The attorney for the lone holdout juror in Lindsay Clancy’s murder trial told FOX News Channel that defense lawyer Kevin Reddington has gone “off the rails” and is attacking the constitutional right to trial by jury. Edward Andrew Paltzik’s Monday morning interview framed Reddington’s post-mistrial campaign against juror Michael P. Desronvil as a direct assault on the Sixth Amendment, and he vowed a bar complaint.
The US Sun reported Paltzik’s remarks after an 11-1 deadlock ended the case in a mistrial. Judge William Sullivan at Plymouth Superior Court is set to weigh a slate of motions on Tuesday that could decide whether Clancy faces a second trial.
At stake is more than one lawyer’s rhetoric. A holdout juror’s independence, a defense team’s push to erase murder charges, and public confidence in jury service all collide in open court.
Clancy admitted strangling her three children with exercise bands inside the family’s Duxbury home on January 24, 2023. Cora was five, Dawson was three, and Callan was eight months old. Her defense argued she was not criminally responsible because of postpartum psychosis.
Jurors heard five weeks of testimony. They deliberated seven days. Desronvil remained the sole holdout for roughly 30 hours. The panel deadlocked 11-1. The court declared a mistrial.
Paltzik told interviewer Kayleigh McEnany that his client never wavered. “Michael had zero doubt,” he said. When McEnany pressed whether evidence backed that position, Paltzik answered, “A lot of evidence. A mountain of evidence.”
He rejected any claim that Desronvil voted on faith or personal agenda. “False. False. Let’s clear this up now. Michael’s decision was based 100 percent on the evidence presented and the law that he was required to follow,” Paltzik said.
After the mistrial, Reddington accused the then-unidentified holdout of having “robbed” the other 11 jurors “for whatever his agenda was.” He added, “I hope that guy can sleep well at night.” Reddington later accused the juror in court of lying under oath and repeatedly referred to the mystery holdout as “he.”
Reddington filed a motion seeking an investigation into Desronvil’s conduct as a juror. The request included turning over the juror’s cellphone to a neutral examiner for 48 hours and questioning him in court.
Paltzik called the campaign outrageous. He said Reddington is “clearly attacking the Sixth Amendment” and “clearly attacking the right to trial by jury.”
"Kevin Reddington is clearly attacking the Sixth Amendment. He’s clearly attacking the right to trial by jury. He is off the rails."
Paltzik went further on the same theme. “It was astonishing. It was horrifying. It was beyond the pale,” he said of Reddington’s approach. “I believe that Kevin Reddington lost his mind.” He also said Reddington “is not behaving rationally anymore. This is nuts.”
In Paltzik’s view, the defense lawyer’s full-frontal pressure on a lone holdout amounts to an attack on the U.S. Constitution itself. “We’re not going to have a criminal justice system if jurors are afraid of reprisals,” he warned.
Paltzik said he intends to file a bar complaint against Reddington. Asked about that plan, he answered “one hundred percent.”
He described Desronvil as someone who refused to fold under pressure. “Most people would have folded, they would have caved and they would have buckled,” Paltzik said. “You will never break Michael because Michael is indestructible.” He added, “Michael’s not afraid. He’s not running.”
Paltzik also previewed that Desronvil will speak publicly. “Very soon, Michael is going to be talking about that personally,” he said. On the accusations themselves, Paltzik was absolute: “Every single allegation against Michael is false. Fabricated, never happened, categorically false.”
He offered a personal character assessment as well. “Once you meet Michael, you realize that this man is incapable of violence. He’s incapable of raising his hand to a woman. He’s incapable of harming anyone. Michael loves children. Michael loves family. He is one of the kindest people, gentlest people I’ve ever met.”
Public records referenced in the coverage show Desronvil faced a 2021 domestic assault and battery charge after an accusation by his then-wife. He pleaded not guilty. The charge was later dismissed. In 2025, a nephew accused him of assault during a separate dispute and obtained an abuse-prevention order.
Paltzik maintains every allegation against his client is false and that the juror’s trial vote rested only on the evidence and the law given to the panel. Authorities have not publicly treated those earlier matters as proof of juror misconduct in the Clancy case.
Clancy’s defense team is asking Judge Sullivan to throw out the murder charges on double-jeopardy grounds. They argue there was no “manifest necessity” to declare a mistrial after an 11-1 split. If the judge accepts that argument, a second trial could be barred.
Paltzik dismissed those motions as nearly worthless. “Those motions should be denied because 11-1 is not 12-0. Kevin Reddington doesn’t know how to do math,” he said, adding they carry “one percent merit.”
Sullivan is due to consider the series of motions on Tuesday at Plymouth Superior Court. The rulings could determine whether Clancy faces a second trial or walks away from the murder counts on constitutional grounds.
Investigators and the court have not released public findings on Reddington’s request for a cellphone examination or courtroom questioning of Desronvil. No public results have been released about any forensic review of the juror’s phone. The judge will have to decide how far, if at all, post-trial scrutiny of a holdout may go without chilling future jury service.
Paltzik cast the clash as larger than one defendant or one lawyer. He argued that if holdout jurors can be hauled in, branded liars, and threatened with invasive phone searches for refusing to join a majority, ordinary citizens will fear serving. Reddington, for his part, has portrayed the holdout as having denied justice to the other 11 and to the public after a full trial.
Clancy’s admission that she strangled her children remains central to the case posture. The defense still hangs on the claim that postpartum psychosis left her not criminally responsible. Eleven jurors were prepared to resolve the case. One was not. The mistrial followed. Now the defense wants the charges erased entirely, while the holdout’s lawyer wants Reddington disciplined for how he went after that juror.
Paltzik, who referenced nearly 20 years of practicing law, presented Desronvil as steady under fire and ready to tell his own story soon. Reddington’s motions and public comments show a defense team determined to challenge both the mistrial declaration and the holdout’s credibility. Judge Sullivan holds the next procedural decisions.
Jury trials only work when citizens can vote their honest view of the evidence without dreading a lawyer’s vendetta afterward. When a verdict hangs on a single juror and the response is to attack the Constitution’s jury guarantee, the public is right to demand the courts protect the process, not punish the holdout.
