Juror alleges fellow Lindsay Clancy trial jurors researched case on phones
A spokesperson for the sole dissenting juror in Lindsay Clancy’s murder trial alleges that other jurors used mobile phones and possibly researched the case or posted on social media during deliberations, despite rules requiring verdicts to be based only on courtroom evidence. The claims could raise questions about whether the mistrial and jury process were compromised, although they have not been established.
Eleven of the 12 jurors reportedly supported finding Clancy not criminally responsible for killing her three children, while Michael P. Desronvil supported the prosecution’s case, resulting in a deadlock and mistrial. Clancy admitted killing the children but argued she was experiencing postpartum psychosis; her lawyer has asked the judge to examine Desronvil’s phone metadata and question him about his conduct, while the holdout’s spokesperson has accused other jurors of similar breaches.
- Juror phone use allegations have emerged after Clancy’s mistrial.
- Eleven jurors favoured an insanity-based defence.
- Clancy’s lawyer wants the holdout juror’s phone records examined.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Allegations of jurors using phones to research or post about the case during deliberations represent a fundamental breach of the jury system's integrity. Jurors must decide cases solely on evidence presented in court; external information, whether from web searches or social media, introduces prejudice and bias that undermines the fairness of the verdict. Given the gravity of the charges against Clancy, thorough investigation of these claims is essential to ensure she received a fair trial and to maintain public confidence that jury verdicts rest on proper deliberation rather than compromised processes.
The case against
These allegations come second-hand from a dissenting juror's spokesperson after a deadlock that went against his position, warranting considerable scepticism about their credibility and motivation. Phone use during breaks is lawful, and absent clear evidence of prejudicial external research, allegations remain speculative. Investigating jury deliberations based on unsubstantiated claims risks eroding the jury system's foundation by treating jurors as presumptively untrustworthy and opening verdicts to challenge based on speculation rather than demonstrated harm to fairness.
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by Daily Mail as “Lindsay Clancy jurors broke cardinal rule and used phones to RESEARCH killer mom during deliberations, holdout claims”.