Lindsay Clancy was back in court today as both the defense and the prosecution tried to decide how to move forward.
Following the mistrial prompted by “lone juror” Michael Desronvil, Americans are waiting to see if the prosecution will demand another trial to determine whether the mother was criminally responsible at the time she killed her three young children.
On Tuesday, Fox News reported that Judge William Sullivan “scheduled a hearing for Nov. 2 for Clancy lawyer Kevin Reddington’s motion calling for an inquiry into the lone holdout juror, Michael Desronvil.” Both parties, Reddington and Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague, agreed that a trial date should be set only after all existing motions have been dealt with, to avoid chances of it being pushed back in the future.
“Believe it or not, I agree with her,” the defense attorney said. This comes after he addressed Judge Sullivan in frustration, saying he was “sick of being accused of persecuting the juror” who refused to declare Clancy not criminally responsible at the time of the killings.
For his part, the judge also expressed frustration at the slow pace with which the case was moving forward. He urged both to work together in establishing a solid timeline for things to get moving.
But while he might agree with the prosecution on one thing, he still believes they don’t have the required evidence to find his client responsible for the slaying of her children.
“I submit to the court that a motion for required finding of not guilty should have been entered on the total and complete lack of evidence to indicate to a rational juror. It is not enough for the court to find that there was ‘some record evidence’—which is always what the government argues,” he wrote, asking for the “Massachusetts’ equivalent of a directed verdict,” Fox News explained.
“Reddington added that he is not available until June as attorneys and the judge work to see when a potential retrial could be held,” the outlet wrote.
Meanwhile, Sprauge argued against the release of jury notes, claiming it could have a potentially “chilling effect.”
“If we go further to make public notes sent by the jury… it just all would pile on to have this repeated chilling effect that would harm irreparably our judicial system,” she explained, adding that it could cause future jurors to fear communicating with the judge, if they thought such things could be made public.
No doubt the media’s handling of Desronvil’s refusal to join the rest of the jurors has also created some measure of discomfort for jurors afraid of becoming headline news for standing their ground in other cases.
Writers and editors can be contacted at [email protected] with feedback, tips, or corrections.
Sierra Marlee is a millennial whose hunger for the truth in a world of fake news has led her to write. Marlee also contributes to BizPac Review.
- Boat packed with 14 illegal migrants intercepted before reaching Wealthy enclave - October 7, 2026
- Bill O’Reilly ticked GOP could blow the midterms: ‘Republicans are so blanking dumb!’ - October 7, 2026
- Old video has El-Sayed calling himself a dual citizen — his campaign says he never was - October 7, 2026
Comment
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.