In Plymouth, Massachusetts, defense counsel Kevin Reddington filed a motion seeking a limited inquiry into the record of the sole holdout juror in the high‑profile murder trial of Lindsay Clancy. The motion, filed in Plymouth Superior Court, asks the judge to review the juror’s questionnaire, obtain his phone records for the deliberation period, and even question the juror under oath.
Background on the juror
The juror, identified by his attorney as Michael Desronvil, has a documented history of domestic‑violence allegations. A police report obtained by NBC10 Boston shows that in 2021 his 13‑year‑old nephew called 911 after Desronvil allegedly grabbed his wife by the throat and threw her into a dresser. The couple later divorced, and the criminal charge was dismissed.
In addition, the nephew filed a restraining order last year, alleging that Desronvil pushed him to the ground and repeatedly punched him in the face. The teen’s affidavit states Desronvil told him, “You ruined my life,” after the police call, adding, “You’ve had this coming your way for a long time.” The restraining order remained active when Desronvil was selected for the Clancy trial and only expired last month.
Legal questions raised
Legal experts note that the juror questionnaire asks whether a juror has ever been arrested, charged with a crime, or served with a court order. Because the criminal charges against Desronvil were dismissed and the records sealed, the defense argues that the questionnaire may not have captured the full scope of his background.
Reddington told reporters, “People can vilify me all they want and say that I’m making statements about the juror. I’m not making statements about the juror. I’m talking about the system.” He emphasized that the request is about safeguarding the constitutional right to an impartial jury, not an attack on the individual.
Opposition to the motion
Desronvil’s attorney, Edward Andrew Paltzik, blasted the motion on X, calling it “Looney Tunes” and asserting that it represents “a full‑frontal attack on the U.S. Constitution.” Paltzik warned that allowing such investigations could jeopardize the Sixth Amendment protection against juror retaliation.
“If the new normal is that jurors are going to face brutal reprisals for disagreeing with a defense attorney, you can kiss the Sixth Amendment goodbye,” Paltzik wrote.
Current status and next steps
Judge William Sullivan has not yet ruled on the motion, though he has impounded the memorandum and exhibits attached to Reddington’s filing. A hearing on the matter is scheduled for September 29.
The case has also sparked a fundraising effort titled “Stand With the Juror,” which has drawn nearly $400,000 in donations.
Community response
Plymouth District Attorney Timothy Cruz has not indicated whether the state will pursue a retrial, and his office has not responded to requests for comment.
Legal analyst Michael Coyne of NBC10 highlighted the broader implications, asking, “Who knew what and when did they know it? What was checked on those boxes? What should’ve been checked on those boxes? Those questions are vital to answer.”
Original reporting: NBC Connecticut (Hartford) — read the source article.
