Lindsay Clancy’s Lawyer Asks Trump for Pardon After Mistrial

The Lindsay Clancy case has taken another extraordinary turn.

Just days after a Massachusetts jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict in the trial over the deaths of her three children, Clancy’s attorney went on national television with an unexpected request: He asked President Donald Trump to consider pardoning his client.

Kevin Reddington made the appeal during a September 8 appearance on ABC’s Good Morning America, saying he hoped Trump would consider “the type of person she is and what she’s been through” and consider a pardon for Clancy.

The request immediately raised a basic constitutional question.

Clancy’s case is being prosecuted under Massachusetts state law, not federal law. The president’s ordinary pardon authority applies to federal offenses, meaning Trump cannot simply erase Massachusetts criminal charges through the federal pardon power.

Yet the unusual appeal comes at a moment when the case remains legally unresolved, politically charged and deeply divisive.

The jury’s inability to reach a verdict has left Massachusetts prosecutors facing a decision over whether to retry Clancy. A September 29 court hearing is expected to address the next stage of the case.

Why Is Lindsay Clancy’s Lawyer Asking Trump for a Pardon?

Reddington’s appeal came after more than six weeks of proceedings and lengthy jury deliberations.

Clancy, a former labor and delivery nurse, faced three murder charges stemming from the January 2023 deaths of her children: 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson and 8-month-old Callan.

Clancy does not dispute that she killed the children. Her defense, however, has argued that she was suffering from severe postpartum psychosis and other mental-health problems and therefore should not be held criminally responsible for her actions. Prosecutors presented a fundamentally different interpretation, arguing that Clancy understood what she was doing and was legally responsible for the killings.

The jury ultimately could not agree.

That means there was no conviction and no acquittal.

Instead, Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial on September 4 after jurors repeatedly reported that they could not reach a unanimous decision.

Reddington’s subsequent appearance on Good Morning America therefore represents a new phase of the case: one that is taking place partly outside the courtroom.

The Constitutional Problem With the Trump Appeal

There is an immediate legal obstacle to the request.

The federal pardon power does not ordinarily extend to crimes prosecuted under state law. Clancy’s prosecution is taking place in Massachusetts state court, so a presidential pardon cannot simply terminate the Massachusetts criminal case.

That makes Reddington’s television appeal unusual.

It is important, however, not to overstate the situation. Trump has previously taken an expansive approach to clemency and has issued clemency in at least one prominent state case, according to Reuters. That history helps explain why Reddington may believe a direct appeal to the president is worth making, even though the ordinary constitutional pardon power concerns federal offenses.

Whatever the political calculation, the request does not substitute for the Massachusetts judicial process.

The state court must still determine what happens after the mistrial.

Trump Has Already Called the Case “Horrible”

The appeal to Trump is also notable because the president had already commented publicly on the case.

After the mistrial, Trump described Clancy’s actions as “horrible” and said there would be consequences, while suggesting that another trial could follow. Reuters reported that Trump referred to possible outcomes including prison or institutionalization.

That is hardly the same as endorsing the defense’s argument.

Trump’s remarks also demonstrate why the new pardon request is so politically interesting. Reddington is appealing directly to a president who has already expressed a strong reaction to the underlying crime while leaving open the possibility of another legal proceeding.

The attorney’s argument instead emphasizes Clancy’s mental-health history, her personal circumstances and the defense’s position that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis.

The clash between those two perspectives is at the heart of the case.

What Happened During the Trial?

The prosecution and defense presented radically different accounts of Clancy’s mental state.

The defense argued that postpartum psychosis, depression and medication-related problems contributed to a severe psychiatric crisis. The defense sought to persuade jurors that Clancy lacked criminal responsibility when she killed her children.

Prosecutors argued that mental-health problems did not necessarily eliminate criminal responsibility. Their case focused on evidence they said demonstrated planning and an awareness of what Clancy was doing.

The distinction is crucial.

The case was never simply about whether Clancy caused the children’s deaths. That fact was not disputed by the defense.

The central legal question was whether she should be held criminally responsible for those deaths under Massachusetts law.

That is why the mistrial does not mean Clancy was found innocent.

It also does not mean prosecutors proved their case.

There was simply no unanimous verdict.

The 11-1 Jury Split Became a Flashpoint

The final days of deliberations generated another controversy.

Reddington publicly said that 11 jurors were aligned against one holdout, although early reports noted that he did not initially specify exactly how those 11 jurors would vote. Later reports characterized the split as 11 jurors favoring an acquittal on the criminal-responsibility question.

The dispute over the lone holdout became increasingly heated.

Reddington criticized the juror’s position and argued that the juror was not properly applying the judge’s instructions concerning reasonable doubt. The judge declined the defense request to remove the juror, and the jury ultimately remained deadlocked.

That episode deserves careful treatment because the public does not have the same information as the jurors.

A jury verdict must be unanimous in a criminal case. Eleven jurors cannot simply overrule the twelfth.

Whatever one thinks about the holdout juror’s reasoning, the legal system requires unanimity.

That is precisely why the result was a mistrial rather than an acquittal.

A Case That Has Become a National Culture-War Debate

The legal controversy is occurring alongside an unusually intense public debate about Clancy’s mental health.

Supporters have emphasized postpartum psychosis and failures in maternal mental-health care. Critics have focused on the deaths of the three children and the question of personal responsibility.

Outside the Plymouth courthouse, the divide became highly visible.

Supporters of Clancy gathered wearing pink clothing and carrying signs such as “Believe” and “She Needed Help.” Critics also appeared outside the courthouse, producing tense exchanges as the trial approached its conclusion.

That public reaction has become part of the larger story.

For supporters, the case is a warning about postpartum mental illness and gaps in psychiatric care.

For critics, there is a danger that compassion for the defendant could overshadow the three children whose lives were lost.

Both questions can be considered without pretending that one automatically cancels out the other.

Mental illness deserves serious attention.

So do the victims.

Compassion Does Not Have to Mean Abandoning Accountability

The most difficult question raised by the Clancy case is not whether postpartum psychosis is real.

It is.

Nor is the question whether mothers experiencing severe psychiatric symptoms deserve treatment.

They do.

The difficult question is where society draws the line between understanding a person’s mental condition and determining whether that condition eliminates criminal responsibility.

That distinction belongs to the courts.

It should not be decided by television audiences, political activists, social-media campaigns or supporters gathered outside a courthouse.

The same principle applies to public sympathy.

People can sympathize with Clancy’s mental-health struggles while still recognizing the extraordinary loss suffered by her children.

They can support better maternal mental-health care without automatically concluding that every person who suffers a psychiatric crisis is incapable of responsibility.

And they can believe that the healthcare system failed to recognize warning signs without assuming that prosecutors have no legitimate case.

Those distinctions are essential in a case this emotionally charged.

What Happens Next for Lindsay Clancy?

The mistrial does not end the case.

Clancy remains in custody at a psychiatric facility, and the Massachusetts court is scheduled to address the case again on September 29. Prosecutors have not yet announced whether they will seek another trial.

A retrial would reopen the central question that the first jury could not resolve.

A negotiated resolution is another possibility.

Reddington has indicated that the defense is open to discussions with Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz, adding another layer of uncertainty to the case.

For now, however, there is no final criminal verdict.

That fact should remain central to any discussion of the case.

The Trump Pardon Request Changes the Conversation

Reddington’s appeal to President Trump has nevertheless guaranteed that the Lindsay Clancy case will receive another round of national attention.

It has moved the discussion beyond Massachusetts and into the broader political debate over presidential power, criminal justice and mental-health responsibility.

But the constitutional issue remains straightforward: Clancy’s prosecution is a Massachusetts state case, so a presidential pardon is not a conventional mechanism for resolving it.

The more consequential question is what happens in Massachusetts.

Will prosecutors seek another trial?

Will the defense pursue a negotiated resolution?

Will the court ultimately confront the same question that divided the first jury?

Those questions cannot be answered by a television interview.

They will be answered through the Massachusetts legal process.

And whatever happens next, the three children at the center of this case should not disappear beneath the increasingly loud debate over politics, celebrity reactions and mental-health policy.

Cora, Dawson and Callan remain the human cost behind every legal argument.

The challenge for the justice system is to consider Clancy’s mental-health history seriously while also preserving the principle that responsibility must ultimately be determined by evidence, law and due process—not by whichever side wins the loudest public-relations battle.