Lindsay Clancy’s lawyer asked President Trump for a pardon after her mistrial, but federal clemency cannot reach the Massachusetts state murder case.
Defense attorney Kevin Reddington made the appeal Tuesday on “Good Morning America,” days after jurors failed to reach a unanimous verdict in Clancy’s five-week trial. ABC News reported that the jury had deliberated for more than a week.
Clancy pleaded not guilty to three counts of first-degree murder involving her children, Cora, Dawson and Callan. The September 4 mistrial left her without a conviction and prosecutors without a final decision on whether to try the case again.
But Reddington’s request faces a basic legal barrier. Presidential pardon power covers federal offenses, while Clancy faced state charges in Massachusetts.
That means any clemency request would need to go through Massachusetts authorities. The next formal step was set for September 29, when both sides were scheduled to return to court.
Reddington addressed Trump directly during the television interview.
“Mr. President, I would hope that you would consider this young lady and the person she is, what she's been through, and consider a pardon.”
The request comes as presidential pardon politics remain a source of national debate. Yet the constitutional line here is clear: a president cannot pardon a state offense.
The Justice Department explains that presidential pardons and commutations apply only to federal crimes. Clancy also has no conviction from the mistrial for Trump to pardon.
The White House referred questions about Reddington’s appeal to comments Trump made after the mistrial. The president said he had followed the case because of its heavy television coverage.
Trump did not treat the deaths lightly or suggest that Clancy should avoid legal consequences.
“Look, she did a horrible, horrible thing. Can't be worse.”
He then pointed to the unresolved question of what consequence the state process might produce.
“But you'll find out what the price to pay is. There'll be a price. It's going to be mental institution or jail or something, but I guess they're going to go through another trial. It's too bad.”
The trial focused heavily on postpartum psychosis and whether Clancy could be held criminally responsible for the children’s deaths. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists considers postpartum psychosis a psychiatric emergency.
Massachusetts places a demanding burden on prosecutors once a defendant raises lack of criminal responsibility. The state’s jury instruction says prosecutors must “prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not suffer from a mental disease or defect at the time of the alleged offense.”
Reddington said Clancy’s messages, journal and notes showed that she repeatedly sought help. He argued that critics who had not seen that evidence did not understand what she had experienced.
“They don't know what she went through. They didn't see her text messages. They didn't see her journal. They didn't see the notes that she wrote.”
He also said Clancy had reached out to others and repeatedly warned that she was unwell. That evidence formed a key part of the defense effort to challenge criminal responsibility.
The disagreement over clemency also shows why state procedures matter. Recent disputes over a state clemency board involved a different case, but the same division of authority applies: state crimes remain state business.
Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz declined to announce an immediate retrial decision after the mistrial. He said the office had to put public emotion aside and judge the evidence.
“I appreciate the fact that there are strong feelings and opinions tied to this case. However, our job is to set aside our feelings and focus solely on the facts.”
Cruz then stated the prosecution’s position in direct terms.
“The facts are Lindsay Clancy killed her three children and the evidence suggested to us that she was in control of her actions when she committed those homicides.”
Cora, five, Dawson, three, and infant Callan died at the family’s Duxbury home on January 24, 2023. Duxbury is a suburb of Boston.
Reddington described Cruz as a “very hard-charging prosecutor” and “a conservative gentleman.” He said he hoped Cruz would reconsider the case after hearing evidence from both sides during the trial.
That is the negotiation that could matter now. Federal pardon policy, including debates involving Trump’s pardon attorney, cannot give the president power Massachusetts law reserves for the state.
Reddington also disputed the thinking of the juror who blocked a unanimous verdict. He said a note from the foreperson indicated that the juror had doubt but would not apply the judge’s reasonable-doubt instruction.
“He had agreed, according to the note from the forelady, that he had doubt but he would not present the law of reasonable doubt as presented by the judge.”
The full note and the juror’s identity were not made public in the cited account. That leaves the defense claim attributed to Reddington rather than established as a complete record of the deliberations.
The mistrial settled only one point: this jury could not agree. It did not acquit Clancy, convict her or determine whether prosecutors will bring the case before another jury.
Reddington wants an agreement acceptable to both sides. Cruz has not said whether such an agreement is possible, and he has not announced whether his office will retry the three murder charges.
The September 29 court date therefore carries more weight than an appeal to Washington. Massachusetts authorities control the prosecution, and Massachusetts law governs any state clemency path.
The children deserve a process grounded in evidence, lawful authority and a clear verdict. Clemency cannot become a shortcut around the court that actually holds jurisdiction.