Michael P. Desronvil, the lone juror who voted to convict Lindsay Clancy earlier this month, has evidently spoken. Or has he?
Desronvil purportedly issued a written statement to NewsNation which reads, "Based on all the physical evidence, key witnesses, and what the prosecution presents, I thought it was enough proof that she knew exactly what she was doing and planned.”
That seems reasonable enough. But this statement is clouded by people who Desronvil has ostensibly hired to speak on his behalf. An attorney Edward Paltzik issued a statement on behalf of Desronvil which reads:
This American Hero and Champion of Justice loves the United States of America as the greatest country in the world; cherishes our sacred Constitution as the pinnacle of human liberty; and supports our amazing leader, President Donald J. Trump, as a fellow defender of common-sense, liberty, and sanity.
Desronvil also purportedly had an off-camera interview with a YouTuber named Ray Marcel who claimed:
We started talking. [Desronvil] thinks he knows why he might be getting targeted. He’s a Republican. He is a black Republican. He has conservative views.
He believes he might be getting targeted because of that, because the media and the reporters, as you would see, they kind of have left views. He was on a juror panel with people of the Democratic party.
And this is also why some people are shocked that it’s a black guy that stood his ground and not only that the world is going to be shocked now that it’s a black guy who was a Republican.
If these are Desronvil's views, then fine. I would just hate that someone claiming to speak on his behalf ends up misrepresenting those views. This isn't to say that Desronvil might hold conservative views and support President Trump. But if this is the case, then how does Desronvil know he is being targeted for being a Republican? And how does he know the remaining jurors are all Democrats? The only way his fellow jurors could know that he is a Republican is if he told them during jury deliberations and those political differences became part of the jury deliberations.
The best thing Desronvil could have done was to stick to his statement to NewsNation and that he voted to convict because he thought the prosecution had proved the case against Clancy beyond a reasonable doubt. Period. Bringing politics (whatever his ideological inclination) into it only darkens already muddied waters.
And what if Desronvil wasn't a Republican? Would a pro-Trump attorney still call him an American hero and a champion of justice? Would that YouTuber have given him the time of day? I cannot help but think that these pro-Trump folks are just using Desronvil for their own ends even if he happens to be pro-Trump.
As I previously argued last week, I identify with Desronvil because of my own unpleasant experience as the lone holdout on a jury and have a strong admiration for him for sticking to his guns.
There is no question that Desronvil has been through an ordeal given how criminal allegations which were never substantiated have been used against him. This despite the fact at least one juror who voted to acquit Clancy was also charged with an offense which was not substantiated without being dragged through the mud.
So, I can understand how Desronvil wants to tell his side of the story. But had I remained a holdout juror in my own case and my decision to holdout led to a public outcry, I would tell my own story rather than let others tell it for me. I would write my own account of what had happened with the hope that account could be told in a publication with a reach far wider than this modestly kept blog.
Of course, that is easy for me to say. After all, I did end up voting convict.
Right or wrong, Michael P. Desronvil has the courage of his convictions.
No comments:
Post a Comment