Lindsay Clancy returned to court on Monday in an attempt to dismiss the charges that she murdered her three young children. The hearing Monday was the second time the Massachusetts mother has been in court since her trial ended with a deadlocked jury in September after jurors were unable to agree on a verdict. Clancy has never disputed killing her three young children in 2023, but her lawyer has argued she had postpartum psychosis and was unable to control her behavior.
Prosecutors have acknowledged that the 36-year-old Clancy had mental health problems but said she acted deliberately and understood her actions were wrong. The focus of the hearing in front of Judge William Sullivan was a motion from the defense to dismiss the charges on double jeopardy grounds. At Monday’s hearing, defense attorney Martin G Weinberg argued that Sullivan should have investigated further after the jury foreperson sent two notes indicating that a juror was not following the rules.
Further questioning could have revealed grounds to remove the lone holdout juror, Michael Desronvil, and continue deliberations – potentially avoiding the mistrial, he said. Kevin Reddington, another attorney representing Clancy, urged the court to examine Desronvil’s juror questionnaire, alleging that he had been dishonest in his responses. Reddington also said he had evidence that Desronvil used his phone during deliberations and he allegedly researched altruistic filicide, USA Today reports.
Upon using Desronvil’s name, Sullivan said: “I’m going to stop you right there,” to which Reddington responded: “No, you’re not going to stop me.” Sullivan went on to say that there was “no need here in this courtroom to use that” juror’s name, according to the Boston Globe. In response, Reddington said: “He’s got more face time than I do,” appearing to refer to Desronvil’s media appearances following the trial. Reddington also urged the court to determine whether Desronvil had conducted any research related to the trial, which could have warranted his dismissal.
Jennifer Sprague, a Plymouth county assistant district attorney, pushed back, saying: “If the door is open to examining this juror, it would be open on all jurors,” the New York Times reports. After receiving the notes, Sullivan spoke with each juror, reminded them of their duties and explained what constitutes reasonable doubt. He asked whether they could apply the law to the case, and all said yes.
But Weinberg argued that Sullivan had not gone far enough. A juror who said he could follow the law could have been lying, Weinberg said, and the situation warranted questioning the foreperson separately to learn more about what was happening during deliberations. Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague argued that Sullivan had struck the right balance in his handling of the jury.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
