OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Lindsay Clancy Defense Seeks Probe of Holdout Juror After Mistrial

5 sources · updated 2026-09-24
Left 20% Center 40% Right 40%
1 left · 2 center · 2 right

What happened

Lindsay Clancy, a Massachusetts mother and former labor and delivery nurse, was tried for murdering her three children — Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months — at the family home. She did not deny the killings but argued she was not criminally responsible because of postpartum psychosis; prosecutors said she planned the murders and sent her husband on an errand so she could strangle the children. On September 4, Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial after the jury deadlocked 11-1, with Michael Desronvil the lone juror seeking a guilty verdict. Defense attorney Kevin Reddington then asked the court to investigate Desronvil’s cellphone use during deliberations and the truthfulness of his jury-selection answers, and, with co-counsel Martin Weinberg, sought dismissal of the charges, including on double-jeopardy grounds. Desronvil’s attorney, Edward Paltzik, called the investigation request a "Looney Tunes" attack; Clancy is due back in court September 29, and prosecutors have not said whether they will retry her.
Sourcing check · Fully on the record · 5 articles

4 of 4 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report. Edward Paltzik denied part of it on the record.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 4 of 4
On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Kevin Reddington
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 2 of 4
Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: court motion
Credits another outlet 0 of 4
The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
Unnamed sources 0 of 4
The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
On-record denial 1
A named person or institution says the claim, or part of it, is not true. It is on the record — someone signed their name to it — but it is not confirmation, so it never counts toward On the record. Criticizing or dissenting from a decision is not a denial. The count is how many people or institutions deny it; each is listed with the first article that carried the denial. Here: Edward Paltzik (Fox News, Sep 22, 13:34 UTC)
How it developed
When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Sep 22, 13:34 UTC by Fox News, naming its source. First document in the first report, from Fox News (court motion).
Not counted 1
Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

Left-leaning coverage leaves out the trial-record claim that underpins the bid to throw out the case. Right-leaning coverage on Fox News reports that another defense lawyer sought dismissal on double jeopardy grounds after jurors told the court a member would not apply the reasonable-doubt instruction. The same account says the judge declined to inquire further before declaring a mistrial. BBC notes a separate motion to dismiss but does not describe that legal theory or those reports from the jury, so the story reads as a post-verdict attack on a holdout rather than a challenge to how the mistrial was declared. Right-leaning coverage leads with the holdout's lawyer attacking the filing, while left-leaning coverage opens on a request to inspect a phone. Fox News describes a "refusal to bow to peer pressure." BBC's headline puts the cellphone check first. Did anyone produce evidence that the holdout used a phone or lied on his questionnaire, or is the defense asking the court to go looking?
Bottom line

BBC covers the holdout as a phone-records fight and only glances at dismissal; Fox News is the outlet that reports a second Clancy lawyer asking to end the case on double jeopardy after jurors said one of them would not apply reasonable doubt.

The receipts — 4 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • Defense attorney Martin Weinberg moved to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds after the jury twice informed the court a member was refusing to apply reasonable-doubt instructions official statementin Fox News · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • After the first jury report the court asked each juror individually whether they could apply the law; after the second it only reminded the group and denied defense requests to go further legal rulingin Fox News · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • Reddington asked the court to review calls and texts between 08:00 and 16:30 on each deliberation day numberin BBC · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • The requested inquiry included the holdout's background, potential criminal history, and courthouse surveillance video official statementin Fox News · absent from left-leaning coverage
The Left View
BBC coverage frames the defense motion as a bid to probe possible misconduct by the holdout — calls and texts during deliberation hours and the honesty of his questionnaire — and gives weight to the jury forewoman’s NBC interview claiming Desronvil had expressed reasonable doubt, which would have required acquittal, yet refused to find Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity. The reporting situates the case around Clancy’s postpartum-psychosis defense and the jurors who have said they favored a not-criminally-responsible verdict, while noting the public backlash that led Desronvil to hire counsel. It also reports Paltzik’s claim that the motion was an attack on civic duty and that jurors facing "brutal reprisals" would mean "you can kiss the Sixth Amendment goodbye."
The Right View
Fox News frames Reddington’s filing as an attempt to punish a "courageous lone holdout" who "refus[ed] to bow to peer pressure," quoting Paltzik that the motion is "a full-frontal attack on the U.S. Constitution" and that if jurors face "brutal reprisals for disagreeing with a defense attorney, you can kiss the Sixth Amendment goodbye." Paltzik warned that investigating holdouts would produce an "endless cycle" resembling "the Hatfield-McCoy Feud." The coverage highlights Desronvil’s statement that he "didn't have any doubts," was "cut off" when offering theories, and thought there was "enough proof that she knew exactly what she was doing and planned," and notes Weinberg’s argument that the judge’s response to reports a juror would not apply reasonable-doubt instructions should support dismissal. The Washington Examiner similarly focuses on the request to investigate alleged cellphone use by the juror who caused the mistrial.
Our Take (balanced)
The defense’s strongest argument is that the jury twice informed the court one member was refusing to apply reasonable-doubt instructions, and the foreperson alleged Desronvil acknowledged doubt but would not apply it to the verdict — a basis, they contend, for a limited inquiry into phone records, questionnaire answers, and whether he followed the law, and for dismissal. The holdout’s strongest counter, advanced by Paltzik, is that investigating a juror for declining to acquit is "a full-frontal attack on the U.S. Constitution" that would invite "brutal reprisals" and an "endless cycle" of lawyers targeting dissenters, a claim Desronvil supports by saying he had no doubts and was cut off when explaining theories. The central unresolved tension is whether post-mistrial scrutiny of this holdout is a legitimate check on alleged refusal to follow the court’s instructions, or an assault on the independence of a juror who would not acquit.

5 sources

More stories

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.