The fight over the lone holdout juror in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial just took a stunning new turn.

Attorney Edward Paltzik told Kayleigh McEnany that he plans to file a bar complaint against Clancy defense lawyer Kevin Reddington — and answered “100%” when McEnany asked him directly whether the complaint is coming.

But the biggest warning in Paltzik’s interview went beyond the two lawyers.

He accused Reddington of attacking the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury by continuing to target Michael Desronvil, the only juror who refused to join the other 11 in finding Clancy not criminally responsible.

In the full 27-minute interview published by Fox News, Paltzik said Reddington’s conduct toward Desronvil was inconsistent with the professional standards expected of members of the bar, rejected the foreperson’s claim that his client admitted reasonable doubt, said Desronvil had “zero doubt” and “a mountain of evidence,” and warned that using court motions and public attacks against a holdout juror could frighten future citizens away from independently weighing evidence. He also described the roughly 30 hours Desronvil spent as the lone holdout as an experience of “unimaginable” pressure, argued that most people would have folded, and said his client remained firm because he believed the prosecution proved Clancy understood what she was doing.

ADVERTISEMENT

When McEnany asked whether that meant a complaint would actually be filed, Paltzik did not hedge.

“100%,” he replied.

During the 27-minute interview, McEnany also pressed Paltzik on the foreperson’s claim that Desronvil acknowledged reasonable doubt but would not apply it. Paltzik rejected that account, saying his client had “zero doubt” and “a mountain of evidence” supporting his vote.

He portrayed Desronvil as a private man who did not seek the spotlight and said the juror withstood roughly 30 hours of enormous pressure without surrendering his view of the case.

A bar complaint is an allegation of professional misconduct submitted to the authority that oversees lawyers. It is not a finding of wrongdoing, and Paltzik did not say that any disciplinary body has ruled against Reddington.

Paltzik also said it was too early to discuss possible defamation lawsuits. His immediate focus was Reddington’s continued pursuit of the juror after the mistrial.

That distinction matters.

A defense lawyer has every right — and a duty — to challenge a verdict, protect a client and raise credible evidence of juror misconduct. But Paltzik’s argument is that Reddington crossed the line from challenging the process to punishing the one juror who would not give him the result he wanted.

“Kevin Reddington is clearly attacking the Sixth Amendment,” Paltzik said. “He’s clearly attacking the right to trial by jury.”

He then described Reddington as “off the rails” and said the veteran defense attorney had “lost his mind” after realizing he was one vote short of a career-defining victory.

The underlying dispute began after the jury deadlocked 11-1 over whether Clancy was criminally responsible for killing her three children: 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson and 8-month-old Callan.

ADVERTISEMENT

Clancy did not dispute that she strangled the children in the family’s Duxbury, Massachusetts, home in January 2023.

Her defense argued that postpartum psychosis left her unable to understand the wrongfulness of her actions. Prosecutors said the evidence showed planning, deliberation and knowledge of right and wrong.

Judge William Sullivan ultimately declared a mistrial after seven days of deliberations failed to produce a unanimous verdict.

The Associated Press reported that the jury foreperson and two other jurors later accused the holdout of refusing to apply the court’s reasonable-doubt instruction. Desronvil has disputed that account and said he had no doubt about his position after reviewing the physical evidence and testimony.

Paltzik told McEnany that Desronvil had “a mountain of evidence” supporting his vote.

The panel sent Sullivan three notes saying it could not reach a unanimous decision. The judge individually questioned jurors, reread the reasonable-doubt instruction and ordered them to continue deliberating before finally declaring the mistrial.

Jurors had heard 21 days of testimony about Clancy’s mental-health decline, the prosecution’s evidence of planning and the defense claim that postpartum psychosis left her legally incapable of criminal responsibility.

That disagreement inside the jury room has now become a public war outside it.

According to NBC10 Boston, Reddington asked the court to preserve and review the juror’s confidential questionnaire, investigate alleged cellphone use during deliberations and question him under oath.

ADVERTISEMENT

The defense request also seeks background-check material and phone records that could show whether the juror used his device while the panel was deliberating. Reddington argues that those records could help determine whether Desronvil answered jury-selection questions truthfully or brought outside information into the jury room.

The case is due back before Sullivan on September 29, when the court is expected to address pending defense motions. Prosecutors have not announced whether they will retry Clancy.

Reddington has defended those motions as legitimate advocacy based on the record. He has also rejected Paltzik’s attacks, called Desronvil an “obstructionist juror,” and told Paltzik to “shut up” during a separate interview.

Paltzik’s response is that Reddington should stop attacking the juror and prepare for a retrial.

“You only got 11,” he said. “You needed 12.”

That is the legal reality at the center of this ugly fight. A criminal jury must be unanimous.

One juror is not required to surrender an honestly held conclusion merely because the other 11 disagree.

If there is credible evidence that a juror lied during selection, relied on outside information or broke the court’s rules, a judge can examine it under the law. But investigating a juror simply because his vote produced a mistrial would send a chilling message to every future American called for jury duty.

Paltzik said the pressure inside the jury room was “unimaginable” and argued that most people would have folded under it. Desronvil did not.

ADVERTISEMENT

Now the pressure is coming from outside the courthouse.

That is why Paltzik’s Sixth Amendment warning deserves attention even from people who strongly disagree about Clancy’s criminal responsibility.

The integrity of the jury system depends on ordinary citizens being able to weigh the evidence, follow the judge’s instructions and cast their votes without fearing that a losing lawyer will turn their private lives into the next case.

Reddington is entitled to fight for Clancy. Desronvil is entitled to stand by his verdict.

Any allegation of misconduct should be tested with evidence and the proper legal standards — not by public fury.

Paltzik has now drawn his own line: he says the attacks on his client went too far, and he is “100%” prepared to take that complaint to the bar.

This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport. View the original article here.

 

Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.