Holdout Lindsay Clancy juror says he didn’t have ‘any doubts’ during contentious deliberations

The lone holdout juror in the Massachusetts triple murder trial of Lindsay Clancy spoke out through his attorney following a Sept. 4 mistrial, defending his refusal to vote for acquittal by reason of lack of criminal responsibility.

Lindsay Clancy faces charges in connection with the Jan. 24, 2023 strangulation deaths of her three young children in Massachusetts. The 12-member jury deadlocked after days of combative deliberations, prompting Superior Court Judge William Sullivan to declare a mistrial.

Incident Overview

The criminal case stems from an incident on Jan. 24, 2023, when three young children were strangled to death using exercise bands inside their Massachusetts home. The victims were identified as 5-year-old Cora Clancy, 3-year-old Dawson Clancy, and 8-month-old Callan Clancy. Following the deaths, state prosecutors brought criminal homicide charges against the mother, Lindsay Clancy, initiating a high-profile judicial proceeding in Massachusetts Superior Court.

During the trial, prosecutors argued that Clancy engaged in deliberate premeditation and advance planning prior to killing her children, contending that she possessed full mental awareness of her actions. Conversely, defense attorney Kevin Reddington presented a defense grounded in mental health, asserting that Clancy was suffering from severe postpartum psychosis at the time of the incident. The defense argued that this acute mental illness rendered her legally incapable of criminal responsibility under state law.

Timeline of Events

1. Jan. 24, 2023: Cora Clancy, Dawson Clancy, and Callan Clancy are strangled with exercise bands inside their Massachusetts home.
2. Sept. 4, 2026: Superior Court Judge William Sullivan declares a mistrial after the jury reports being deadlocked for a third time during deliberations.
3. Sept. 18, 2026: Defense attorney Edward Andrew Paltzik releases a public statement on behalf of holdout juror Michael P. Desronvil explaining his position on the evidence.
4. Sept. 29, 2026: Massachusetts Superior Court schedules a hearing to address a defense motion seeking the dismissal of all charges.

Suspect Information

The defendant, Lindsay Clancy, is charged with multiple counts of homicide in Massachusetts Superior Court in connection with the deaths of her three children. Defense counsel Kevin Reddington has maintained throughout proceedings that Clancy experienced profound postpartum psychosis during the Jan. 24, 2023 incident, rendering her unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of her conduct. Prosecutors have countered that physical evidence and witness testimony demonstrate calculated intent and advance planning.

Victim Information

The three victims of the Jan. 24, 2023 strangulation incident were children of the defendant: 5-year-old Cora Clancy, 3-year-old Dawson Clancy, and 8-month-old Callan Clancy. Authority records and trial testimony confirmed that all three minors died after being strangled with exercise bands inside their family home.

Evidence Collected

• Exercise bands identified by investigators and presented in court as the instruments used in the strangulations.
• Physical scene evidence recorded by forensic investigators inside the family residence following the Jan. 24, 2023 incident.
• Witness testimonies and expert medical evaluations presented by both the prosecution and defense regarding the defendant mental state and actions.

Statements from Authorities

Following the mistrial declaration, attorney Edward Andrew Paltzik issued a public statement on X on behalf of holdout juror Michael P. Desronvil. Paltzik stated that Desronvil did not hold doubts regarding the guilt of the accused based on the record, quoting Desronvil as saying: "Based on all the physical evidence, key witnesses, and what the prosecution presented, I thought it was enough proof that she knew exactly what she was doing and planned." Paltzik added that Desronvil would not grant further media interviews, requesting privacy for his client.

Prior to the mistrial declaration, Massachusetts Superior Court Judge William Sullivan received two formal deadlock notices from the jury foreperson. The foreperson informed the court that eleven jurors agreed on a verdict of not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility, while one juror refused to apply the reasonable doubt standard. Judge Sullivan instructed the jury to resume deliberations once before declaring a mistrial upon their third deadlocked return. Fellow jurors, including Nick Dargie and anonymous panel members, subsequently voiced frustration to news outlets regarding the deliberation dynamics.

Charges Filed

In Massachusetts criminal jurisprudence, the formal charges and potential findings presented to the jury carry distinct legal definitions, statutory requirements, and sentencing frameworks:

• First-Degree Murder: Under Massachusetts General Laws, first-degree murder is defined as an unlawful killing committed with deliberately premeditated malice aforethought, extreme atrocity or cruelty, or in the commission of a crime punishable by life imprisonment. Conviction carries a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
• Second-Degree Murder: Second-degree murder encompasses unlawful killings committed with malice aforethought but lacking deliberate premeditation. In Massachusetts, a conviction results in a mandatory life sentence, with parole eligibility established by court statute after a specified period, typically between 15 and 25 years.
• Manslaughter: Manslaughter is classified as an unlawful killing without malice aforethought, divided into voluntary and involuntary forms. Involuntary manslaughter involves unintentional killings resulting from wanton or reckless conduct. Conviction under state law carries a maximum potential sentence of up to 20 years in state prison.
• Not Guilty by Lack of Criminal Responsibility: Under the established Massachusetts legal standard, a defendant is not criminally responsible if, at the time of the alleged conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, the individual lacked substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of the conduct or to conform conduct to the requirements of the law. A verdict of not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility results in mandatory civil commitment to a state psychiatric facility for evaluation and treatment rather than incarceration.

Court Information

The criminal proceedings are conducted under the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts Superior Court. Following extensive deliberations by a 12-person jury comprising nine women and three men, presiding Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial on Sept. 4, 2026, due to an irreconcilable deadlock. Under Massachusetts trial practice, when a jury demonstrates an inability to reach a unanimous verdict after repeated deliberations and formal deadlock notifications, the trial judge holds statutory authority to declare a hung jury mistrial. A court hearing on a defense motion to dismiss the charges is scheduled for Sept. 29, 2026.

Public Safety Information

The criminal justice system and public health organizations emphasize the availability of national support networks for individuals and families experiencing acute mental health crises, postpartum depression, or severe emotional distress. Members of the public in need of immediate confidential support or crisis intervention may contact the National Suicide and Crisis Lifeline by calling or texting 988, available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. In situations involving immediate physical danger or life-threatening emergencies, individuals should contact emergency service operators directly by dialing 911.

What Happens Next

Following the declaration of a mistrial due to a hung jury, the legal process in Massachusetts moves into a post-trial motion and prosecutorial decision phase. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts prosecution team retains the legal discretion to determine whether to seek a retrial on the criminal indictment. Under United States constitutional jurisprudence, the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not bar the state from retrying a defendant after a mistrial caused by a deadlocked jury. Defense attorney Kevin Reddington has filed a formal motion requesting the dismissal of all charges, which the Superior Court judge is scheduled to hear on Sept. 29, 2026. If the court denies the defense motion to dismiss, prosecutors may schedule a new trial date, initiate pre-trial scheduling conferences, or consider alternative procedural resolutions.