admin
Judge William F. Sullivan has quietly done what the rest of the newsroom mob refused to do: he sealed the jury list in the Lindsay Clancy case after the man who held up a nearly unanimous verdict was publicly named and then gave at least one on‑camera interview. The impoundment was extended because court officials say jurors faced threats and their personal information was being spread online — a predictable result when hot-button trials meet social‑media mobs.
Judge Sullivan seals the jury list for safety
The court’s move to impound the juror list was not window dressing. The judge said there were threats to at least one juror and that names and personal details had been published without permission. That is the plain legal reason the list is now sealed indefinitely. The judge’s action buys time to protect people who did their civic duty, and it gives the court a chance to figure out how to keep jury service from becoming a public execution.
How the holdout became a story
Reporters and social media outlets identified the lone holdout as Michael P. Desronvil from Bridgewater, and local coverage dug into his past court encounters and civil filings. He then spoke on camera to a YouTube host, saying he had been doxxed, that his family was being harassed, and that he answered truthfully on his jury questionnaire. Other jurors gave interviews, saying the panel was essentially 11–1 for a verdict but deadlocked, and the judge ultimately declared a mistrial. That sequence — leaks, identification, interview, threats — is exactly why courts seal sensitive information.
What this means for jury service and the media
This whole episode should be a wake‑up call. When jurors are treated like reality‑TV contestants, Americans will stop serving. The press has a job to report, sure, but it also has a duty not to weaponize private citizens. Meanwhile, political figures and donors rushed in to praise or bankroll the juror, turning him into a cause celebre instead of a person whose privacy was just ripped away. “Sanctuary” offers and crowdfunding may be headline candy, but they don’t solve doxxing or the real safety risks the judge cited.
Judge Sullivan made the right call by sealing the list, but the damage is mostly done. Courts need clearer tools and stiffer penalties to stop the online pile‑on, and newsrooms that value ratings over restraint should ask themselves whether their scoops are worth wrecking a life. Until that changes, every juror in a high‑profile case will have to wonder if doing the right thing will cost them everything.
