Juror’s attorney calls the motion a ‘full-frontal attack on the US Constitution’ that threatens the Sixth Amendment

Lindsay Clancy’s defense team is calling for an investigation into the holdout juror who sought to find her guilty of murder in the strangling of her children and using his refusal to bow to peer pressure to ask a judge to dismiss her charges — prompting a blistering response from his lawyer.

“The ‘Looney Tunes’ motion filed yesterday by Kevin ‘Shooter McGavin’ Reddington to investigate Michael is not just an attack on Michael for being the courageous lone holdout juror,” attorney Edward Paltzik wrote on X Tuesday morning, referring to the holdout, Michael Desronvil.

“Reddington’s motion is actually a full-frontal attack on the U.S. Constitution,” Paltzik warned. “Because 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.”

Michael P. Desronvil, the lone holdout juror in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial, which ended in a mistrial. (Fugitive TV)

He warned that if the judge grants defense demands for an investigation into his client it would undermine the American criminal justice system in the long run.

The Looney Tunes motion filed yesterday by Kevin “Shooter McGavin” Reddington to investigate Michael is not just an attack on Michael for being the courageous lone holdout juror. Reddington’s motion is actually a full-frontal attack on the U.S. Constitution. Because 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.

To anyone who thinks that Reddington’s motion is OK, just remember that the tables will inevitably turn. Imagine a similar trial sometime in the not too distant future where it is the reverse scenario: 11-1 in favor of guilty, with one holdout favoring not guilty by reason of insanity. I doubt you folks would be alright if the District Attorney then filed a motion to investigate that lone holdout standing in the way of a conviction.

That’s why this is actually not a partisan issue. Really, this is a “do we still want to have a Sixth Amendment” issue. If you are like me and believe steadfastly in the Constitution, it’s easy to see how, regardless of your party affiliation, this is an absolutely terrible path of ruin Reddington wants to take us down.

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.” Pretty soon we’ll end up with with a retrograde justice system that will look a lot like the Hatfield-McCoy Feud: a cycle of carnage so malignant that its origins will fade in importance, replaced by the hopeless dєatᩚh spiral of the cycle itself.

Kevin Reddington’s disgusting motion to investigate Michael is worthy of nothing but universal condemnation. This is certainly not the final word from us on this subject, but merely our first words. It’s all going to backfire spectacularly on sore loser Reddington.

— Edward Andrew Paltzik, Attorney (@EdPaltzik) September 22, 2026

“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,'” he wrote. “Pretty soon we’ll end up with… a retrograde justice system that will look a lot like the Hatfield-McCoy Feud: a cycle of carnage so malignant that its origins will fade in importance, replaced by the hopeless dєatᩚh spiral of the cycle itself.”

Reddington, in a motion filed Friday, called for a “limited inquiry” into the holdout, for information about his background and potential criminal history, phone records, courthouse surveillance video and more.

Lindsay Clancy looks at jurors as Judge Sullivan asks them to start deliberations for a sixth day. The Lindsay Clancy jury resumes deliberations for a sixth day on Thursday, Sept. 3, 2026.

Neither Paltzik nor Reddington immediately responded to requests for comment from Fox News Digital Tuesday morning.

In a separate filing, another attorney for Clancy, Martin Weinberg, argued that Judge William Sullivan’s decision to overrule a defense objection at trial should be grounds for dismissing the charges against the 36-year-old defendant on double jeopardy grounds. That motion also centered on the holdout juror and allegations that he ignored the judge’s instructions and the law.

Callan, left, Dawson and Cora Clancy. The three children were killed at their Duxbury, Massachusetts, home in January 2023. (Lindsay Marie Clancy/Facebook)

“The jury twice informed the Court that one of its members was refusing to apply the Court’s instructions regarding the fundamental concept of reasonable doubt,” Weinberg wrote. “After the first such report, the Court asked each juror individually whether he or she was able to apply the law. Upon receiving the second report, the Court tempered its response even further, simply reminding all jurors as a group of their obligation to follow its instructions generally. The Court denied Ms. Clancy’s explicit requests to go further.”

Kevin J. Reddington addresses the media outside of Plymouth Superior Court, Plymouth, Mass., on Thursday, September 3, 2026. His client, Lindsay Clancy, is on trial for the murder of her three children in 2023. (David McGlynn for Fox News Digital)

Weinberg’s motion argued that Sullivan’s decision to declare a mistrial before investigating the holdout is improper, alleging that the jury foreperson accused the holdout of making “statements acknowledging doubt but refus[ing] to apply it to the verdict as the law states.”

Paltzik has said he began representing Desronvil last week as the holdout faced mounting public pressure from his fellow jurors, Clancy’s defense and her supporters among the public.

Patrick Clancy exits Plymouth Superior Court, Plymouth, Mass., on Monday, July 27, 2026. His ex-wife, Lindsay Clancy, is on trial for the murder of their three children. (David McGlynn for Fox News Digital)

Several other jurors have spoken publicly following Clancy’s mistrial, which was declared on Sept. 4. Some, including the jury foreperson, have accused Desronvil of ignoring his own reasonable doubts about the prosecution’s case, a claim he denied in his only public remarks.

GOT A TIP?

“I didn’t have any doubts,” he said in a statement last week, first made to NewsNation. “As I tried to explain different possible theories during deliberation, I kept getting cut off as if I had doubts based on the evidence present.”

Paula Devlin speaks with Fox News Digital about the Lindsay Clancy trial, Whitman, Massachusetts, Monday, September 14, 2026. Devlin was a juror in the murder trial of Lindsay Clancy. (Rashid Umar Abbasi for Fox News Digital))

Clancy, a former labor and delivery nurse, admitted killing her children — Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months — but argued she was not criminally responsible because she was suffering from postpartum psychosis at the time of the killings. Prosecutors argued she planned the murders and understood that what she was doing was wrong.