to the other jurors, and must not inquire into the jury's deliberative content, collective thought process, or any disagreement among the jury,” — William Sullivan, judge
- “Because post-trial information potentially affecting Juror Doe’s impartiality cannot be used to attack the determination that a mistrial was manifestly necessary, Clancy is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on that issue,” — William Sullivan, judge
- “I want to finish up my accounting degree,” — Michael P. Desronvil
What's Next – Future Proceedings
The court has scheduled arguments on Clancy’s double-jeopardy motion for November 2, 2026. At that hearing, the parties will address whether a second trial on the murder charges is permissible under Massachusetts law. No further judicial inquiry into the holdout juror’s conduct is expected.