Judge William Sullivan has refused Lindsay Clancy’s request for an evidentiary hearing on the holdout juror whose vote led to her September 4 mistrial. In a ruling issued Wednesday, October 21, 2026, he wrote that information about the juror that surfaced after the mistrial “simply is not relevant to whether there was a manifest necessity for a mistrial.” He relied on the Supreme Judicial Court’s 2025 decision in the Karen Read case. The November 2 hearing on Clancy’s motion to dismiss will still go forward, but without new evidence or testimony about the juror.
Here is what the ruling says, the Read decision it rests on, and what is left for November 2. The ruling was reported by the Boston Herald, ABC News, NBC10 Boston and WBUR. Lindsay Clancy is presumed innocent.
What the defense asked for
Clancy’s lawyer, Kevin Reddington, has argued that the case should be dismissed because Sullivan did not properly handle the holdout juror before declaring a mistrial, and that a second trial would violate double jeopardy. To support that motion, he asked the judge to:
- hold an evidentiary hearing on whether the juror lied on his jury questionnaire about past involvement with the criminal justice system, used his phone during deliberations, or refused to follow the judge’s instructions, according to ABC News and WBUR;
- preserve all confidential juror questionnaires, the juror’s summons and badge, sign-in sheets for jurors’ phones during deliberations, and video of the jury room corridor, the Herald reported;
- order the Commissioner of Probation to produce, under seal, domestic violence registry records about the juror, and then bring the juror in for a private hearing, according to the Herald.
The juror, Michael Desronvil, has publicly said he answered his questionnaire truthfully. He has not been charged with anything in connection with the Clancy case, NBC10 reported. We covered his Fox News interview here.
What Sullivan ruled
- After-the-fact information does not count. “It appears that Clancy seeks an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Juror Doe lied on the jury questionnaire about prior involvement with the criminal justice system,” Sullivan wrote, according to ABC News. “However, potential evidence of good cause to dismiss a deliberating juror that came to light only after a mistrial was declared simply is not relevant to whether there was a manifest necessity for a mistrial.”
- No hearing. “Because post-trial information potentially affecting Juror Doe’s impartiality cannot be used to attack the determination that a mistrial was manifestly necessary,” he wrote, “Clancy is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on that issue,” the Herald reported. NBC10 reported that he noted nothing before the mistrial suggested the juror had lied on his questionnaire.
- No questioning the juror. “This Court concludes that any further judicial inquiry is inappropriate,” Sullivan wrote, as quoted by ABC News and the Herald. He explained that a court may not probe a juror’s subjective reasoning, thought process, view of the case or relationship to the other jurors, and “must not inquire into the jury’s deliberative content, collective thought process, or any disagreement among the jury.”
Both the prosecution and the defense declined to comment, ABC News reported. The ruling does not decide the motion to dismiss itself. It decides how that motion will be argued: on the record of what happened at trial.
The Karen Read decision
Sullivan’s reasoning tracks the SJC’s decision in Read v. Commonwealth, SJC-13663, decided February 11, 2025, which we read in full. Karen Read argued that her first mistrial was improper and that posttrial statements from jurors showed they had agreed to acquit her on some charges. The SJC rejected both arguments.
- Judged by what the trial judge knew. The SJC wrote that it would “assess the trial judge’s decision based on what was known at the time of her decision.” It added that, as one court has observed, “allowing posttrial juror accounts to affect the analysis ‘would create endless confusion and controversy’ in cases where a mistrial has already been declared due to deadlock.” Sullivan applied the same principle to information about the Clancy juror.
- The standard. A hung jury is “a traditional example” of manifest necessity, the SJC said, and the decision to declare a mistrial is left to the trial judge’s “sound discretion.” A reviewing court asks whether the judge carefully explored “alternatives to a mistrial” and whether counsel were “given full opportunity to be heard.”
- Limits on questioning jurors. The SJC said a judge generally is not obligated to investigate jury deliberations “unless there is evidence that jurors were exposed to extraneous information or demonstrated racial or ethnic bias,” and that even where bias is alleged, an inquiry may not reach jurors’ subjective reasoning or the content of their deliberations. It described the secrecy of deliberations as a “bedrock of our judicial system,” citing Commonwealth v. Fidler, 377 Mass. 192 (1979).
The two cases are not identical. In Read, the defense relied on what jurors said about their own deliberations. In Clancy, the defense also raised a question about the juror’s answers on his questionnaire, which is information from outside the deliberation room. Sullivan’s answer, as reported, is that the timing controls: whatever the questionnaire issue might have meant during trial, it was not before him when he declared the mistrial.
What is left for November 2
The November 2 hearing in Plymouth Superior Court is still on, NBC10 and ABC News reported. The defense will argue that the mistrial was not manifestly necessary and that retrial is barred. Under Read, the questions are whether the jury was truly deadlocked, whether Sullivan considered alternatives, and whether counsel had a chance to be heard. WBUR reported that the jury deliberated for more than 38 hours and reported three times that it was deadlocked, and that after the foreperson sent a note saying one juror was not following the law, Sullivan instructed the jury on the law and questioned each juror. During the trial, he rejected Reddington’s request to replace the juror with an alternate, and the SJC declined to intervene.
Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz has not said whether he will retry Clancy, the Herald reported. If Sullivan denies the motion to dismiss, the Read case shows the next step: Read sought review from a single justice of the SJC, who reported the case to the full court. Our Clancy calendar has the upcoming dates.
Frequently asked questions
Did the judge rule on whether Lindsay Clancy can be retried?
No. On October 21, 2026, Judge William Sullivan denied the defense request for an evidentiary hearing and an inquiry into the holdout juror. The motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds is still set for argument on November 2.
Why can’t the judge consider what was learned about the juror after the mistrial?
Under the SJC’s 2025 decision in Read v. Commonwealth, whether a mistrial was manifestly necessary is judged by what the trial judge knew when he declared it. Sullivan wrote that evidence that came to light afterward “simply is not relevant” to that question.
What is manifest necessity?
It is the exception to double jeopardy that allows a defendant to be retried after a mistrial. A hung jury is the traditional example. The judge must have discretion to end a trial when the jury cannot agree, and a reviewing court asks whether the judge explored alternatives and gave counsel an opportunity to be heard.
Has the holdout juror been charged with lying?
No. NBC10 Boston reported that he has not been charged with anything in connection with the Clancy case, and he has publicly said he answered his questionnaire truthfully.
Sources: Boston Herald, ABC News and WBUR, October 21-22, 2026; NBC10 Boston, October 22, 2026. Read v. Commonwealth, SJC-13663 (Feb. 11, 2025), read in full on CourtListener; Commonwealth v. Fidler, 377 Mass. 192 (1979), confirmed on CourtListener. Quotations from the ruling are as reported by those outlets; we have not seen the ruling itself. Lindsay Clancy is presumed innocent. General information, not legal advice.