Clancy trial jury notes reveal foreperson’s dispute over holdout juror

New court documents reveal the exact wording of two jury notes from the mistrial in the murder case of Lindsay Clancy.

The filings, submitted ahead of Clancy's next court appearance on November 2, provide a detailed account of the seven days of deliberations that ended without a verdict. These records clarify the legal dispute over whether Clancy can be retried for the 2023 deaths of her three children in Duxbury, Massachusetts. The case hinges on whether a single juror’s refusal to agree constituted a deadlock or a failure of the jury to follow the law.

Over the course of the deliberations, the jury communicated with Judge William Sullivan through six written notes. The first note, dated August 28, was a routine request to view the pill bottles and the knife used in Clancy's suicide attempt. The second note arrived on September 1 at 10:17 a.m., stating that the panel was unable to reach a unanimous verdict after many hours. Sullivan instructed the jury to continue deliberating while keeping his prior instructions in mind.

The tension escalated on September 2 at 2:15 p.m. After 26 or 27 hours of discussion, the jury again reported an inability to agree. Sullivan responded by issuing a Tuey-Rodriguez instruction, commonly known as a dynamite charge, which encouraged jurors to re-examine their opinions. The panel returned to the deliberation room.

The core of the current legal argument lies in the notes sent on September 3. At 2:59 p.m., the foreperson told the judge that one of the 12 members was unable to follow the instructions regarding reasonable doubt. Sullivan questioned each juror individually at sidebar, and all confirmed they could follow the law. He then reinstructed the full jury.

Approximately an hour later, the foreperson sent a second note that identified the holdout by number. The note stated that this juror had made statements acknowledging doubt but refused to apply that doubt to the verdict as the law requires. The foreperson wrote that this refusal was the reason the jury could not reach a unanimous decision.

The deliberations concluded on September 4 at 11:21 a.m. After Sullivan declined to question the holdout further and reiterated the legal standards, the panel sent a final note. It reported that the jurors could not reach a unanimous verdict and did not expect to do so. The note described the outcome as being reported with a heavy heart.

Clancy's legal team argues that Sullivan had other options before declaring a mistrial and that the double jeopardy clause now bars a retrial. Prosecutors counter that the mistrial was a last resort after the jury failed to agree, allowing the case to proceed. The holdout juror, Michael P. Desronvil, has maintained that he had no doubt about Clancy's guilt but felt cut off during discussions.