Clancy Holdout Juror's 'Least Surprising' Claim About Other Jurors Is Perhaps the Most Infuriating

Clancy Holdout Juror's 'Least Surprising' Claim About Other Jurors Is Perhaps the Most Infuriating

Sister ToldjahFollow @sistertoldjah

10:01 PM on September 18, 2026

AP Photo/Josh Reynolds

Though I've been called upon for jury duty many times and have been questioned by attorneys during the voir dire process for some cases, I've only ever actually been picked to serve on one.

It was a civil case, and 10 minutes after arguments began, the judge had us escorted out for a recess because the attorneys for both sides wanted to talk. When we came back, we sat for a few minutes longer before we were informed that the attorneys had reached an agreement and that our services were no longer needed.

Though I'm like most people in that I'd rather not serve on a jury, I found myself disappointed, because I've always respected and admired the process. The law/judicial process has fascinated me going back to a young age, watching the lawyers joust with each other and play to the jury, while the judge assumes the role of an exasperated referee, all while a person's fate is being decided.

But looking back on the experience, I can safely say that - whether it had been a high-profile civil trial or a criminal trial - had we had to sit through days or weeks of testimony and, in the end, were not able to unanimously agree on a verdict, I would not ever have trashed my fellow jurors who disagreed with me in the event I decided to go public with my thoughts about the trial.

As a human being and an American, I am absolutely disgusted with what's played out in the aftermath of the mistrial that was declared in the Lindsay Clancy case, where some of the self-righteous female jurors have stepped forth to give us their opinions not on just the lawyers' "styles" but also on the lone holdout juror.

Recommended

Team Trump Releases the List CNN Wishes Didn't Exist: A Staggering Tally of Failure and DeceptionBob HogeThe Blue Wave May Be Here, but the Senate Still Looks Immune to ItAdam Turner

He was vilified by some of these jurors and essentially doxxed by NBC News Boston for the apparent crime of coming to a different conclusion than the other 11 jurors as to whether Clancy should be held criminally responsible for admittedly killing her three young children. Because he had voted the "wrong way," he was bound to be named and shamed in the court of public opinion, which is rather fitting considering all of this has taken place in Massachusetts, home of the infamous Salem witch trials.

But as a woman, I am infuriated by how these women have presented themselves as the true "experts" on female hormonal fluctuations, postpartum depression, postpartum psychosis, etc., when what they were supposed to do was to go by what the experts presented by the attorneys had to say. Further, I'm enraged that the holdout juror has had his name dragged through the mud with the insinuation made clear: Because he is a man, he is either unwilling or unable to understand the arguments Clancy's showboating attorney, Kevin Reddington, made in her defense.

What evidence do they have of this? None. It's just their biased opinion, and one the mainstream media have treated as factual because, of course, they have.

In rushing to the press the way they did and then making the feministic comments some of them did about how “We knew that this was a turning point, and this would be something that could change something to make it better for other women," I'm outraged that some of these jurors appear to have abused their role as a juror to do a bit of female social justice warrioring, to "start conversations" on behalf of future generations of women.

As my colleague Kyle Becker has repeatedly pointed out, that is not what trials are supposed to be about. They are supposed to be about listening to the witnesses, the evidence, the experts, the attorneys, the law, and then deliberating in good faith as to where you stand.

It's hardly a surprise that the holdout juror is not only now speaking out himself, but that he's hired his own attorney. One doesn't even have to view juror Michael P. Desronvil as a "hero" or a "maverick" to understand why he felt the need to go on record and counter the various narratives that were being spouted about what allegedly happened during deliberations.

One of the persistent claims some of the female jurors have made is that Desronvil did have reasonable doubt, a statement made ahead of the mistrial being declared that had Reddington spinning like a top in the courtroom.

Except Desronvil disputes that. And not only does he dispute that, but he also alleged that some of the other jurors kept cutting him off as he tried to explain himself and his position:

As X user Western Lensman observed, that was the "least surprising" thing we've learned about these jurors, all things considered:

I wonder how many of these women are AWFLs? When one takes into account that they are based in Massachusetts, it's not going out on a limb to speculate that at least some of them are.

Women are giving other women a bad name, from the Mangione fangirling to the Clancy fanaticism. This is not just embarrassing, but it's also setting us all back, and not just us but the country, too. It's not that we haven't seen this scenario play out before during a murder trial; it just seems to be happening with increasing frequency, and with no end in sight.

Beyond that, there is something deeply offensive about how these women have behaved, all in the name of sticking by the so-called "sisterhood":

Profoundly un-American indeed.

https://redstate.com/sister-toldjah/2026/09/18/clancy-holdout-jurors-least-surprising-claim-about-other-jurors-is-perhaps-the-most-infuriating-n2207110?utm_source=thdailyvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&utm_content=ncl-MAfxbb5aFm&utm_term=&_nlid=MAfxbb5aFm&_nhids=ncM71FPrSEqbls

Pulling the Plug on Bidenomics’ War on Affordable Power

Pulling the Plug on Bidenomics’ War on Affordable Power

EJ Antoni, Ph.D.Follow @RealEJAntoni

AP Photo/Julio Cortez

Under President Biden, Washington spent four years making affordable electricity more difficult to produce, and the result was higher prices for consumers. Just days ago, though, the Trump administration took a major step in reversing that trend by scrapping a Biden-era power-plant rule that was forcing inexpensive plants to shut down.

The Biden rule was sold as climate policy, but its real function was to shutter coal plants and discourage new natural-gas plants. It required existing coal plants to capture most of their carbon emissions using expensive, inefficient, and unproven carbon-capture technology. The cost meant many plants would operate at a loss, so they planned to close.

Of course, the costs didn’t stop there. When a paid-off coal plant producing reliable, low-cost power is forced offline years early, and a utility has to add unreliable, expensive solar and wind to its portfolio, the consumer foots the bill. Utilities pass all these costs on to ratepayers in the form of higher utility bills.

The EPA estimates repeal will save more than $300 billion, money that would otherwise have come out of household utility bills and business operating budgets. That means much-needed relief is on the way for Americans who have been getting squeezed.

Residential electricity prices have risen 41.4 percent since January 2021, almost doubling wage growth over the same period. Families who saw their real incomes eroded by Bidenomics-era inflation were then hit with higher power bills on top of it.

Recommended

The Fantasy House of Mark CarneyVictor Davis HansonArkansas Dem: I'd Trade Five Americans for One Illegal AlienMatt Vespa

The timing couldn't have been worse. Just as regulators were choking off the growth of dispatchable generation, demand began to surge. Artificial intelligence and the data centers that power it are increasing electricity consumption at a pace the grid hasn't seen in years. Add the reshoring of American manufacturing, and you get a mismatch between growth rates in supply and demand.

Basic economics tells you what happens next: prices rise. Even if total generation didn't fall outright, slowing the growth of reliable and inexpensive supply at the precise moment demand is accelerating puts upward pressure on prices.

Grid operators have been sounding the alarm about reliability shortfalls for years. Retiring coal capacity, which runs whether the wind blows or the sun shines, while demand soars is a recipe for both higher prices and a less stable grid. Likewise, preventing new natural-gas capacity, which would easily ramp up or down to meet changing demand throughout the day, is a recipe for blackouts during peak demand.

Fortunately, scrapping the Biden-era rule means utilities can now make decisions based on cost and reliability rather than regulatory coercion. Coal plants that still have productive years left can keep providing low-cost, affordable electricity for consumers. Natural gas developers can build new plants without a compliance cliff looming in the 2030s.

The increased supply means downward pressure on prices — which American families desperately need right now. Furthermore, additional power generation is exactly what an economy needs when it’s racing to win the AI race against adversaries like China.

This decision, part of the Trump administration's broader deregulatory agenda, has been one of its most underappreciated economic policies. The regulatory compliance costs imposed by the Washington, D.C. bureaucracy fall on businesses, which pass them on to families through higher prices, lower wages, or lower returns on investment.

Cutting red tape reverses these effects, and the Trump administration has been on a cutting spree, axing more than 120 rules for each new one imposed — a record!

Critics will insist the well-intentioned rule was necessary, and the repeal will be fought in court. But policy should be judged by its results, not its intentions. A rule that raises costs for every household and business, strains the grid, does nothing for the environment, and hands a competitive advantage to other countries is a lousy deal for Americans.

Affordable, reliable electricity is the foundation of a modern economy. It powers homes, factories, and now the computing infrastructure that will define the next generation of economic growth. The Trump administration understands this and is now protecting the very foundation that the Biden administration was undermining with excessive regulation.

https://townhall.com/columnists/ej-antoni/2026/09/18/pulling-the-plug-on-bidenomics-war-on-affordable-power-n2683150?utm_source=thdailyvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&utm_content=ncl-6gWqnB9dXd&utm_term=&_nlid=6gWqnB9dXd&_nhids=nc78Pu5ETqb6ls

America Is Exceptional, Which Is Why the Left Wants to Destroy It

America Is Exceptional, Which Is Why the Left Wants to Destroy It

Amy CurtisFollow @RantyAmyCurtis

AP Photo/Allison Robbert

One of the most revealing moments of the last several years was how the Left reacted to President Trump granting asylum to white South Africans who have faced years of persecution and death at the hands of their government. The backlash was intense, with NBC News claiming that the South African government denied that it was murdering people. It was a stunning piece of journalism. Not. Al Sharpton and other Democrats also complained, having finally found a group of migrants they didn't want to welcome to America.

The African National Congress even admitted that President Trump was right in giving these families asylum, issuing a statement that lamented that the migrants lied (emphasis added): "What the instigators of this falsehood seek is not safety, but impunity from transformation. They flee not from persecution, but from justice, equality, and accountability for historic privilege." 

Wow.

With that context in mind, one of the South African migrants posted a video back in April where he celebrated the fact that a farmer isn't murdered every other week, and said America is "normal."

This is, in fact, the norm. As another person pointed out.

Recommended

The Fantasy House of Mark CarneyVictor Davis HansonWhy a CNN Host Was Aghast Over the Latest Michigan Senate PollMatt Vespa

The post reads:

Don’t get it twisted. I LOVE the fact that he loves America and feels safer here than South Africa. I do. It’s so amazing to see.

But what he described as normal … people getting killed all the time … THAT IS NORMAL. THAT IS THE NORM. AMERICA IS THE EXCEPTION.

We forget that civilization is merely a clearing in a hostile jungle carved out by man. And the jungle constantly tries to reclaim it.

America is precious. It must be preserved. There is nowhere to go if this land falls. Peace is the exception of the human condition. Death and violence is the norm.

Remember this.

There is a reason the Democrats and their socialist big-tent allies want to destroy this nation, and it's precisely because we're exceptional. We are a nation where our rights are enshrined in the Constitution, given by God and not the government.

But the Left hates that. They hate that we are, bluntly, better than the rest of the world. They can only see the world through the simplistic lens of oppressed vs. oppressor, and America is always the latter. Because we're wealthier, freer, and stronger than other nations. That's why the Smithsonian and others push the narrative that certain civil behaviors are racist white supremacy, including working hard and being on time. That's why the Cherry Creek School District in Colorado says disruptive classroom behavior is "culturally appropriate" if done by black students.

And it's why they imported millions of illegal aliens from every Third World hellhole they could during the Biden years. They want to turn us into a nation where, like South Africa, the streets are full of violence (usually targeting their political opponents), the government enacts "justice, equality, and accountability for historic privilege" (again targeting their political opponents), and where everyone's standard of living is knocked down a peg or two or ten.

This is what's at stake in the next election. If Democrats win, they will continue down the path to destroying America. They will continue to import people from cultures and countries that are wholly incompatible with our own, and they will work to dismantle the things that make America exceptional: our Constitution, our Senate, our Supreme Court.

https://townhall.com/news/amy-curtis/2026/09/17/vip-south-african-amazed-were-not-killed-n2683133?utm_source=thdailyvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&utm_content=ncl-uJAwmM7XX3&utm_term=&_nlid=uJAwmM7XX3&_nhids=nc78Pu5ETqb6ls

Holdout Clancy Juror Breaks Silence. What He Says About 'Activist' Jurors Makes Them Look Worse.

Holdout Clancy Juror Breaks Silence. What He Says About 'Activist' Jurors Makes Them Look Worse.

Kyle BeckerFollow @kylenabecker

AP Photo/Josh Reynolds, Pool

Well, well, well.

After nearly two weeks of Lindsay Clancy jurors taking to television to trash the lone man who refused to acquit her, the holdout has apparently broken his silence.

And if his account of what happened inside that jury room is accurate, some of his fellow jurors have some explaining to do.

The holdout has been identified by the Boston Globe and other outlets as Michael P. Desronvil, 48, of Bridgewater, Massachusetts. Desronvil recently spoke with Ray Marcel of Fugitive TV, although he has not appeared on camera.

His account is stunning. According to Marcel, Desronvil says the jury wasn't gradually persuaded over nearly 40 hours of deliberations that Clancy lacked criminal responsibility when she killed her three children. 

Recommended

Talarico in Trouble? Some Ill Winds Are Blowing in His DirectionJennifer Oliver O'ConnellIran Tried to Outfox the US With Land Trade. It's Not Going Well.Bob Hoge

Eight jurors, he says, were already there on day one.

"He said that from day one, he said eight of them were going for Lindsay Clancy not guilty," Marcel recounted. "That was on day one. Eight were going not guilty. Two were for guilty. And two didn't know. They didn't make up their mind."

Desronvil reportedly had a word for those eight jurors: "Activists."

"He said to him those eight felt like they were activists," Marcel said. "Every day they would vote. The eight that felt that Lindsay was not guilty were trying to convince the other four, 'Hey, Lindsay is not guilty.'"

That description is particularly explosive in light of what one of those jurors has already said publicly.

Juror Paula Devlin told Fox News that the panel knew it had "a chance to get a conversation started" about women's mental health and postpartum illnesses.

"We knew that this was a turning point, and this would be something that could change something to make it better for other women," she said.

Sound familiar? Desronvil says there were "activists" in the jury room.

Devlin has publicly said she viewed the case as an opportunity to "get a conversation started" and potentially "change something."

You can draw your own conclusions. But a criminal trial isn't supposed to be a vehicle for changing society.

It isn't a public-awareness campaign. It isn't a referendum on women's mental healthcare. And jurors aren't there to "start a conversation." They're there to decide the case in front of them based on the evidence and the law.

And according to Desronvil, that is exactly what he was trying to do. He reportedly told Marcel that he concluded Clancy was guilty based on the evidence and did not believe she met the standard for lack of criminal responsibility.

Desronvil also disputes the picture his fellow jurors have painted of a stubborn man standing alone against an otherwise unified panel.

According to his account, the jury began deliberations with eight favoring acquittal, two favoring guilt and two undecided. And even near the end, he says he wasn't alone.

Desronvil claims another juror remained with him in favor of guilt before finally changing her position.

"He said at the very end, it was him and another juror," Marcel recounted. "She was also voting guilty. At the last minute, she caved."

That is quite different from the impression left by days of interviews portraying one immovable juror inexplicably resisting 11 people who had supposedly reasoned their way together to the same conclusion.

And remember what happened after the mistrial. Clancy attorney, Kevin Reddington, immediately went after the holdout.

He accused him of having some unexplained "agenda." He said the other 11 jurors had been "robbed."

"I hope that guy can sleep well at night," Reddington told reporters. Days later, he doubled down to Fox News.

"I was angry because of his refusal to follow the law," Reddington said.

Except Judge William Sullivan had already declined to make that finding.

When jurors sent Sullivan a note claiming the holdout had "acknowledged doubt but refuses to apply it," the judge specifically said the note did not establish that the juror was refusing to follow the law.

Then the jurors started talking. One complained that the holdout wouldn't accept information supplied during deliberations by nurses sitting on the jury concerning Clancy's medications and toxicology evidence.

Another complained about prosecutors being "harsh," "biased," "unprofessional," and "cold," and questioned why they hadn't presented character witnesses.

Devlin said the case represented an opportunity to start a broader conversation about women's mental health.

And now the holdout says eight members of that panel struck him as "activists" from the beginning.

Suddenly, his refusal to fold looks a little different. There is another part of this story that needs to be addressed.

Since the mistrial, Desronvil's personal history has been dragged into public view.

NBC10 Boston reported that he was charged in 2021 with assaulting his then-wife. That charge was later dismissed. Court records also showed that his nephew obtained a restraining order against him following a separate alleged assault, and the Boston Globe reported that the order remained active during part of the Clancy trial.

Those allegations are serious. But they also aren't convictions. And those kinds of stories can be highly selective and misleading.

And Desronvil now says he disclosed his previous arrest during jury selection.

"I did not lie on the questionnaire," he told Fugitive TV.

Whether that can be independently verified remains an important question. Juror questionnaires are confidential, and the Globe reported that prospective jurors were asked about criminal histories and court orders.

But there is a larger point here. None of Desronvil's possible baggage tells us whether Lindsay Clancy was criminally responsible when she killed Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months.

The question before that jury wasn't whether the holdout had a spotless life. It was whether the prosecution proved its case against Clancy under Massachusetts law.

Desronvil says he believed it did. And for refusing to abandon that conclusion, he has been publicly blamed for the mistrial, accused of having an "agenda," scrutinized over his private life and, according to his account, threatened and stalked at his home.

An online fundraiser established for the holdout has meanwhile raised more than $100,000, according to People.

There is plenty we still don't know about what happened inside that deliberation room. Desronvil's account is his account, just as the other jurors' television interviews represent theirs.

But something has changed. For days, the public heard almost exclusively from the other jurors.

They told us the holdout wouldn't listen and he had an agenda. Now we're hearing from the man himself, and there is plenty to suggest that the opposite is the truth.

He says eight jurors entered deliberations already favoring acquittal, behaved like "activists," and spent the ensuing days trying to bring the remaining four over to their side.

Most strikingly, one of the jurors criticizing him has already publicly described the case as an opportunity to "get a conversation started" and "change something."

That’s not a juror’s job. In fact, that’s an extremely dangerous corruption of justice. 

Only one man stood up to the 11-person mob. America owes him a debt of gratitude for sticking to what he believed was right.

https://redstate.com/kyle-becker/2026/09/17/holdout-clancy-juror-breaks-his-silence-what-he-says-about-the-activist-jurors-is-shameful-n2207022?utm_source=thdailyvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&utm_content=ncl-GeVGxmaVbw&utm_term=&_nlid=GeVGxmaVbw&_nhids=ncb4mIXLuYljls