Jury Notes Reveal Holdout Dispute in Clancy Murder Case
New court filings detail the internal communications that led Judge William Sullivan to declare a mistrial after seven days of deadlocked deliberations.
By Ryan Davidson ·
Court filings released this week expose the specific language used by the jury foreperson in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial, detailing the internal friction that preceded the mistrial declaration. The documents, submitted ahead of Clancy’s October 31 hearing, describe two sensitive notes from the foreperson that were not read aloud in open court. These notes focused on a single juror’s failure to apply the judge’s instructions on reasonable doubt, a point that now anchors a legal dispute over whether Clancy can be retried.
Clancy, 36, is charged with killing her three children in their Duxbury, Massachusetts home in 2023. Her legal team argues that Judge William Sullivan had other procedural options before ending the trial and that the doctrine of double jeopardy prevents a new trial. Prosecutors counter that Sullivan declared the mistrial only as a last resort after the jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict, meaning double jeopardy does not block a retrial.
The timeline in the filings shows a gradual breakdown in consensus. On August 28, the jury requested to review Clancy’s pill bottles and the knife she used in a suicide attempt. By September 1, at 10:17 a.m., the panel told Sullivan it was unable to agree after many hours of deliberation. Sullivan instructed them to continue. On September 2, after 27 hours of deliberations, the jury reported another deadlock. Sullivan then issued a Tuey-Rodriguez instruction, commonly known as a dynamite charge, to encourage the jurors to consider each other’s views.
The core conflict emerged on September 3. At 2:59 p.m., the foreperson noted that one member was unable to follow the instructions regarding reasonable doubt. Sullivan questioned each juror individually at sidebar, and all confirmed they could follow the law. Approximately an hour later, the foreperson sent a second note identifying the juror by number. The note stated the member had made statements acknowledging doubt but refused to apply it to the verdict as the law requires, explaining why the group could not reach a unanimous decision.
The holdout juror, Michael P. Desronvil, has maintained he had no doubts about Clancy’s guilt. He claims he was repeatedly cut off by other jurors when attempting to propose alternative theories about the case. On September 4 at 11:21 a.m., the jury sent its final note. It stated that the panel could not reach a unanimous verdict and did not expect to do so, reporting the outcome with a heavy heart.
Clancy is scheduled to appear in court on Monday, November 2. The next phase of the proceedings will focus on her motion to dismiss the murder charges. The outcome of that hearing will determine whether prosecutors proceed with a retrial or if the case is resolved on double jeopardy grounds.
