"🚨 TOTAL LEGAL EARTHQUAKE: JUDGE DROPS A BOMBSHELL NEW RULING IN THE LINDSAY CLANCY CASE!"
Another big development has occurred in the Lindsay Clancy case.
Clancy’s attorney is asking the judge who presided over her murder trial to investigate the lone holdout juror, raising questions about his jury-selection answers, his personal legal history, and allegations that he used his cellphone during deliberations.
Defense attorney Kevin Reddington filed the motion Friday, and it was made public Monday.
He asked Plymouth Superior Court Judge William Sullivan to conduct a limited inquiry into juror Michael Péguy Desronvil, whose refusal to join the other 11 jurors resulted in a mistrial earlier this month.
Clancy’s five-week trial ended Sept. 4 after seven days of deliberations. Jurors who have spoken publicly said the panel was divided 11-1, with the majority prepared to find Clancy not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility. Desronvil favored conviction.
Clancy, 36, was charged with three counts of first-degree murder in the January 2023 deaths of her children — Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, who was 8 months old.
Clancy has admitted strangling the children at the family’s Duxbury home. Her attorneys argued that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and was therefore not criminally responsible.
Prosecutors maintained that Clancy understood what she was doing and knew her actions were wrong.
Reddington’s latest motion focuses partly on whether Desronvil truthfully completed the confidential questionnaire prospective jurors were required to fill out and whether he accurately answered questions during jury selection.
The defense wants the court to preserve questionnaires for all 12 jurors and six alternates, along with jury notes, court-officer records, mobile-device sign-in sheets and recordings of certain sidebar discussions.
Reddington also requested video from the corridor outside the jury room and information about background checks performed on prospective jurors. He wants to know whether Desronvil has been involved as either a defendant or complainant in cases handled by the Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office since 2021.
The requests follow reports that Desronvil had previously faced a domestic violence charge and was subject to a restraining order.
NBC10 Boston reported that Desronvil was charged with assault and battery on a family or household member in 2021 after his then-13-year-old nephew called 911 and alleged that Desronvil grabbed his wife by the throat and threw her into a dresser.
That criminal charge was subsequently dismissed.
Court records also showed that Desronvil was subject to a civil restraining order involving the same nephew after a separate alleged confrontation.
The order remained active during part of Clancy’s trial. The allegations underlying the order have not been adjudicated as criminal convictions.
Reddington is also asking Sullivan to examine Desronvil’s alleged cellphone use during deliberations.
Juror Nick Dargie, 25, told ABC News that Desronvil sometimes appeared to disengage from deliberations and scroll through his phone while other jurors were attempting to discuss the case with him.
“There was times he wouldn’t engage, like he’d be scrolling on his phone while people are talking to him,” Dargie said.
Massachusetts prohibits jurors from using phones during deliberations. Reddington wants records showing calls, text messages and data activity on Desronvil’s phone between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on each day the jury deliberated. He has also asked that the phone itself be turned over for examination.
The attorney is not seeking information about the substance of confidential jury deliberations.
Instead, the motion asks Sullivan to determine whether Desronvil received outside information, improperly used his phone or gave inaccurate answers during jury selection or when questioned by the judge shortly before the mistrial.
Desronvil has disputed his fellow jurors’ descriptions of his conduct and reasoning.
“I didn’t have any doubts,” he said in a statement released through his attorney last week. Desronvil said the prosecution’s physical evidence and witnesses convinced him that Clancy “knew exactly what she was doing and planned.”
Sullivan has already ordered jury information and questionnaires preserved but has not ruled on Reddington’s request for the broader inquiry.
Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz has not publicly announced whether prosecutors will retry Clancy.
The case is scheduled to return to Plymouth Superior Court on Sept. 29, when prosecutors could provide additional information about how they intend to proceed.
"🚨 BRANSON'S SCATHING ATTACK! — HE BLASTS TRUMP OVER PUTIN TIES AND URGES EUROPE TO STAND FIRM!"
British billionaire Sir Richard Branson has launched a fierce public attack on Donald Trump, accusing the U.S. administration of appeasing dictators and putting personal preferences ahead of American and allied interests.
The Virgin Group founder made his criticism in a LinkedIn post published this week, questioning why Trump appeared so willing to accommodate Russian President Vladimir Putin while Ukraine continues to face Russia’s invasion.
Branson described the administration as an “appeaser to autocrats and dictators,” arguing that its approach could weaken confidence among America’s traditional allies and undermine the interests of democratic nations.
He also raised a pointed question about the president’s relationship with Putin, asking why Trump seemed to flatter the Russian leader despite the continuing war and widespread international concern over Moscow’s actions.
The remarks come amid renewed controversy over a reported agreement involving Russian diesel supplies and a temporary easing of U.S. sanctions on Russian energy exports.
Trump has defended the arrangement as beneficial to fuel markets, while critics argue that allowing Russian energy revenues to flow could indirectly help Moscow sustain its war effort.
Branson called the deal deeply hypocritical, pointing to the contrast between Washington’s previous willingness to penalize countries purchasing Russian energy and its own decision to ease restrictions.
His criticism extended beyond energy policy. He also condemned Trump’s public attacks on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, describing the administration’s treatment of Ukraine as a betrayal during a period of war and suffering.
The billionaire’s intervention follows mounting concern in Kyiv and across Europe about the durability of American support for Ukraine, particularly as diplomatic efforts have struggled to produce a lasting settlement.
Branson also expressed alarm about reports involving restrictions on Starshield services used by Ukraine, a technology issue that has raised questions about the country’s access to crucial battlefield communications.
Some of Branson’s claims about the consequences of satellite-service restrictions have not been independently confirmed, and the details of decisions involving military communications remain disputed.
He urged European leaders to respond more decisively, arguing that the continent cannot simply wait for Washington to determine the future of Ukraine’s security and its broader relationship with Russia.
His proposed response reportedly included considering the use of frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine and supplying more advanced weapons, measures that would intensify the confrontation with Moscow.
The comments place Branson among a relatively small group of prominent business leaders willing to criticize Trump directly over foreign policy, despite the political and commercial sensitivities surrounding such interventions.
Branson has previously spoken out in support of Ukraine and criticized approaches that he believes would pressure Kyiv into accepting an unfavorable peace agreement with Russia.
The latest dispute also comes at a politically sensitive moment in the United States, with congressional midterm elections approaching and foreign policy increasingly intertwined with domestic debates over leadership and national priorities.
Supporters of Trump’s approach may argue that direct engagement with Moscow and energy-market flexibility can serve American interests, even when such policies provoke disagreement among allies.
Critics counter that concessions to Russia risk weakening deterrence and sending an unsettling message to countries relying on the United States for diplomatic, economic and military support.
The disagreement reflects a broader debate over whether negotiations and economic pragmatism can help end the war—or whether they could give Moscow additional leverage without securing meaningful concessions.
For Ukraine, the stakes remain immediate: continued military pressure, uncertainty over international support and the search for a settlement that preserves its sovereignty remain central concerns.
Branson’s intervention adds another prominent voice to the dispute, challenging the White House’s handling of Russia and demanding a stronger response from Europe as the conflict continues.
