Defense attorney Kevin Reddington appears to be moving from zealous advocacy to virtual stalking in the Lindsay Clancy case. Reddington is seeking phone records, surveillance, and criminal records of Michael Desronvil, the now-identified juror who held out in the 11-1 hung jury decision. Reddington’s demand follows his unprofessional attack on the juror on the courthouse steps after the trial.
In his filing, Kevin Reddington seeks to question Desronvil after reviewing his records to see whether he lied on his juror questionnaire, violated court rules by using his cellphone in the jury room, and failed to pay attention during jury deliberations.
The demand is highly unusual. Occasionally, defense counsel will raise later-discovered information on possible juror misconduct to challenge a criminal conviction. We discussed juror misconduct allegations in high-profile cases involving Ghislaine Maxwell, Roger Stone, and Derek Chauvin.
The First Circuit overturned the sentence of Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev due to juror bias. Nevertheless, I have been critical of judges who turn a blind eye to juror bias, including false answers on jury forms.
However, most such cases do not result in overturned convictions, as shown in the Maxwell, Stone, and Chauvin cases.
What is different here is that there was no conviction and a new trial is likely to be scheduled. Reddington has been demanding that the Court declare his client acquitted, a move that would contravene both precedent and logic.
Moreover, Reddington himself has shown the danger of this course. Reddington undermined the filings after his unhinged attack on this juror after the trial. After fueling the rage against this juror (who had to go into hiding with his wife), Reddington is seeking the assistance of the Court to continue to pummel and punish a juror who had the temerity to reject his arguments in court.
It is also a slippery slope. Will Judge William Sullivan allow both sides to look at all of the phone records of all of the jurors as well as delve into their backgrounds?
If the court were to open up these deliberations, it could result in a cascading disaster. Some jurors suggested they viewed the case as a vehicle for sending a message as part of a movement supporting mothers like Clancy. That is also a concerning element in the jury deliberation that could lead to demands for questioning from the prosecution.
My past criticism of Reddington followed positive comments about his performance at trial. I felt that he did a better job than the prosecution until the very end when his summation was rambling and confusing. However, I felt his attack on the juror crossed the line for counsel. As a criminal defense attorney, I would never have contemplated such a reckless act. In an age of rage where people are routinely doxxed and harassed, it was both irresponsible and dangerous.
It is not uncommon for counsel to ask to question or poll jurors during or immediately after a trial. Reddington attacked this juror in the courtroom and even suggested that he was prejudiced against disabled individuals.
The combination of Reddington’s attacks in front of the courthouse and these new measures would send a chilling message to jurors in the next trial. It asks the court to join the mobbing of his holdout.
It sends a disturbing message to future jurors in high-profile cases that anonymity means nothing when you stand against the will of the majority. Imagine if this juror was the only holdout against conviction. Twelve Angry Men would have been a bit less inspiring if Henry Fonda were hauled first before the public and then the Court for his refusal to convict.
However, I have also been critical of Judge Sullivan, whom I also complimented throughout the trial for his skill and rulings. I was gobsmacked that Sullivan did not issue an immediate public rebuke of Reddington for attacking this juror.
Judge Sullivan will now have to address these issues in the upcoming hearing. He should make fast work of these latest motions. The prosecution is expected to seek a new trial. If so, the greatest concern may be a rogue counsel rather than a rogue juror.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.“
Now we’re cancelling jurors?
If you can’t win within the current legal system, just change the system!
It Massachusetts.
The Defense counsel right to further scrutinize jurors requires an evidentiary basis.
Does Redington have a credible claim that any juror recieved phone calls during deliberation ?
Absent that he has no basis to seek the information he is after.
To the extent that the claim of general bias against disable persons is at all relevant that would be an issue for voirdeer.
Absolutely a juror lying on a questionnaire is relevant – but prosecutors and defense need evidence to support that before they can subpoena.
Prof. Turley mentioned other instances in which jurrors were challenged after the verdict for bias. In ALL those cases there was EVIDENCE that a juror had lied, or that a Juror had prejudged a case on social media during or prior to the trial. In instances where that can be demonstrated the juror should be removed and a mistrial declared. But there is already a mistrial in this case.
Finally the FULL Jury must be unanimous otherwise you get a mistrial. Removing the holdout for cause STILL results in less than 12 jurors in agreement and there is still a mistrial.
Finally, While I do not fully understand the specific law in this state – the norm in my state and many others today is NOT a verdict of “not guilty because of mental defect” but of “Guilty but mentally ill” which seems perfectly appropriate in the Clancy case.
Are you a licensed and practicing lawyer in MA, specializing in criminal defense?
He can’t give an opinion MORON ANON??
PSYCHO MORON ANON Specializes in nothing!!
“Does Redington have a credible claim that any juror recieved phone calls during deliberation ?”
Yes.
Because he brought a cell phone AND used it DURING deliberations. It’s not just phone calls. Did he receive texts? Was he looking at news or comments about the trial during that time?
Reddington has every right to find out. He brought a cell phone into the deliberation room, while they were deliberating. That alone should have gotten the attention of the judge. Just acknowledging he used it DURING deliberations would have been an automatic mistrial.
“Finally the FULL Jury must be unanimous otherwise you get a mistrial.”
No, that’s a HUNG JURY. If the holdout was removed for cause the alternate would replace him. That’s why there are alternates.
Reddington was in the jury room?? Or just hearsay? Reddington has proof?? EXPLAIN X. Three XXX and you are out!
It’s not hearsay, Even Turley points out there was a cell phone used during deliberations. The note to the judge pointed out the holdout chose to scroll on his phone while the others sat exasperated.
That alone should have been a huge red flag.
Reddington saw the juror’s notes to the judge. He was privy of what was in the note passed on to the judge.
In an interview with ABC News, fellow juror Nick Dargie stated that the holdout juror, Michael Desronvil, would at times scroll on his phone and refuse to engage with the rest of the jury during their 38 hours of deliberations.
It was not hearsay.
It’s not hearsay because Nick Dargie says so. Got it!
No, because a juror who was there said so. Can you prove the juror is making it up?
What’s the penalty for refusing to serve on a jury in Massachusetts?
Death.
Forced sex change operation.
In Texas (I don’t know about MA) before a jury trial, the list of the jury panel is circulated. It is normal practice to check the backgrounds (criminal records, voter registration, etc.) of the first twenty-five or so on the panel, assuming that is about as far as most get before the twelve are seated. If this had been done by Reddington, he most likely would have known before jury selection about the record he now claims to have discovered. His behavior post-trial should have been sanctioned by the Judge. To me, the more troubling thing that deserves a lot of attention is the obvious jury nullification that not only occurred but that has been applauded by so many people in MA and elsewhere.
In Massachusetts the parties to a criminal case do not know the identities of the individuals called for the jury pool until minutes before the day’s proceedings begin. It is impossible to do an in depth investigation of the jury pool. The procedure in Massachusetts is as follows.
The people called for jury duty are required to show up at the court before 8:30am. They fill out the Confidential Juror Questionnaires which are then collected and photocopied by the staff. The staff then distributes the paper copies of the questionnaires to the attorneys of the prosecution and defense. They do not get digital copies or lists. Everything is on paper, and every piece of paper is uniquely identified. The reason for this is that Massachusetts privacy law is very strict. The CJQ’s are not public record and cannot be disclosed outside the court. It is illegal to photograph or digitize the CJQ’s. At the end of voir dire every piece of paper must be returned to the court and destroyed as required by Chapter 234a, Section 23.
The paper copies of CJQ’s from the jury pool are physically handed to the attorneys and within minutes the judge enters and the day’s proceedings begin with voir dire.
The CJQ’s, and the information they contain cannot be made known to anyone outside the attorney’s team, and cannot be removed from the courthouse. It is impossible to do any independent background checks. Both the prosecution and defense counsel must rely on the self-reported information in the CJQ’s. Desronvil obviously lied in his CJQ, which is submitted under penalty of perjury. He committed a crime by submitting false information on his CJQ.
Reddington is simply doing his job by providing a zealous defense for his client.
^sounds like georgie, doesn’t it?
He’s not wrong, and it was not me.
Thank you for the explanation. That does make the answers to the questionnaire even more important. I am more concerned about the jury nullification, especially given the wall-to-wall coverage given to the case. It has always been a problem in isolated cases but I am concerned that this may make it more widespread.
“Desronvil obviously lied in his CJQ . . .” “He committed a crime by submitting false information on his CJQ.”
Nothing like contradicting yourself ten times.
Can you prove those assertions? No. Because, as you properly noted, those questionnaires are *confidential*.
As a now 82 year old lay American male who, after some 20,000 others (website counter in the day) about monosodium glutamate (MSG), I first wrote the US FDA (with replies) in October of 2005 about my personal experientially observed chronic mental and physical illness effects (e.g., serious ‘mood swings’ and “obesity,” minimally; obviously, now, in-vain) resultant of undiagnosed very, very mild food allergy reactions being aggravated (e.g., extended and/or intensified) by unintentionally ingesting added MSG in what were supposed to be ‘safe’ commercial food products (FFDCA; FD&C) since 1980. In more recent years I’ve been asking a question of law professionals something to this effect: ‘How can any young (relative to me) American adult be held fully legally responsible for any of their bad acts after two and a half generations (not years; not decades) of ignorantly and innocently ingesting toxic brain damaging, mind altering FDA approved food poisoning all of their lives, many of them preceded by their parents, even in public school meals?’ Having already written to Mr. Turley and Mr. Reddington specifically about this more than once each, I’m very disappointed there’s still no mention of it which doesn’t originate with me. About the simplest explanation of how some depression occurs is through a probably very common serious medically undiagnosed (unreliable blood serum testing) calcium deficiency (a natural tranquilizer in combination with magnesium, also possibly seriously deficient due to inaccurate/unreliable blood testing). Contemporary (as opposed to ‘modern’) medicine is still so ‘dark-ages.’ Charles G. Shaver; CGS
Turley admits the defense outperformed the prosecution, which is precisely what led the 11-juror majority to favor an insanity acquittal.
The lone holdout juror clearly broke the rules. Most notably, he brought a cellphone into the jury room. While it is speculation to wonder if he was scrolling or communicating with an outside source urging him to hold firm, the fact remains that having a phone during deliberations is a major violation.
Given these circumstances, defense attorney Kevin Reddington’s demands are not unusual. The juror also omitted a past restraining order and prior legal issues from his questionnaire. This proven willingness to lie on official court forms casts serious doubt on his post-trial claims, especially after being called out by fellow jurors.
Turley’s criticism of Reddington’s post-mistrial outburst does not change the fact that this juror repeatedly violated protocol. Reddington deserves leeway to investigate how the vetting process missed these red flags, and why the judge didn’t address the cellphone violation sooner. The mere presence of an unmonitored cellphone in that room compromised the integrity of the entire trial.
“The juror also omitted a past restraining order and prior legal issues from his questionnaire.”
He claims he did disclose on the form.
He claims, but if he did include his current restraining order he would have been disqualified. We can only assume he lied. If he did we cannot trust what he claims. He was using his cell phone during deliberations. How do we know he wasn’t looking at news or getting texts from other trying to influence him? Just the fact that he had a cell phone out during deliberations should have been a huge red flag.
For a wannabe lawyer you sure do suck at collecting and presenting facts George, intentionally not mentioning the nurses antics during deliberation.
George stick to the sidelines, you’re mentally overwhelmed.
Obviously you’re not paying attention or don’t know how to read. Care to try again?
Other jurors also used their cell phones during deliberations. According to Jury foreperson Roni Carlson, some jurors put headphones on and listened to music while the 911 call was replayed. If the holdout jurors phone records are to be gone through, then all of the jurors phone records should be examined.
Why are cell phones allowed in the jury room to begin with?
How is that evidence of using a cell phone?
It makes no sense what you’re saying. Why would they be listening to music to hear a 911 call being replayed?
Explain that.
In MA cell phones in jury deliberations are strictly prohibited.
Here’s what they were doing.
“According to jury foreperson Roni Carlson, the 911 call from Patrick Clancy was so agonizing and emotionally distressing—featuring bloodcurdling screams—that multiple jurors felt physically sick hearing it. Some jurors who had already fully evaluated the audio put on headphones to block it out because listening to it repeatedly was causing severe emotional trauma.”
Stepping away from a piece of traumatic evidence you have already processed to preserve your mental health is entirely different from scrolling on a cell phone to ignore your fellow jurors during active, mandatory group deliberations.
They weren’t using cell phone you moron.
X likes to throw around the term ‘evidence.” He has NO idea what is and is not evidence.
Nope. You’re just throwing around accusations out of spite because you cannot provide anything of substance.
CLOWN , this relates to YOUR use of the SUBSTANTIVE word “evidence” in this case. God, you need a restraining order against YOU
There are probably more non-lawyers than lawyers who follow this blog. What makes X different is that he pretends to write in legalese language, all of it lifted from the Internet. BEWARE anyone who trusts X to know what he is talking about in real substance.
also, X starts out by saying “Turley admits…” Objectively evaluating and complimenting trial counsel IS NOT AN ADMISSION. It is what makes Turley respected. X tries the same tactic everyday. His need to cast doubt on TUrley is almost pathological and tells us much about X, not Turley
Nope. I actually do research and read for substance. You don’t have to be a lawyer to understand and opine about case and it’s legal and procedures.
The distinction is YOU have absolutely no idea what you argue. You’re just here to snip and yip around my ankles because you don’t like the idea that I post arguments or opinion with actual substance.
You don’t offer ANYTHING of substance.
Talk about laughable, YOU did not answer either of the two points made: First, that you have no legal understanding of what you lift from the Internet-in the same way that a lawyer would. And two, that saying “Turley ADMITS
was a clear giveaway to your daily diatribes against him. Try again, clown.
Again, you don’t read. You have no concept of what reading for comprehension is.
You don’t offer any legal opinions or proof that YOU understand anything besides offering baseless claims and accusations You don’t have a clue of what you’re talking about. I know what they are saying and what the issues are, you don’t. That’s why you are only whining about what I say instead of offering a counter to the facts and evidence I present.
Again, the clown X is so stupid that he doesn’t even realize the mistakes he’s making. He argues constantly that we are whining instead of countering the facts and evidence he presents.
CLOWN, quoting what another juror says, particularly one who wants Clancy to be cleared, doesn;t make it FACT any more or less than what the holdout juror says. You constantly lift pieces of script from what you read in media and introduce it here as “evidence..’ WTH is wrong with you george?
LOL!! You ARE whining. You have have no concept of what reading for comprehension is. Basically you’re too stupid to understand what you read. It’s pretty sad.
georgie, where did you learn that phrase, “reading for comprehension?”
It was here.
YOur misuse of it is the best “evidence’ that you are a true clown. Enough. Go to your room.
you did not even know what “opine” meant until you learned that word here.
It seems that Mr Reddington reuses to take a victory when it was given to him. He has the mistrial. Now her has to go back to work. I’m sure working is not as much fun as grandstanding on TV but I think that is what he signed for. In the meantime statements from the “rogue” juror will likely complicate the search for new, unbiased jurors and now you also have a gut wrenching interview of the husband and the whole story of finding his murdered children.
These are interviews and stories that are difficult to blank from your mind as a prospective juror. I think Mr. Reddington’s shenanigans are weakening his case and is making his client less and less palatable to the public at large. It’s also likely that this will change how the prosecution reviews and challenges new jurors. They now have a clearer idea who will vote for and against conviction.
“making his client less and less palatable to the public at large. ” Since when does the public decide guilt or innocence in a murder trail?
That piece has a tone, and it’s not neutral. It frames Reddington as a menace while giving the juror a halo, and it barely touches the elephant in the room: the juror himself may have withheld or misrepresented information that should matter in voir dire.
Of course the peice is not neutral – Reddington is asking the court to violate the 4th and 5th amendment rights of members of the jury.
Reddington IS a menace. He is seeking the court to allow him to act as he is not allowed to do.
What the juror MAY have done is irrelevant – to subpoena records you must provide probable cause that the juror DID something wrong.
That burden of proof is not high, but it is also not mere speculation.
Finally, The jury did NOT come back with a unanimous verdict of all 12 jurors. removing the holdout still leaves the defense short of the required 12 jurors voting to acquit.
While I likely would bar retrials in most instances where the prosecution fails to get a unanimous verdict of 12 jurors, that is NOT the actual law.
Clancy is going to get a new trial. Reddington proving bias on the part of the hold out juror will not change that.
And as others have noted there is plenty of evidence of bias on the part of the jurors that voted to acquit.
Any juror that has publicly admitted to lying to get onto the jury to send a political message should be prosecuted and convicted of perjury.
While I am a big fan of jury nullification – you can not commit perjury to do so.
@John Say,
You are completely right that a court cannot go on a fishing expedition just because a defense lawyer dislikes a verdict. However, multiple fellow jurors have now gone on the record stating the holdout was actively on his phone during active deliberations. In Massachusetts, this is a strict rules violation. Witness testimony from the jury box provides the exact ‘probable cause’ of misconduct you rightly noted was missing.
The defense isn’t asking the court to violate the 4th Amendment because the juror voted to convict; they are asking for a targeted inquiry because a banned device was introduced into a sequestered room. The court has a duty to ensure the juror wasn’t looking up outside media, social media, or unapproved definitions of postpartum psychosis.
The defense isn’t asking for a total digital strip-search. They are asking a neutral forensic examiner to look exclusively at timestamped metadata—web traffic and texts sent specifically between 8:30 AM and 4:30 PM on deliberation days—to prove the trial’s integrity was compromised.
That is a reasonable request based on the fact a cell phone was used during deliberations.
Reddington should be sanctioned and removed from the case.
For what, showboating and defending his client? If I ever kill my 3 children in MA, I’ll look him up.
Well this clearly makes the case for getting excused from Jury duty and or claiming a bias badge early in the selection process so you get on your way back to life pronto! Scumbag lawyers (on both sides) trying ANYTHING to get a WIN? And Black Robe Illuminati who are wishy washy on misconduct. A perfect recipe for NO THANK YOU!!
Who’s going to want to serve on a jury knowing he could be doxxed, even persecuted? That defense attorney is an idiot.
One doesn’t have a choice if called to jury duty. You new to this part of the world?
No choice?? Many legit reasons to get out of jury duty!! You new to this part of the world? YOU doofus!!
As a practicing transactional and now retired lawyer, I have been called for jury duty 4 times over the years in 2 different jurisdictions. On 2 occasions, I filled out detailed answers to juror questionaires tendered early in the process and the court dismissed me without questions. Two times, no such questionaires were tendered. In all 4 situations, I honestly stated my opinion of the American criminal justice system as well as of many lawyers who work in that system. Each time, a judge has excused me from service. I do not lie. I recount my experience immediately out of law school and my observations gained over the years. I honestly state my deeply held opinion. On the two occasions when no questionaires were distributed, I first offered the judge the chance to question me in chambers with both defense and proscecuting attornies present. Each time, the judge declined and asked me to state my reasons in open court in front of all the potential jurors: I stated the following in open court: “I have NO faith in the American criminal justice system. I favor the older English judicial system where both prosecutor and defense lawyers are sworn to establish truth and almost no lawyers become politicians. In our own country, I have observed prosecutors hunt for scalps and seek convictions to garner future political favor not to achieve justice. I have read of situations where prosecutors withheld evidence from the defense and suffered no penalties and where defense lawyers depended on technicalities to defeat justice. In my first interview out of law school, now almost 60 years ago, for a position with the local District Attorney’s office, the interviewing lawyer asked me a question: ‘If the District Attorney wanted a conviction in a case where you believed the evidence clearly showed the defendant to be not guilty of any wrong doing, would you still prosecute the case.’ I responded “no, I couldn’t do that.” The interview immediately ended with a “That is all. Thank you very much.” At that moment, I decided that transactional as opposed to trial law would be my future. I am willing, your honor to serve on the jury, but I question whether the other lawyers in this room would want me to do so.” The judge each time, excused me from jury duty.
He is not an idiot. He knows what he is doing. As I understand it, if there is juror misconduct, she can’t be retried. He obviously thinks that the prosecutors will do a better job of jury selection in a retrial.
“As I understand it . . .”
You understand wrong.
Can’t be retried?? SHOW ME THE LAW ANON!!!
When the story breaks that Clancy voted for Trump, all these activist women will be screaming for the death penalty.
Why would Clancy tell anyone? Do note that MA is a blue state.
If the is what a juror has to face when a guy like Reddington doesn’t like the decision, disqualify yourself immediately during Voir dire.
Reddington is unhinged and should be sanctioned by the court. I have no doubt his behavior will have a prejudicial effect on a new trial. His theory of the case was so far fetched that the public and new prospective jurors couldn’t possibly buy into her being innocent and should walk free. The holdout juror should pursue a claim against him for damages.
His brazen ask to the MA Supreme Court to have a juror removed because of their deliberative vote should be viewed as Jury Tampering. This is a felony. These legal elitists think jurors are powerless cogs in their wheelhouse. The Judge apparently didn’t mind enough to reprimand him.
Are you a licensed and practicing lawyer in MA?
I can’t decide here whether Reddington wants to run for Congress, Governor, or just be a big-time lawyer. The latter of course is a lot of work. Congress is more a leisurely destination. He obviously has the ethics of any elected official in MA.
In the meantime, Lindsay Clark still did murder her three children, apparently premeditatedly. Had she rammed her car into a school bus and killed multiple kids, then drugs or no drugs, she is guilty, even in MA.
The FDA does not bother to recall drugs that enhance or even provoke suicide ideation. This is a measure of how corrupt the pharma biz and FDA have become. There’s more wrong to be found in this tragic story than one person’s guilt. And Reddington is guilty of attempted Jury Tampering. The moral compass of our nation has drifted way out of calibration. The ability to see wrong being committed has been corrupted by “side-taking”.
You sound as if you’re on psychoactive drugs.
PSYCHO MORON ANON strikes again
If that is grounds to recall drugs, then there would be no anti-depressants.
Geez, it seems anyone who serves on a jury in Massachusetts ought to be given the option of joining the Witness Protection program.
Isn’t it the job of a competent defense attorney to identify and reject unqualified jurors during the juror selection process? Isn’t Reddington’s claim now, after trial, that the one holdout juror was unqualified to serve on the jury a tacit admission that he, Reddington, was negligent during jury selection? If a new trial is ordered, could Clancy claim that she was represented incompetently during her first trial?
Speaking of unqualified jurors, what about ghd female jurors who have admitted that they voted not guilty as a means of advancing the discussion of women’s issues?
“. . . holdout juror was unqualified to serve . . .”
I realize this is not your point. But there is this overriding fact:
Even if it’s all true, there is *nothing* in that juror’s background that disqualifies him from serving on a jury in MA.
Are you a licensed and practicing lawyer in MA?
It is the responsibility of counsel to scrutinize jurors. But they do not have infinite ability to remove a juror without proving cause,
nor do they have the broad investigative power that Reddington is asking for now.
Beings compelled for jury duty does not surrender your 4th and 5th amendment rights.
A mistrial precludes Clancy from making a criminal defense claim that Reddington incompetently represented her.
She can file a civil claim for fees paid for allegedly incompetent representation. I doubt she will or that will go anywhere.
How is this any different from trying to assassinate Justice Kavanaugh for having a different interpretation of the Constitution than the mob?
What? Please tell us you’re really not a lawyer. You’re crazier than those feminazis from MA.
Anonymous, May you have a blessed day.
Psycho.
They should investigate the 4 women jurors that got on the jury with a plan to get her off to prove women need more mental healthcare. They lied to get on the jury. They told the truth on TV. One even admitted it on national TV. They also wrongly used their personal experiences, and bullied other jurors. All should be held in contempt of court, and prosecuted for lying under oath.
I would think that Desronvil’s lawyer will raise that issue. But what exactly would that do to the verdict. Nothing.
None of what you mentioned makes a difference, The verdict by the judge has been entered. It cannot be changed. Why Reddington is doing this, only he knows. My guess, fees. He know there’s a million plus in the kitty. Milk it. He has a couple million in IRS debt.
New trail next year, sequestered jury. And a deep screening of jurors and oversight by the judge of deliberations. I wonder if Reddington will be Clancy’s lawyer in the next trial?
Spot on.
You hands that right. No juror should Jane to go through this.
Jane?
It’s Dustoff.
Thought PSYCHO ANON would have claimed he was Estovir!! ha ha
You Jane me Tarzan