Lindsay Clancy Double Jeopardy Motion Heads to Court Amid Holdout Juror Dispute

Clear Facts

• A Massachusetts judge is set to hear Lindsay Clancy’s double jeopardy motion on Tuesday while her bid to investigate the lone holdout juror faces a postponement.
• Clancy will appear in court in person for the first time since her trial ended in a mistrial on September 4.
• Defense attorney Kevin Reddington and prosecutors have agreed to delay the juror inquiry motion at the request of the holdout juror’s new legal counsel.

Defense attorney Kevin Reddington is pushing for an investigation into the holdout juror Michael Desronvil whom he has called an obstructionist. The other eleven jurors wanted to acquit Clancy while Desronvil alone held out for conviction.

Desronvil’s attorney Edward Paltzik stated that both sides consented to adjourn the motion. The delay allows his client time to review the motion and prepare a response using impounded court materials.

“The DA and Reddington consent to adjourn the motion to investigate Michael,” Paltzik told Fox News’ Kayleigh McEnany Monday.

Reddington confirmed the agreement but insisted the motion remains active and pending before Judge Sullivan. He rejected any notion that the adjournment represented a legal victory for the holdout juror.

“As is professional courtesy, both the government and I agreed to continue this specific motion to a later date at their request,” Reddington said. “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.”

Retired Massachusetts Judge Carol Erskine explained the difference between adjournment and continuance. She noted that Reddington objects to the term adjournment because it implies the motion is off indefinitely without a new date.

If Reddington prevails on the inquiry request the court could hold a Fidler hearing to question Desronvil. Erskine described this as a three-phase process that could support a manifest necessity claim though she called it a long shot.

“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,” Erskine told Fox News Digital. “It’s definitely more complicated than that, but there is case law about it.”

Reddington’s motion seeks phone records the confidential juror questionnaire and police records. He bases the request on allegations from other jurors who claim Desronvil had reasonable doubt yet refused to follow the law.

“[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,” Reddington told reporters after the mistrial was declared.

Reddington downplayed speculation about a potential defamation lawsuit noting that statements made in court proceedings are privileged under the law. He also argued that statements made outside court may be considered opinions rather than facts.

New York-based criminal defense attorney Mark Bederow believes the legal maneuvers are unlikely to succeed. He pointed out that prosecutors face a difficult decision about pursuing a retrial after only one juror supported their 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,” Bederow said. “In order for them to win, they need to get better experts.”

Let us know what you think, please share your thoughts in the comments below.