Lindsay Clancy's lawyer asks judge to investigate lone holdout juror

A lawyer for Lindsay Clancy has asked a judge to investigate the conduct of the lone juror who wanted to convict the Massachusetts woman of murder in the deaths of her three young children.

Warning: This story contains details that may be distressing for some readers.

In a motion filed Friday but made public Monday, local time, Ms Clancy's lawyer asked the court to question juror Michael Desronvil about his alleged use of a mobile phone during deliberations, along with his truthfulness on a questionnaire that prospective jurors filled out before the trial and when jurors were questioned by the judge a day before the trial ended.

Among other things, lawyer Kevin Reddington asked the court to obtain a record of any calls or texts Mr Desronvil made between 8am and 4:30pm on each day the jury deliberated. Phone use during deliberations is prohibited in the state.

Mr Reddington is calling for the motion to be heard at the next scheduled hearing on September 29.

The judge declared a mistrial earlier this month after the jury insisted it could not reach a unanimous verdict, despite days of trying.

Eleven of 12 jurors were ready to clear Ms Clancy of criminal responsibility, with the majority feeling that she was in the grip of a rare condition called postpartum psychosis when she killed her children.

But Mr Desronvil sided with the prosecutors, who had argued Ms Clancy knew what she was doing.

"I didn't have any doubts," Mr Desronvil said in a statement released on X by his lawyer, Edward Paltzik.

The jury's foreperson had claimed in an earlier media interview that Mr Desronvil had admitted having "reasonable doubt" about Ms Clancy's guilt but wanted to convict her anyway. Mr Desronvil said that was not true.

"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," he wrote.

"Based on all the physical evidence, key witnesses, and what the prosecution presented, I thought it was enough proof that [Ms Clancy] knew exactly what she was doing."

Mr Desronvil has not been accused of any wrongdoing in connection with his service on the jury, though other jurors complained that he was inflexible in his opinion that Ms Clancy was guilty.

Since the trial ended, Mr Desronvil has been both publicly praised and scorned for his actions, and his personal life and past financial and legal problems have become the subject of scrutiny by the news media and amateur sleuths.

The public revelations include he had a restraining order against him at the time of jury selection and was facing eviction from his apartment due to over $US12,000 ($16,800) in unpaid rent. He also was accused of domestic violence in 2021, a charge that was later dismissed.

He also has been embraced by those who feel Ms Clancy should be found guilty. A fundraiser to cover what organisers say are costs of "security, lawyers, and lost work" for Mr Desronvil has raised nearly $US375,000 ($526,600).

Judge asked to dismiss case

Prosecutors have yet to say whether they plan on putting Ms Clancy on trial again. She remains charged with murder and is in a psychiatric hospital until her case is resolved.

In another motion on Monday, another lawyer for Ms Clancy, Martin Weinberg, asked the judge to take the unusual step of dismissing the criminal case, rather than putting on a new trial, on the grounds that a mistrial should not have been declared in the first place.

Mr Weinberg argued that the judge should have replaced the holdout juror with an alternate during the deliberations after a jury foreperson complained to the judge that one juror was refusing to listen to the law on reasonable doubt.

"Contrary to the court's stated believe [sic] at the time, it did have viable choices other than declaring a mistrial," Mr Weinberg wrote.

That follows an earlier motion filed by Ms Clancy's legal team arguing that she should not be tried a second time because prosecutors do not have enough evidence.

Under Massachusetts law, prosecutors had to prove either that Ms Clancy did not have a mental disease or defect or that, despite having one, she retained the capacity to know what she was doing when she killed her children.

Mr Reddington argued in Thursday's court filing that prosecutors proved neither.

A spokesperson for Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz would not comment on the motions.