Lindsay Clancy's attorney requesting inquiry into holdout juror

Colleen Cronin, Boston Herald on Sep 21, 2026

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

Lindsay Clancy’s attorney is asking the court to take a closer look at the one juror who held out for a conviction in her triple murder trial deliberations.

The motion filed by Clancy’s lawyer Kevin Reddington asked the court to preserve certain records and conduct a “limited inquiry into Juror Doe.”

Reddington refers to the holdout by the pseudonym throughout the filing, citing the indefinite impoundment order issued by Judge William Sullivan for the official jury list.

Sullivan declared a mistrial earlier this month in the case after almost 40 hours of deliberations.

Clancy was on trial for the 2023 deaths of her children, Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, eight months. The Duxbury mom doesn’t dispute that she killed the children; instead Reddington argued during the trial that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis at the time and can’t be held criminally responsible for their deaths.

In the motion filed last week, Reddington requested the court keep all the confidential jury questionnaires, the specific holdout juror’s summons and badge, as well as sign-in sheets for the jury’s phones during the trial deliberation period and video of the jury-room corridor during the same period.

He also asked the Commissioner of Probation to produce “under seal, Juror Doe’s record from the statewide domestic violence registry … including the order now in force and its docket.”

Additionally, Reddington wants the Commonwealth, also under seal, to provide information it obtained from any background checks it ran on jurors and to state, “whether the Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office has, or since January 1, 2021, has had, any matter in which Juror Doe is a defendant, complainant, or subject, including the 2021 prosecution and the abuse-prevention order identified in the Impounded Supplement.”

He is also asking the court to get the juror’s text and call details during deliberation hours.

After preserving and requesting all that information, Reddington wants the juror to be brought in for a private hearing about “three subjects only,” the defense attorney wrote, “the truthfulness of the questionnaire and voir dire answers; the sworn assurance of September 2, 2026; and the use of a mobile telephone or receipt of outside information during deliberations.”

“The inquiry will not touch the substance of deliberations,” Reddington added.

The attorney’s final request was to hear from another juror on what he may have observed of the holdout juror’s phone use.

Reddington asked that the motion be argued in open court.

Despite the use of the pseudonym, attorney Edward Andrew Paltzik identified the holdout juror as Michael Peguy Desronvil last week on social media.

During the trial, the other jurors wrote a note to Judge Sullivan saying that Desronvil had expressed doubt but would not come to a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict like the rest of the panel.

However, via Paltzik, Desronvil has refuted that characterization.

“I didn’t have any doubts,” Desronvil said in the statement. “As I tried to explain different possible theories during deliberation, I kept getting cut off as if I had doubts based on the evidence presented. Based on all the physical evidence, key witnesses, and what the prosecution presented, I thought it was enough proof that she (Clancy) knew exactly what she was doing and planned.”

The Herald has reached out to Paltzik, who previously represented President Trump in multiple high-profile legal disputes, for comment about Reddington’s inquiry request.

It’s not yet clear if Clancy will face another trial. Reddington has also filed motions for a required finding of not guilty and to dismiss the case altogether.

Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz said that his office would announce its decision on whether Clancy will be prosecuted again in a formal, legal setting.

Clancy will be back in court Sept. 29 for her first hearing since the mistrial was declared.

_____