Lindsay Clancy Holdout Juror Doxxed: Could Anyone Face Legal Consequences?

The Lindsay Clancy murder trial ended in a mistrial, but the controversy surrounding the case is far from over. Much of the backlash focuses on the single holdout juror, Michael P. Desronvil.

His identity eventually made headlines, and he recently spoke out for the first time about the backlash and alleged harassment. But could anyone involved in identifying or targeting the juror face legal consequences? Read on for more details.

The Defense

After the jury could not agree on whether Lindsay Clancy was criminally responsible for killing her three children, defense attorney Kevin Reddington publicly criticized the single holdout juror. He referred to the holdout as “one man” and blamed him for the outcome of the trial.

The controversy did not end there. Reddington’s wife, Deb Reddington, took to social media and shared links to news reports about the holdout. PJ Media reported that she described the juror as a “criminal” and a “squatter.”

As Deb Reddington is the wife of Clancy’s defense attorney, her comments have since been widely reported as questions grow over the backlash directed at the holdout juror.

The Media and Doxxing

NBC10 Boston published an investigation that revealed details about the holdout juror’s background. However, it should be noted that the outlet did not identify Michael P. Desronvil by name.

Nevertheless, the report described the holdout as the only person of color on the jury and revealed details that included a pending eviction, a dismissed 2021 domestic assault charge and an active restraining order.

That was apparently all internet sleuths needed to start tracking down who the juror might be.

On X, @TalkinStros took the details from the NBC Boston report and was able to cross-reference them with the MassCourts database. They located a docket that appeared to match and the user later claimed the search “took about 2 minutes.”

Blogger Aidan Kearney, also known as Turtleboy, then ran with the information. He posted the name Michael P. Desronvil on X along with a photograph he said showed the holdout juror. An article identifying Desronvil subsequently appeared on Kearney’s TB Daily News.

Then, on September 14, The Boston Globe published Desronvil’s name. The newspaper reported that it confirmed his identity using photographs published online, court records and an interview with another juror.

Threats and Court Orders

After his name became public, the backlash intensified. Desronvil and his family reportedly received hateful calls and threats, and notes were allegedly left at his home. As the harassment grew and his family feared for their safety, Desronvil reportedly went into hiding.

Against that backdrop, Plymouth Superior Court Judge William Sullivan extended an order impounding the names of the jurors in the Lindsay Clancy case. The order indefinitely shields their identities, with Sullivan citing the intense public attention surrounding the trial and a risk of harm to jurors.

At least one juror had asked the court to extend the protection indefinitely. Sullivan also noted that while some jurors chose to speak publicly after the mistrial, the majority had maintained their anonymity despite numerous requests for interviews.

The Holdout Speaks Out

Desronvil finally spoke out about his experience in an interview with the New York Post. He defended his position during the trial and described the pressure he felt during deliberations.

He also rejected suggestions that he had doubts about the evidence or had not taken the facts seriously, saying, “I didn’t have any doubts.”

Desronvil described the tension during deliberations, saying, “As I tried to explain different possible theories during deliberation, I kept getting cut off as if I had doubts based on the evidence present.”

He said he examined the case presented by the prosecution and concluded, “Based on all the physical evidence, key witnesses, and what the prosecution presents, I thought it was enough proof that she knew exactly what she was doing and planned.”

He didn’t hold back on his fellow jurors, calling some of them “activists” who he felt wanted to go for “not guilty” from day one. Addressing claims about his background, Desronvil said, “I did not lie on the questionnaire,” noting he was selected after he admitted that he had been arrested in the past.

What The Law Says

Did the actions of those who identified Michael P. Desronvil break the law? The answer is not entirely clear, and legally, the issue could become complicated.

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 268, Section 13B protects jurors from intimidation and retaliation. The law can make it a felony to willfully threaten, intimidate or harass with the intent to punish, harm or retaliate against that person for participating in a court proceeding. A conviction can carry up to 10 years in state prison.

The law also defines harassment broadly and specifically includes telephone, internet and other electronic communications.

Simply identifying a juror doesn’t necessarily mean someone broke Section 13B. What matters is what they did with the information and why. That could make the position of news outlets different, particularly when the information came from public court records.

The First Amendment also provides significant protection when the media publishes truthful information that is already publicly available.

New Jury Protections

Judge William Sullivan’s impoundment order prevents the court from releasing the Clancy jurors’ identities but does not necessarily impose the same restriction on journalists or other third parties who independently obtain information from lawful public sources.

Former prosecutor Margaret McLean told WJAR that she isn’t aware of specific laws that would make the media liable for reporting public facts, though lawmakers might look at jury protections in the future.

Meanwhile, retired Superior Court judge Jack Lu warned in a Globe opinion piece that targeting a holdout damages the integrity of the whole judicial system. Serving on a jury shouldn’t mean forfeiting your safety.

Viewers React

People who watched a juror discuss the case on NBC 10 WJAR’s YouTube channel had plenty to say about the treatment of the holdout juror.

One viewer wrote, “That one jury (sic) had a right to make there own decision that’s the bottom line.”

Another viewer pointed out, “They defamed the holdout but he was the only one who understood the job. Jurors aren’t legislators. They shouldn’t be concerned with causes. They don’t set public policy. Their ONLY job was to determine criminal responsibility.”

A third person criticized the other jurors who spoke to reporters, writing, “She attacked and belittled her fellow juror. This is another hit piece.”

Your thoughts? Join the discussion, and then come back here for more true crime news and updates. You can also stay informed by checking out our crime channel on TikTok.