The lone holdout juror in the Lindsay Clancy trial has spoken. In a statement issued Friday through a lawyer, Michael Péguy Desronvil defended his refusal to join the eleven other jurors who would have found Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity.
“I didn’t have any doubts,” the statement reads. “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 knew exactly what she was doing and planned.”
The statement ends two weeks in which nearly everyone connected to this case spoke except the person at the center of it. It also carries two pieces of news that change facts we and others have reported. He has retained counsel, Edward Andrew Paltzik, who says his client is “presently safe and sound at an undisclosed secure location in a rural area of Northern New England.” And Paltzik says that every online fundraiser currently claiming to collect money for the juror is either fraudulent or unauthorized.
A correction to our earlier reporting
On September 15 we reported that a GiveSendGo campaign called “Stand with the Juror” had raised more than $150,000 for the holdout, and we discussed what a six-figure gift to a juror might mean for the retrial. That reporting was accurate as to the existence and size of the campaign, which was documented by Boston 25.
It is now contradicted on the point that matters. In a follow-up post Friday, Paltzik wrote that “any and all GiveSendGo or GoFundMe accounts that purport to be operating on behalf of our courageous lone holdout juror” are “100% FAKE, or at minimum, were created by well-meaning individuals who we are not yet in touch with,” and that his side is “in the process of arranging for appropriate and proper measures in this regard.”
We have updated that article. The analysis of whether a post-verdict gift to a juror is lawful stands on its own, but readers should understand that there is no confirmed channel by which money raised online has reached this juror, and that his own lawyer disclaims all of them. Anyone who contributed to one of those campaigns should take that seriously.
What a juror may say, and when
Desronvil is free to say all of this. Massachusetts places no gag on a discharged juror, and the impoundment order Judge William Sullivan entered protects juror identities in the court’s records; it does not prohibit a juror from identifying himself or describing his own experience. A juror who chooses to speak waives his own anonymity, which several other jurors in this case did within days of the mistrial.
The limit lies elsewhere, and it is a limit on courts rather than on jurors. Under the rule Massachusetts drew from Commonwealth v. Fidler, 377 Mass. 192 (1979), a court generally may not receive juror testimony about the substance of deliberations to impeach a verdict. Jurors may testify to extraneous influences reaching the jury, such as outside information or a threat, but not to what was said in the room, how votes shifted, or what reasoning persuaded anyone. The rule exists to protect the finality of verdicts and the candor of deliberation.
There is no verdict here to impeach, which makes the usual application of the rule awkward. But the principle still shapes what a judge can do with a statement like this one. Judge Sullivan cannot use Desronvil’s account of being “cut off” during deliberation as a basis to do anything, and no party can ask him to, because the reasoning inside the jury room is not evidence a court may receive.
Why the statement still matters legally
Indirectly, in three places.
The pending motions. Kevin Reddington’s motion for a required finding of not guilty asks whether the evidence was legally sufficient, which is a question about the record and not about what any juror thought. Martin Weinberg’s forthcoming double jeopardy motion asks whether there was manifest necessity for the mistrial. Neither turns on Desronvil’s reasoning, and the Supreme Judicial Court made clear in the Karen Read litigation that post-trial accounts of deliberations cannot retroactively change a trial’s outcome. We covered that in our report on Weinberg’s appearance.
The record of what happened. Reddington told Judge Sullivan during deliberations that the holdout “refuses to listen to the law” on reasonable doubt, and moved to remove him. The judge denied that motion. Desronvil’s statement is the first account from the other side, and it asserts that he was applying the evidence rather than refusing the law. A reviewing court will never resolve that dispute, because it will never hear from either participant about what happened in the room.
The retrial jury. Every person summoned for the retrial will be drawn from a county where the last holdout was identified, left his home, retained a lawyer, and issued a public statement. That is now part of the atmosphere in which the next twelve people will be asked whether they can decide the case on the evidence.
The lawyer’s statement
Paltzik’s posts describe his client as an “American Hero” and a “Champion of Justice,” and warn 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.”
Stripped of the language, there are real claims available to someone in Desronvil’s position. A person who has been harassed, threatened or stalked has criminal remedies under the harassment and stalking statutes and can seek a harassment prevention order under G.L. c. 258E. A person about whom false statements of fact have been published can sue for defamation, though a private figure must still prove falsity and fault, and opinions about a juror’s decision are not actionable. Massachusetts also has a civil rights statute permitting an action where rights have been interfered with by threats, intimidation or coercion.
What is not available is a claim against people for criticizing his verdict position. The First Amendment protects that criticism, however ugly, and the line between protected commentary and actionable conduct is the line between what people said about him and what they did to him.
What is now known about the deliberations
The jury heard seven weeks of testimony, deliberated about 37 hours over seven days, and reported three times that it could not reach a verdict. Other jurors have said the split was eleven to one in favor of finding Clancy not criminally responsible. Juror Paula Devlin told Boston 25 that the evidence showed a psychotic break and that “in Massachusetts, that’s a reason to be not responsible.”
Desronvil’s account is the counterweight: that the physical evidence and the prosecution’s case established that Clancy knew what she was doing and had planned it. Prosecutors argued at trial that she sent her husband out for takeout and medication shortly before the children were killed, which is the evidence that argument rests on.
Both positions were available on this record. That is what a hung jury is.
What to watch
September 29, when the case returns before Judge Sullivan on the Rule 25 motion and any double jeopardy filing. Whether the ten-day seal on the juror questionnaires, which lapses around September 25, is extended. Whether Paltzik files anything on his client’s behalf, in any court. And whether the platforms hosting the disclaimed fundraisers take them down, since a campaign soliciting money for a named private individual who says he is not receiving it is a consumer protection question as much as a legal one.
Common questions
Is the holdout juror allowed to speak publicly?
Yes. The impoundment order protects juror identities in court records. It does not bar a juror from identifying himself or describing his experience, and several other jurors spoke publicly after the mistrial.
Can his account of deliberations be used in court?
Generally no. Under the rule from Commonwealth v. Fidler, 377 Mass. 192 (1979), courts may not receive juror testimony about the substance of deliberations, though jurors may testify about extraneous influences.
Is the online fundraiser legitimate?
His attorney says every GiveSendGo and GoFundMe account currently purporting to raise money for him is fake or, at best, unauthorized and not in contact with his side.
Can he sue people who attacked him?
He may have claims for harassment, stalking, defamation of a false factual statement, or civil rights violations, and may seek a harassment prevention order under G.L. c. 258E. Criticism of his position as a juror is protected speech and is not actionable.
Does this affect the retrial?
Not directly. The pending motions turn on the sufficiency of the evidence and on whether the mistrial was necessary, not on any juror’s reasoning.
The juror’s statement, his attorney’s posts and the quoted language as reported by Boston 25 News, September 18, 2026. Deliberation length, the seven weeks of testimony and the three deadlock reports as reported by Boston 25. Juror Paula Devlin’s remarks from Boston 25, September 15. Commonwealth v. Fidler, 377 Mass. 192 (1979), verified against CourtListener. G.L. c. 258E described from the statute. This article corrects the implication in our September 15 report that the “Stand with the Juror” campaign was raising money that reached this juror; his counsel disclaims all such campaigns. Lindsay Clancy has not been convicted of any offense. General information about Massachusetts law, not legal advice.