Lindsay Clancy’s Lawyer Appeals to Trump After Mistrial, Raising Questions Over Presidential Pardon Power

The attorney representing Lindsay Clancy has made an unusual public appeal to President Donald Trump following the mistrial in Clancy’s Massachusetts murder case, asking the president to consider pardoning his client.

Kevin Reddington made the request during a television interview Tuesday, arguing that Trump should consider Clancy’s mental-health history, personal circumstances and the evidence presented during her trial.

“Mr. President, I would hope that you would consider this young lady, the type of person she is and what she’s been through, and consider a pardon,” Reddington said.

There is, however, a significant constitutional obstacle to the request: Clancy’s case is being prosecuted under Massachusetts state law, while the president’s constitutional pardon authority applies to federal offenses.

Why Trump Cannot Pardon a Massachusetts State Crime

Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution gives the president authority to grant pardons for “Offences against the United States.”

The congressional Constitution Annotated explains that this language limits presidential clemency to federal crimes and does not extend to criminal offenses prosecuted by individual states.

The U.S. Department of Justice similarly states that the president does not have authority to grant clemency for a state conviction. Individuals seeking relief from a state offense generally must turn to the appropriate state authorities, such as a governor or state clemency board.

Clancy has been charged under Massachusetts law, meaning the White House cannot simply terminate the state prosecution through a presidential pardon.

Reddington is nevertheless asking Trump to consider the case, while also pursuing other potential legal avenues for his client.

Clancy’s Murder Trial Ended in a Mistrial

Clancy, 36, was charged with killing her three children — Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months — at the family’s Duxbury, Massachusetts, home in January 2023.

The defense acknowledged that Clancy was responsible for the children’s deaths but argued that she was not criminally responsible because she was experiencing a severe psychiatric episode, including postpartum psychosis.

Prosecutors took a different position, arguing that Clancy understood what she was doing and that the killings were intentional.

After nearly six weeks of testimony and approximately seven days of deliberations, the jury failed to reach a unanimous decision. Judge William Sullivan ultimately declared a mistrial on September 4.

The mistrial was neither an acquittal nor a conviction. Prosecutors therefore retain the option of pursuing another trial.

Juror Deadlock Becomes a Major Issue

The jury’s division has remained a central issue following the mistrial.

Reddington has said that 11 jurors were prepared to find Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity, while one juror would not agree.

Several jurors have since spoken publicly about the deliberations. The jury foreperson and two other jurors told NBC10 that they believed one male juror prevented the panel from reaching the outcome favored by the other 11 members.

The defense had attempted to have the holdout juror removed before the mistrial, but the judge rejected that request. Massachusetts’ highest court also declined an emergency request to intervene.

The disagreement has added another legal layer to an already closely watched case.

What Prosecutors Could Do Next

The Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office has not announced whether it will seek a new trial.

A September 29 court hearing is scheduled to address the next stage of the case. Prosecutors could pursue a retrial, while the defense could continue challenging the circumstances surrounding the mistrial and seek other forms of relief.

Reddington has also indicated that he would be open to discussions with prosecutors about resolving the case without another lengthy trial.

For now, however, Clancy remains charged and in state custody at a psychiatric hospital.

Trump Has Already Commented on the Case

Trump previously addressed the case after the mistrial, calling the deaths a “horrible tragedy” and indicating that he expected Clancy to face some form of legal consequence.

“I assume there’s going to be another trial,” Trump told reporters. He said there would be a “price” to pay, describing possible outcomes as a mental institution, jail or another legal resolution.

Reddington’s subsequent request for a pardon therefore comes after Trump had already publicly discussed the case.

The White House has not announced that Trump intends to take any action involving Clancy’s Massachusetts prosecution. Reuters reported that the White House referred questions about the pardon request back to Trump’s earlier comments.

The State-Level Clemency Question

The distinction between federal and state authority is important.

The president’s constitutional pardon power cannot erase or dismiss a Massachusetts criminal prosecution. If Clancy were eventually convicted under Massachusetts law and sought clemency, any pardon or commutation would have to come through Massachusetts’ state clemency system rather than the federal government. The Justice Department explicitly directs people seeking relief from state convictions to the authorities of the state involved.

Trump has previously issued clemency involving a person convicted under state law, but that action did not itself have the legal effect of pardoning the state conviction; in that instance, Colorado state authorities ultimately controlled the state-level clemency process.

That history may help explain why Reddington believes Trump’s involvement could still attract attention, but it does not alter the constitutional division between federal and state criminal authority.

Clancy’s Case Remains Unresolved

The mistrial leaves the central legal question unanswered: whether Clancy was criminally responsible for the deaths of her three children at the time of the killings.

The defense maintains that severe mental illness prevented her from being criminally responsible. Prosecutors have argued that she intentionally carried out the killings and understood the nature and consequences of her actions.

With prosecutors yet to announce whether they will retry the case, the September 29 hearing is expected to provide more clarity about what happens next.

For now, Reddington’s appeal to Trump has brought renewed national attention to the case. But regardless of any presidential statement or public intervention, the legal authority over Clancy’s Massachusetts prosecution remains with the state’s courts and officials.