Lindsay Clancy's Attorney Responds to Juror's Lawyer After Controversial Interview

PLYMOUTH, Mass. — Lindsay Clancy's defense attorney Kevin Reddington responded to the lawyer of a juror who sought to convict Clancy, accusing him of making inflammatory statements. Reddington criticized the juror's attorney, Edward Paltzik, for claiming that Reddington's motions were a threat to the Constitution. "I think Ed ought to learn how to go into the courtroom and articulate his position rather than be a histrionic individual that's just mouthing off for the media," Reddington stated. Paltzik had previously argued that Reddington's inquiry into the juror was an attack on the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees due process rights to defendants. Reddington defended his actions, stating, "Every motion that has been filed is legitimate," and emphasized his responsibility to represent Clancy. In a separate interview, Paltzik called for Clancy's execution, despite her not being convicted and Massachusetts not having the death penalty. Reddington also expressed discontent with the portrayal of the juror as the "lone holdout juror," referring to him instead as the "obstructionist juror." The juror, identified as Michael Desronvil, believes Clancy is guilty of murdering her three children, while the other eleven jurors favored a not guilty verdict by reason of mental disease or defect. A mistrial was declared on September 4 after the jury was deadlocked. Clancy is scheduled to return to court for a hearing on defense motions, and prosecutors may announce plans for a retrial. Reddington has filed a motion for a "limited inquiry" into the holdout juror's background and potential criminal history. Another attorney for Clancy, Martin Weinberg, argued that the judge's decision to overrule a defense objection should lead to the dismissal of charges on double jeopardy grounds, citing the holdout juror's alleged failure to follow the judge's instructions.