Commonwealth seeks gag order for attorneys and supporters
At Monday’s hearing in Plymouth, Massachusetts, Judge William Sullivan repeatedly intervened as defense attorney Kevin Reddington challenged the conduct of holdout juror Michael Desronvil and raised allegations that the juror used a cellphone to research case-related terms and was untruthful about his criminal history during jury selection. Sullivan admonished Reddington for repeatedly identifying Desronvil by name and for raising allegations involving potentially confidential information. After prosecutors objected, Sullivan told the attorneys, “Why don’t we all dial this back a little bit,” and called them to a sidebar. Separately, the Commonwealth sought a gag order restricting public statements by attorneys and their supporters.
The hearing was Clancy’s second time in court since her September trial ended with a deadlocked jury. The defense asked Sullivan to dismiss the charges on double-jeopardy grounds. Prosecutors said double jeopardy “does not bar the Commonwealth from seeking justice on behalf of the three victims.” Sullivan did not immediately rule, saying he would take the motion under advisement and issue a decision as soon as possible.
Clancy has never disputed killing her three young children in 2023. Her lawyers have argued that she had postpartum psychosis and was unable to control her behavior. Prosecutors acknowledged that the 36-year-old defendant had mental health problems but said she acted deliberately and understood her actions were wrong.
Defense attorney Martin G. Weinberg argued that Sullivan should have investigated further after the jury foreperson sent two notes indicating that a juror was not following the rules. Further questioning, Weinberg said, could have revealed grounds to remove Desronvil and continue deliberations, potentially avoiding the mistrial.
After receiving the notes, Sullivan spoke with each juror, reminded them of their duties and explained what constituted reasonable doubt. He asked whether they could apply the law to the case, and all said yes. Weinberg argued that a juror who said he could follow the law could have been lying and that the court should question the foreperson separately about what had occurred during deliberations.
“That’s what the foreperson was asking the court to do,” Weinberg said. “I can see that this is not easy,” he told Sullivan. Sullivan replied, “You don’t have to keep saying that — I have thick skin.”
Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague argued that Sullivan had struck the right balance in handling the jury. Pressing the foreperson further would have required delving into the substance of the jury’s deliberations and could have inserted the court’s “interpretation of what is correct” into the process.
“You were the one who looked them in the eyes and asked them the questions and was in the best position to judge their credibility,” Sprague told Sullivan. “And you credited their answers.”
Sprague argued that there was no indication the holdout juror’s disagreement stemmed from personal bias or an inability to deliberate rather than a different assessment of the evidence. “It is clear from the record that this juror did not refuse to deliberate,” she said. “He refused to agree.”
Since the trial ended, Desronvil said he was certain of Clancy’s guilt but that no one would listen to him. Prosecutors argued that an investigation was unnecessary because the foreperson’s complaint did not allege “any personal issue, bias, or extraneous matter attributable to the dissenting juror.” Singling out the juror for an investigation, they said, “surely would have led to judicial coercion” and the “impermissible intrusion into the substance of the jury’s private deliberations.”
The exchange with Reddington grew heated. Sullivan sharply interrupted the defense attorney for repeatedly identifying Desronvil by name, and the two raised their voices and spoke over each other as Reddington pushed back. Reddington said the juror’s name was already “all over the internet,” but eventually stopped using it. He alleged that Desronvil had used a cellphone to research terms related to the case and was untruthful about his criminal history during jury selection. Reddington said that, if true, would be “a fatal infection of the independence, the honesty and the integrity of this juror.” He insisted that information prosecutors considered confidential was relevant to his challenge.
The Commonwealth’s other request would bar attorneys and their supporters “from making extrajudicial statements to the media that would have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing the criminal proceeding.” Since the mistrial, Reddington had given a series of interviews and held walking news conferences almost every day during the proceedings. Prosecutors had not spoken to reporters.
Clancy’s lawyers opposed the request as prior restraint because it would bar speech before it occurs. Laura McConnell, who was hired by Clancy’s defense team, wrote: “The government bears a heavy burden to justify such an order.” She added: “There is no jury and it is unknown whether one will ever be impaneled. There is no trial date. The motion should be denied.”