National Review says only one holdout juror deserves respect; the docket says he's not it.

…(cont) Eight days after that, September 18th, Desronvil was moved to what his attorney called a "secure location," after other jurors said publicly he had doubted whether Clancy was sane when she killed her children.

Four days later, September 22nd, the defense went further. Attorney Kevin Reddington asked Judge William Sullivan to investigate Desronvil for alleged cellphone use during deliberations. That motion sits in the same docket as everything that follows.

Six days after that, this weekend, Desronvil's own attorney, Edward Paltzik, went on Fox News and said his client had "a mountain of evidence" for conviction and "zero doubt" about his vote. Those are Paltzik's words, offered on his client's behalf, in the same docket where a fellow juror already swore under oath that the mountain came to court as nothing: no exhibit, no document, no single piece of anything.

Same weekend, National Review filed its own brief, an essay titled "A Tale of Two Jurors," setting Desronvil beside Henry Fonda's holdout in "12 Angry Men" and finding, as the subhead puts it, that only one is worthy of respect. All together now — Fonda's character spent the film producing the evidence the other eleven jurors had not considered: a knife bought at a pawn shop, a subway timed against testimony, a woman's eyesight tested in open court. He held out with exhibits. The docket in Massachusetts records a foreperson's note, a colleague's sworn account of zero evidence, and an attorney's press-release mountain that has yet to appear in the courtroom where it would matter. National Review picked its hero before checking which juror actually showed his work.