Juror who blocked Lindsay Clancy verdict disputes fellow jurors’ claims: report

The lone holdout juror whose refusal to find Lindsay Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity led to a mistrial is speaking publicly for the first time, disputing claims from fellow jurors that he expressed doubts about the prosecution’s case.Michael P. Desronvil said in a statement to NewsNation that he never wavered in his belief prosecutors proved Clancy knew what she was doing when she strangled her three young children in January 2023.”I didn’t have any doubts. As I tried to explain different possible theories during deliberation, I kept getting cut off as if I had doubts based on the evidence present,” Desronvil said.LINDSAY CLANCY HOLDOUT JUROR ‘LOOKED AT THE CASE AND HE MADE THE CALL,’ HIS BROTHER SAYS”Based on all the physical evidence, key witnesses, and what the prosecution presents, I thought it was enough proof that she knew exactly what she was doing and planned,” he added.His comments directly contradict accounts from fellow jurors, who said after the mistrial that Desronvil appeared to acknowledge reasonable doubt during deliberations but still refused to join the other 11 jurors in finding Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity.The jury deadlocked 11-1, with Desronvil standing alone in favor of convicting Clancy rather than accepting her insanity defense, prompting Judge William Sullivan to declare a mistrial.JUROR ON LINDSAY CLANCY TRIAL SAYS ‘WE LET DOWN LINDSAY’ FOLLOWING MISTRIALThe public statement comes as Plymouth County prosecutors weigh whether to retry Clancy, whose attorneys have also floated the possibility of resolving the case without another jury trial. Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley previously told Fox News Digital that prosecutors face the difficult task of deciding whether they can persuade a future jury to unanimously reject Clancy’s insanity defense after the first panel failed to reach a verdict.”The question is whether they could ever get a jury, particularly in Massachusetts, that would unanimously vote against this defendant,” Turley said. “For prosecutors, they have to weigh that, but they may find the alternative equally unappealing — to simply walk away and say, ‘There are three dead children here, but we just don’t think we could ever win this case.'”Clancy, a former labor and delivery nurse, admitted killing her children — Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months — but argued she was not criminally responsible because she was suffering from severe mental illness at the time of the killings. Prosecutors argued she planned the murders and understood the wrongfulness of her actions.Judge Sullivan has ordered jurors’ identities and questionnaires sealed, citing safety concerns following the high-profile mistrial. Clancy is due back in court Sept. 29 as prosecutors determine whether to seek a retrial.