PLYMOUTH, Mass. — A Massachusetts judge overseeing the Lindsay Clancy case is expected to hear arguments on her double jeopardy motion Tuesday, while another push to investigate the lone holdout juror in her mistrial may be on hold — for now.
Clancy is expected in court in person for the first time since her trial ended in a deadlocked jury and the judge declared a mistrial on Sept. 4.
In the weeks since her mistrial, Clancy’s case has remained a topic of national interest, with fellow jurors and Clancy’s defense attorney attacking the lone holdout. At the same time, Plymouth County District Attorney Tim Cruz’s office has been relatively quiet about their plans for a potential retrial.
LINDSAY CLANCY HOLDOUT JUROR ASKS FOR ONE THING IN NEW VIDEO AFTER MISTRIAL DRAMA
Here’s a roundup of what to expect as she returns to court:
Clancy’s defense lawyer Kevin Reddington had called for an inquiry into the lone holdout juror, Michael Desronvil, whom he has dubbed “the obstructionist juror.” Desronvil opposed 11 others on the panel and was the only one who wanted to find her guilty until the end.
Michael Desronvil, who is said to be hiding out at an undisclosed location, spoke out publicly for the first time in a video exclusively shared with Fox News’ “Hannity” Monday evening.
“I know the whole focus has been on me, but we want to reel everything back and put the focus on the three angels,” he said. “The ones that can’t speak for themselves, the ones that can’t defend themselves, and the ones that can’t fight the battles — and those are Cora, Dawson and Callan.”
LINDSAY CLANCY HOLDOUT JUROR’S LAWYER TORCHES ‘LOONEY TUNES MOTION’ TO INVESTIGATE HIM
According to Desronvil’s attorney, Edward Paltzik, both Reddington and Plymouth County prosecutors agreed to adjourn that motion after counsel for the holdout raised an objection because they didn’t yet have access to impounded materials necessary to file a response.
“The DA and Reddington consent to adjourn the motion to investigate Michael,” Paltzik told Fox News’ Kayleigh McEnany Monday.
ATTORNEY FOR LONE HOLDOUT JUROR IN LINDSAY CLANCY MISTRIAL PUSHES BACK ON CLAIMS OF REFUSING THE LAW
“If Judge Sullivan signs an order today, much of it could be adjourned,” he said. “Either way, a status conference is still likely.”
Reddington pushed back, forcefully, while conceding that he and the district attorney’s office had agreed to continue the motion out of professional courtesy to local counsel now representing the juror.
“Earlier today, both the government and I were contacted by a professional local attorney who represents Juror Doe,” he said, not using the juror’s name due to an impoundment order from the court. “That attorney requested — as any qualified counsel would — adequate time to review our motion and reply.”
He added, “As is professional courtesy, both the government and I agreed to continue this specific motion to a later date at their request. The motion remains active, fully alive, and is currently pending a ruling from Judge Sullivan. We will not allow a publicity-seeking opportunist to twist simple courtroom courtesy into a victory that does not exist.”
The terms adjourned and continued are similar but have distinct meanings.
“Adjournment generally signifies that something like a hearing is off indefinitely especially because no date is specified,” explained retired Massachusetts Judge Carol Erskine. “A continuance is a simple request by a party or two parties to get a new date. [Reddington] objects because adjournment is a misrepresentation of what is happening.”
If Reddington ultimately prevails, the court could hold a Fidler hearing, where the judge would question Desronvil.
“There are three phases to a hearing like that,” said Erskine, who is also a child welfare advocate and has been closely following the case. “This is something that could result in a strong manifest necessity claim but hard to tell until it happens.”
LINDSAY CLANCY’S ATTORNEY ASKS JUDGE TO ACQUIT HER OUTRIGHT, ENDING CASE AND BARRING A RETRIAL
Manifest necessity is the legal standard required to hold a second trial. Erskine said the motion is a long-shot but Reddington is likely laying the foundation for an appeal in the future.
“The big issue, in my opinion, is whether outside information came into the jury room and whether a judge can find that any ‘hypothetical juror’ would let it influence his decision,” she told Fox News Digital. “It’s definitely more complicated than that, but there is case law about it.”
“This is a strange new world in which disagreeing jurors and their surrogates conduct a public debate after the trial in the media and social media,” said Jack Lu, another retired Massachusetts judge.
Reddington’s request for an inquiry into Desronvil is largely based on allegations from other jurors who accused him of having reasonable doubt about the case and ignoring it. He is seeking phone records, his confidential juror questionnaire and police records.
However, he’s also called him an “obstructionist” outside the courtroom and accused him of having an “agenda.”
“[The other jurors] know that they were robbed — by one man — for whatever his agenda was, who stole seven weeks of the life of these other jurors that were so attentive, so beautiful, so wonderful and listened to this evidence,” he told reporters after leaving the courthouse on Sept. 4, the day the mistrial was declared.
Still, he downplayed speculation from legal analysts about a potential defamation lawsuit from the holdout against Clancy’s team.
FOLLOW THE FOX TRUE CRIME TEAM ON X
“Defamation law is textbook complex,” he told Fox News Digital. “Statements made in court proceedings are privileged.”
Statements made out of court that could appear to be “false statements of fact” may end up being considered opinions, he added.
“If a person says X happened, and we all know that person was not present, then it may be deemed to be an opinion,” he said. “This might apply to any alleged statements about what happened in the jury room.”
SIGN UP TO GET THE LATEST TRUE CRIME NEWS
“I don’t think any of the legal maneuvering, double jeopardy, all that stuff, a hearing in the trial court with the juror, I don’t think it’s going anywhere,” said Mark Bederow, a New York-based criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor who is following the case.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FROM THE FOX TRUE CRIME HUB
“If you get down to brass tacks, once you get through all this, now you have to look at the DA and say, what are you doing?” he added.
Most prosecutors would not seek a second trial in a case where only one juror agreed with them, he said, but that appears unlikely in this case.
“At the first trial, the prosecution, in my view, failed miserably to satisfy their burden — but there is a credible argument that she’s guilty and intended to cause their deaths and knew right from wrong,” he said. “In order for them to win, they need to get better experts.”
LISTEN TO THE NEW ‘CRIME & JUSTICE WITH DONNA ROTUNNO’ PODCAST
The Commonwealth needs experts who can discredit Clancy’s defense experts, he said. And prosecutors also have room to improve their jury selection.
As for Reddington, he described him as “a titan of the Massachusetts bar” who is filing motions that make sense for his client’s benefit, regardless of his commentary outside the courtroom.
“That’s not frivolous, and any lawyer knows that,” he told Fox News Digital.
