Lindsay Clancy's lawyer asks judge to investigate juror and check his phone
The defence lawyer for a Massachusetts mother accused of murdering her three children has asked a judge to investigate a juror in the case.
The proceedings against Lindsay Clancy ended in a mistrial and acrimony this month after the jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict.
Her attorney, Kevin Reddington, wants the court to probe mobile phone use by "Juror Doe" during deliberations as well as a questionnaire he filled out.
A lawyer for Michael Desronvil, the lone juror who wanted to find Clancy guilty, said the latest defence motion was a "Looney Tunes" attack on his client for doing his civic duty. Desronvil has said there was "enough proof that she [Clancy] knew exactly what she was doing".
Warning: This article contains distressing details
The juror forewoman has claimed in a media interview that Desronvil had expressed reasonable doubt about Clancy's guilt, which would require him to find her not guilty. He denies this.
Clancy has not denied killing her three children, Cora, five, Dawson, three, and Callan, eight months, at the family's Massachusetts home.
Her attorneys argued she was not guilty by reason of insanity, that she was struggling with postpartum psychosis at the time.
Prosecutors said Clancy made a calculated decision to send her husband out of the house on an errand so she could strangle her children.
In his motion filed on Friday, Reddington asked the court to look at calls and texts that "Juror Doe" made between 08:00 and 16:30 local time during all the days the jury deliberated.
He also asked the court to examine the truthfulness of the answers the juror gave during the jury selection process, as well as his responses to prospective juror questionnaires.
In a separate motion, Reddington also asked for the case against Clancy to be dismissed. Prosecutors have yet to say whether they will retry her.
Facing a backlash for refusing to acquit Clancy, Desronvil has hired an attorney to represent him.
The lawyer, Edward Paltzik, said in a statement on X that the "disgusting" defence motion was an attack on the US constitutional right to a fair trial.
"If the new normal is that jurors are going to face brutal reprisals for disagreeing with a defense attorney, you can kiss the Sixth Amendment goodbye," he wrote.
Several jurors have said after the trial ended that they were ultimately divided 11-1 in favour of finding Clancy not criminally responsible.
Desronvil said last week that he had no doubt about her guilt.
"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," he said in a statement to the BBC's US partner CBS News.
The jury forewoman, a retired fifth-grade teacher, said in an interview with NBC that Desronvil had admitted he had reasonable doubt, but refused to find Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity.