Attorney for Clancy holdout juror calls defense motion 'Looney Tunes'

Defense files separate motion to dismiss case; prosecutors weigh retrial

Edward Paltzik, attorney for the lone juror who wanted to find Clancy guilty in her Massachusetts murder trial, publicly defended his client against a defense motion asking a judge to investigate him. Paltzik called the request a “Looney Tunes” attack on Desronvil for doing his civic duty.

Paltzik, who represents juror Michael Desronvil, wrote on X that the “disgusting” defense motion was “an attack on the US constitutional right to a fair trial.” “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,” he added.

Facing a backlash for refusing to acquit Clancy, Desronvil hired Paltzik to represent him.

Clancy’s attorney, Kevin Reddington, filed a motion Friday. It asks the court to investigate mobile phone use by Desronvil — referred to as “Juror Doe” in court filings — including calls and texts he made between 08:00 and 16:30 local time on each day the jury deliberated. The motion also asks the court to examine the truthfulness of the juror’s answers during jury selection and his responses to prospective juror questionnaires. A BBC caption accompanying the reporting noted that Reddington had earlier made several attempts to convince the judge not to declare a mistrial.

In a separate motion, Reddington asked the court to dismiss the case against Clancy. Prosecutors have not yet said whether they will retry her.

Desronvil told the BBC’s US partner CBS News last week that he had no doubt about Clancy’s guilt. “As I tried to explain different possible theories during deliberation, I kept getting cut off as if I had doubts based on the evidence presented,” he said. Desronvil has separately said there was “enough proof that she knew exactly what she was doing.”

The jury forewoman, a retired fifth-grade teacher, gave a different account in an interview with NBC, saying Desronvil admitted he had reasonable doubt but refused to find Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity. Desronvil denies that account.

The proceedings against Clancy ended in a mistrial and “acrimony” earlier this month after the jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict. Several jurors have said since that the panel was ultimately divided 11-1 in favor of finding Clancy not criminally responsible.

Clancy has not denied killing her three children — Cora, five; Dawson, three; and Callan, eight months — at the family’s Massachusetts home. Her attorneys argued she was not guilty by reason of insanity, contending she was struggling with postpartum psychosis at the time. Prosecutors said Clancy made a calculated decision to send her husband out of the house on an errand so she could strangle her children.