Lindsay Clancy Juror's Lawyer Slams Defense Motion as 'Attack on Constitution'

The attorney for Michael P. Desronvil, the sole juror who did not vote to convict Lindsay Clancy of murder, has strongly denounced a defense motion seeking an investigation into his client. Edward Paltzik, Desronvil's lawyer, described the motion as a "Looney Tunes" maneuver and a "full-frontal attack on the U.S. Constitution."

In a statement Tuesday morning, Paltzik argued that if defense attorneys can seek repercussions against jurors for disagreeing with their arguments, it would undermine the Sixth Amendment. He warned that such a precedent could lead to an endless cycle of investigations into jurors who oppose a defense or prosecution, ultimately degrading the justice system.

Lindsay Clancy's defense team filed a motion Friday requesting a "limited inquiry" into Desronvil. The defense aims to gather information about his background, potential criminal history, phone records, and courthouse surveillance video, alleging he ignored the judge's instructions and the law.

Clancy, a former labor and delivery nurse, was on trial for the strangulation deaths of her three children: Cora, 5; Dawson, 3; and Callan, 8 months. She has admitted to killing her children but claims she was not criminally responsible due to postpartum psychosis. Prosecutors contend that she planned the murders and was aware her actions were wrong.

The mistrial in Clancy's case was declared on September 4, after the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict. Several other jurors have spoken publicly, accusing Desronvil of refusing to apply his reasonable doubts to the verdict, claims he denies.

Desronvil stated in a previous interview that he did not have doubts and that his attempts to discuss alternative theories during deliberations were frequently interrupted. He believes the evidence presented was sufficient to indicate that Clancy planned the killings and knew what she was doing.

Another attorney for Clancy, Martin Weinberg, has also filed a motion arguing for the dismissal of charges on double jeopardy grounds. This motion also centers on the holdout juror, asserting that the judge's decision to declare a mistrial without further investigation into the juror's alleged conduct was improper. Weinberg claims the jury foreperson reported that the holdout juror acknowledged having doubts but refused to let them affect the verdict as instructed.

Clancy is scheduled to return to court on September 29.