Lindsay Clancy holdout juror pushes back on claims he had reasonable doubt: 'I kept getting cut off'

He was the sole holdout on a 12-person jury who otherwise voted to acquit Lindsay Clancy of murdering her three children — frustrating the defense and causing a mistrial.

After seven days of deliberations, and with specific instructions from Judge William Sullivan to follow the letter of the law on reasonable doubt, the jury said it still had one holdout who refused to budge. A mistrial was declared on Sept. 4.

Now, the lone juror, named Michael Desronvil, has come forward to share his side of the story, saying that he "didn't have any doubts" that Clancy was criminally responsible for the killings.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

In a statement shared with Yahoo on Sept. 18 by his attorney Edward Andrew Paltzik, Desronvil said: "I didn't have any doubts. 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."

Desronvil refused to acquit Clancy on charges of the murder of her three children, 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson and 8-month-old Callan, whom she admitted killing in 2023.

Paltzik said in a social media post on Thursday that he was representing Desronvil and that his client would not be giving any interviews.

Advertisement
Advertisement

"We are focused entirely on his health, safety, and well-being," Paltzik said. "There will be a time for accountability and a time for the real story of the Lindsay Clancy Trial to be told. But not right now."

Paltzik added that his client was "safe and sound at an undisclosed secure location in a rural area of Northern New England."

The trial centered on whether Clancy could be held legally responsible for their deaths, as her defense argued that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis at the time.

The case is scheduled to return to court on Sept. 29.

Desronvil's statement follows a number of jurors giving their views publicly about the case.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Last week, one juror said that Desronvil, one of three men serving on the jury, did not cite "a single piece of evidence" to support his position.

Juror Nick Dargie said the holdout juror did not show the other jurors any witness testimony or evidence to support his position.

"There was several times I would ask him to show us evidence or, you know, describe a witness testimony that helped to prove what he was saying, and ... he couldn't," Dargie said in an interview with ABC News aired on Sept. 10.

"There wasn't a single piece of evidence or witness testimony that he used to prove why he was thinking the way he was," Dargie continued, explaining that this was why the jury had given a note to Judge William Sullivan that eventually led to a mistrial.

Advertisement
Advertisement

"Otherwise, like, there's nothing wrong with somebody having a completely opposite opinion ... that would be a hung jury. That, like, that is our justice system."

What else did the jurors say?

Prior to Dargie's ABC interview, jury foreperson Roni Carlson had told NBC10 Boston that the holdout juror blocked Clancy's acquittal despite having reasonable doubt.

A guilty verdict requires guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest standard of proof in the U.S. legal system.

"He had reasonable doubt. He admitted he had reasonable doubt," Carlson said.

"I started filling out the forms, I was so excited. There were three forms I had to fill out, and then he said, 'But I'm still not going to say that she's not guilty by reason of insanity.'"'

Advertisement
Advertisement

Another juror, who chose to remain anonymous, told local CBS station WBZ-TV that most of the jurors were "very firm in their stance," adding that "the stand-alone juror was not the only one that was unwilling to see things from the other side".

"I'm going to kind of defend that individual in a sense," she told WBZ-TV. "There were some big personalities in that room. But at the end of the day, it just came down to an inability to move past your convictions."

She added that there was "so much doubt."

"The prosecution didn't have a figurative smoking gun. There was not a single moment throughout the presentation of that case where you could say 'Yup, 100% I'm certain she did it' or that she didn't do it. There was too much gray area."

What happens next?

The two sides in the case are scheduled to return to court on Sept. 29, when the next steps will be decided. 

Advertisement
Advertisement

Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz has not announced whether he will seek to retry Clancy.

Speaking outside the courthouse on Sept. 4 following the mistrial, Cruz said, "I appreciate the fact that there are strong feelings and opinions tied to this case." 

He added: "However, our job is to set aside our feelings and focus solely on the facts. The facts are, Lindsay Clancy killed her three children and the evidence suggested to us that she was in control of her actions when she committed those homicides."

Meanwhile, Clancy's attorney, Kevin Reddington, said he was open to a plea deal, but told CNN's Anderson Cooper that he would not agree to one that would result in her serving prison time.

Advertisement
Advertisement

"I want to hear what Tim [Cruz] has to say," Reddington said. "I hope, however, after sitting through this trial and seeing the evidence that was presented from the government, as well as from the defense, that he would revisit that issue."

• About Our Ads