Why Lindsay Clancy's Holdout Juror Is Now Under Investigation

Tony Brueski (0:03)

This is Hidden Killers With Tony Brueski.

SPEAKER_2 (0:12)

Eleven jurors spent 39 grueling hours over seven days trying to figure out if Lindsay Clancy was criminally responsible for taking the lives of her three young children. According to the four person and several other people sitting on that panel, almost everyone in that room reached the exact same conclusion. She wasn't. But one single juror stood in their way. On September 4th of 2026, Judge William Sullivan was forced to declare a mistrial. The final vote, 11 to 1 Now that one lone holdout is right at the center of a formal judicial inquiry. On September 21st, Judge Sullivan granted a defense motion to unseal the holdout jurors' questionnaire, preserve every bit of related record, and figure out if this guy essentially lied his way onto the jury. But look, the core issue here isn't just how he voted. It's whether he had any right to be sitting in that chair in the first place. Because what's coming to light about his past raises a massive problem that goes way beyond a single verdict. If this jury was fundamentally compromised from day one, does this mistrial even count?

If it doesn't, can the state ever legally put Lindsay on trial again? His name wasn't listed in the initial court documents, but the Boston Globe tracked down the identity through photographs, public court records, and interviews with his fellow jurors. His name is Michael Desronvil, 48 years old, from Bridgewater. Back in September of 2021, Brockton Police arrested Desronvil after he allegedly grabbed his then-wife by the throat and threw her into a dresser during an argument. He was hit with domestic assault and battery charges, he pled not guilty, and eventually the case was dismissed. Sounds like a lovely dude. Again, dismissed, innocent until proven guilty, those are the allegations, that's the public record. If you're making a guess on would you like to have breakfast with that person, I would probably pass. Like, no, I don't know for sure that you did this or anything, but just the fact that these allegations are out there seems a little too ichy for me, I'm going to say no. His ex-wife later explained that she dropped the charges because she was terrified she'd lose custody of her daughter if she testified. Anyone who covers crime or domestic violence knows this play all too well. A charge getting dropped because the victim is too afraid to take the stand doesn't mean nothing happened. It just means a system spat out a resolution that looks clean on paper.

Not saying he did anything, just saying here's what the track record tends to show. And that's not all. In a separate incident, Desronvil's teenage nephew got a civil restraining order against him after alleging Desronvil tackled him to the ground and repeatedly punched him in the face. In his court affidavit, the nephew swore Desronvil told him, You ruined my life because he called the police.

Judge reviewed the evidence and agreed that the teenager was in legitimate danger of physical violence, granting the restraining order. That order was active while Desronvil sat on the Clancy jury in July of 26 In fact, it was active during the entire trial. On top of that, he was actively facing eviction proceedings while deliberations were going on, racking up more than $12,000 in unpaid rent allegedly. His landlord actually secured a court judgment against him while he was sitting right there in the jury box. Now, none of this automatically disqualifies someone from serving on a jury. A dismissed charge is still a dismissed charge legally. But standard Massachusetts juror questioners explicitly ask about arrests, criminal history and active court orders. Those questions are there for a reason so both the prosecution and defense can figure out if a candidate has baggage that might color their judgment. During jury selection back in July, every perspective juror was questioned individually under oath by the judge and lawyers. They were asked directly if they could set feelings aside and return a verdict of not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility if the state failed to prove its case. If Desronvil was asked those questions and concealed his past, he could on that jury order pretenses.

As one legal analyst pointed out, if his questionnaire had been honest, one side or the other would have taken the chance and used a strike to bounce him. Neither side ever got that opportunity or took that opportunity if they had known. That's what's being looked into. And the red flags didn't stop when jury selection ended. On September 3rd, after the jury announced it was deadlocked for the second time, Judge Sullivan called each juror up to the bench one by one, putting them under oath to ask if they were following his legal instructions. According to defense attorneys, every single juror, including the holdout, swore they were. Then came the note from the foreperson. Multiple courtroom sources say the note stated the holdout openly admitted he had reasonable doubt about whether Clancy knew right from wrong, but refused to vote not guilty anyways. Essentially, the foreperson was telling the judge, this guy agrees the prosecution didn't prove its case, but he still refuses to follow the law. The holdout claims that's completely false. Through his lawyer, Edward Andrew Poltzik, Desronvil released a statement on September 18th, insisting he didn't have any doubts. He claims he was convinced the state proved Clancy planned the killings and says the other jurors simply cut him off whenever he tried to talk. So you've got the four person and multiple jurors saying one thing and Desronvil saying the complete opposite. That contradiction alone is plenty of reason for the court to step in. But here's another allegation that blows this wide open. Several jurors told reporters that during deliberations Desronvil was constantly scrolling on his phone instead of participating. Juror Nick Dargill specifically noted that while the rest of the room was fiercely deliberating and debating Lindsay Clancy's faith, the whole that was casually watching videos on his cell phone. Normally courts are strictly forbidden from peeking inside the jury room. What jurors say, how they debate or how they convince each other is sacred and protected. But external influences, that's a big no-no. That's a big exception. If a juror was consuming outside media or information during deliberations, the court can step in. A news article, social media post, anything outside the record, if it came into that room, it's fair game for investigation. Defense attorney Kevin Reddington wants Desronvil's phone handed over to a neutral forensic examiner. Judge Sullivan hasn't ruled on that phone request yet. But if that device shows he was consuming media during deliberation hours, it changes everything. And here is where this stops being about a rogue juror and turns into a massive legal showdown over whether Lindsay Clancy can ever be retried. The defense math here is straightforward. If the juror lied on his questionnaire, the jury was illegitimate. If the jury was illegitimate, the mistrial wasn't a true deadlock. It was the result of a flawed screening process. And if there was no genuine legal necessity for a mistrial, the DoubleJeopardy clause kicks in, meaning the state can't legally put her on trial again.