“Every single allegation against Michael is false, fabricated, never happened. Categorically false. It just didn’t happen.”
That was Edward Paltzik, lawyer for the Lindsay Clancy holdout juror, Michael Desronvil, on Fox & Friends on Monday, September 28, 2026, the day before a hearing at which Clancy’s lawyer will ask a judge to look into that juror. Asked by host Kayleigh McEnany about a reported 2021 assault charge that was dropped, Paltzik said: “That was a lie.”
It is a strong denial. It is also a denial of something the judge does not have to decide. The question in front of Judge William Sullivan is not whether the juror ever hurt anyone. It is what the juror wrote on a form.
What was reported, and by whom
The allegations McEnany asked about were first reported by the NBC10 Boston Investigators earlier this month, from court documents and interviews. According to NBC10:
- 2021 charge. In September 2021, the juror faced a criminal charge in Brockton District Court for assaulting his wife. According to a police report, his 13-year-old nephew called 911 and said the juror grabbed his wife by the throat and threw her into a dresser. Court records show the couple divorced and the charge was later dismissed.
- Restraining order. Last year, the same nephew obtained a restraining order, alleging in an affidavit that the juror pushed him to the ground and repeatedly punched him. NBC10 reported that the order “was still active when the juror was selected for the Clancy trial.”
- Eviction. Housing court records show a landlord obtained a judgment for more than $12,000 in unpaid rent while the jury was deliberating.
A dismissed charge is not a conviction, and a restraining order is a civil order entered on a lower standard. None of that establishes that the juror did what was alleged, and he is entitled to deny it. Paltzik did, on air: “Once you meet Michael, you realize that this man is incapable of violence.”
Why “never happened” does not answer the court’s question
The juror-inquiry issue is about disclosure, not guilt.
Every Massachusetts juror fills out a confidential questionnaire required by G.L. c. 234A, § 22. It asks, among other things, about “present or past involvement as a party to civil or criminal litigation.” NBC10 reported that the standard form asks whether the person has been arrested, charged with a crime, or served with a court order.
Those are questions about events in court records, not about what really happened. A person can be innocent of an accusation and still have been charged. A person can dispute every word of an affidavit and still have been served with a restraining order. If the records NBC10 described are accurate, the honest answer to those questions would be yes, whatever the truth of the underlying allegations.
What the juror actually wrote is not public. The questionnaires are confidential by statute and Judge Sullivan has impounded them. NBC10 said it “cannot confirm how the juror filled out the questionnaire.” Nobody outside the court knows whether he disclosed the charge and the order, disclosed them and was seated anyway, or left them off.
The legal test if he did not disclose
Nondisclosure alone does not overturn anything. The leading federal case, McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (1984), requires a party to show “that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.” The Court added that “only those reasons that affect a juror’s impartiality can truly be said to affect the fairness of a trial.”
The Supreme Judicial Court applied the same kind of analysis in Commonwealth v. Amirault, 399 Mass. 617 (1987), where a juror failed to disclose a relevant fact on empanelment. The trial judge held a hearing, found the juror had answered honestly and that the nondisclosure was unintentional, and found no bias. So the key questions are honesty and bias, not simply accuracy.
Two differences make this case unusual. First, there is no verdict to overturn; the trial ended in a mistrial. The defense is using the juror issue to argue that the mistrial was declared without the “manifest necessity” double jeopardy requires, because the judge did not look into the juror first. Second, lying on a juror questionnaire is itself an offense. A willful misrepresentation of a material fact carries a fine of up to $2,000 under the jury statute. No one has charged the juror with anything.
What Tuesday could settle, and what it will not
- Whether anyone looks at the form. Reddington has asked the judge to review the juror’s questionnaire, take his phone to a neutral examiner for 48 hours, and question him under oath. The judge can refuse, allow part of it, or review the questionnaire himself in chambers.
- Who speaks for the juror. The juror will not attend, according to McEnany, and will be represented by local counsel.
- Not the truth of the allegations. No proceeding on Tuesday will decide whether the 2021 incident or the 2025 incident happened. The juror’s denial will stand as his account.
Frequently asked questions
What did the Clancy holdout juror’s lawyer say about the allegations?
On Fox & Friends on September 28, 2026, Edward Paltzik said “every single allegation against Michael is false, fabricated, never happened,” and called a reported dismissed 2021 assault charge “a lie.”
What allegations were reported about the juror?
NBC10 Boston reported earlier in September 2026, from court records, that the juror was charged in 2021 in Brockton District Court with assaulting his wife, a charge later dismissed, and that a nephew obtained a restraining order against him in 2025 that was still active when he was seated. The juror denies the underlying allegations.
Does it matter if the juror left the charge off his questionnaire?
Only if the omission was dishonest and a truthful answer would have supported removing him for cause, under McDonough v. Greenwood and the SJC’s approach in Commonwealth v. Amirault. What he actually wrote is confidential and has not been made public.
Can a juror be punished for lying on the questionnaire?
A willful misrepresentation of a material fact on a Massachusetts juror questionnaire is punishable by a fine of up to $2,000. The Clancy juror has not been charged with anything.
Sources: Fox News video of Kayleigh McEnany’s interview with Edward Paltzik, posted September 28, 2026, which we transcribed. NBC10 Boston Investigators, “Domestic violence allegations raise questions about holdout juror in Lindsay Clancy trial,” September 2026, read in full. McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (1984), and Commonwealth v. Amirault, 399 Mass. 617 (1987), verified and read. G.L. c. 234A, section 22, and the questionnaire penalty, as read for our earlier reports. The juror denies the allegations and has not been charged with any offense related to his jury service. General information about Massachusetts law, not legal advice.