2026-09-18 · contested story

Juror Who Blocked Lindsay Clancy Verdict Disputes Fellow Jurors Claims Report F38A98

The lone holdout juror in Lindsay Clancy's triple-murder trial, Michael P. Desronvil, has publicly disputed his fellow jurors' characterizations of his role in the 11-1 deadlock that ended in a mistrial on September 4, 2026. Clancy admitted strangling her three children—Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and 8-month-old Callan—in January 2023, but her defense argued she was not criminally responsible due to postpartum psychosis. While eleven jurors favored acquittal, Desronvil said he had 'no doubts' the evidence proved she planned the killings. Fellow jurors, including foreperson Roni Carlson and Paula Devlin, had told outlets like CBS and NBC that Desronvil 'admitted he had reasonable doubt' yet refused to acquit, and Devlin revealed on CBS Mornings that he was the only Black juror on an otherwise white panel.

How each side frames it

left
"It's a witch hunt for fame"
"I wasn't married to a monster. I was married to someone who got sick."
"her defense lawyer told the judge that the panel's foreperson said in a note that a single juror would not follow the court's instructions about reasonable doubt and was holding up a verdict"
"relentless, escalating and destructive defamation campaign"
"According to the defense, a lone juror was holding out on a unanimous verdict"
center
"The lone holdout juror in the trial of Lindsay Clancy has said he "didn't have any doubts" that she was criminally responsible for killing her three children."
"Michael P. Desronvil, 48, said he was trying to discuss possible theories during deliberations but felt other jurors interpreted his questions as uncertainty"
"This directly conflicts earlier reports where jury foreperson Roni Carlson told NBC10 Boston on September 9 that the lone holdout "admitted he had reasonable doubt""
"the jury foreperson reported that one juror refused to follow the law on reasonable doubt, leaving the panel at an impasse"
"A charge is proved beyond a reasonable doubt if, after you've compared and considered all of the evidence, you have in your minds an abiding conviction to a moral certainty that the charge is true."
right
"Rest assured that the evil people who have so viciously attacked this American Hero and Champion of Justice will be held accountable to the maximum extent of the law and beyond"
"The Left has been trashing this guy all week only to find out that he was the only black person on the jury, getting hounded by bossy white women"
"a man who was compelled to serve on a jury was now being punished simply for refusing to acquit Clancy"
"He performed his civic duty and followed his conscience, refusing to acquit a woman who confessed to systematically executing her three children"
"People wouldn't question him after hearing that."

What each side left out

The left left out — covered by the bbc.co.uk & Hungarian Conservative & Mediaite
The left left out — covered by the Mediaite & New York Post
The right left out — covered by the bbc.co.uk & okmagazine.com & New York Post
The right left out — covered by the The Boston Globe & ABC News & Mother Jones
The center left out — covered by the Hungarian Conservative

What's actually true?

[verified] The jury deadlocked 11-1, with eleven jurors favoring acquittal on criminal-responsibility grounds and one holdout voting to convict
[verified] The judge declared a mistrial on September 4, 2026 after the jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict following roughly 38-40 hours of deliberation over seven days
[verified] The holdout juror is Michael P. Desronvil, 48, who stated he had no doubts the evidence proved Clancy planned the killings
[verified] Clancy admitted killing her three children by strangulation in January 2023 but pleaded not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility, citing postpartum psychosis
[verified] Fellow juror Paula Devlin revealed on CBS Mornings that the holdout was the only Black member of the jury, while the 11 favoring acquittal were white
[verified] Defense attorney Kevin Reddington asked Judge Sullivan to remove the holdout juror on September 3, but the judge declined
[contested] The foreperson stated the holdout 'admitted he had reasonable doubt' but then refused to find Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity
[verified] The holdout juror was taken to an undisclosed secure location in a rural area of Northern New England and has an attorney, Edward Andrew Paltzik

The narrative clash

Whether the holdout juror admitted having reasonable doubt
Left: he had doubt but he would not apply the law of reasonable doubt as presented by the judge
Right: I didn't have any doubts. As I tried to explain different possible theories during deliberation, I kept getting cut off as if I had doubts based on the evidence present.
Whether the juror expressed doubt or believed she was guilty from the start
Left: he apparently said: "But I'm still not going to say that she's not guilty by reason of insanity."
Right: Marcel claimed that Michael said from day one he "always felt that she was guilty, and he never displayed or said anything about reasonable doubt."

31 sources analyzed

The Boston Globe Mediaite tippinsights.com the-sun.com Washington Examiner Mother Jones nbcsandiego.com bbc.co.uk New York Post Fox News The Mirror PBS yournews.com Boston Herald wng.org The Damage Report NBC News okmagazine.com Hungarian Conservative CNN today.com USA Today g1.globo.com NBC Boston Yahoo The Guardian ABC News - Breaking News, Latest News and Videos news.sky.com thesun.ie The Washington Post Boston.com

Perspectivity reads the coverage — not just who published it.

Read the full interactive analysis →