Lindsay Clancy holdout juror's attorney calls motion 'dangerous'

Clancy's holdout juror attorney says defense's motion to question him 'dangerous'.

Sep 23, 2026

7 cards · 1m 10s · tap to begin

From · · 1m 10s

Lindsay Clancy holdout juror's attorney calls motion 'dangerous'

Clancy's holdout juror attorney says defense's motion to question him 'dangerous'.

In brief

Clancy's holdout juror attorney says defense's motion to question him 'dangerous'. Lindsay Clancy's holdout juror attorney claims defense's motion to question his honesty is a constitutional threat. Originally reported by ABC7 New York.

Holdout juror's attorney

Holdout juror's attorney

The holdout juror's attorney called for the motion's 'universal condemnation.'

“The holdout juror's attorney called for the motion's 'universal condemnation.'”

Defense motion to dismiss

Clancy's lawyer cites double jeopardy in bid to dismiss charges

Defense attorneys filed a motion today to dismiss the murder case against Lindsay Clancy.

“Defense attorneys filed a motion today to dismiss the murder case against Lindsay Clancy.”

Reddington's motion

Reddington's motion

Defense attorney Kevin Reddington asked Judge William Sullivan to question the holdout juror about his 'truthfulness' during jury selection.

“Defense attorney Kevin Reddington asked Judge William Sullivan to question the holdout juror about his 'truthfulness' during jury selection.”

Attorney's response

Attorney's response

Attorney Edward Andrew Paltzik described Reddington's motion as 'disgusting' and said it 'is worthy of nothing but universal condemnation.'

“Kevin Reddington's disgusting motion to investigate Michael is worthy of nothing but universal condemnation.”

Juror's statement

Michael Péguy Desronvil said he had no doubts but was cut off during deliberations as if he had doubts based on evidence.

“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.”

Constitutional threat

Paltzik warned the motion could create a dangerous precedent of investigating holdout jurors and undermine jury pools.

“If we follow his destructive proposal to its logical conclusion, we're going to have an endless cycle of prosecutors investigating holdouts who oppose 'guilty' and defense attorneys investigating holdouts who oppose 'not guilty.'”

Judge's order

Judge's order

Judge William Sullivan extended the impoundment order preventing release of jurors' names due to 'significant and divisive attention.'

“There have been identifications of jurors and their personal information without their permission.”

The takeaway

Lindsay Clancy's holdout juror attorney claims defense's motion to question his honesty is a constitutional threat.

Read the original on ABC7 New York

React

Sign in to react and comment.

Comments (0)

Life is short. Keep it sweet. Respect others' opinions and be kind!

    Recommended next

    More decks on lindsay clancy and related topics.