questionnaire and voir dire answers; the sworn assurance of September 2, 2026; and the use of a mobile telephone or receipt of outside information during deliberations. 

 The inquiry will not touch the substance of deliberations,  Reddington added.

The attorney's final request was to hear from another juror on what he may have observed of the holdout juror's phone use.

Reddington asked that the motion be argued in open court.

Despite the use of the pseudonym, attorney Edward Andrew Paltzik identified the holdout juror as Michael Peguy Desronvil last week on social media.

During the trial, the other jurors wrote a note to Judge Sullivan saying that Desronvil had expressed doubt but would not come to a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict like the rest of the panel.

However, via Paltzik, Desronvil has refuted that characterization.

 I didn't have any doubts,  Desronvil said in the statement.  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. Based on all the physical evidence, key witnesses, and what the prosecution presented, I thought it was enough proof that she (Clancy) knew exactly what she was doing and planned. 

The Herald has reached out to Paltzik, who previously represented President Trump in multiple high-profile legal disputes, for comment about Reddington's inquiry request.

It's not yet clear if Clancy will face another trial. Reddington has also filed motions for a required finding of not guilty and to dismiss the case altogether.

Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz said that his office would announce its decision on whether Clancy will be prosecuted again in a formal, legal setting.

Clancy will be back in court Sept. 29 for her first hearing since the mistrial was declared.