PLYMOUTH, Mass. (Court TV) — A judge has denied Lindsay Clancy’s request for an evidentiary hearing on the holdout juror whose stance forced a mistrial.
Lindsay Clancy appears in court. (Gregory Derr, The Patriot Ledger/POOL)
Clancy, 35, stood trial on three charges of first-degree murder in the deaths of her children, who were found strangled to death in the family’s home. Clancy has admitted to killing Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months, but she argued at trial that she was not legally responsible for her actions because she was suffering from postpartum psychosis.
The 12 deliberating jurors in Clancy’s trial spent more than a week trying to reach a unanimous decision but ultimately deadlocked 11-1, with the majority believing the defendant was not guilty by reason of insanity.
Clancy’s attorney, Kevin Reddington, filed a motion to dismiss the charges against her on double jeopardy grounds. He argued the mistrial was unwarranted because the holdout juror should have been removed. Reddington also filed a second motion, asking that the hearing be evidentiary and arguing that jury notes and sidebar transcripts belong in the factual record.
“It appears that Clancy seeks an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Juror Doe lied on the jury questionnaire about prior involvement with the criminal justice system,” Judge William Sullivan wrote in his order denying the motion. “However, potential evidence of good cause to dismiss a deliberating juror that came to light only after a mistrial was declared simply is not relevant to whether there was a manifest necessity for a mistrial.”
Sullivan pointed out that Reddington did not question whether the holdout juror had lied on the jury questionnaire until after the mistrial was declared. “That information appears to have originated in posttrial media reports,” Sullivan said. “Because posttrial 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.”
Reddington also asked Sullivan to question the holdout juror about his sworn assurance that he could follow the law, despite foreperson notes suggesting he was unwilling. The judge declined that request too. “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 other jurors, and must not inquire into the jury’s deliberative content, collective thought process, or any disagreement among the jury,” Sullivan’s order said.
In an interview with Fox News, Michael Desronvil, who identified himself as the holdout juror, denied lying at any point: “I answered everything truthfully,” he said.
Sullivan will still consider the motion to dismiss at the Nov. 2 hearing, along with defense motions to preserve juror records, produce the juror questionnaire and conduct a limited inquiry into Juror Doe. Sullivan previously warned Reddington and prosecutors to be prepared to set a retrial date at that hearing as well.
