😡 LINDSAY CLANCY KILLED HER THREE CHILDREN. NOW HER LAWYERS WANT THE ONE JUROR WHO WANTED TO CONVICT HER INVESTIGATED?

Before we even get to this latest courtroom twist, we need to go all the way back to how we got here, because if you haven't followed the Lindsay Clancy case from the beginning, you might be wondering the same thing I was:

How the hell did a mother who killed all three of her children end up one juror away from being found not criminally responsible?

First, an important correction: Lindsay Clancy did not technically “get off.” Her trial ended in a mistrial. She remains charged with murder, remains in custody at a psychiatric hospital, and prosecutors have not yet announced whether they will retry her.

But what happened inside that jury room has turned this already heartbreaking case into an entirely different fight.

💔 LET'S GO BACK TO JANUARY 24, 2023

Clancy was a Massachusetts nurse and mother of three young children: Cora, 5; Dawson, 3; and Callan, just 8 months old.

On January 24, 2023, while her husband Patrick was out of the house, Clancy strangled all three children. She then jumped from a second-story window, suffering severe injuries.

Cora and Dawson died that night. Callan died several days later.

Clancy was subsequently charged with murder and pleaded not guilty. But from the beginning, the central legal fight wasn't really over whether she killed the children. Her defense acknowledged that she did.

The question was whether she was criminally responsible for what she did.

🧠 THEN CAME THE POSTPARTUM-PSYCHOSIS DEFENSE

Clancy's lawyers argued she was suffering from postpartum psychosis, a rare and severe psychiatric condition that can involve delusions, hallucinations and profound disconnection from reality.

The defense presented psychiatrist Dr. Phillip Resnick, who testified that he believed Clancy was psychotic when the children were killed and had experienced a command hallucination and delusion.

But prosecutors pushed back.

They argued Clancy knew what she was doing and pointed to evidence they said demonstrated planning and awareness. Jurors also heard testimony from medical professionals who had treated Clancy before the killings and said they had not observed signs of psychosis.

So this wasn't a trial deciding whether the children were killed.

Everybody knew they were.

It was a trial over whether Massachusetts law should hold their mother criminally responsible.

⚖️ THEN THE JURY WENT OUT

And this is where things went sideways.

After seven days of deliberations, the jury couldn't reach the unanimous decision required.

The final split?

11 to 1.

Eleven jurors reportedly favored finding Clancy not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility.

One juror, Michael Desronvil, wanted to convict her.

That single vote prevented the jury from returning the verdict favored by the other eleven.

On September 4, Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial.

And let me repeat this because social media has been butchering it:

SHE WAS NOT ACQUITTED.

A mistrial means the jury reached no verdict. The murder charges remain pending.

😳 NOW THEY'RE COMING AFTER THE ONE JUROR WHO WANTED A CONVICTION

Clancy's attorney Kevin Reddington is now asking the judge to conduct a limited investigation into Desronvil.

The defense wants the court to examine whether the juror used a cellphone during deliberations, whether he answered his jury-selection questionnaire truthfully, and whether he was truthful when questioned by the judge shortly before the mistrial.

Reddington wants records of calls and texts made during deliberation hours. Jurors weren't permitted to use their phones while deliberating.

But here's another piece making people raise their eyebrows.

NBC10 Boston reported that court records showed domestic-violence allegations involving the juror, including an active restraining order while he was serving on the Clancy jury. One prior criminal charge was dismissed, and the reporting concerns allegations rather than findings of guilt.

The defense argues those circumstances raise questions about what he disclosed during jury selection.

Desronvil, through his attorney, has denied that his position was improper and has said he had no doubts about his conclusion.

👀 AND THE OTHER JURORS HAVE BEEN TALKING

Several jurors have publicly criticized the holdout.

Juror Nick Dargie told ABC News that he repeatedly asked Desronvil to point to evidence supporting his position and claimed the holdout couldn't do so. Other jurors have similarly alleged that he wasn't meaningfully engaging with their arguments.

Those are their accounts of what happened inside the jury room, not an established judicial finding of juror misconduct.

And that distinction matters because a juror is absolutely allowed to disagree with the other eleven.

Being the lone holdout does not, by itself, mean a juror did anything wrong.

🚨 BUT WAIT. HER LAWYERS WANT THE WHOLE CASE DISMISSED TOO.

Yep.

Clancy's attorneys have now gone further and asked Judge Sullivan to dismiss the murder case rather than allow prosecutors to retry her.

They're invoking double-jeopardy principles and arguing that the mistrial should not have been declared because the judge allegedly had alternatives, including potentially replacing the holdout juror if the court concluded he wasn't following the law.

That argument has not been accepted by the judge, and prosecutors have not yet announced whether they will pursue another trial.

🎙️ LADY RED'S TAKE: THIS ONE IS HARD TO SWALLOW

Listen.

I absolutely believe postpartum mental illness is real.

I believe postpartum psychosis is real.

And I believe women suffering severe psychiatric illness deserve treatment, compassion and a justice system sophisticated enough to understand that mental illness can affect criminal responsibility.

But three babies are dead.

Cora was 5.

Dawson was 3.

Callan was 8 months old.

So yes, I understand the legal argument.

But emotionally?

THIS IS SOME BS TO ME.

Because we're now watching the conversation shift from three dead children to whether the one juror who wanted a conviction should have been removed, investigated, or whether his actions could ultimately help get the entire prosecution thrown out.

Now, if that juror broke court rules, lied during jury selection or failed to follow the judge's instructions, then investigate it. Jury rules exist for a reason.

But don't confuse that investigation with the idea that a juror committed misconduct merely because he refused to join the other eleven.

A unanimous jury means all twelve people have to agree.

Eleven people don't get to tell number twelve, “Sir, everybody else clicked A, would you please stop holding up the group project?”

That's not how this works.

And the legal system now has two enormous questions sitting on the table:

Did this juror actually violate the rules?

And if he didn't, does the Commonwealth put Lindsay Clancy on trial again?

Because whatever happens next, Cora, Dawson and Callan cannot become footnotes in a courtroom argument.

They were the victims.

And that's where I'm keeping their names.

730 BOOM RADIOIT HITS DIFFERENT. EVERY TIME. BOOM! 💥