Edward Paltzik, attorney for the lone holdout juror in Lindsay Clancy’s trial, publicly defended his client’s refusal to convict by branding the child killer “a demon” who deserves execution.
Paltzik, who represents Michael Desronvil, the juror whose steadfast stance produced an 11-1 hung jury, made the inflammatory remarks during a Fugitive TV interview on Wednesday. The lawyer framed his client’s intransigence as moral courage rather than obstinacy.
“Let’s not forget what happened here. A demon, which is what Lindsay Clancy is, murdered her three innocent children – and of course all children are innocent – and she actually has supporters,” he said.
Paltzik pressed his condemnation further, invoking capital punishment despite its legal impossibility in the case. Massachusetts abolished the death penalty decades ago, rendering execution “never on the table” for prosecutors.
“But if we’re just talking morally, Lindsay Clancy should be executed. I say that without hesitation because it’s the right thing. The idea that she should be allowed to spend her days in a mental hospital is absurd. The idea that she should even be allowed to get three meals a day in a prison is also wrong,” he added.
The 33-year-old Clancy has been confined to Tewksbury Hospital, a state-run mental health facility, since she strangled her three young children in the family’s Duxbury home in January 2023. Prosecutors alleged she planned the killings for weeks, while her defense team argued postpartum psychosis rendered her incapable of criminal responsibility. The case collapsed when Desronvil, 42, refused to join the other eleven jurors in a guilty verdict after roughly 22 hours of deliberation spread across five days.
Paltzik emphasized the methodical nature of the killings to justify his harsh assessment. “Three children murdered in premeditated fashion. Period. Period. And murdered slowly. Right. And that’s the point here. That’s what Michael was standing up against. Michael was standing up to evil,” he said of his client.
The attorney’s rhetoric drew immediate attention for its unusual ferocity, particularly coming from a lawyer whose client had technically prevented conviction. Legal observers noted the paradox: Desronvil’s refusal to vote guilty spared Clancy from immediate prison, yet Paltzik’s statement suggested his client had somehow triumphed over her evil rather than obstructed justice.
Clancy’s circumstances remain unchanged following the mistrial. She continues receiving treatment at Tewksbury Hospital with no firm timeline for release, and prosecutors have announced plans to retry her on two counts of murder and one count of strangulation.
The case has polarized public sentiment since its inception, with some viewers expressing sympathy for Clancy’s documented mental health struggles while others, like Paltzik, view her actions through an unforgiving lens. The lawyer’s intervention this week added a new dimension to that divide by transforming his client from an anonymous juror into a figure portrayed as morally righteous.
Paltzik did not address what specific evidence or reasoning guided Desronvil’s dissent during deliberations, nor whether his client shared the attorney’s appetite for execution. The juror himself has not spoken publicly since the mistrial was declared.
Prosecutors intend to seat a new jury and retry Clancy, though no date has been set.