Staff Reports
There are two fights converging in a Plymouth County courtroom this week — one over whether Lindsay Clancy will be tried again for the deaths of her three children, and another over whether a single juror can be hauled into the light after a mistrial. The status hearing set for Tuesday, Sept. 29, 2026 will decide whether the defense’s aggressive post‑trial motions get a hearing and whether juror Michael P. Desronvil will be asked to explain himself under oath. Below, the mess gets plain and personal.
The legal fireworks: Rule 25, double jeopardy, and a juror probe
Defense lawyer Kevin Reddington has filed a renewed Rule 25 motion asking the judge to enter a not‑guilty finding for insufficient evidence — a longshot but one that, if granted, would block any retrial. He’s also pressing a rare double‑jeopardy argument through a limited appearance by Martin G. Weinberg, arguing the mistrial lacked “manifest necessity.” On top of those constitutional gambits, the defense has asked Judge William Sullivan to investigate the lone holdout juror and to preserve phone records, questionnaires and sworn testimony about alleged cellphone use during deliberations.
The juror pushes back — loudly
Michael Desronvil’s attorney, Edward Paltzik, isn’t taking that quietly. He’s publicly defended his client, calling the defense motion “a full‑frontal attack on the U.S. Constitution,” and says Desronvil will issue a personal statement in his own words. That’s no small thing: other jurors have gone on the record accusing the holdout of being inflexible, even mimicking strangulation, while a few claimed they saw cellphone use in the room — allegations Desronvil disputes.
Why ordinary Americans should care
This isn’t just legal theater for lawyers and cameras. If courts allow routine post‑trial fishing expeditions into deliberations, jurors will think twice before speaking their minds in a locker‑room or kitchen‑table fashion. That chills the whole jury system — ordinary citizens are the backbone of criminal justice, and they must know their votes won’t be second‑guessed into public shaming or subpoenas. At the same time, if juror misconduct — like using a phone or lying during voir dire — is ignored, victims’ families and the rule of law get stiffed; Cora, Dawson and Callan deserve more than a press cycle.
What to watch Tuesday — and afterward
The judge will decide whether to even hear the Rule 25 and double‑jeopardy motions and whether to sanction any inquiry into Desronvil’s conduct. Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz still has the choice about retrial if the court declines dismissal; his decision will tell you how prosecutors assess the evidence versus the optics. Whatever happens, the court’s ruling will set a precedent: protect juror secrecy and risk closing questions about misconduct, or open the jury room to scrutiny and risk scaring honest citizens away from civic duty. Which do we want — jurors who fear watching what they say, or verdicts that can’t be trusted?
