Oct. 22, 2026
UPDATE: Surprise Ruling Leads To Major Setback For Lindsay Clancy
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed The judge in the Lindsay Clancy case issued a surprise ruling Wednesday, dismissing an attempt by Clancy’s attorney to investigate the lone holdout juror in her murder trial. Kevin Reddington had filed a motion requesting access to the juror’s initial questionnaire, an examination of his cellphone and for him to be questioned in court, but the judge refused to move forward with any investigation into Michael Desronvil. Clancy’s team still has a motion to dismiss murder charges against Clancy in play, citing double jeopardy. That will be decided at the next hearing in early November, where both sides are expected to agree on a potential new trial date.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:02
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. It is Thursday, October 22nd, and we have a significant update and potentially a significant setback for Lindsey Clancy. And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ Rope. This was a big, big part of her defense attorney trying to get this whole case thrown out. He wanted to go after this juror.
00:00:23
Speaker 2: That's right.
00:00:24
Speaker 3: So he wanted the juror investigated for, first of all, using his cell phone. He wanted to actually have the cell phone taken from juror, I guess, well, his name is Michael Disronville, but wanted his cell phone taken and examined to see who he was texting, when he was texting them. Number two, he wanted the juror investigated for lying on his juror questionnaire. And number three, He wanted the juror investigated for lying to the judge when he said he could follow instructions.
00:00:58
Speaker 1: It's fair to say he wanted to put this juror on trial.
00:01:02
Speaker 2: I think that's a good way to put it.
00:01:03
Speaker 1: Asking the judge to do so. And when was the last hearing? It was a couple of weeks ago now, but it was the first time she was back in court since the mistrial. And they were going down. Back and forth, we thought we might get some decisions, and they essentially punted everything to November 2nd. There's a new hearing coming up November 2nd. All of these things were supposed to be addressed, the motion to dismiss, the motion about this juror. Rose, we didn't, well, I didn't. Did I miss somewhere? We weren't necessarily expecting this decision this soon before the next scheduled hearing.
00:01:36
Speaker 3: No, I didn't see anywhere that that was anticipated, but the judge went ahead and made a ruling and denied Kevin Reddington's request to investigate Michael Desronville, the holdout juror. And look, if he had green-lighted an investigation into this juror, the implications of doing that were significant. You are basically criminalizing- a juror, or potentially saying that there was something that rose to the level where you're now, as a juror, being investigated because we don't like the way you deliberated. We don't like the way you processed the evidence. We don't like the way you dealt with the others in the room.
00:02:20
Speaker 2: That is frightening. And think about that.
00:02:23
Speaker 3: If they had actually even pursued an investigation, even if they had allowed this to go forward, any person.
00:02:31
Speaker 2: Like, none of us want to serve on a jury. I mean, there might be some people out there who do. No, and I understand. It could be fascinating to be a part of a trial.
00:02:39
Speaker 3: But generally. Yeah, I don't want to somehow act like nobody wants to. But most people, it's a massive disruption in your life.
00:02:47
Speaker 1: Nobody celebrates when the jury summons comes in the mail.
00:02:50
Speaker 3: No.
00:02:50
Speaker 1: It's okay to say that. You're trying to get out of it.
00:02:52
Speaker 2: Oh, my gosh.
00:02:53
Speaker 3: I tried to get out of three different times and eventually had to keep showing up. Every time my time runs up here in New York City, I swear the next day I get a jury summons.
00:03:01
Speaker 2: I've had three, maybe more, since I've lived in this city.
00:03:06
Speaker 1: That's a lot.
00:03:07
Speaker 2: I have had to go down to the courthouse. Yeah, so nobody wants it. Now, if I think.
00:03:12
Speaker 3: if my other jurors, fellow jurors, are mad at me because I don't think the way they think or I don't want to rule the way they rule, that I could be held in some sort of contempt of court or being investigated for my background, my cell phone.
00:03:27
Speaker 2: No one will.
00:03:28
Speaker 3: That's outrageous to think that that could happen in this country.
00:03:31
Speaker 1: People are going to start fleeing to avoid jury duty. Well, this was a lot. This idea of this was a lot. And Look, we applauded Kevin Reddington during that trial a lot for how he handled those witnesses. But Robes, the way he handled and the way he was talking about this juror didn't appreciate at all. They were beating up on this before we knew who this man was or any background. Robes was like, wow, they are really going after this guy. Tell him they lied under oath to the judge. And like, wow, it seems a little too much. And then we got the details we got. So yes, Michael Desronville held held tight in there for 40 hours almost in a deliberation robes 40 hours 11 to 1 and as gail king would say oh he's black yes he was the one black juror on there 11 to 1 so he held out robes he has done a few interviews well not a few he did the one with fox news right and he addressed some of this stuff said he had no doubts that he is a man of faith and so he really pushed back on all these claims that reddington was making but we do have the order the judge's order Only about four or five pages long. And we plucked out the significant excerpts. And Robes, a lot of this kind of makes sense. He wrote that this wasn't just about a lot of legalese. Robes, he said a lot of things here that he on the bench even said, I'm a little uncomfortable with that.
00:05:06
Speaker 3: Yeah, and look, and I think that most legal experts agree that it would be legally uncomfortable is maybe even a mild statement. And it's funny, when you said Michael Desronville was making the rounds, and then you said, well, actually, he only did Fox News, I think you meant to say his attorney. His attorney was making the rounds. And look, so he was speaking on his behalf from the get-go loudly to anyone who would listen that this was an outrageous situation.
00:05:30
Speaker 2: So the order.
00:05:32
Speaker 3: The order excerpts that we chose that are really interesting that the judge released. He said, it appears that Clancy seeks an evidentiary hearing to determine whether juror Doe lied on the jury questionnaire about prior involvement with the criminal justice system. However, potential evidence of good cause to dismiss a deliberating juror that came to light only after a mistrial was declared is simply is not relevant to whether there was a manifest necessity for a mistrial. The existence of manifest necessity is assessed based on what was known at the time of the judge's decision.
00:06:16
Speaker 1: That kind of makes sense, doesn't it? Yes. This is after the fact. It doesn't matter. It's some stuff you learned... afterwards, it doesn't apply to... I thought that was... And he cited, we didn't put him in here, but he cited legal precedent, other cases to where his point is correct. He called on to say prior to the declaration of a mistrial, defense counsel raised no suggestion that juror Doe had lied on the questionnaire. That information appears to have originated in post-trial media reports. So there you go, Robes.
00:06:47
Speaker 3: You didn't like the outcome, so then you go after the juror. That's not the way it works. And if the juror I like how they're still calling him Juror Doe, even though everyone knows it's Michael Disronville. But if Michael Disronville had voted to acquit Lindsey Clancy, there would be no issue.
00:07:07
Speaker 1: Of course not. We don't need to see his... Well, we won this thing, Judge, but I just want to make sure it's on the up and up. So check his questionnaire. We just want to make sure. course not. He finishes this section at least by saying, because post-trial information potentially affecting juror Doe's impartiality cannot be used to attack the determination that a mistrial was manifest necessity. Clancy is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on that issue. Essentially saying, Robes, it's post-trial information, like potentially could have had an impact on He's just saying you can't go back. You can't revisit this thing. It's done. And whatever you found out about him afterwards has nothing to do with what happened in that room. This kind of made sense.
00:07:53
Speaker 3: Yeah. So that was what the judge ruled specifically on the lying on the juror questionnaire portion of Reddington's motion. On his cell phone use, this is what the judge had to say. A similar analysis applies to the argument that there may have been grounds to replace Juror Doe with an alternate based on Juror Doe's cell phone use, which may suggest exposure to extraneous evidence. Prior evidence to the declaration of a mistrial, defense counsel raised no suggestion that juror Doe had been exposed to extraneous evidence or improperly used a cell phone during deliberations because post trial information cannot be used to attack the determination that a mistrial was manifestly necessary. Clancy is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on that issue.
00:08:46
Speaker 2: So the same rule applies. You can't use.
00:08:48
Speaker 3: Information you found after the fact because you didn't like the verdict against the juror who held out.
00:08:54
Speaker 1: Isn't that, Robes, I think this is going to be it, as far as Desronville goes. Because it was almost, we were holding our breath, like what are they going to do to this guy? What can they do to him? Someone even talking about lying on a juror forum is a crime. Robes, they were really coming at this dude. The judge puts this thing to bed. I wonder what's going to happen to this guy's life now. Will this all calm down and go away? He is essentially now completely done with this case. He's finished. He did his duty. And now the judge says, we're not bringing him back in.
00:09:30
Speaker 2: Yeah, he should be able to hopefully go back.
00:09:32
Speaker 3: And look, there are enough people who I think support him and support what he did. Once all the facts came out, certainly a lot of people.
00:09:42
Speaker 2: rallied to support.
00:09:44
Speaker 3: Him and to just, whether you agreed with his decision or not, it's his right, his duty even, to make the decision that most aligns with his interpretation of the evidence, period.
00:09:57
Speaker 1: And you remember that part, this next part in the order. order a lot of folks will remember there was a part there at the end during deliberations where they brought every juror in we didn't see it but it was happening in the courtroom they don't show the jurors but he had to bring them in one by one they had to be sworn in again essentially and say can you follow the judge's instructions they all answered yes Kevin Reddington suggested that by Michael Desronville answering yes, he was lying under oath, perjured himself.
00:10:28
Speaker 3: Yes.
00:10:28
Speaker 1: Because Reddington believes the guy was in there not following the judge's instructions. That's a really, I know.
00:10:35
Speaker 2: That was a stretch.
00:10:36
Speaker 1: I know, Reddington, you're fighting for your client. That was a stretch. So the judge addressed that part about lying to the judge.
00:10:42
Speaker 3: Yes, the judge wrote, finally, Clancy requests that this court question juror Doe about the sworn assurance that On September 3rd, 2026, that they were able to follow the law and the foreperson's notes suggesting that juror Doe was unwilling or unable to deliberate in.
00:10:59
Speaker 2: Accordance with the court's instructions.
00:11:01
Speaker 3: This court concludes that any further judicial inquiry is inappropriate. given the mandate that the court must not delve into a juror's subjective reasoning, thought process, view of the case, or relationship to the other jurors, and must not inquire into the jury's deliberative content, collective thought process, or any disagreement among the jury.
00:11:25
Speaker 1: They consider them sacred, babe. Jury deliberations.
00:11:29
Speaker 2: They have to be.
00:11:30
Speaker 1: They have to be.
00:11:31
Speaker 3: They have to be. Because, look, otherwise, as we were saying at the beginning... in an already difficult position many jurors find themselves in, just AKA not wanting to be there, thinking that, uh-oh, if I don't agree with the others, I'm gonna get completely subjected to scrutiny. And he did regardless, even if it didn't rise to a legal level where he was under any sort of legal jeopardy, publicly, the scrutiny was overwhelming. To add some sort of legal part to that on top of it would just be to me insane.
00:12:07
Speaker 1: I put myself in the seat of the defendant. Roe, this messes up the whole judicial system. And the point you just made, if I'm sitting there and I'm the one and I got 11, okay, guys, I'll vote with you. Please don't go out there and blast me on TV.
00:12:24
Speaker 2: I don't want to get dis-Ronville'd.
00:12:25
Speaker 1: Yes, that's the new thing. And now what about me as the defendant? I have somebody in there that's on my side that It's like, nah, I saw what they did to that other dude.
00:12:36
Speaker 2: It's not worth it.
00:12:36
Speaker 1: I ain't here for it.
00:12:37
Speaker 2: It's me or him or me or her.
00:12:39
Speaker 1: Yes, and I prefer you go to jail. Rose, no, you make a very, very good point. This screws up the system. I love his line there, babe, about the it's inappropriate. Your mandate is to not delve literally into the juror's mind.
00:12:56
Speaker 2: Exactly.
00:12:57
Speaker 3: How can you say what he's feeling or thinking?
00:13:00
Speaker 1: His background or his process or how he views it or what his... Robes, that's a very good line. But stay here. We'll show you and we'll tell you how the judge closed out his note, his order, I should say, in response to the motion. How he closed out saying that, no, we are not bringing the juror back in. And we'll tell you what actually is next for Lindsey Clancy.
00:13:34
Speaker 2: Welcome back, everyone, to Amy and TJ.
00:13:36
Speaker 3: Yes, we got a bit of a surprise ruling, an order from the judge in the Lindsay Clancy case. And Kevin Reddington is not getting what he wanted. He wanted the holdout juror, Michael Desronville, to be held, I guess, accountable for not agreeing with the other jurors, so to speak. And the judge completely shot any chance of any sort of inquiry or investigation into the juror. And he closed out his order by saying this. The court gave the Tui Rodriguez charge and the four person's notes identified juror Doe as the lone holdout. The notes were not ambiguous. Accordingly, the court in its discretion concludes that an evidentiary hearing is not required to properly resolve Clancy's motion to dismiss.
00:14:43
Speaker 1: That's it. That's done. Try something else. That is the end of it. Michael Desronville is off the hook. He is done with this case from a legal standpoint right now. At least, Rose, this was, I don't know if it was a Hail Mary, but clearly they were putting a lot in the loan holdout basket in trying to get a motion for dismissal. So that is a big argument they were going to make that they do not have anymore.
00:15:13
Speaker 2: No, they do not.
00:15:14
Speaker 3: And so we're going to be hearing from... Kevin Reddington and others, and we'll hear, hopefully, a lot of decisions being made on November 2nd, because he still has a motion to dismiss, correct, in there? I just always think this is so interesting, the way the grounds are double jeopardy grounds, because basically what Lindsey Clancy's defense team is arguing, or I guess that's Kevin Reddington, basically, is arguing that a second trial would violate Lindsey Clancy's constitutional rights double jeopardy protections because he's claiming, Kevin Reddington is claiming, that the judge declared a mistrial prematurely without a sufficient inquiry. Is this into the juror still?
00:16:02
Speaker 1: His argument is that this jury cleared her on most of the charges because Desronville... I don't know if it was first degree. He's making the argument that the jury was in agreement on a couple of these murder charges. So throw those out, and that should be double jeopardy.
00:16:25
Speaker 3: Right, because from what we've heard from the jurors, correct, that Michael DeSronville was willing to come down from first degree.
00:16:33
Speaker 2: But do we know what he was willing to, was he willing to do manslaughter?
00:16:38
Speaker 1: I don't know if he was asked that in his interview.
00:16:41
Speaker 3: Yeah. Dang.
00:16:42
Speaker 1: I don't remember asking that question.
00:16:43
Speaker 2: Because I would be interested. Was he.
00:16:44
Speaker 3: Because obviously the jury had the choice of first degree, second degree, manslaughter, or not guilty. We know that 11 of the jurors were all on board with the not guilty. But what did Michael Disronville... What was he willing to come down to? Second degree or manslaughter? And so that's part of Reddington's argument.
00:17:03
Speaker 1: That's part of it. And the other, of course, is that... Desronville shouldn't be there anyway. His vote shouldn't count. She was essentially acquitted. Let's all go home. So that motion was dismissed. So we're supposed to hear about that on November 2nd.
00:17:17
Speaker 2: It's called renewal of Rule 25 motion.
00:17:20
Speaker 3: Yes, that's I didn't even know this was out there, citing that because 11 of the 12 jurors wanted to acquit Lindsay Clancy, that That he would then, the judge could be required to finding her not guilty.
00:17:34
Speaker 2: That makes no sense to me.
00:17:36
Speaker 3: Huh.
00:17:37
Speaker 2: I mean, I get it. These are a lot of these are Hail Marys.
00:17:39
Speaker 3: And then he wants, the prosecution wants a gag order in. They want to limit public statements regarding jurors in the case. They just, they want a gag order on this. I feel like the cat's out of the bag at this point. I mean, People are obsessed with this. Every bit of information seems to be getting out, at least. And then we're trying to see if, like, has the prosecution fully come out and said, we are going to absolutely recharge Lindsay Clancy or the charges are going to stand and we want a new trial?
00:18:13
Speaker 2: They haven't officially said that.
00:18:15
Speaker 1: Well, we have to say yes, because they were behaving in the last hearing as if they say, yes, we'll be ready for the next trial. They were getting ready for trial. They were in discussions with the judge about a retrial and dates for a retrial. They didn't say, we're not ready for that yet, or hold off, we need to make a decision. They were looking at retrial dates with the judge.
00:18:37
Speaker 3: And the last we heard from Kevin Rennington is that he can't be ready until June, right? So it doesn't look like, look, if they actually set a new trial date, and that will be big news, looks like it will be next summer, which, oh boy, are any of us ready for another trial?
00:18:58
Speaker 1: They'll plea. They got to plead out.
00:19:00
Speaker 2: That's what I'm hoping. I think that's what the world is hoping at this point.
00:19:04
Speaker 1: But folks, that is an update. That is a significant one. The next one we will get, we anticipate getting, will be a little over a week from now, November 2nd, when she does have Another status hearing where we are expecting to hear the judge decide on a motion for dismissal and decide potentially on a new trial day for Lindsey Clancy. We always appreciate you spending some time with us. I'm TJ. That's Robes. We'll talk soon.
Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. It is Thursday, October 22nd, and we have a significant update and potentially a significant setback for Lindsey Clancy. And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ Rope. This was a big, big part of her defense attorney trying to get this whole case thrown out. He wanted to go after this juror.
00:00:23
Speaker 2: That's right.
00:00:24
Speaker 3: So he wanted the juror investigated for, first of all, using his cell phone. He wanted to actually have the cell phone taken from juror, I guess, well, his name is Michael Disronville, but wanted his cell phone taken and examined to see who he was texting, when he was texting them. Number two, he wanted the juror investigated for lying on his juror questionnaire. And number three, He wanted the juror investigated for lying to the judge when he said he could follow instructions.
00:00:58
Speaker 1: It's fair to say he wanted to put this juror on trial.
00:01:02
Speaker 2: I think that's a good way to put it.
00:01:03
Speaker 1: Asking the judge to do so. And when was the last hearing? It was a couple of weeks ago now, but it was the first time she was back in court since the mistrial. And they were going down. Back and forth, we thought we might get some decisions, and they essentially punted everything to November 2nd. There's a new hearing coming up November 2nd. All of these things were supposed to be addressed, the motion to dismiss, the motion about this juror. Rose, we didn't, well, I didn't. Did I miss somewhere? We weren't necessarily expecting this decision this soon before the next scheduled hearing.
00:01:36
Speaker 3: No, I didn't see anywhere that that was anticipated, but the judge went ahead and made a ruling and denied Kevin Reddington's request to investigate Michael Desronville, the holdout juror. And look, if he had green-lighted an investigation into this juror, the implications of doing that were significant. You are basically criminalizing- a juror, or potentially saying that there was something that rose to the level where you're now, as a juror, being investigated because we don't like the way you deliberated. We don't like the way you processed the evidence. We don't like the way you dealt with the others in the room.
00:02:20
Speaker 2: That is frightening. And think about that.
00:02:23
Speaker 3: If they had actually even pursued an investigation, even if they had allowed this to go forward, any person.
00:02:31
Speaker 2: Like, none of us want to serve on a jury. I mean, there might be some people out there who do. No, and I understand. It could be fascinating to be a part of a trial.
00:02:39
Speaker 3: But generally. Yeah, I don't want to somehow act like nobody wants to. But most people, it's a massive disruption in your life.
00:02:47
Speaker 1: Nobody celebrates when the jury summons comes in the mail.
00:02:50
Speaker 3: No.
00:02:50
Speaker 1: It's okay to say that. You're trying to get out of it.
00:02:52
Speaker 2: Oh, my gosh.
00:02:53
Speaker 3: I tried to get out of three different times and eventually had to keep showing up. Every time my time runs up here in New York City, I swear the next day I get a jury summons.
00:03:01
Speaker 2: I've had three, maybe more, since I've lived in this city.
00:03:06
Speaker 1: That's a lot.
00:03:07
Speaker 2: I have had to go down to the courthouse. Yeah, so nobody wants it. Now, if I think.
00:03:12
Speaker 3: if my other jurors, fellow jurors, are mad at me because I don't think the way they think or I don't want to rule the way they rule, that I could be held in some sort of contempt of court or being investigated for my background, my cell phone.
00:03:27
Speaker 2: No one will.
00:03:28
Speaker 3: That's outrageous to think that that could happen in this country.
00:03:31
Speaker 1: People are going to start fleeing to avoid jury duty. Well, this was a lot. This idea of this was a lot. And Look, we applauded Kevin Reddington during that trial a lot for how he handled those witnesses. But Robes, the way he handled and the way he was talking about this juror didn't appreciate at all. They were beating up on this before we knew who this man was or any background. Robes was like, wow, they are really going after this guy. Tell him they lied under oath to the judge. And like, wow, it seems a little too much. And then we got the details we got. So yes, Michael Desronville held held tight in there for 40 hours almost in a deliberation robes 40 hours 11 to 1 and as gail king would say oh he's black yes he was the one black juror on there 11 to 1 so he held out robes he has done a few interviews well not a few he did the one with fox news right and he addressed some of this stuff said he had no doubts that he is a man of faith and so he really pushed back on all these claims that reddington was making but we do have the order the judge's order Only about four or five pages long. And we plucked out the significant excerpts. And Robes, a lot of this kind of makes sense. He wrote that this wasn't just about a lot of legalese. Robes, he said a lot of things here that he on the bench even said, I'm a little uncomfortable with that.
00:05:06
Speaker 3: Yeah, and look, and I think that most legal experts agree that it would be legally uncomfortable is maybe even a mild statement. And it's funny, when you said Michael Desronville was making the rounds, and then you said, well, actually, he only did Fox News, I think you meant to say his attorney. His attorney was making the rounds. And look, so he was speaking on his behalf from the get-go loudly to anyone who would listen that this was an outrageous situation.
00:05:30
Speaker 2: So the order.
00:05:32
Speaker 3: The order excerpts that we chose that are really interesting that the judge released. He said, it appears that Clancy seeks an evidentiary hearing to determine whether juror Doe lied on the jury questionnaire about prior involvement with the criminal justice system. However, potential evidence of good cause to dismiss a deliberating juror that came to light only after a mistrial was declared is simply is not relevant to whether there was a manifest necessity for a mistrial. The existence of manifest necessity is assessed based on what was known at the time of the judge's decision.
00:06:16
Speaker 1: That kind of makes sense, doesn't it? Yes. This is after the fact. It doesn't matter. It's some stuff you learned... afterwards, it doesn't apply to... I thought that was... And he cited, we didn't put him in here, but he cited legal precedent, other cases to where his point is correct. He called on to say prior to the declaration of a mistrial, defense counsel raised no suggestion that juror Doe had lied on the questionnaire. That information appears to have originated in post-trial media reports. So there you go, Robes.
00:06:47
Speaker 3: You didn't like the outcome, so then you go after the juror. That's not the way it works. And if the juror I like how they're still calling him Juror Doe, even though everyone knows it's Michael Disronville. But if Michael Disronville had voted to acquit Lindsey Clancy, there would be no issue.
00:07:07
Speaker 1: Of course not. We don't need to see his... Well, we won this thing, Judge, but I just want to make sure it's on the up and up. So check his questionnaire. We just want to make sure. course not. He finishes this section at least by saying, because post-trial information potentially affecting juror Doe's impartiality cannot be used to attack the determination that a mistrial was manifest necessity. Clancy is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on that issue. Essentially saying, Robes, it's post-trial information, like potentially could have had an impact on He's just saying you can't go back. You can't revisit this thing. It's done. And whatever you found out about him afterwards has nothing to do with what happened in that room. This kind of made sense.
00:07:53
Speaker 3: Yeah. So that was what the judge ruled specifically on the lying on the juror questionnaire portion of Reddington's motion. On his cell phone use, this is what the judge had to say. A similar analysis applies to the argument that there may have been grounds to replace Juror Doe with an alternate based on Juror Doe's cell phone use, which may suggest exposure to extraneous evidence. Prior evidence to the declaration of a mistrial, defense counsel raised no suggestion that juror Doe had been exposed to extraneous evidence or improperly used a cell phone during deliberations because post trial information cannot be used to attack the determination that a mistrial was manifestly necessary. Clancy is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on that issue.
00:08:46
Speaker 2: So the same rule applies. You can't use.
00:08:48
Speaker 3: Information you found after the fact because you didn't like the verdict against the juror who held out.
00:08:54
Speaker 1: Isn't that, Robes, I think this is going to be it, as far as Desronville goes. Because it was almost, we were holding our breath, like what are they going to do to this guy? What can they do to him? Someone even talking about lying on a juror forum is a crime. Robes, they were really coming at this dude. The judge puts this thing to bed. I wonder what's going to happen to this guy's life now. Will this all calm down and go away? He is essentially now completely done with this case. He's finished. He did his duty. And now the judge says, we're not bringing him back in.
00:09:30
Speaker 2: Yeah, he should be able to hopefully go back.
00:09:32
Speaker 3: And look, there are enough people who I think support him and support what he did. Once all the facts came out, certainly a lot of people.
00:09:42
Speaker 2: rallied to support.
00:09:44
Speaker 3: Him and to just, whether you agreed with his decision or not, it's his right, his duty even, to make the decision that most aligns with his interpretation of the evidence, period.
00:09:57
Speaker 1: And you remember that part, this next part in the order. order a lot of folks will remember there was a part there at the end during deliberations where they brought every juror in we didn't see it but it was happening in the courtroom they don't show the jurors but he had to bring them in one by one they had to be sworn in again essentially and say can you follow the judge's instructions they all answered yes Kevin Reddington suggested that by Michael Desronville answering yes, he was lying under oath, perjured himself.
00:10:28
Speaker 3: Yes.
00:10:28
Speaker 1: Because Reddington believes the guy was in there not following the judge's instructions. That's a really, I know.
00:10:35
Speaker 2: That was a stretch.
00:10:36
Speaker 1: I know, Reddington, you're fighting for your client. That was a stretch. So the judge addressed that part about lying to the judge.
00:10:42
Speaker 3: Yes, the judge wrote, finally, Clancy requests that this court question juror Doe about the sworn assurance that On September 3rd, 2026, that they were able to follow the law and the foreperson's notes suggesting that juror Doe was unwilling or unable to deliberate in.
00:10:59
Speaker 2: Accordance with the court's instructions.
00:11:01
Speaker 3: This court concludes that any further judicial inquiry is inappropriate. given the mandate that the court must not delve into a juror's subjective reasoning, thought process, view of the case, or relationship to the other jurors, and must not inquire into the jury's deliberative content, collective thought process, or any disagreement among the jury.
00:11:25
Speaker 1: They consider them sacred, babe. Jury deliberations.
00:11:29
Speaker 2: They have to be.
00:11:30
Speaker 1: They have to be.
00:11:31
Speaker 3: They have to be. Because, look, otherwise, as we were saying at the beginning... in an already difficult position many jurors find themselves in, just AKA not wanting to be there, thinking that, uh-oh, if I don't agree with the others, I'm gonna get completely subjected to scrutiny. And he did regardless, even if it didn't rise to a legal level where he was under any sort of legal jeopardy, publicly, the scrutiny was overwhelming. To add some sort of legal part to that on top of it would just be to me insane.
00:12:07
Speaker 1: I put myself in the seat of the defendant. Roe, this messes up the whole judicial system. And the point you just made, if I'm sitting there and I'm the one and I got 11, okay, guys, I'll vote with you. Please don't go out there and blast me on TV.
00:12:24
Speaker 2: I don't want to get dis-Ronville'd.
00:12:25
Speaker 1: Yes, that's the new thing. And now what about me as the defendant? I have somebody in there that's on my side that It's like, nah, I saw what they did to that other dude.
00:12:36
Speaker 2: It's not worth it.
00:12:36
Speaker 1: I ain't here for it.
00:12:37
Speaker 2: It's me or him or me or her.
00:12:39
Speaker 1: Yes, and I prefer you go to jail. Rose, no, you make a very, very good point. This screws up the system. I love his line there, babe, about the it's inappropriate. Your mandate is to not delve literally into the juror's mind.
00:12:56
Speaker 2: Exactly.
00:12:57
Speaker 3: How can you say what he's feeling or thinking?
00:13:00
Speaker 1: His background or his process or how he views it or what his... Robes, that's a very good line. But stay here. We'll show you and we'll tell you how the judge closed out his note, his order, I should say, in response to the motion. How he closed out saying that, no, we are not bringing the juror back in. And we'll tell you what actually is next for Lindsey Clancy.
00:13:34
Speaker 2: Welcome back, everyone, to Amy and TJ.
00:13:36
Speaker 3: Yes, we got a bit of a surprise ruling, an order from the judge in the Lindsay Clancy case. And Kevin Reddington is not getting what he wanted. He wanted the holdout juror, Michael Desronville, to be held, I guess, accountable for not agreeing with the other jurors, so to speak. And the judge completely shot any chance of any sort of inquiry or investigation into the juror. And he closed out his order by saying this. The court gave the Tui Rodriguez charge and the four person's notes identified juror Doe as the lone holdout. The notes were not ambiguous. Accordingly, the court in its discretion concludes that an evidentiary hearing is not required to properly resolve Clancy's motion to dismiss.
00:14:43
Speaker 1: That's it. That's done. Try something else. That is the end of it. Michael Desronville is off the hook. He is done with this case from a legal standpoint right now. At least, Rose, this was, I don't know if it was a Hail Mary, but clearly they were putting a lot in the loan holdout basket in trying to get a motion for dismissal. So that is a big argument they were going to make that they do not have anymore.
00:15:13
Speaker 2: No, they do not.
00:15:14
Speaker 3: And so we're going to be hearing from... Kevin Reddington and others, and we'll hear, hopefully, a lot of decisions being made on November 2nd, because he still has a motion to dismiss, correct, in there? I just always think this is so interesting, the way the grounds are double jeopardy grounds, because basically what Lindsey Clancy's defense team is arguing, or I guess that's Kevin Reddington, basically, is arguing that a second trial would violate Lindsey Clancy's constitutional rights double jeopardy protections because he's claiming, Kevin Reddington is claiming, that the judge declared a mistrial prematurely without a sufficient inquiry. Is this into the juror still?
00:16:02
Speaker 1: His argument is that this jury cleared her on most of the charges because Desronville... I don't know if it was first degree. He's making the argument that the jury was in agreement on a couple of these murder charges. So throw those out, and that should be double jeopardy.
00:16:25
Speaker 3: Right, because from what we've heard from the jurors, correct, that Michael DeSronville was willing to come down from first degree.
00:16:33
Speaker 2: But do we know what he was willing to, was he willing to do manslaughter?
00:16:38
Speaker 1: I don't know if he was asked that in his interview.
00:16:41
Speaker 3: Yeah. Dang.
00:16:42
Speaker 1: I don't remember asking that question.
00:16:43
Speaker 2: Because I would be interested. Was he.
00:16:44
Speaker 3: Because obviously the jury had the choice of first degree, second degree, manslaughter, or not guilty. We know that 11 of the jurors were all on board with the not guilty. But what did Michael Disronville... What was he willing to come down to? Second degree or manslaughter? And so that's part of Reddington's argument.
00:17:03
Speaker 1: That's part of it. And the other, of course, is that... Desronville shouldn't be there anyway. His vote shouldn't count. She was essentially acquitted. Let's all go home. So that motion was dismissed. So we're supposed to hear about that on November 2nd.
00:17:17
Speaker 2: It's called renewal of Rule 25 motion.
00:17:20
Speaker 3: Yes, that's I didn't even know this was out there, citing that because 11 of the 12 jurors wanted to acquit Lindsay Clancy, that That he would then, the judge could be required to finding her not guilty.
00:17:34
Speaker 2: That makes no sense to me.
00:17:36
Speaker 3: Huh.
00:17:37
Speaker 2: I mean, I get it. These are a lot of these are Hail Marys.
00:17:39
Speaker 3: And then he wants, the prosecution wants a gag order in. They want to limit public statements regarding jurors in the case. They just, they want a gag order on this. I feel like the cat's out of the bag at this point. I mean, People are obsessed with this. Every bit of information seems to be getting out, at least. And then we're trying to see if, like, has the prosecution fully come out and said, we are going to absolutely recharge Lindsay Clancy or the charges are going to stand and we want a new trial?
00:18:13
Speaker 2: They haven't officially said that.
00:18:15
Speaker 1: Well, we have to say yes, because they were behaving in the last hearing as if they say, yes, we'll be ready for the next trial. They were getting ready for trial. They were in discussions with the judge about a retrial and dates for a retrial. They didn't say, we're not ready for that yet, or hold off, we need to make a decision. They were looking at retrial dates with the judge.
00:18:37
Speaker 3: And the last we heard from Kevin Rennington is that he can't be ready until June, right? So it doesn't look like, look, if they actually set a new trial date, and that will be big news, looks like it will be next summer, which, oh boy, are any of us ready for another trial?
00:18:58
Speaker 1: They'll plea. They got to plead out.
00:19:00
Speaker 2: That's what I'm hoping. I think that's what the world is hoping at this point.
00:19:04
Speaker 1: But folks, that is an update. That is a significant one. The next one we will get, we anticipate getting, will be a little over a week from now, November 2nd, when she does have Another status hearing where we are expecting to hear the judge decide on a motion for dismissal and decide potentially on a new trial day for Lindsey Clancy. We always appreciate you spending some time with us. I'm TJ. That's Robes. We'll talk soon.