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!!
Much of what I have cited is driven by the CONSTITUTION.
The Reddington and the left wants Desronvil investigated. The CONSTITUION imposes requirements on govenrment to conduct an investigation and even higher requirements to force the disclosure of records – such as phone records.
It is POSSIBLE that the Massachusetts constitution imposes MORE requirements – but it may not require LESS.
Is anything that I said incorrect ?
Yes, it’s irrelevant to the case.
Are you? In fact, are you even a lawyer?
No but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Neither are you.
“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?
Technically you are correct Dargie’s statement is not hearsay.
When Reddington convinces Dargie to sign an affadavit to that effect then maybe he can subpeona phone records.
Though that is a really big if, because it takes enormous evidence of wrong doing for a court to start inquiry into jury deliberations.
X it is not even hearsay.
Reading comprehension eludes you.
NO ONE so far has said that a cell phone WAS used.
Even Reddington says he wants phone records to FIND OUT if a cell phone was used.
Reddinginton questioning whether a cell phone was used is NOT the same as alleging that one was used.
Turley reporting what Reddingtion argued is NOT evidence of anything.
“The note to the judge pointed out the holdout chose to scroll on his phone while the others sat exasperated.”
Please provide EVIDENCE – nothing I have found confirms ANY of this – no note to the judge, no claim of scrolling on a cell phone.
You do not just get to make things up, nor is it sufficient to have an unnamed source.
Absolutely SOME other jurors have claimed that Desronvil did not engage with them.
Desronvil has claimed that other jurors refused to listen to him.
The Jury foreman has claimed that he initially voted guilty but was brow beaten by other jurors.
There is lots of evidence this jury was dysfunctional.
“That alone should have been a huge red flag.”
While what YOU allege – which is not even an allegation I can find elsewhere is disturbing it is NOT alone sufficient to dismiss Desronvil – which would only have resulted in a mistrial.
First it is all but a rule of god that NO ONE can judge the way juries can conduct deliberations.
If one juror refuses to engage. If the jurors bully each other, if ….
That is outside the purview of the courts.
The judge can BEG jurors to engage, he can even order them to. but he can not remove them for failing to.
ACTUALLY receiving outside communications about the case during a case would disqualify the juror and result in a mistrial during deliberations.
Violating a rule against cell phones or sending or receiving communications ALONE would NOT – though it would be a foundation for investigation. To dismiss a juror during deliberation they have to more than violate a rule – they must have done so in a way that influenced them.
Desronvil scrolling though his 401K would not result in dismissal. I would likely result in confiscation of his phone.
It also would likely result in Reddington’s request for phone records being granted.
But Reddington is NOT entitled to go on a fishing expedition over hypotheticals.
Todate NO ONE has provided evidence that Desronvil had or used a phone during deliberations.
Even Reddington is NOT claiming he did.
He is claiming he wants phone records to FIND OUT if he did.
Not the same – reading comprehension.
“Reddington saw the juror’s notes to the judge. He was privy of what was in the note passed on to the judge.”
If there were notes to the judge – then the prosecution and defense both saw them.
But you have not established that any such notes existed or that they referenced cell phones.
Nor has Reddington who is aking for cell phone records to FIND OUT if Desronvil used a cell phone.
That is called a fishing expidition.
“In an interview with ABC News, fellow juror Nick Dargie stated that the holdout juror, Michael Desronvil, would at times scroll on his phone”
Disclosing anything that occured during jury deliberations is a crime. If Mr. Dargie actually said what you claim – AND it is true, then he committed a crime.
Regardless, Reddington is free to bring Mr. Dargie to court and have him report this to the judge under oath.
Otherwise it is worthless.
“refuse to engage with the rest of the jury during their 38 hours of deliberations.”
Which any juror is free to do.
“It was not hearsay.”
Still pretty much is.
I listened to the Dargie inteview. Frankly it damn’s the other jurors.
Dargie admitts that many other jurors voted to convict at one time or another,.
Then he makes the idiotic claim that Desronvil could not provide evidence that Clancy was gulilty.
Clancy admits to the murder of her children – there is no further evidence needed to convict.
After a defendant admits to the actions that constitute the elements of the crime,
the only remaining issue is the intent of the defendant. Was the intent self defense,
or an irresistible compulsion – the “evidence” of state of mind is not a bloody knife.
It is each individuals perception of whether the defendant is telling the truth and how consistent is that with
other known facts.
I do not know if Clancy is criminally culpable for the murder of her children. Though in most states in this country her defense even if fully accepted would have resulted in a conviction – possibly with a mitigated sentence.
I absolutely know she should not be on the streets.
She is either criminally culpable and belongs in jail, or unable to resist the voices in her head telling her to commit murders in which case she should be institutionalized.
I DO know that evidence was presented that Clancy’s actions were premeditated. n
Premeditation is nearly always considered proof that a persons actions are atleast nominally in their control.
But again I was not on this jury, I did not here the entire case. But Desronvil did and his judgement is as valid as the 11 others who were either convinced or brow beaten into voting innocent.
If you are unwilling to accept Desronvil’s unwavering right to conclude she was guilty – you have no basis to accept the conclusion of the other jurors, or lone holdouts for innocence in other cases.
I have myriads of problems with our jury system.
I think it quite often gets things wrong.
But we do not have an alternative system that I am willing to trust as much.
““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.”
Then you can provide CREDIBLE evidence of that.
You should already KNOW by now that YOUR CLAIMS do not constitute evidence.
” It’s not just phone calls. Did he receive texts?”
Again DO YOU HAVE EVIDENCE ?
Speculation is not evidence.
“Was he looking at news or comments about the trial during that time?”
AGAIN do you have evidence ?
Speculation is not evidence.
“Reddington has every right to find out.”
NOPE. Reddington is a defense attorney he has ZERO power to compell – he is NOT the Government, he can not use FORCE.
Reddington is asking GOVERNMENT to use FORCE to violate Desronvil ‘s constitutional rights. Doing so REQUIRES meeting the constituitional burden – probable cause.
YOU have claimed that Desronvil used a cell phone during deliberations. I have seen nothing that a judge would consider credible evidence of that.
Absolutely if you can provide credible evidence of outside communications during deliberations you can impeach Desronvil as a juror and possibly prosecute him.
Though all that will accomplish is prosecution of Desronvil, This is still a mistrial, not an acquital.
You do not seem to gather than claiming something is not the same as proving it.
“He brought a cell phone into the deliberation room, while they were deliberating.”
Because YOU say so.
” That alone should have gotten the attention of the judge.”
If that happened – it should have. But it did NOT, leading to the logical conclusion that it did not happen.
This jury deliberated for 7 days. If Desronvil was using his cell phone during deliberations the other 11 jurors could have gotten rid of him anytime they wanted. But they did NOT do so.
Either this is a claim made up AFTERWORDS
or multiple jurors were using cellphones and chose not to report Desronvil because it would have disqualified them.
Regardless you still have nothing credible.
In My state Cell Phones are not allowed inside the courthouse.
In MA The Court, Court Staff, and attorneys may use Cell phones.
Everyone else may bring cell phones – and even use them – but not in court and in court they must be set to silent or turned off.
I can not find any rules at all about cell phones with regard to Juries – beyond the general rule that a juror may not do outside research.
To compel the production fo records, you must have probable cause that a crime has been committed, and that the records you seek will provide evidence of that crime.
Do you have a SPECIFIC person willing to state under oath that Desronvil used a cell phone during deliberations ?
If you do not – then you must pound sand.
Vague claims are NOT sufficient to overcome constitutional hurdles.
And again all of this is a tempest in a tea pot.
A mistrial for jury misconduct is no better than a hung jury.
“Just acknowledging he used it DURING deliberations would have been an automatic mistrial.”
Incorrect. He would have had to have violated the rule against outside influence to get an automatic mistrial.
But if you have actual evidence that he USED a cell phone during deliberations – you can get a warrant to determine who he communicated with – but so far no one has provided such ACTUAL EVIDENCE.
““Finally the FULL Jury must be unanimous otherwise you get a mistrial.”
No, that’s a HUNG JURY. ”
Which is a form of mistrial.
“If the holdout was removed for cause the alternate would replace him. That’s why there are alternates.”
NOPE. Once Jury deliberations begin alternates are dismissed.
Once Jury deliberations begin, disqualifying a juror results in an automatic mistrial.
You can not recall an alternate after deliberations begin.
Alternates exist in case a juror becomes unavailable during the trial – either from illness or misconduct.
Once deliberations begin – removing a juror results in a mistrial.
The crux for me is at what point in time and by what authority did Clancy knowingly nullify murder laws/homicide.
What’s the penalty for refusing to serve on a jury in Massachusetts?
Death.
Forced sex change operation.
Well Bob
Thinking back to Clockwork Orange. Reading Anonymous, X and John Say looped comments would be a pretty harsh sentence.
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.
Of course he is wrong, and his own evidence about the way in which MA allegedly handles Jury Questions is the evidence he is wrong.
For Desronvil to have lied he would have had to have been asked questions we have not seen that with near certainty can not legally be asked in MA.
John Say
You are a worthless know-nothing idiot.
Here is the Massachusetts Confidential Jury Questionnaire that all potential jurors are required to complete truthfully, under penalty of perjury.
https://www.mass.gov/doc/confidential-juror-questionnaire/download
Note the section entitled “YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH THE LAW”.
It requires answers to the following questions:
Have you ever been arrested?
Have you ever been charged with a crime?
Have you ever been convicted of a crime?
Have you ever been served with a court order?
If Desronvil had been truthful he would have answered yes to all of these with the exception of the conviction question.
If he had been truthful, the defense would undoubtedly questioned about his record at voir dire and almost certainly have dismissed him as a juror.
Since he was not dismissed we can reasonably assume that he lied.
Thank you for the link.
YOU allege that is the questionnaire all jurors must answer – please provide a source for that.
As the Questionnaire itself States it is CONFIDENTIAL.
Whatever questionaire was used It does not leave the courthouse. Neither the prosecutor nor the defense can take copies with them.
So exactly how is it that you KNOW that Desronvil lied ?
Desronvil has claimed he did not. Redington has NOT claimed that he did only that he should NOW be allowed to inquire as to whether he did.
“If Desronvil”
Correct IF
YOU DO NOT KNOW.
YOU DO NOT KNOW if he said, if he said no, if he did not check anything.
I would further note that the ONLY question he was with certainty required to answer yes to was have you been arrested.
Being served and subject to a court order are NOT the same thing.
And if you are going to allege perjury you must get it PERFECT.
It is POSSIBLE that he was served with a court order – but that is not part of any public record I am currently aware of.
I would further note the actual questions are with near certainty unconstitutional.
You can not require someone to disclose anything criminal without a conviction. That would violate due process and the presumption of innocence.
“Since he was not dismissed we can reasonably assume that he lied.”
Nope.
There are very very few automatic criteria for dismissing a juror – not being a US citizen is one. Not being mentally or physcially competent to deal with the trial is another.
There might be one or two others.
There are MANY reasons that a juror can be dismissed for cause at the request of the prosecution of defense.
But those dismissals must be requested – they are not automatic.
That should be OBVIOUS to you by the fact that other questions in the same section are NOT even reasons for “for cause” dismissal. Being sued or having sued someone is not grounds for for cause dismissal – but those are questions on YOUR questionnaire.
It is common for prosecutors to seek to have people who might be criminals dismissed – defense attorney’s rarely do.
Regaredless, AGAIN few if any of these questions result in AUTOMATIC dismissal.
The prosecution and defense get them. They read them (or not) as they choose and they decide what further questions to ask if any and whether to attempt to remove a potential juror for cause or with a preemptory.
Do you have the court transcript for jury selection. I do not know the rules in MA – but that is NOT normally made public.
Regardless to allege that Desronvil lied you must:
Prove that is the questionaire he was asked to fill out.
That he did not answer those questions honestly.
That he was legally obligated to do so.
You do not have the questionaire he filled out.
I will trust you – a SMALL amount that it was that questionaire. But you have not proven that.
To allege perjury you must PROVE all the elements.
I would further note that YOUR FORM ends with a notice that errors or omissions are a crime punishable by a fine of not more than $2000.
That may be true – but that crime would not be perjury.
Perjury or even lessor offenses of lying under oath REQUIRE taking an oath – though the oath can be a written oath that you sign as part of the form
AND written notice that lying is Perjury and a cite to the specific law making it so.
All these details matter.
And you STILL have NONE of what you need to allege a false statement by Desronvil.
And Finally Absolutely ALWAYS the responsibility for culling Jurors that are unacceptable to the defense rests with the defense counsel.
If Desronvil had actually lied. AND if Clancy had been convicted. And the defense tried to challenge the verdict alleging that Desronvil had lied, the actual appeal claim would have been Ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to Desronvil.
John Say
Why do you persist with these exhaustive, bloviating nonsensical posts that are full of “what if” scenarios that have no basis in reality.
Massachusetts state law mandates that the standard Confidential Juror Questionnaire MUST be used in all state trial courts in Massachusetts. The State Office of Jury Commissioner is required by law to provide the questionnaire for use in ALL state trial courts. The identical form is used in all state trial courts.
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIII/TitleII/Chapter234a/Section22
All potential jurors in Massachusetts state trial courts are required to complete the form.
The trial was held in Plymouth County Superior Court.
Here is the webpage with instructions for potential jurors in that court.
https://www.mass.gov/info-details/plymouth-trial-court-jury-information
If you scroll down to the section about what to bring to court, there is a link to the Confidential Juror Questionnaire, with instructions to download it, complete it, and bring it to court.
The form is identical to that in the link that I previously posted.
All Massachusetts state trial courts are required by statute to use this form, and there is no doubt it was used in this case.
Desronvil was required by statute to complete this form.
The CJQ specifically asks about a history of arrest, criminal charges and court orders against the juror. If he was truthful, Desronvil would have answered those in the affirmative.
The CJQ is the only background information available to the defense.
Do you really think that Reddington would have allowed Desronvil to be seated if he had answered the questions truthfully? Keep in mind that Desronvil was arrested and charged with domestic violence for assaulting and choking his wife. He was not convicted because his family was too afraid to testify against him. His own mother called him evil.
Reddington would have looked at that history and challenged Desronvil in a heartbeat.
Do you really think that Reddington would allow a misogynistic wife beater to sit in judgment of a woman?
The only rational explanation for Reddington not challenging Desronvil is that he LIED.
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.
honestlawyer
You are right to be concerned about jury nullification, but this is not jury nullification.
Jury nullification occurs when a jury renders a verdict that is inconsistent with the facts, the law, and/or the judge’s instructions.
A verdict must be rendered, but here there was no verdict. It was a mistrial.
This is not jury nullification.
There do appear to be jurors that voted as they did specifically as an act of jury nuillification.
And you can malign that but it is perfectly legal.
John Say
You have absolutely no way of knowing that.
You are simply bloviating and blowing smoke AGAIN.
Just because you do not like the outcome, you assume that this is jury nullification.
YOU ARE INSANE.
Jury nullification is legal and an ancient part of US legal tradition.
“In 1735, journalist John Peter Zenger was acquitted in New York by a jury that nullified a law making it a crime to criticize public officials”
I have pointed out that several jurors have publicly admitted they prejudged the case and that they actively sought to get on the jury to nullify any verdict against Clancy.
If they did so then they lied significantly more than Desronvil is alleged to have.
But they are with near certainty unprosecutable.
While there are non-criminal sanctions of defense counsel for even hinting to a jury that they can engage in jury nullification.
The same is true regarding the above posters purported MA Jury questionaire. While I would advise any potential juror to answer honestly – several of the questions violate constitutional rights. Absent a criminal conviction it is unlikely Desronvil can be convicted for allegedly falsely claiming he was never arrested or charged – assuming that he actually answered those questions incorrectly.
Absent a conviction it is legally/constitutionally the same as never arrested, never charged, never prosecuted.
A jury can still do pretty close to any damn thing it pleases.
Almst absent from the discussion here is that the courts are pretty much absolutely barred at inquiry into jury deliberations – beyond allegations of fraud, bribery or jury tampering.
And absent catching those BEFORE a verdict – I beleive once their is a verdict, while you can prosecute for bribery, fraud, … you can not undo the verdict.
That is also absolutely true in this case. The jury did not reach a unanimous verdict. This particular Trial is over. Most of what is left is formalities. Absent finding malfeasance by the prosecution Reddington can not convert a mistrial into an acquital.
While there are SOME types of mistrial that preclude retrial – a hung jury is not one of those.
“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*.
I GUESS I have to accept your claim regarding MA law and process – though as a near absolute rule failure to challenge a juror is an ATTORNEY ERROR – and I doubt that is different in MA.
Further your claim that Desronvil lied is OBVIOUSLY unproven. Because as YOU claim MA’s privacy laws are strict and CJQ’s never leave the court. So how is it you know what Desronvil was asked and that he lied in his answers ?
What was the Question on the CJQ that Desronvil lied in response to ?
Desronvil was once arrested – he was NOT charged or convicted – generally states like MA bar asking about anything except Felony convictions. Protective orders are civil not criminal. Quite often they are granted without objection – meaning nothing has to be proven to get one. Desronvil as an example has no reason not to agree to a no contact order with someone else – whether he engaged in unlawful conduct or not. And even when granted over the objections of the defendant the standard of proof is very low and they do not constitute something that must be reported. Again I would be shocked if MA law even allowed CJQ’s to ask about outstanding civil court orders or arrests that did not result in conviction..
So you are claiming that Desronvil has lied based on questions that very few people have seen, that are not public, and that can not be made public and do not likely ask anything that would have required Desronvil to disclose anything.
John Say
You ask, “What was the Question on the CJQ that Desronvil lied in response to”
Did you even bother to look at the CJQ that he was required to complete.
https://www.mass.gov/doc/confidential-juror-questionnaire/download
Note the section entitled “YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH THE LAW”.
It requires answers to the following questions:
Have you ever been arrested?
Have you ever been charged with a crime?
Have you ever been served with a court order?
Those are the questions he was asked to answer.
He was arrested for domestic violence in an attack on his wife.
He was arrested for an assault on his nephew.
He was not convicted in either case, because the family was so afraid of him that they refused to testify and moved away.
His own mother called him evil.
He should have answered YES to the questions about arrests, charges and court orders.
If he was truthful in his CJQ, do you really think that Reddington would have allowed him on to the jury.
Reddington would have dismissed him in a heartbeat.
Since he was not dismissed, the only reasonable conclusion is that he lied on his CJQ.
You posted much the same response above and I responded
Your still WAY OUT ON A LIMB
“You ask, “What was the Question on the CJQ that Desronvil lied in response to””
That requires an ACTUAL CJQ signed by Desronvil
You have not produced that – a Blank form from a MA web site means nothing.
It is Barely evidence – evidence NOT proof that Desronvil was asked those specific questions.
My state has a similar web site with similar forms.
Judge may or may not use them. That varies from court to court and sometimes from judge to judge.
You are claiming perjury – you need FAR more evidence than you have to prove that.
Frankly you would lose that claim on multiple constitutional grounds if this form was used and Desronvil actually misrepresented his past. Perjury on a form requires a signed oath and a cite to the law that specifies that misrepresentations on this form are perjury.
I am honestrly note sure the statement on this form that false statements are a crime of any kind is even valid – without some form of other and much better language. This form is really badly crafted – if MA is actually using it that would be a huge mistake. It is not enforceable. It states that omission or error is a crime – what kind of crime – summary, mis-demeanor, felony ? And is punishable by a $2000 fine – that probably makes it only a summary offense – ie a parking or traffic violation.
Maybe you are correct and all of MA is using this. Though that would surprise me. But then again I have seen courts and judges do stupid unconstiotutional things that they would ream ordinary people out for doing.
“He was not convicted in either case, because the family was so afraid of him that they refused to testify and moved away.”
More speculation
“His own mother called him evil.”
Funny that you raise than in a case where a mother murders 3 of her children
“If he was truthful in his CJQ, do you really think that Reddington would have allowed him on to the jury.
Reddington would have dismissed him in a heartbeat.”
ROFL
You COULD argue with a straight face that the prosecution would have sought to dismiss him for cause,
but you really expect people to beleive that the defense would object to jurors who have negative expreiences with law enforcement and criminal justice ?
REALLY ?
Reddington would have gone out of his way to preserve a black juror who might empathize as a victim of the criminal justice system.
I am horribly disappointed at the quality of argument by you left wing nuts.
You are completely out of your mind, twisting yourself into a pretzel to try to deny reality.
You demand to see an actual CJQ signed by Desronvil.
I have already told you that it is illegal to disseminate the CJQ’s outside the courthouse. Only the parties to the proceedings are permitted to view them.
And you make the ridiculous claim with regard to the CJQ, that “Judge may or may not use them”.
Here is a link to the Office of Jury Commissioner:
https://juryduty.majury.gov/ojcweb/Questionnaire
It clearly states: “Massachusetts law requires that potential jurors complete a Confidential Juror Questionnaire (CJQ) for use during the impaneling of a jury. This information is kept confidential, and is not used outside the courtroom. Virtually all CJQs are destroyed the same day the potential juror appears for jury service.”
The use of the CJQ is not OPTIONAL. It is MANDATORY in all Massachusetts trial courts.
Desronvil was REQUIRED to complete and submit this form.
And then wander off into the Twilight Zone with bizarre ramblings and musings that the form is not really valid, that it is vague, that it does not specify the nature of the crime that is committed by lying, and that it may not be constitutional.
YOUR ARE INSANE.
This is a regular ploy that you adopt here. You always try to claim that anything that you disagree with must be unconstitutional, so that you are relieved of having to provide an actual argument.
You also cast doubt on the reporting about his arrests, and his mother calling him evil.
Look here:
https://nypost.com/2026/09/17/us-news/holdout-juror-in-lindsay-clancy-mistrial-michael-p-desronvil-speaks-out-for-first-time-after-intense-backlash/
You make the absurd claim that the defense would have no problem with a juror who had negative experiences with law enforcement
Really??
What if the defense is presented with a documented misogynistic wife beater in a case where the defendant is a woman?
Reddington would challenge him in an instant without even bothering to question him.
You are a mentally unstable, know-nothing idiot.
^From X, to X, with love.
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.
“He claims, but if he did include his current restraining order he would have been disqualified.
Nope. There are very few absolute bars to jury duty.
Defense and prosecuting attorneys can argue many more and ask that they be considered CAUSE,
but they are not required to.
“We can only assume he lied. ”
I guess you never hear d the adage that when you assume you make an ASS out of U and ME
“If he did we cannot trust what he claims.”
He is not claiming anything other than that he concluded Clancy was guilty. That is the only claim of his that is relevant.
And once the alternates were discharged he was entitled to conclude that by right, just as the other jurrors were entitled to conclude otherwise.
” He was using his cell phone during deliberations.”
Still nothing more than an unclear claim by a single juror.
You have no idea if it was allowed, if it was true, if he was the only juror doing so, if he was playing solitaire or negotiating the price for holding out with someone outside.
Speculation is not FACT. You keep missing that.
“How do we know he wasn’t looking at news or getting texts from other trying to influence him?”
We don;t. We do not know he was not bribed., We do not know the other jurors were not bribed.
Several indicated they were bullied.
What we do know is that the jury hung and that is not reverseable.
“Just the fact that he had a cell phone out during deliberations should have been a huge red flag.”
Again based on what ?
The LAW is that jurors can not be influenced outside the court.
In fact for non-sequestered juries that happens all the time.
Regardless, to do anything you must PROVE oputside influence – usually bribery or something similar – no one is allegeing that.
Short of participating in something criminal – such as bribery your choices are ignore it or declare a misstrial.
You rant about alleged misconduct – but we have lots of that.
For the most part Desronvil has been mostly silent about deliberations only confirming that he had no doubts.
Anything more would violate the law.
Dirge is not going to be prosecuted but his TV interviews violate the law, as do the women who admitted they prejudged the case.
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?
X you are clearly the one with the reading comprehension problem.
You accused Truely and Reddinton of stating as FACT things that have not been established as fact.
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
ROFL!! You have no idea what you’re talking about. I doubt you even know what “substantive” means in the context of this “conversation”.
What did X do with his life before he started to answer everything with “ROFL,” which is something he picked up on this blog, only he originally called it “ROLF.” tee hee.
X – in NONE of this have you demonstrated familiarity with pretty much anything.
You have either been outright wrong, mostly wrong, purely speculative, or in the rare instances when you are accurate about some facts completely oblivious to others.
To get even close tot he conclusions you draw – 100% of your claimed speculative facts MUST be true EXACTLY as you allege them, and 100% of every other similar claim by others must be false.
Your engaged in motivated thinking, and that pretty much always leads people astray.
As ONE example – we do not KNOW that Desronvil had a cell phone during deliberations.
We have ONE juror that loosely alleges that. We also have jurors that are alleging that other jurors had cell phones.
NO ONE yeat has alloeged that ANY juror was being influenced by anything outside the trial. Absent PROOF of ouitside influence -= EVEYRTHING else you claim is meaningless.
While you have NOT demonstrated that cell phones are prohibited – it would not matter if they are.
You can spank one or more jurors for violating the rules. You can remove them from the jury – but once deliberations have started removing them results in a mistrial – which si why it usually takes REALLY egregious conduct to get a juror removed once deliberations start.
You claim Desronvil ignored evidence argued by other jurors – well that is his right. Just as Other Jurrors allegedly also ignored evidence. Refusing to listen to the 911 call again is ignoring the evidence that whoever asked that to be played thought the other jurors should hear. Whether jurors mysteriously found noise cancelling headphones or pulled out their iphone and airpods and played music is irrelevant – they deliberately ignored something anotgher juror wanted them to hear.
And that is THEIR RIGHT just as it is Desronvil;s to stick to his guns.
No one is demanding investigations of jurors who refused to listen to the 911 call again.
As always you do not read thoroughly – you make assumptions and speculate.
And worse you discountg anything anyone else says that is similarly or even better but still speculative.
You have accused Desronvil of myuriads of things – you are threatening him with investigation adn possibly prosecution.
But you are NOT doing the same with other jurors who have clearly engaged in misconduct.
You can not discus jury deliberations EVEN AFTER THE TRIAL IS OVER – it is Illegal. Every juror going to the media is committing a crime. None are going to be prosecuted. Regardless, it is MORE certain they have committed crimes than that Desronvil has. Several Jurrors publicly admitted they tried to get onto the jury to send a message.
That is illegal – it is prejudging the case and it means they lied during voidire.
You want to cricify Desronvil over YOUR speculation that he lied – but anyone who admits prejudging tyhe case admits to lying during voirdire.
But again – you discount what does not help your ideological goals and amplify what you think does.
And you make up law as you go.
Absolutely in my state if you take a cell phone into a jury room you will be prosecuted.
But my state is not Massachusetts. There is no bar to cell phones in court in MA and I have found no evidence they are not allowed in Jury rooms – and based on what jurors have said most all jurors appear to have had cell phones.
Though apparently YOU think they all had walkman.
And that ios the point – you speculate – but ONLY one way.
And you are clueless about the fact that with near certtainty your specultion is NOT 100% correct,
and to get ANYWHERE that is not Reddington trying to push the courts into something they do not have the power or authority to do, you need MORE than even you have speculated.
With near certainty SOME of my speculation will prove false. But that is unimportant, because there is only one specific set of speculative facts that leads to anything more than the mistrial we already have – and that is misconduct by the prosecutors.
No one is alleging that.
X you are engaged in MASSIVE speculation.
It is POSSIBLE that SOME of your speculation is right.
It is NEAR IMPOSSIBLE that all of it is.
And your argument requires you to be 100% right in ALL your speculation – and honestly fails even then.
The law may or may not allow cell phones in jury rooms in MA – nothing I have found suggests they are not allowed.
They are absolutely allowed in courtrooms – turned off or set to silent.
Absolutely jurors are barred from outside contact regarding the case. But that is true in the jury room and out, and whether they have a cell or not. Regardless you have not established outside contact regarding the case.
And even if you proved beyond any doubt that Desronvil was bribed – that results in a MISTRIAL not an acquital.
At this time the ONLY role of the judge is to determine if the PROSECUTION specifically was in some way complicit in bribing or blackmailing Desronvil into holding out for a conviction.
That is the ONLY circumstance in which the Judge can rule to preclude Clancy from being retried.
Even Reddington is NOT arguing that.
Anything less and the case is out of the Judges jurisdiction.
Actual CRIMINAL misconduct by ANY of the jurors is a matter for the DA’s office – not the judge.
Courts have no arrest power, and no investigative power. They are purely an adjudicative body.
Reddington is seeking to continue to make this into a public pummelling of Desronvil in the hopes of intimidating future jurrors into voting for acguital. That crosses the line from advocacy to misconduct. Bullying jurors is more than advocating zealously for your clients – it is misconduct.
“How is that evidence of using a cell phone?”
How is the claim of a juror on ABC evidence ?
The claim of one juror is as weak or strong an evidence as that of another.
“It makes no sense what you’re saying. Why would they be listening to music to hear a 911 call being replayed?”
Of course it does – it is EXACTLY like what Desronvil is alleged to have done – chosen to focus on his cell to ignore what the rest of the Jury was doing.
Purportedly the 911 call is extremely disturbing. Perhaps some jurors did not wish to hear it again.
“Explain that.” Did – easily.
“In MA cell phones in jury deliberations are strictly prohibited.”
So you say. Evidence ?
“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.”
“accrding to – means you are NOT citing what Ron Calson actually said, you are repeating it in YOUR words.
Was the rest of the Jury autistic that they carry arround headphones ?
Regardless usually whatr we call headphones today come with cell phones, and would be useless to block out a 911 call audio unless they were playing music. And music comes from a device. Did they all have Walkman ?
Grow up – it is the 21st century – headphones mean earbuds and nearly always are connected to a cell phone.
“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.”
Nope they are EXACTLY the same – they are blocking something you do not wish to listen to.
Jurors may do that.
“They weren’t using cell phone you moron.”
Nope the rest of the jury was autistic and brought noise cancelling headphones with them into the jury room.
Grow a brain X, with very very very few exceptions headphones today mean CELL PHONES are attached.
Do you have a source for this ?
While I HIGHLY suspect that if Desronvil was using a cell – so were others.
My search for MA law found that Cell Phones are allowed in MA courtrooms but must be off or silent.
I can find nothing about having them in jury rooms.
Whether they are allowed is for the MA courts to decide. I think it is a bad idea. But I do not run MA courts.
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.
LOL!!!! You have no idea what you’re saying. Every time you respond you just make yourself look dumber. It’s hilarious. Keep trying, one day you will get it.
get what, X?
do yu know?
X – are you still claiming that Turley (or even Reddington) asserted lying on the jury questionaire, cell phone use im thje jury room as facts rathert than as questions for inquiry ?
You earlier stated that Turley had Agreed that these had occured. But even Reddington has NOT alleged these occured.
He has requested to be able to investigate whether they did.
If you can not correctrly comprtehend something simple from Turley’s 2nd paragraph – why should anyone beleive you are able to comprehend what you read ?
X numerous people here have offered you the law in MA, and the facts as alleged by various jurors etc.
You continue to pick and choose only those portions that suit you.
And you do so without any rational basis.
Regardless while there is a significant amount of uncertainty regarding the FACTS here.
We know what a few people have said – we do NOT know what really happened.
We know what the public record is
We do not know what the jury questionaires asked.
And on and on.
YOU pick and choose which alleged facts to beleive, and which to reject.
you assume that you know things that we do not know.
And you reject everything that is contrary to what you want regardless of whether it has as strong a foundation so long as it is at odds with your claims.
I beleive that Judge Sulivan still has the power to grant a directed verdict – to decide that regardless of the jury he finds Clancy not guilty. With near certainty that is not going to happen. I only recall a judge issuing a directed verdict after a jury once in my life.
Judge Sulivan can also find that Clancy can not be retried if he finds a suibstantial violation of her rights BY THE PROSECUTION
No one has even alleged that.
In all other instances the Judge has no authority over any of your claims. Any alleged crimes regarding jurors etc. are investigated by the police and prosecuted by the DA – not the judge. not the defense attorney.
Everything else is an attempt to punish Desronvil for failing to kowtow to bullies on the jury.
And I would feel the same if this was 11-1 in favor of convicting.
You do not get to shame and abuse jurors after deliberations start.
you did not even know what “opine” meant until you learned that word here.
Coming from opinion? I’ll look it up as well as voir deir and aujus, and sanguine and soli. Sayonara
“snip and yip around my ankles.????”
Aw, did georgie/X pick that up from another commenter who talked about “ankle biters?”
Poor georgie, not an original thought in his head.
“I actually do research”
But you have not.
You have made speculative claims – that is not research.
Without knowing EXACTLY what is on the jury questionaires – you do not KNOW that Desronvil lied.
Further given the KNOW facts it is NOT LIKELY that the questionaires asked about anything beyond felony convictions – and given that it is MA probably not even that. But you claim as certain that Desronvil lied under oath to questions that are not public and that you have no idea what were.
You have concluded that Desronvil had a cell based on a single phrase by one Juror to the media who is committing a crime by even speaking to the media about deliberations.
But you reject the claim that other jurors had cells based on evidence as strong or stronger.
You claim that Desronvil not listening to evidence some jurors wanted the others to listen to is substantively different from other jurors not listening to other evidence that some jurors wanted listened to.
You buyt Dirge’;s claim that Desronvil was obligatged to prove Clancy’s guilt when by Law once she admitted to killing the children the burden of proving that was not competent to be held accountable for her own premeditated actions rests with the DEFENCE not the prosecution. Many argue that the Defence successfully made that case – and maybe they did, but the Burden once they admitted killing the children was on the defence – not the prosecution, and not Desronvil
Again you do these exactly these kind of things CONSTANTLY,
You speculate, you manufacture law and certainty about it from thin air, and you weigh nearly identical patterns radically differently based on the outcome you desire.
The courts are almost totally barred from inquiry into jury deliberations – For good reasons. The conduct and decision making of a jury will NEVER meet the standards required by the law. We can not even get lawyers and judges to follow the facts and the law without error,
in what world would you expect juries to get it perfect.
An argument I have repeated in other contexts is that we MUST make the world, society, government, the law, work with the people we have – not the people we wish we had.
That means we MUST tolerate alot of imperfection and even error.
Franklin said better that 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man is punished.
He did NOT say better that ALL guiltyu men go free than one innocent man is punished.
The highest likely estimate is that 2.5% of people in prison today are innocent of the crime they are accused of.
That is too high. We should work to reduce that. But not be letting every criminal go free.
Nor is this just about crime.
Every day you give us a new dose of TDS as if if you could just prove that if Trump did ONE thing incorrectly we would all agree that he is scum and never vote for him or any other republican.
No president – no senator, no representaive will EVEN meet that standard.
There is almost nothing that I 100% agree with Trump one. There is also nearly nothing that I would pick democrats over Trump.
A perfect world is not possible – and even if it were – it is near certain that what one of us deems to be perfect the rest of us will hate.
I am not looking to shame or jail the jurors who brow beat and bullied other jurors into a not guilty verdict.
Based on what I know – Clancy needs to be in a locked psychiatric facility until a number of experienced clinical psychologists conclude she is not a danger to herself or anyone else. People who hear voices demanding they murder their children and do as those voices demand belong locked up.
But as the rolling stones said
You can’t always get what you want.
But if you try sometimes you get what you need.
Allegedly you are an adult.
Regardless you need to GROW UP.
You think and argue like a toddler.
“Turley admits the defense outperformed the prosecution”
Generally correct. Turley stated that the prosecution did poorly in its case in cheif and the defense did excellent.
While the defense did poorly on their closing and the prosecution did excellent.
” which is precisely what led the 11-juror majority to favor an insanity acquittal.”
While all too often cases do hinge on the quality of the attorney’s which is unfortunate,
they are supposed to hinge on the facts.
The defense can do an excellent job and the prosecution a $hit job and a jury can still convict.
Juries are supposed to decide based on the facts and the law not the skill of the attorney’s
“The lone holdout juror clearly broke the rules.”
Nope.
“Most notably, he brought a cellphone into the jury room.”
While that would be a problem in my state – you can not even bring them into the court house as an attorney,
In MA that is not the case. I can not find rules for PED’s for Juries in MA, but the rules I can find allow the general public to have Cell Phones in court – so long as they are silent and not used disruptively.
Non PED specific rules would bar any juror from outside contact regarding the case – no matter how that contact occured.
But as of yet you have no evidence of that.
Personally I strongly suspect that Dargie is lying publicly – otherwise it WOULD have come up in notes to the judge and the judge would have likely confiscated all jurors cell phones. Regardless, Absent an MA rule against Cell phones, which we ONLY have mr Dargie’s single statement in a TV interview which alone is highly suspect, we do not have evidence that the holdout was subject to outside influences.
While we have 4 specific jurors who admit publicly they decided the case before they were selected for the jury _ which is a violation>
” While it is speculation to wonder if he was scrolling or communicating with an outside source urging him to hold firm,”
Correct. It is really even speculation to assume based on a single juror’s public (and illegal) remarks that he had a cell phone or was scrolling.
” the fact remains that having a phone during deliberations is a major violation.”
In my state that would be true. I have seen nothing that says that in MA and I have seen the MA rules for PED’s in court and though they do not specifically referr to Jurors, they were not violated.
“Given these circumstances, defense attorney Kevin Reddington’s demands are not unusual.”
Any effort to inquire into jury deliberations is HIGHLY unusual.
” The juror also omitted a past restraining order and prior legal issues from his questionnaire. ”
You presume that he was asked and that he answered incorrectly.
I HIGHLY doubt he was asked – restraining orders are CIVIL they are generally outside the scope of jury questions.
You have been told this before.
Regardless, we do NOT have the questionaire, we do NOT have his answers, I am not even aware that Reddington is making the claim you are.
Much less that there is any such valid claim.
And AGIN you have been told this before.
YOu are ASSUMJING that Desronvil was asked, and that he answered falsely. There is no actual evidence of either.
“This proven willingness to lie on official court forms casts serious doubt on his post-trial claims
Nothing has been proven.
You do this constantly – you ignore what has actually been proven and run arround ranting things that someone somewhere has said.
We do not KNOW what Desronvil was asked on his Jury qestionaire.
We do not KNOW what Desronvil answered.
someone somewhere claiming that because they found public records of an arrest – not a conviction and a civil order that means Desronvil must have lied is making lots of assumptions that are near certain FALSE.
Further you make this idiotic claim that somehow the remarks of other jurors are to be treated as more consequential than his.
Or that ANYTHING related to deliberations is even within the domain of the courts.
Jurors are not required to agree, or cooperate or engage. They are not even required to do ANYTHING that a judge says they MUST do.
Almost everything that goes on with jury deliberations is outside the domain of the court.
What little is in the courts domain is outside influences. That is pretty much it.
Further the only remedy the court has once deliberations start is declaring a mistrial.
That has already occured.
Reddington should be trying to get the DA to drop the charges or to negotiate a very favorable plea deal to avoid a new trial.
While the prosecution usually does better in retrials. and while I do not understand this jury verdict – this is a murder with mitigating factors,
actual innocence is just not on the table here. Few doubt that various post pardum mental health issues are real – and in some instances even severe – but even if a psychotic murders someone we do not find them innocent today – and only for a short period in the past did, and even then they typically ended up institutionalized.
John Hinkley Jr. was found not guilty of the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan on a mental defect defense and spent 40 years in psychiatirc care.
That is the normal outcome for people who kill others driven by psychosis.
Regardless the prosecution with near certainty will do better in a retrial – but if they can only convince 1 juror the first time – they are not getting 12 the next. They need to strike a deal. Conversely Reddington is highly unlikely to do better in a future trial. Regardless of those on the left who have for unknown reasons made this case political – it is not, it is highly unlikely that the defense can EVER get an acquital.
Pick 12 people at random – even in Massachusetts and somebody is going to have severe problems with a mother strangling her 3 children to death.
This case SCREAMS for a deal.
The defense and worse the left engaging in character assassination of Desronvil accomplishes nothing,
and frankly this is a LOOSING issue for the left politically.
There are a variety of polls on this – rassmussen indicates about a 50:50 split,. While another poll indicates that democrats are split 50:50.
Regardless, this is just not an issue that you can get people to rally behind.
3 children are DEAD. Whatever sympathy Clancy might be able to glean, there are no “winners” in this case.
There is no great injustice the left can fix.
But if you wish to continue attacking a black juror and trying to make a criminal out of him while ignoring 3 dead children – go for it.
BTW the “4th women juror” initially votged guilty and has now publicly stated that she changed her position under pressure.
AGAIN we do not allow courts to get into jury deliberations.
But if you open that can of worms with Desronvil – you open it with regard to the several other jurorers who were pressured into changing their votes. The only thing special about Desronvil is that he stuck to his guns.
Jurrors preassuring other jurors is NORMAL – it is WRONG, it is IMMORAL, but it happens all the time.
And we do not have a remedy.
In ythis case the pressure was to acquit. But the norm is pressure to convict.
It is wrong either way. But it happens alot, probably most of the time.
Say, Turley did not “ADMIT’ anything. Bad and incorrect use of the word on a legal blog
“Reddington deserves leeway to investigate”
Absolutely not. He is a defense attorney – this is not his job.
Clancey was not convicted. and she was not acquitted. There is absolutely nothing he can do to change the latter.
Even deciding that Desronvil engaged in misconduct just gets a retrial.
“how the vetting process missed these red flags”
What red flags ? In most states convicted criminals can sit on juries.
I am not aware of any state were people with protective orders are barred from a jury.
With respect to the cellphone – that absolutely would have been an issue in my state and would have been confiscated at the courthouse door.
Massachusetts has different rules for PED’s I have found nothing to indicate they were violated.
Personally I beleive my states rules are too harsh and Massachusetts is too lax. Cell Phones have no place in jury room.
But I do not get to make the rules for MA. Nor do you.
With respect to the judge – once deliberations start the ONLY remedy is a mistrial.
We do not know if this was brought to the attention of the judge.
But if it was and the judge thought it was an issue – the defense and prosecution would likely be asked whether they wanted a mistrial.
They would NOT be told that the jurror was a hold out for conviction – and they SHOULD not, not even the Judge should know.
Regardless, it does not appear that the prosecution or defense asked for a mistrial.
AS noted above and before – once deliberations start the Alternates are dismissed.
There is no recourse but a mistrial if there is an issue with a juror.
Judges do not like to declare mistrials late in the game, and prosecutors and defense attorneys tend to want to gamble on a verdict too.
“The mere presence of an unmonitored cellphone in that room compromised the integrity of the entire trial.”
Contra your claim we have no evidnce there was a cellphone, if there was that it was used in a way that violates MA law,
Possibly Desronvil had a cell – possible ALL the jurors had cells. Possibly none and the claim that Desronvil was scrolling on his cell was false.
There are even other possibilities. Cell jammers are cheap. for all we know the court allows cells and then jams them in Jury rooms, and Desronvil was playing solitaire.
That is speculation – but in fact EVERYTHING you have claimed is a fact is nothing more than speculation.
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.
I admire your sincerity and conviction.
Similar story here, only about 50 years ago I did a stint as a municipal prosecutor before finally relenting and going into an IP practice. My experience was that the observations you make about the lawyers involved in the criminal justice practice also applied depressingly often to the LEOs I dealt with. When the desire for a conviction on the one hand, or the desire for an acquittal on the other, becomes more important than the law and the process necessary to objectively, equally and fairly apply it, the society based on that law is in trouble. It is a matter of respect.
-g
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