Lindsay Clancy’s defense attorney is seeking phone records, courthouse surveillance footage, and background records of Michael Desronvil, the lone holdout juror in the Clancy mistrial.
In a move one legal scholar called “virtual stalking,” Kevin Reddington filed a motion on Friday, requesting that Judge William Sullivan allow him to investigate Desronvil’s records, including his confidential juror questionnaire, probation records, and any entries in the statewide domestic violence registry.
Reddington seeks to prove Desronvil violated court rules by using his cellphone during deliberations, lied on his juror questionnaire, and failed to pay attention during jury deliberations.
Clancy, 36, admitted to killing her 5‑year‑old daughter Cora, 3‑year‑old son Dawson, and infant son Callan in January 2023, but argued she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and should be found not guilty by reason of insanity.
Desronvil, a black Republican, said in a statement on Friday that he’d had “no doubts” throughout the deliberations that Clancy knew what she was doing when she strangled her three young children to death.
In an interview last week, the 48-year-old conservative Catholic insisted he had filled out his jury paperwork honestly, checking the “yes” box to indicate that he had previously been arrested. He told YouTuber Ray Marcel he was later questioned by the prosecutor and detailed everything that had happened.
Reddington is also requesting that prosecutors disclose any prior contact they may have had with Desronvil as a defendant, complainant, or subject dating back to January 2021.
Desronvil’s attorney, Edward Andrew Paltzik, reacted to Reddington’s motion on Monday, calling it “Looney Tunes” and a “full-frontal attack on the U.S. Constitution.”
During the trial, the defense attorney attempted to have Desronvil removed from the jury, arguing he was not following Massachusetts law regarding reasonable doubt. The judge denied the request and the jury remained deadlocked 11-1 until Judge Sullivan declared a mistrial.
In now infamous comments outside the courthouse, Reddington attacked the lone juror, declaring, “I hope that guy can sleep well at night.” He has also called for the Court to declare his client acquitted. The prosecution, meanwhile, is expected to seek a new trial at a hearing later this month.
George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley called Reddington’s demands “highly unusual” on his blog, Tuesday, writing that the attorney “appears to be moving from zealous advocacy to virtual stalking in the Lindsay Clancy case.”
“It is also a slippery slope,” he wrote. “Will Judge William Sullivan allow both sides to look at all of the phone records of all of the jurors as well as delve into their backgrounds?”
Turley warned that if the court were to allow these deliberations, “it could result in a cascading disaster.”
Moreover, Reddington himself has shown the danger of this course. Reddington undermined the filings after his unhinged attack on this juror after the trial. After fueling the rage against this juror (who had to go into hiding with his wife), Reddington is seeking the assistance of the Court to continue to pummel and punish a juror who had the temerity to reject his arguments in court.
Turley argued that Reddington had “crossed the line” when he targeted the lone juror, and warned: “the combination of Reddington’s attacks in front of the courthouse and these new measures would send a chilling message to jurors in the next trial. It asks the court to join the mobbing of his holdout.”
Paltzik released a blistering statement on Monday calling Reddington a “sore loser” and warning that his “Looney Tunes” motion could lead the nation down a dangerous path.
The attorney stated on X: “if the new normal is that jurors are going to face brutal reprisals for disagreeing with a defense attorney, you can kiss the Sixth Amendment goodbye.”
To anyone who thinks that Reddington’s motion is OK, just remember that the tables will inevitably turn. Imagine a similar trial sometime in the not too distant future where it is the reverse scenario: 11-1 in favor of guilty, with one holdout favoring not guilty by reason of insanity. I doubt you folks would be alright if the District Attorney then filed a motion to investigate that lone holdout standing in the way of a conviction.
That’s why this is actually not a partisan issue. Really, this is a “do we still want to have a Sixth Amendment” issue. If you are like me and believe steadfastly in the Constitution, it’s easy to see how, regardless of your party affiliation, this is an absolutely terrible path of ruin Reddington wants to take us down.
If we follow his destructive proposal to its logical conclusion, we’re going to have an endless cycle of prosecutors investigating holdouts who oppose “guilty” and defense attorneys investigating holdouts who oppose “not guilty.” Pretty soon we’ll end up with with a retrograde justice system that will look a lot like the Hatfield-McCoy Feud: a cycle of carnage so malignant that its origins will fade in importance, replaced by the hopeless death spiral of the cycle itself.
Kevin Reddington’s disgusting motion to investigate Michael is worthy of nothing but universal condemnation. This is certainly not the final word from us on this subject, but merely our first words. It’s all going to backfire spectacularly on sore loser Reddington.
A hearing on the motion is scheduled for September 29.