Lindsay Clancy judge denies defense bid to question holdout juror who refused to acquit mom in murder of her three children
The Massachusetts judge who oversaw the Lindsay Clancy trial has denied a motion to question the one juror who refused to acquit the mother in the murder of her three children.
Without a consensus from the jury, Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial in the case on September 4.
Amid the uproar over the decision, details about Desronvil’s past came to light – and Clancy’s attorney claimed that he lied to the court about previous domestic violence allegations that would have precluded him from serving on the jury.
Clancy’s attorney then filed a petition requesting an evidentiary hearing in an effort to investigate whether he lied during jury selection, improperly used a cellphone or refused to follow the judge’s instructions.
But Sullivan ruled on Wednesday that any information uncovered after a mistrial was declared cannot be used to challenge whether declaring it was justified at the time.
He also rejected the defense’s argument that the jury foreperson’s notes were unclear. Yet Sullivan has not yet ruled on Clancy’s motion to dismiss the three murder charges on double jeopardy grounds.
Arguments on that motion are scheduled for November 2.
Lindsay Clancy’s trial ended in a mistrial over a hung jury last month. Michael Desronvil, 48, was the sole juror who did not vote to acquit the mother–of–three
Clancy’s attorneys claimed that he lied to the court about previous domestic violence allegations that would have precluded him from serving on the jury and were seeking an evidentiary hearing in the case
In his ruling on Wednesday, Sullivan noted that Clancy’s defense team did not object to Desronvil serving on the jury before a mistrial was declared, noting ‘that information appears to have originated in post-trial media reports.’
‘However, potential evidence of good cause to dismiss a deliberating juror that came to light only after a mistrial was declared simply is not relevant to whether there was a manifest necessity for a mistrial,’ he ruled.
Similarly, Sullivan noted that before the mistrial was declared, the defense team ‘raised no suggestion that [Desronvil] had been exposed to extraneous evidence or improperly used a cellphone during deliberations.
‘Because post-trial information cannot be used to attack the determination that a mistrial was manifestly necessary, Clancy is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on that issue,’ he declared.
The judge then went on to hit out at Clancy’s defense team for trying to determine whether Desronvil was able to follow the judge and foreperson’s instructions to the jury.
This is a breaking news story and will be updated.
