Lindsay Clancy defense demands investigation into holdout juror who blocked not guilty verdict, tell me about this news in (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/lindsay-clancy-defense-demands-investigation-into-holdout-juror-who-blocked-not-guilty-verdict/ar-AA2cHdMj?ocid=BingNewsVerp)

Kevin Reddington, the defense attorney for Lindsay Clancy, filed a legal motion asking the court to investigate the lone holdout juror whose vote resulted in a mistrial in her triple-murder case.

Background Lindsay Clancy was on trial in Massachusetts for the January 2023 strangulation deaths of her three young childrenCora (5), Dawson (3), and Callan (8 months)before attempting to take her own life. The defense argued that Clancy was suffering from severe postpartum psychosis and should be found not guilty by reason of insanity (not criminally responsible). On September 4, 2026, the judge declared a mistrial after the jury deadlocked 11–1, with 11 jurors voting for acquittal by reason of insanity and one juror, identified as Michael Péguy Desronvil, voting to convict.

What the Defense Is Requesting Reddington is asking the judge to authorize a targeted investigation into the holdout juror, focusing on potential misconduct and whether rules were violated during the trial:

• Cellphone Activity and Forensic Review: The defense wants the court to subpoena the juror’s call, text, and data records between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. during the deliberation period (August 27 to September 4). They are also seeking a limited forensic examination of the phone brought into the deliberation room to determine if the juror accessed outside information about the case.

• Testimony From Another Juror: The motion requests that the court hear testimony from “Juror No. 10” regarding what was observed concerning the holdout’s phone usage in the jury room.

• Truthfulness and Background Checks: The defense seeks to examine the juror’s confidential questionnaire and voir dire responses under oath, questioning whether he disclosed relevant background details. This includes requesting information about past legal matters, such as records in the statewide domestic violence registry and past interactions with prosecutors going back to 2021.

Context and Response The defense argues that this inquiry is aimed at evaluating juror candor and compliance with court orders, rather than questioning the internal deliberations. Meanwhile, attorney representation for the holdout juror has defended his actions, stating that he evaluated the evidence independently and was convinced of Clancy’s criminal responsibility, while noting that the juror has faced public backlash, harassment, and scrutiny over his personal background following the mistrial.