Lindsay Clancy's lawyer asks judge to investigate lone holdout juror

Lindsay Clancy's lawyer is pushing for an investigation into the lone juror who wanted to convict the Massachusetts woman of murdering her three children.

A mistrial was declared earlier this month after the jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict.

Mr Reddington is calling for the motion to be heard at the next scheduled hearing on September 29.

A lawyer for Lindsay Clancy has asked a judge to investigate the conduct of the lone juror who wanted to convict the Massachusetts woman of murder in the deaths of her three young children.

Warning: This story contains details that may be distressing for some readers.

In a motion filed Friday but made public Monday, local time, Ms Clancy's lawyer asked the court to question juror Michael Desronvil about his alleged use of a mobile phone during deliberations, along with his truthfulness on a questionnaire that prospective jurors filled out before the trial and when jurors were questioned by the judge a day before the trial ended.

Among other things, lawyer Kevin Reddington asked the court to obtain a record of any calls or texts Mr Desronvil made between 8am and 4:30pm on each day the jury deliberated. Phone use during deliberations is prohibited in the state.

Mr Reddington is calling for the motion to be heard at the next scheduled hearing on September 29.

The judge declared a mistrial earlier this month after the jury insisted it could not reach a unanimous verdict, despite days of trying.

Eleven of 12 jurors were ready to clear Ms Clancy of criminal responsibility, with the majority feeling that she was in the grip of a rare condition called postpartum psychosis when she killed her children.

But Mr Desronvil sided with the prosecutors, who had argued Ms Clancy knew what she was doing.

"I didn't have any doubts," Mr Desronvil said in a statement released on X by his lawyer, Edward Paltzik.

The jury's foreperson had claimed in an earlier media interview that Mr Desronvil had admitted having "reasonable doubt" about Ms Clancy's guilt but wanted to convict her anyway. Mr Desronvil said that was not true.

"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 wrote.