The Lindsay Clancy case has taken another significant turn after her defense asked a Massachusetts judge to investigate the lone juror who voted to convict her — raising new questions about what happened inside the jury room before the trial ended in a mistrial.

Attorney Kevin Reddington filed a new motion asking Judge William Sullivan to examine whether juror Michael P. Desronvil improperly used his cellphone during deliberations. The defense is seeking records that could show phone or data activity while the jury was supposed to be considering the evidence without outside influence. Desronvil has denied misconduct and has publicly stood by his conclusion that Clancy was criminally responsible.

The allegation matters because the jury ultimately split 11–1, with eleven jurors favoring a finding that Lindsay was not criminally responsible because of her mental condition and Desronvil remaining the sole vote for conviction. Several jurors have since spoken publicly about the deliberations, including one who said Patrick Clancy’s testimony and psychiatric expert evidence strongly influenced her view of the case.

Lindsay’s lawyers are not only asking for an investigation. They have also urged the judge to dismiss the charges rather than force her through a second trial, arguing that problems involving the final juror should have been addressed before the mistrial was declared. Prosecutors have not yet announced whether they intend to retry the case.

The new filing comes immediately after Patrick Clancy’s first major television interview since the trial. Patrick again described his grief, his decision to forgive Lindsay and his belief that severe mental illness was central to what happened to Cora, Dawson and Callan. A legal analyst noted that the interview could also complicate any retrial by increasing publicity around an already internationally followed case.

Patrick also revealed that Lindsay once described her memory of the killings as feeling like a dream she could only vaguely remember, adding another deeply personal detail to the public record. That statement does not decide the legal question of criminal responsibility, but it has renewed attention on the dispute over her mental state at the time.