Lindsay Clancy’s Lawyer Appeals to Trump After Mistrial — But There’s a Major Legal Problem With a Presidential Pardon

 

The extraordinary case of Lindsay Clancy took another unexpected turn Tuesday when her defense attorney publicly appealed to President Donald Trump for help, just days after a Massachusetts jury failed to reach a verdict on whether Clancy was criminally responsible for killing her three young children.

Attorney Kevin Reddington, appearing on Good Morning America in his first major interview since the mistrial, directly addressed the president and asked him to consider a pardon for his client.

There is, however, an enormous legal obstacle: Trump does not have constitutional authority to pardon Lindsay Clancy for the charges she currently faces.

Clancy is being prosecuted under Massachusetts state law, while a president’s pardon power extends to federal offenses. Reddington acknowledged that problem later Tuesday and explained that his appeal was really about something broader—persuading Trump to use his political influence in a case the president has already publicly discussed.

That distinction turns what initially sounds like a straightforward clemency request into a much more complicated—and politically unusual—story.

The Trial Ended 11–1

Clancy, 36, was charged with three counts of first-degree murder in connection with the January 2023 deaths of her children at the family's home in Duxbury, Massachusetts.

Her children were Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months old.

The central issue at trial wasn't whether Clancy caused their deaths. Her defense acknowledged that she strangled the children before attempting to take her own life.

Instead, jurors were asked to answer an extraordinarily difficult question:

Was Lindsay Clancy criminally responsible for what she did?

Her lawyers argued that she was experiencing severe postpartum mental illness, including postpartum psychosis, and therefore lacked criminal responsibility under Massachusetts law.

Prosecutors presented a sharply different interpretation. They argued that Clancy acted deliberately, understood what she was doing and took steps—including sending her husband out of the house—that demonstrated planning rather than legal insanity.

After a trial lasting nearly six weeks and almost 40 hours of deliberations, the jury couldn't agree.

The foreperson indicated that the split was 11–1. Judge William Sullivan ultimately declared a mistrial on September 4 after concluding that further deliberations were unlikely to produce a unanimous verdict.

A mistrial is not an acquittal.

Clancy remains charged, and prosecutors can legally try her again.

Why Reddington Is Asking Trump for Help

On Tuesday morning, Reddington took his argument outside the courtroom.

Speaking on Good Morning America, he appealed directly to Trump, asking the president to consider Clancy's circumstances and what she had endured.

Later, CBS Boston confronted Reddington with the obvious constitutional problem: Trump cannot pardon someone facing only Massachusetts criminal charges.

Reddington acknowledged that reality.

His goal, he explained, is to get Trump's help rather than necessarily a legally operative presidential pardon.

The attorney suggested Trump could potentially communicate with Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz, whose office must now decide whether to prosecute Clancy again. Reddington pointed out that Trump and Cruz are both Republicans and argued that presidential attention could carry considerable political weight.

That is fundamentally different from a pardon.

Trump could express an opinion.

He could publicly urge prosecutors to reconsider.

He could potentially communicate with Massachusetts officials.

But he cannot simply sign a presidential pardon that wipes away Massachusetts murder charges.

Why Trump Cannot Pardon Clancy

The Constitution gives presidents broad clemency powers, but only for “Offenses against the United States.”

That means federal crimes.

Clancy's case was prosecuted in Plymouth Superior Court under Massachusetts criminal law.

A president does not normally have the authority to cancel a state's prosecution, just as a governor cannot pardon someone convicted exclusively of a federal crime.

So even if Trump announced tomorrow that he wanted Clancy pardoned, that declaration alone would not terminate the Massachusetts case.

This makes the headline surrounding Reddington's request somewhat misleading without the legal context.

He is publicly asking the president for a pardon, but his more realistic objective appears to be presidential intervention or persuasion.

Trump Has Already Talked About Clancy

The appeal wasn't made to a president unfamiliar with the case.

Trump was asked about Clancy after the mistrial Friday and said he had followed the proceedings because of their extensive television coverage.

He called what happened a terrible tragedy and said Clancy had done something horrific. Trump also suggested that some consequence would follow, mentioning the possibility of incarceration or placement in a mental institution.

That response is notable because it wasn't an endorsement of Clancy's defense.

Trump did not say she should be freed or pardoned.

His comments appeared to acknowledge both the horrifying deaths of the children and the possibility that Clancy's mental condition could affect what ultimately happens to her.

Reddington now appears to be trying to build on that presidential interest.

What Happens to Clancy Now?

This is where the story becomes particularly important.

The mistrial essentially reset the criminal proceedings without resolving the fundamental question.

Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz must now decide what comes next.

Prosecutors could retry Clancy on the existing first-degree murder charges.

They could potentially pursue different charges.

The two sides could attempt to negotiate some form of resolution.

Or prosecutors could ultimately decide not to proceed, although they have made no such announcement.

As of September 8, Cruz's office says no decision has been made about whether Clancy will be retried.

The next scheduled court proceeding is September 29.

Reddington Says He Wouldn't Accept Jail Time

Reddington's latest comments also reveal just how far apart the defense and prosecution may remain.

When CBS Boston asked whether he would consider a plea agreement, the attorney said he would not agree to a resolution requiring Clancy to spend even a day in jail.

His position is that Clancy was severely mentally ill and therefore belongs in treatment rather than prison.

At the same time, Reddington told Good Morning America that he hopes he and Cruz can eventually reach an agreement acceptable to both sides.

Reconciling those two positions could be difficult.

A first-degree murder conviction in Massachusetts carries a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without parole. CBS Boston reports that reducing the charges to second-degree murder could change some of the procedural options available in a future case.

The Case Was Always About More Than Whether the Children Died

The Clancy trial became nationally significant because it forced jurors—and millions of people following the proceedings—to confront the boundary between severe psychiatric illness and criminal responsibility.

The defense portrayed Clancy as a mother overwhelmed by postpartum mental illness and failed by a healthcare system that did not adequately recognize the severity of her condition.

Prosecutors argued that mental-health problems did not erase evidence suggesting she knew what she was doing.

That distinction is crucial.

Having a psychiatric disorder does not automatically make someone legally insane.

The legal question is much narrower: whether the defendant's mental condition at the time of the crime satisfied Massachusetts' standard for lack of criminal responsibility.

Eleven jurors apparently reached one conclusion.

One juror did not.

Because a criminal verdict must be unanimous, that single disagreement was enough to prevent a verdict.

The Children Remain at the Center of the Case

Amid the extraordinary attention surrounding postpartum psychosis, the mistrial and now presidential politics, it is easy for the underlying tragedy to become secondary.

Three children died.

Cora was five.

Dawson was three.

Callan was eight months old.

Whatever ultimately happens legally, the criminal proceedings concern their deaths.

That is also why the case provokes such intense disagreement.

People sympathetic to Clancy's mental-health defense see a severely ill mother who needed treatment.

Others believe that emphasizing her illness risks diminishing the lives of the three children and the seriousness of their killings.

The legal system has to consider both the deaths and whether the person responsible possessed the mental capacity required for criminal punishment.

The first jury couldn't unanimously resolve that question.

A Trump Intervention Would Be Highly Unusual

Even without pardon authority, a public intervention by a sitting president in an unresolved state murder prosecution would be extraordinary.

Local prosecutors ordinarily make charging and retrial decisions independently.

If Trump publicly urged Cruz to drop or modify the case, it would almost certainly generate debate over political influence on prosecutorial independence.

It could also intensify an already highly polarized case.

Reddington nevertheless appears willing to pursue every possible avenue.

His argument is essentially that Trump has a national platform and political influence even where he lacks direct constitutional authority.

Whether Trump is interested in using that influence remains unknown.

The Next Decision Belongs to Massachusetts, Not Washington

For all the attention surrounding Reddington's appeal, the most consequential decision isn't currently sitting on the president's desk.

It is in Massachusetts.

Prosecutors must decide whether putting Clancy through another lengthy murder trial is warranted after the first jury deadlocked 11–1.

The defense must decide whether it is willing to compromise after coming one juror short of the outcome it wanted.

And if prosecutors proceed, another jury could eventually be asked the same agonizing question the first one couldn't unanimously answer.

Trump can comment on that process.

His opinion could influence the political conversation surrounding it.

But barring some separate federal issue, he cannot pardon Lindsay Clancy out of a Massachusetts murder prosecution.

That makes Reddington's appeal less a conventional request for presidential clemency than a very public attempt to bring the most powerful political figure in America into a case that remains legally unfinished.

And after a mistrial, an 11–1 jury split and nearly four years of national attention, the Lindsay Clancy case is still far from over.

By LifeScope News | September 8, 2026 | Courts, Law & U.S. News