A holdout juror in Lindsay Clancy’s murder trial has rejected claims that he had reasonable doubt, saying he believed the prosecution showed she had planned the killings. The Massachusetts trial ended in an 11-1 deadlock.
Michael Péguy Desronvil has spoken publicly for the first time about the jury deliberations, seeking to clarify reports about his position. He said he had not doubted the evidence, but that attempts to discuss different theories were misunderstood.
“I didn’t have any doubts. As I tried to explain different possible theories during deliberation, I kept getting cut off as if I had doubts based on the evidence presented,” Desronvil said.
He added: “Based on all the physical evidence, key witnesses, and what the prosecution presented, I thought it was enough proof that she (Clancy) knew exactly what she was doing and planned.”
Paula Devlin, another juror, has said she filled out verdict sheets after Desronvil allegedly acknowledged having reasonable doubt. She said he then made a remark to the effect of: “But I’m still not going to say that she’s not guilty by reason of insanity.”
A third juror, Nick Dargie, said Desronvil had been unable to produce evidence supporting his position or identify witness testimony that backed up his claims during deliberations.
Ray Marcel of Fugitive TV had previously described what Desronvil told him in a NewsNation interview. Marcel said the juror felt Clancy was sane because of the preparation she had carried out.
Desronvil had also been criticised by Clancy’s lawyer, Kevin Reddington, before the juror’s identity became public. After the trial ended, Reddington thanked the 11 jurors who wanted to find Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity.
Massachusetts prosecutors have not announced whether they intend to seek a retrial.
