PLYMOUTH, Mass. — The Lindsay Clancy trial ended in a mistrial weeks ago, yet it’s followed the jury in a way that’s almost unprecedented, capturing the attention of people around the world.
Clancy is accused of killing her three small children, with the defense aiming to prove she was suffering from postpartum psychosis.
The prosecution, tasked with proving she knowingly and purposefully committed the murders.
The jury was split 11 to 1 until the very end and then the judge called a mistrial.
Weeks later, the holdout juror is speaking out through his attorney, taking to social media to call him a hero before releasing a statement.
“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 presented. Based on all the physical evidence, key witnesses, and what the prosecution presented, I thought it was enough proof that she (Clancy) knew exactly what she was doing and planned,” Michael Péguy Desronvil said through his attorney.
Boston 25 Legal Expert and Criminal Defense Attorney, Elyse Hershon, can’t say she’s shocked the juror obtained legal counsel.
“This is not surprising so as this week, the last two weeks have progressed its coming more and more of a target, targeting this person. Whether we like it or not, a juror has a right to affirm their beliefs and a juror has a right to be a hold out,” she explained.
She added that she doesn’t think a juror should be given a label at all.
“In terms of what his lawyer is putting gout on the internet I think he’s feeding into the frenzy as an attorney I wouldn’t be labeling a client as a hero or a villain I would be trying to take the heat down and take the heat off this person,” she said.
“Whether he’s a villain, or a whether he’s a hero, I think both of those are dangerous places or dangerous labels to give jurors, jurors are supposed to be anonymous, if you’re in the courtroom you see them sitting there, but their names aren’t disclosed, they aren’t able to be shown on camera, there are very specific rules,” she added.
Hershon also thinks this case is turning into something much bigger and much more concerning.
“It’s really exposing everybody that the jury system is not anonymous and you can be harassed based on what your decision might be, and it is not secret and it is not anonymous and jury deliberations really are supposed to be secret,” Hershon said.
While jurors do have the right to speak out after a trial, she thinks some conversations should be left in the jury room.
“...a few jurors saying that this person was a holdout and it wasn’t based on the judge’s instructions and then the juror putting out one statement saying he was following the judge’s instructions and he just thought she was guilty. All those conversations are allowed, they are valid, but they should have stayed in the jury room.
She believes jurors should only be worried about the facts of the case, the evidence presented, and the judges instructions.
“This is not something you want for the jury system because you don’t want a juror on any trial to vote or come to a decision one way or another because they are weighing what the potential repercussions are after the trial is over that totally infiltrates the impartiality and how the jury is supposed to deliberate so it is worrisome how much attention this juror is getting,” she said.
" It really has taken on a life of its own and it really does worry me for jurors in the future and whether or not they’ll be able to erase this or put this out of their mind," she explained.
There is a hearing scheduled at the end of the month and Hershon says she’s interested to see if the juror controversy is brought up.
This is a developing story. Check back for updates as more information becomes available.
Download the FREE Boston 25 News app for breaking news alerts.
Follow Boston 25 News on Facebook and Twitter. | Watch Boston 25 News NOW
©2026 Cox Media Group
/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/cmg/7QOJU3BNCJERBNKJC5LWTBYFLU.png)
