Lindsay Clancy expected back in court after attorney files motions to dismiss case
Lindsay Clancy will be back in a Massachusetts court on Tuesday for a hearing in which prosecutors will likely announce whether they plan to retry her for murder.
Clancy is charged with first-degree murder in the 2023 deaths of her three children – Cora, Dawson, and Callan – who Clancy admits to strangling in an alleged mental health crisis.
Clancy's first trial ended in a mistrial in early September due to a hung jury. Since the trial ended, various statements given to the media from jurors have indicated that the jury was hung 11-1 in favor of not guilty by reason of insanity.
The one holdout juror, who has been identified by his attorney as Michael Desronvil, has never spoken out publicly. But his attorney, Edward Paltzik, gave an exclusive interview to Fox News on Monday.
Attorney says juror is "heroic man"
Paltzik stressed that Desronvil is a man of faith, but that his Catholic faith did not sway his vote in the jury room. "Michael's decision was based 100% on the evidence and the law he was required to follow," Paltzik said.
"The reality is that it was 11 to 1 because one courageous, heroic man stood up and said, 'this is wrong,'" Paltzik added. "It was an intense experience and the pressure was unimaginable. And no person of ordinary firmness could have resisted. Most people would have folded. They would have caved and buckled. Michael did not because he's an uncommon man, an extraordinary man."
Paltzik also said he plans to file a complaint against Kevin Reddington with the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers.
Reddington has asked the judge overseeing the case to look into Desronvil's cellphone records, his juror questionnaire, and more – and to dismiss the case against Clancy based on Desronvil's alleged inability to follow the rules.
"Everything that Kevin Reddington is saying is false. It's completely false. It's completely outrageous. And Kevin Reddington is just upset that he lost out on his legacy moment," Paltzik told Fox News. "Ever since the moment he learned that Michael was not going to side with him, I believe that Kevin Reddington lost his mind."
In a statement to WBZ-TV, Kevin Reddington called Paltzik "a publicity-seeking opportunist."
Reddington has filed two motions to dismiss the case, one on double jeopardy grounds and the other on the alleged juror issue. Tuesday's hearing is listed as a motion hearing, meaning the judge is likely to hear these motions that have been filed.
Will prosecutors retry the case?
However, as WBZ-TV legal analyst Jennifer Roman pointed out, the motions to dismiss only matter if prosecutors plan to retry the case. "Because if they're not going to prosecute her, then these motions that Kevin Reddington has filed go away," Jennifer Roman explained.
It's likely that the district attorney's office will announce whether they plan to retry Clancy on Tuesday – and on what charges.
"I think [prosecutors] probably learned from the first trial that first-degree [murder] may not be their winning argument," Roman said. "I think the DA's office would be best served reducing the charge to a second-degree murder or even manslaughter."
A charge of second-degree murder or manslaughter would give Lindsay Clancy the choice of a jury trial or a "bench" trial, which is decided only by a judge and could drastically change the way evidence is presented at trial.
Tuesday's hearing is scheduled for 9 a.m. in Plymouth Superior Court.
Full statement from Clancy's attorney Kevin Reddington:
"It has come to my attention that Ed Paltzik—the hoodie-wearing lawyer claiming to represent the obstructionist juror—has issued false and blatantly misleading statements regarding our motion to inquire. Chief among his fabrications is the absurd claim that this motion was 'adjourned' by mutual agreement between the government and the defense.
That is pure nonsense.
Earlier today, both the government and I were contacted by a professional local attorney who represents Juror Doe. That attorney requested—as any qualified counsel would—adequate time to review our motion and reply. As is professional courtesy, both the government and I agreed to continue this specific motion to a later date at their request.
The motion remains active, fully alive, and is currently pending a ruling from Judge Sullivan. We will not allow a publicity-seeking opportunist to twist simple courtroom courtesy into a victory that does not exist."
