admin
The news out of the Lindsay Clancy case just got more complicated. Defense lawyer Kevin Reddington has filed a motion asking Judge William Sullivan to open a limited inquiry into the lone holdout juror. The filing asks the court to preserve juror materials and to check whether the juror followed the rules during deliberations. This is the new, specific development everyone in the media and on social feeds is now arguing about.
What Reddington’s motion actually asks for
The motion asks the judge to preserve and produce the holdout juror’s questionnaire and related files. It also seeks cell‑phone call and text detail records for the days the jury deliberated, and asks that the juror turn over his phone to a neutral examiner for review. The filing asks for courthouse corridor video outside the jury room, sign‑in sheets for jurors’ phones, and the juror’s state domestic‑violence registry and probation records. If the judge allows it, the juror would be questioned on the record about whether he answered the questionnaire truthfully and whether he followed his sworn promise to apply the law and the reasonable‑doubt standard.
Why a limited inquiry makes sense — and where it must stop
No one should want a verdict to rest on lies or outside influence. If a juror lied on a questionnaire or took outside information into deliberations, that can wreck the fairness of a trial. At the same time, jurors are allowed to change their minds and to stand firm when they think the rest of the jury is wrong. The record shows jurors reported an 11‑to‑1 split in favor of a verdict finding Clancy not criminally responsible. A careful, narrow probe is reasonable to check the integrity of that process. But a fishing expedition meant to shame or silence a juror who simply voted his conscience would be wrong, and dangerous for jury independence.
Media doxxing and the politics around the holdout juror
We’ve watched the media and online mobs race to identify the juror — later named as Michael P. Desronvil — even though court rules keep juror names sealed for a reason. Call it cancel culture meets courthouse curiosity. Some outlets rushed details about a dropped domestic‑violence charge without the court records in hand. That reckless coverage risks intimidation and could chill honest juror service in future trials. Desronvil’s attorney says his client “didn’t have any doubts” about the defendant’s guilt, and he has hired counsel to fight back against the smears. The judge has impounded parts of the filing, which shows the court wants to keep sensitive material under wraps while it considers the request.
What to watch next
Judge William Sullivan has not yet ruled on the motion. The court could allow a narrow inquiry, deny it, or order other steps. Meanwhile, another defense lawyer has asked the court to dismiss rather than retry the case, and the Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office must still decide whether to proceed. The right outcome protects juror privacy and jury independence while also protecting the defendant’s right to a fair verdict. Let the judge do his job, and let the lawyers fight in court — not on social media. The rest of us should stay out of the jury box and let the rule of law, not outrage, decide the next move.
