OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Lindsay Clancy Holdout Juror Gets Trump-Linked Lawyer

17 sources · updated 2026-09-20
Left 0% Center 0% Right 100%
0 left · 0 center · 2 right

What happened

Lindsay Clancy, a 36-year-old former labor and delivery nurse, was charged with three counts of first-degree murder after strangling her children — Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months — at their Duxbury, Massachusetts home on January 24, 2023, then jumping from a second-floor window. She admitted the killings; her lawyers argued she was not criminally responsible due to postpartum psychosis, while prosecutors said she planned the murders and understood their wrongfulness. After nearly 40 hours of deliberations over seven days, the jury of nine women and three men deadlocked 11-1, and Massachusetts Superior Court Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial on September 4. Lone holdout Michael P. Desronvil later said in a statement that he “didn’t have any doubts” and that the physical evidence, key witnesses, and prosecution case showed Clancy “knew exactly what she was doing and planned,” contradicting fellow jurors who said he had admitted reasonable doubt but still refused to find her not guilty by reason of insanity. Prosecutors have not announced whether they will retry the case; a hearing is scheduled for September 29 at Plymouth Superior Court.
Sourcing check · Mostly on the record · 12 articles

9 of 10 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 9 of 10
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: Michael Desronvil, Paula Devlin, Edward Andrew Paltzik, Michael P. Desronvil, Michael Péguy Desronvil and holdout juror
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 1 of 10
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: statement
Credits another outlet 0 of 10
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 10
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.
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 18, 11:49 UTC by BBC, naming its source. First document 4 hours later, from CBS News (statement).
Not counted 2
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

Right-leaning coverage of the holdout's defense never states who had to prove criminal responsibility. Massachusetts required prosecutors to prove Clancy was criminally responsible, and her lawyers did not have to prove she was psychotic. That allocation appears in BBC coverage and is missing from Fox News, which gives his account that she planned the killings without saying which side carried the burden the rest of the panel said the state never met. Left-leaning coverage leads with that certainty and with fellow jurors who said he admitted doubt then refused an insanity finding. Right-leaning coverage leads with the blowback, and Breitbart opens on death threats from a "lunatic mob." What did the holdout say in the jury room that the foreperson took as an admission of reasonable doubt?
Bottom line

Fox News will give you the 11-1 split and the holdout's certainty, but not the Massachusetts rule that prosecutors alone had to prove Clancy was criminally responsible.

The receipts — 4 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • Prosecutors had to prove criminal responsibility beyond reasonable doubt; the defense did not have to prove mental illness. legal rulingin BBC · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • Dropped 2021 charges would not have barred him from the jury; only a felony conviction in the last seven years or a pending felony would have. legal rulingin Daily Wire · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • A fundraiser for the holdout raised over $300,000. numberin Breitbart · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • A psychiatrist noted postpartum psychosis is not currently recognized by the American Psychiatric Association. contextin BBC · absent from right-leaning coverage
The Left View
Left-leaning outlets frame Desronvil as having blocked an 11-juror consensus that Clancy lacked criminal responsibility, highlighting accounts that he “admitted he had reasonable doubt” — after which the foreperson began filling out verdict forms — then said he was “still not going to say that she’s not guilty by reason of insanity.” Fellow jurors described him as “arrogant,” unwilling to “take anything that anybody said,” and, in one account, disengaged and scrolling on his phone; Clancy’s lawyer said the holdout “would not apply the law of reasonable doubt” as instructed. Coverage also reports a 2021 domestic-violence charge against Desronvil that was later dismissed, an active civil restraining order, and eviction proceedings during deliberations, which outlets say “raise questions about the jury selection process,” and the Guardian notes the trial “brought nationwide attention to systemic gaps in maternal mental health care.”
The Right View
Right-leaning outlets present Desronvil as a juror who followed the evidence against a hostile majority, quoting his statement that he never had doubts and “kept getting cut off” when he tried to explain other theories. They portray fellow jurors as taking a “media circuit” to brand him “arrogant,” note that a juror identified him as a Black man on television, and report that subsequent stories about his personal history were followed by doxxing, death threats, and a fundraiser exceeding $300,000; his lawyer called him an “American Hero and Champion of Justice” facing a “lunatic mob.” Outlets stress the admitted killings and the prosecution’s planning theory, cite Desronvil’s characterization of the other jurors as “activists,” and relay commentary questioning whether any Massachusetts jury would unanimously reject an insanity defense.
Our Take (balanced)
The left’s strongest argument is the cluster of independent juror accounts — including the foreperson’s claim that Desronvil “admitted he had reasonable doubt” before refusing an insanity finding — which, if accurate, would mean he declined to apply the standard the prosecution had to meet after 11 others had already concluded Clancy was not criminally responsible. The right’s strongest argument is Desronvil’s own explanation that he never doubted the planning evidence, was interrupted rather than answered, and that a unanimous-verdict rule exists precisely so one juror can hold out; the admitted killings and the prosecution’s evidence of calculation give that position a factual basis beyond mere obstinacy. The central unresolved tension is whether the deadlock records a legitimate disagreement over intent and psychosis, or a refusal to follow a reasonable-doubt instruction that the holdout himself, according to the other 11, had already conceded.

17 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.