Lone Holdout Juror in Lindsay Clancy Murder Trial States He Had 'No Doubts' About Guilt

Michael Desronvil, the lone holdout juror in the high-profile Lindsay Clancy murder trial in Massachusetts, has broken his silence following a mistrial, stating that he "didn't have any doubts" regarding the defendant's criminal responsibility. Clancy, a Massachusetts mother, pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder in the January 2023 deaths of her three young children—5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson, and 8-month-old Callan—at their family home. The case centered heavily on whether she should be held criminally responsible for the killings, with defense attorneys and several jurors pointing to evidence of severe mental illness.

After a grueling seventh day of deliberations, the jury announced they were deadlocked on September 4, having failed to reach a unanimous verdict. Judge William Sullivan subsequently declared a mistrial after the panel reported being deadlocked three times. According to accounts from fellow jurors and defense counsel, the jury was split 11-1 in favor of finding Clancy not criminally responsible, leaving Desronvil as the sole holdout who believed she was guilty.

In a statement obtained by CBS News through his representative, Ray Marcel, Desronvil defended his position during the deliberations. "I didn't have any doubts," Desronvil said in the statement. He described attempting to discuss various theories during deliberations, claiming he "kept getting cut off as if I had doubts based on the evidence present." Desronvil added that, based on physical evidence, key witness testimony, and the prosecution's presentation, he believed there was sufficient proof that Clancy "knew exactly what she was doing and planned" the actions.

Other members of the jury offered differing perspectives on the tense deliberations. Paula Devlin, another juror in the murder trial, told CBS Mornings that the panel spent several days trying to see if they could persuade the holdout juror, but he would not change his mind. Devlin noted that the jurors worked collectively, adding, "I felt very bad for them because they felt attacked. And there is no way to not do that."

Following the declaration of a mistrial, Desronvil faced widespread online criticism. His legal representation has since shifted, with attorney Edward Andrew Paltzik announcing on social media that he is now representing Desronvil. Paltzik stated that Desronvil is safe and secure at an undisclosed location in a rural area of Northern New England, while vowing that individuals who viciously attacked him online would be held accountable to the law.

Additional scrutiny arose surrounding Desronvil's background when CBS News reported that he was accused of domestic violence in 2021. Court records and Brockton, Massachusetts, police indicated that he was accused of grabbing his wife by the throat and throwing her into a dresser during an argument. Desronvil pleaded not guilty to a count of domestic violence assault and battery, and the charge was eventually dismissed. CBS News legal analyst Caroline Polisi noted that a key question is whether Desronvil disclosed this past allegation on his juror questionnaire, though it remains unclear whether the disclosure issue will impact the broader case going forward.

As the legal proceedings pause following the mistrial, District Attorney Timothy Cruz has not yet announced whether the state intends to retry Lindsay Clancy on the murder charges. A next court hearing is officially scheduled for September 29 at Plymouth Superior Court to determine the next steps in the prosecution.

### What the holdout juror's statement does — and does not — establish

Michael Desronvil's statement provides his account of the deliberations, but it is not itself a verdict or a judicial finding about Lindsay Clancy's criminal responsibility. The distinction is important because the first trial ended without a unanimous verdict.

The case involved competing arguments about Clancy's mental state and criminal responsibility. A juror's description of his own reasoning can help explain how at least one member of the panel viewed the evidence, but it cannot establish what every juror believed or settle the legal questions that remain for the court.

The reported statement also illustrates why jury deliberations and post-trial comments require careful treatment. Individual jurors can describe their own views, while the legal outcome depends on the formal proceedings, admissible evidence and decisions made by the court.

World Pulse therefore treats the juror's comments as an attributed account rather than as an independent conclusion about guilt or innocence.

**Source note:** The statement and trial details are attributed to the CBS News reporting cited in the original article.