Judge Clears Lindsay Clancy For Retrial, And Tells Her Lawyer To Watch His Mouth

A Massachusetts judge on Monday rejected Lindsay Clancy's bid to dismiss her triple-murder case on double jeopardy grounds, clearing the way for a second trial in the 2023 deaths of her three young children - and refusing to let her lawyer go after the lone juror who wouldn't acquit her.Lindsay Clancy listens to prosecutor Jennifer Sprague say that they plan on re-trial, in Plymouth Superior Court in Plymouth, Mass., Nov. 2, 2026. (Greg Derr/Pool/The Patriot Ledger via Reuters)Plymouth Superior Court Judge William Sullivan wrote that "because the Court concludes that there was a manifest necessity for a mistrial based on the jury's deadlock, a retrial on the murder indictments does not violate Clancy's right not to be placed in double jeopardy." Sullivan declared the mistrial on Sept. 4 after jurors split 11-1 in favor of finding Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity.That one vote belonged to Michael Desronvil, the only black member of a jury of nine women and three men. The other 11, all of them white by one juror's account, spent days trying to bring him around. Desronvil said "I didn't have any doubts" that Clancy knew what she was doing, and that it was the other jurors who didn't keep an open mind and tried to shut him down.Within days of the mistrial, three of the female jurors went on a media tour calling him "arrogant" and a "rogue juror," with juror Paula Devlin saying the panel knew its verdict could "make it better for other women." Defense attorney Kevin Reddington said the jury had been "robbed by one man for whatever his agenda was."Paula Devlin, Roni Carlson and Kellie Farina all served as jurors during the Lindsay Clancy trial. They spoke in depth about their experience with NBC10 Boston courtroom insider Sue O’Connell.A liberal witch hunt followed, of course. While Desronvil's name was still under court seal, Boston outlets dug up a restraining order, a dispute with his landlord and domestic violence charges that had been dismissed. His family was hounded at home - "They are leaving notes at my mother's house," his brother said - and Desronvil hired a lawyer and moved to an undisclosed location in northern New England. A GoFundMe for Clancy's family, meanwhile, topped $1.16 million.Reddington had argued that Sullivan should have questioned the holdout, identified in the ruling as Juror Doe, before ending the trial. Sullivan said any further questioning "would undoubtedly have a coercive effect," and that the foreperson's notes claiming the holdout wasn't following the law on reasonable doubt were not "reliable evidence of Juror Doe's inability or refusal to deliberate or follow the law.""The Court made its decision based on what was known at the time," Sullivan wrote. "Information that has since come to light cannot serve to undermine that decision."He denied the defense's requests for the holdout's phone records and for records from jury selection and deliberations, saying "the Court declines to exercise its discretion to order production" because Clancy had not shown the material was relevant to a retrial. He also saw no "valid justification for examining Juror Doe under oath." Handing over the records, he said, would violate juror confidentiality and "discourage citizens from being willing to serve as jurors in the future."Michael Desronvil, the holdout juror in the Lindsay Clancy trial, leaves Plymouth Superior Court after a mistrial in Plymouth, Mass., Friday, September 4, 2026.Dave Zajac/Hearst Connecticut MediaReddington had alleged that Desronvil used his cellphone during deliberations and wasn't truthful during jury selection. At the Nov. 2 hearing he named Desronvil in open court, and Sullivan cut him off mid-sentence.Sullivan also denied prosecutors' request for a gag order on the defense, which they sought after Reddington publicly criticized the holdout, as we reported. "The Commonwealth has not sufficiently demonstrated that defense counsel's extrajudicial speech poses a serious threat of harm by materially prejudicing the jury venire or the outcome of any retrial," he wrote, calling a gag order an "extreme remedy" of "prior restraint." Prosecutors can ask again if circumstances change before a new trial, and Sullivan reminded Reddington of his "ethical obligations" under the state's rules of professional conduct.Her defense, which has never denied that Clancy killed her children, is that postpartum psychosis left her unable to control her actions, while prosecutors say she acted deliberately and knew what she was doing was wrong. Prosecutors have said they plan to retry her but haven't said whether they will bring the same murder charges.Clancy is due back in court Nov. 16, when Sullivan plans to set a trial date. At the Nov. 2 hearing he said he would like the retrial to begin in March 2027, while Reddington said he "can't do a trial before June."