Staff Reports
The judge in the Lindsay Clancy case just put a big legal stop sign in front of a very public fishing expedition. Plymouth Superior Court Judge William F. Sullivan denied the defense’s request to grill the lone holdout juror and seize his phone records. That ruling keeps jury deliberations and juror privacy protected — and it slams the brakes on the post‑trial mob that wanted answers after a mistrial.
Judge William F. Sullivan Rejects Request for an Evidentiary Hearing
Judge Sullivan refused to hold a special hearing to probe Juror Michael Peguy Desronvil after the trial ended in a mistrial. The defense had asked to access sealed jury materials, phone metadata, hallway video and the juror’s questionnaire. The judge said the new claims surfaced only after the mistrial and cannot be used to unwind the court’s decision that the mistrial was necessary. In short: too little, too late.
Why the Court Said No — Protecting Juror Deliberations
The judge leaned on a basic principle of jury law: courts must not dig into why a juror thought what he thought or how the group argued the case. That rule exists to keep jurors honest and free from outside pressure. Allowing post‑trial probes into a juror’s private thinking or phone use would invite courts to pry open the deliberation room every time the losing side complained. That would be chaos, not justice.
What the Defense Wanted — And Why It Looked Like a Hail Mary
Attorney Kevin Reddington asked for everything from cellphone sign‑in sheets to domestic‑violence registry checks. He wanted an in‑court questioning of the juror to see if the juror lied on his questionnaire or used a phone during deliberations. That’s a big ask. It reads like an attempt to blame a single juror for a jury’s split verdict instead of accepting the mistrial and moving on to the proper legal fights, like the double‑jeopardy motion the defense has filed.
What Happens Next — Double Jeopardy and the Public Circus
The judge’s denial doesn’t decide whether Clancy can be tried again. The court will still hear post‑trial motions about double jeopardy and other questions. Meanwhile the juror who stood alone has faced a media onslaught. If the system means anything, it should protect jurors from threats and preserve the rule that judges won’t let public pressure turn a deliberation into a second trial. The state and defense will now do their legal work in court — not in headlines.
