The defence lawyer for Lindsay Clancy, a Massachusetts mother accused of murdering her three children, has requested a judge to investigate a juror's conduct during the trial. Kevin Reddington, Clancy's attorney, wants the court to probe mobile phone use by "Juror Doe" during deliberations and examine a questionnaire he filled out. This development follows the case ending in a mistrial after the jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict.
The proceedings against Clancy concluded with acrimony this month, with her attorney now seeking to scrutinize the juror's actions. A lawyer for Michael Desronvil, the lone juror who wanted to find Clancy guilty, described the defence motion as a "Looney Tunes" attack on his client. Desronvil has stated that there was "enough proof that she [Clancy] knew exactly what she was doing". Clancy's attorneys argued that she was not guilty by reason of insanity, citing her struggles with postpartum psychosis.
The juror forewoman has claimed in a media interview that Desronvil expressed reasonable doubt about Clancy's guilt, which would have required him to find her not guilty. However, Desronvil denies this. Clancy has not denied killing her three children, Cora, five, Dawson, three, and Callan, eight months, at the family's Massachusetts home. Prosecutors alleged that Clancy made a calculated decision to send her husband out of the house on an errand so she could strangle her children.
In his motion filed on Friday, Reddington asked the court to examine calls and texts made by "Juror Doe" between 08:00 and 16:30 local time during all the days the jury deliberated. He also requested the court to investigate the truthfulness of the answers the juror gave during the jury selection process and his responses to prospective juror questionnaires. This move is part of Reddington's efforts to scrutinize the juror's conduct during the trial.
In a separate motion, Reddington also asked for the case against Clancy to be dismissed. Prosecutors have yet to say whether they will retry her. Desronvil has hired an attorney, Edward Paltzik, to represent him after facing backlash for refusing to acquit Clancy. Paltzik described the defence motion as an attack on the US constitutional right to a fair trial.
Several jurors have stated that they were ultimately divided 11-1 in favour of finding Clancy not criminally responsible. Desronvil said last week that he had no doubt about her guilt. The jury forewoman, a retired fifth-grade teacher, said in an interview that Desronvil had admitted to having reasonable doubt, but refused to find Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity.
The case has sparked controversy, with Desronvil's lawyer stating that the defence motion was an attempt to intimidate jurors. The lawyer, Paltzik, wrote that if such motions become common, it could undermine the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial. The future of the case against Clancy remains uncertain, with prosecutors yet to decide whether to retry her.
Key points
- Lindsay Clancy's defence lawyer seeks investigation into juror's phone use and questionnaire responses.
- The case against Clancy ended in a mistrial after the jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict.
- Prosecutors have yet to decide whether to retry Clancy.
