A Massachusetts judge stepped in during a tense court hearing on Monday as lawyers clashed over Lindsay Clancy's bid to have charges over the deaths of her three children thrown out, urging them to “dial this back” as tempers flared.
The appearance marked the second time Clancy has returned to court since a jury failed to reach a verdict in September. Her legal team is seeking to dismiss the case on double jeopardy grounds, arguing she should not face a retrial.
Defence calls for investigation into dissenting juror
Proceedings became increasingly acrimonious when defence attorney Kevin Reddington called for an investigation into the lone juror who refused to join the majority, raising concerns over his mobile phone use during deliberations and questioning whether he had been honest during jury selection.
Judge William Sullivan repeatedly intervened as Mr Reddington identified the juror in open court and levelled allegations involving potentially confidential information. Voices were raised and the pair spoke over one another after the lawyer argued the juror's identity was already “all over the internet”, before eventually agreeing to stop naming him.
"Why don't we all dial this back a little bit," Sullivan said at one point, calling the lawyers to a sidebar after prosecutors objected to Reddington's comments.
Decision reserved on dismissal application
Judge Sullivan reserved his decision on the defence application to dismiss the case, scheduling a further hearing on November 16 when he will consider the arguments in full and potentially set a date for a retrial.
The judge indicated he was considering listing any new trial for around March, explaining that he wanted sufficient time to review the motions filed by both sides while avoiding unnecessary delays to future proceedings.
Clancy has never denied killing her three young children in 2023. Her defence maintains that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and was incapable of controlling her actions at the time. Prosecutors accept that the 36-year-old was experiencing serious mental health difficulties but argue she acted deliberately and understood that her conduct was wrong.
Arguments over juror questioning
During Monday's hearing, defence lawyer Martin G Weinberg argued the court should have gone further after receiving two notes from the jury foreperson suggesting one juror was failing to follow instructions. He said additional questioning could have uncovered grounds to remove the lone dissenting juror, Michael Desronvil, potentially preventing the mistrial.
After receiving the notes, Judge Sullivan individually questioned jurors, reminded them of their duties and revisited the legal standard of reasonable doubt. All jurors confirmed they were able to apply the law fairly. Mr Weinberg, however, argued that the foreperson should have been questioned separately to determine more precisely what had occurred behind closed doors.
Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague rejected that argument, contending the judge had struck the correct balance. Pressing the foreperson further, she said, would have risked intruding on the substance of jury deliberations and inserting the court's own “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," she told Sullivan. "And you credited their answers."
Allegations against Desronvil
Desronvil claimed he was certain of Clancy's guilt following the trial, but that no one would listen to him. Prosecutors argue that double jeopardy "does not bar the Commonwealth from seeking justice on behalf of the three victims."
It was unnecessary to investigate Desronvil, they argue, whom they don't name but describe as the dissenting juror, because the foreperson's complaint did not allege "any personal issue, bias, or extraneous matter attributable to the dissenting juror."
Prosecutors argued that any attempt to single out the dissenting juror for further scrutiny would have crossed a dangerous line, warning it would “surely have led to judicial coercion” and amounted to an “impermissible intrusion into the substance of the jury's private deliberations”.
During Monday's hearing, defence lawyer Kevin Reddington alleged that Michael Desronvil had used his mobile phone to research matters connected to the case and questioned whether he had fully disclosed aspects of his criminal history during jury selection. If established, Mr Reddington argued, such conduct would represent “a fatal infection of the independence, the honesty and the integrity of this juror.”
Heather O'Connor, representing Mr Desronvil, dismissed the allegations, noting that the defence had the opportunity to question the juror before trial and had accepted him without objection. She suggested concerns over his credibility only emerged after he became the sole juror unwilling to join the majority.
Ms O'Connor also challenged claims surrounding mobile phone use, arguing that all jurors were permitted to keep their phones and that the account relied upon by the defence merely described Mr Desronvil scrolling on his device rather than researching information related to the case.
“We are here because Juror Doe did not vote the way that the defence needed,” she said. “If that's enough to put a juror under oath, to search their phone, to pull their history, then the lesson every future juror in this Commonwealth is simple: Agree with the majority or potentially be investigated.”
Gag order request
The court also heard arguments over a prosecution request for a gag order limiting public comments by lawyers and their supporters ahead of any future proceedings. The application follows a series of media appearances by Mr Reddington, who gave numerous interviews and held near-daily press conferences during the trial, while prosecutors largely refrained from speaking publicly.
Clancy's legal team opposes the proposal, arguing that such restrictions would amount to an unconstitutional restraint on free speech, particularly in the absence of any confirmed retrial date.
