Holdout juror Michael Desronvil says “a lot of evidence” showed Lindsay Clancy was not criminally insane when she killed her three children, and he never had reasonable doubt.

Reporting this week detailed Desronvil’s first interview since the September mistrial, in which he told Fox News host Kayleigh McEnany he refused to acquit Clancy and stood alone against 11 jurors ready to clear her.

Clancy admitted killing her children, five-year-old Cora, three-year-old Dawson, and eight-month-old Callan, in January 2023 by strangling them with exercise bands. She pleaded not guilty to murder by reason of insanity, citing overmedication and postpartum psychosis and depression.

Eleven jurors voted to acquit. Desronvil, 48, would not join them. The deadlock produced a mistrial, and prosecutors are still weighing whether to put her on trial again.

Asked whether he ever had reasonable doubt, Desronvil gave a one-word answer.

"No."

He also told Fox News he had the facts on his side.

"I had a lot of evidence to back up my claim,"

Methodical killings drove the holdout vote

In comments carried by the New York Post, Desronvil pointed to how carefully the killings were carried out. That detail, he said, weighed heavily against the insanity claim.

"How methodical I thought Lindsay was in the execution of the children, that was really big for me."

He said the physical evidence, key witnesses, and the prosecution’s case showed planning, not a total break from reality. The jury, nine women and three men, deliberated seven days before the judge declared a mistrial over the hopeless split.

That same evidence trail has stayed central in related coverage of the case, including reporting on how Clancy texted her husband about takeout shortly before the children were killed.

AP News reported Desronvil’s fuller account of the room. He said other jurors shut down his theories and that the foreperson later claimed he had admitted reasonable doubt while still voting to convict, a claim he flatly rejects.

"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. 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."

Just the News likewise carried his insistence that the proof of planning, not the mental-illness defense, controlled his vote. Clancy does not deny killing the children. She argues she should not be held criminally responsible because of severe mental illness.

Fellow jurors turned on him after the mistrial

After the trial, several fellow jurors criticized Desronvil in public. Some said he had conceded doubt. He denied it then and denies it now. Clancy’s team also tried, at the last moment, to remove him from the jury for “refusing to follow court rules,” as described in coverage of the dispute.

The pressure did not stay inside the courthouse. Desronvil’s attorney, Edward Paltzik, said the holdout juror received death threats. Desronvil also described harassment and abuse after his name became public.

The Washington Examiner reported he was taken to a secure location as those threats and the public fight over the deliberations intensified.

Even so, Desronvil has tried to pull attention off himself and back onto the victims. In a statement released the same day Clancy returned to court for a hearing on a possible retrial, he framed the case around the children who cannot speak.

"I know the whole focus has been on me but we want to reel everything back and put the focus on the three angels, the ones that cannot speak for themselves, the ones that can't defend themselves, and the ones that cannot fight the battles. And those are Cora, Dawson and Callan,"

He thanked supporters for prayers and emotional help and said he would keep quiet about internal jury fights for now out of respect for the other jurors and the court system, until the legal process runs its course.

Retrial question still hangs over the case

Clancy was back in court earlier this month for a hearing on whether prosecutors will try her again. That hearing did not settle the case’s status. A judge ordered her to return on November 2 to discuss a potential new trial date with prosecutors.

Defense efforts have not stopped since the hung jury. Coverage of post-mistrial filings has included a denied acquittal bid after the mistrial and repeated attempts to end the murder case short of another jury.

Readers following the docket have also seen a judge reject a fourth try to drop the charges, keeping the murder case alive while prosecutors decide their next move.

The mistrial itself came after a full airing of the insanity claim and a state high-court fight over defense appeals, as laid out in prior reporting on how the Lindsay Clancy murder trial ended in a mistrial when the jury could not agree.

Desronvil’s public account now puts a plain marker on the record: one juror looked at the physical evidence, the witnesses, and the sequence of the killings and concluded Clancy knew what she was doing. Eleven others were prepared to excuse her. The law still requires a unanimous verdict before a murder defendant walks free on an insanity plea.

When a mother admits strangling her own children and the only dispute is whether the justice system should call it crime or illness, the public is entitled to jurors who weigh the proof, not jurors who fold under pressure to look away.