Doxxed, Threatened, Forced Into Hiding: Lindsay Clancy Holdout Juror Speaks Out as Death Threats…

The attorney for the lone holdout juror in the Lindsay Clancy trial says his client is a supporter of President Trump. Attorney Edward Paltzik described Michael Desronvil as a devout Catholic and a Trump supporter, and said he is safe at an undisclosed secure location in a rural area of Northern New England.

Paltzik is not a stranger to Trump’s orbit. He represented Trump in his lawsuit against the New York Times, in the CBS “60 Minutes” case that ended with a $16 million payment from Paramount, and in the ABC News case that settled for $15 million.

Desronvil is the juror whose refusal to join the others led to a mistrial. Clancy, 36, faced three counts of first-degree murder in the January 2023 deaths of her children Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months, at the family’s home in Duxbury, Massachusetts.

Her defense argued she was suffering from postpartum psychosis, which would excuse her from criminal responsibility. The case set off a national debate over how the justice system should treat severe maternal mental illness.

Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial on September 4 after six weeks of trial and seven days of deliberations. Desronvil was the only holdout against an acquittal based on insanity. The jury was nine women and three men.

Desronvil, 48, of Bridgewater, has spoken through his lawyer. He says he never had doubts, that he kept getting cut off as he tried to explain different theories, and that the physical evidence and key witnesses convinced him Clancy knew what she was doing and planned it.

That account conflicts with other jurors. Several jurors told ABC News, CBS and NBC10 Boston that he had expressed doubts about the prosecution’s case. Desronvil says that is untrue.

The New York Post reported that Desronvil told true-crime host Ray Marcel he believes his race and conservative politics may be contributing to the backlash, saying he is a Black Republican. The report did not provide independent evidence that race or political affiliation was behind the criticism.

That caveat matters. The jurors’ public criticism has centered on how deliberations went, and nothing in the record shows their objections were about his politics. The attorney’s claim is his client’s perception and should be treated as such.

What is not in dispute is the pressure on Desronvil. He says he has been publicly identified and that his address and phone number were doxed, and that he has received death threats. Paltzik described the people behind the harassment as a lunatic mob.

A fundraiser verified by Paltzik has raised more than $300,000, with the money meant to cover lost work, lawyers and security. Whatever people think of the verdict, many donors clearly believe he should not be terrorized for how he voted.

Former prosecutor Mark Astor told Fox News Digital that Desronvil’s name and reputation are being dragged through the mud. He said the jury is a sacred arena and that exposing it to the public threatens a system that depends on people being willing to serve.

Astor also noted that Desronvil was attacked not only by other jurors but by defense attorney Kevin Reddington at the foot of the courthouse after the mistrial. A lawyer publicly berating a juror is a bad look for anyone who values the jury system.

Fairness requires mentioning what else has come out. The Boston Globe reported Desronvil had an active civil restraining order against him for allegedly assaulting his nephew and was facing eviction proceedings while he sat on the jury.

Fellow juror Paula Devlin told the Globe she believes he should have been excluded because of the pending order. His brother told the Globe he was qualified to serve and that he did not know of the assault allegations. Those are allegations, and how they might bear on jury screening is a matter for the court, not a mob.

The prosecution’s case gives context to his vote. Prosecutors argue that Clancy deliberately sent her then-husband on errands to get him out of the house, and they have questioned the seriousness of her suicide attempt. A juror who found that persuasive is not acting unreasonably.

Unanimity is the rule in criminal juries for a reason. One juror holding out on conscience is the system working as designed, whether the public likes the result or not. A jury of twelve exists so that no verdict is reached by peer pressure alone.