Defense attorney Kevin Reddington's televised appeal to President Trump for a pardon in the Lindsay Clancy murder case has no legal basis and risks undermining his own credibility ahead of a likely retrial, legal experts say.
Days after a Massachusetts judge declared a mistrial in the case of the 36-year-old former nurse charged with strangling her three young children, Reddington went on ABC's "Good Morning America" and made a direct, public plea to the president. The appeal landed with a thud among legal professionals who noted a basic constitutional problem: a president cannot pardon state-level criminal charges.
Clancy faces three counts of first-degree murder in the January 2023 deaths of her children, Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months, at the family's home in Duxbury, Massachusetts. She admitted to killing them but argued through her defense team that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and was not criminally responsible. After a full week of deliberations, the 12-member jury deadlocked, and Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial.
Reddington wasted no time pivoting to a new strategy, one that bypassed the courtroom entirely.
On Tuesday morning, Reddington appeared on "Good Morning America" and addressed Trump directly. Fox News Digital reported his appeal:
"I'd like to say that perhaps Donald Trump, who felt compelled to speak out about this case, may very well, Mr. President, I would hope that you would consider this young lady the type of the person she is, what she's been through, and consider a pardon."
In a separate interview on Massachusetts' WBZ-TV, Reddington went further. He acknowledged the constitutional barrier but suggested Trump could use political influence instead. Plymouth County District Attorney Tim Cruz is a Republican, Reddington noted, and Trump "certainly has an awful lot of clout." He floated the idea that the president might "reach out" to Cruz to persuade him against retrying the case.
"I'm sure that were he hypothetically to reach out to Tim Cruz, they're both Republicans, I don't know, maybe that would be something that Tim would listen to and consider. I think any type of help that we can get is helpful."
Reddington did not respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment.
Mark Bederow, a New York City-based criminal defense attorney who has followed the Clancy case, was blunt. He told Fox News Digital there is "no mechanism by law which would allow said pardon" because the charges are state-level, not federal. The Constitution limits presidential clemency to federal offenses, a point National Review also emphasized in its analysis of Reddington's gambit.
Bederow went further, questioning whether the public appeal would erode Reddington's professional credibility at a moment when he needs it most, heading into what could be a second trial.
"This is a very credible, skilled lawyer, and these comments, I think, lack credibility. In some level, they lack seriousness because we know it, it's not going to happen, so I don't see the advantage of giving an interview where the only thing people are talking about is Lindsay Clancy's attorney is seeking a pardon or intervention from the president of the United States in the Massachusetts state case."
The concern is practical. Reddington built a defense at trial centered on expert testimony about Clancy's mental state. If prosecutors retry the case, his ability to present that defense credibly depends in part on his own standing before a new jury and a new set of legal arguments. A televised stunt that legal professionals dismiss as baseless does not strengthen that position.
Josh Ritter, a Los Angeles-based attorney and Fox News contributor, offered a more strategic reading. He suggested Reddington may know the pardon is impossible but is using the spectacle to build leverage elsewhere, specifically, in potential plea negotiations with the district attorney's office.
"I think he knows that this will publicly agitate this entire case and perhaps be beneficial to him in plea negotiations with the district attorney. I think he even feels that it benefits him even if Trump doesn't entertain it, it creates more kind of political pressure for people in the state of Massachusetts who don't support Trump."
If Ritter's theory is right, Reddington is gambling that public attention and political friction will push prosecutors toward a deal rather than a second trial. It is a media strategy dressed up as a legal one.
Chicago-based criminal defense attorney Donna Rotunno, also a Fox News contributor, raised a different concern, one about professional boundaries. Reddington has previously said he views Clancy "like a daughter," and Rotunno suggested that emotional investment may be clouding his judgment.
"I think lawyers have to be careful getting too close to a client. It is very clear and admirable in some ways how invested Reddington is in Lindsay Clancy, however, if it starts to affect your professional judgment, it's time to reevaluate."
That warning carries weight in a case this serious. Three children are dead. The defendant admitted to killing them. The only contested question at trial was whether Clancy's mental state at the time rendered her not criminally responsible under Massachusetts law, a law that places the burden of proof on the prosecution. A defense attorney who shifts the public conversation away from that narrow legal question and toward a constitutionally impossible pardon is not doing his client any favors with the next jury pool.
President Trump had previously commented on the Clancy case, calling it a "horrible tragedy." Reddington cited that prior interest as the basis for his appeal. But Trump's own words, reported by Breitbart, suggest the president has no intention of intervening.
During a press gaggle with reporters, Trump described the killings plainly: "She did a horrible, horrible thing, can't be worse." He then added that he assumed "there's going to be another trial." That single sentence effectively closed the door Reddington was trying to open. The president acknowledged the tragedy but signaled no appetite to insert himself into a state prosecution, much less pressure a local district attorney to drop charges in a triple murder case.
The distinction between presidential sympathy and presidential action matters. Trump has used his pardon power in cases where he identified federal overreach. This is not that. Clancy's charges were brought by a county district attorney in Massachusetts state court. No federal statute is at issue. No federal agency brought the case. The pardon power simply does not reach it.
If Plymouth County District Attorney Tim Cruz moves forward with a second trial, and Trump's comments suggest that is the likely path, the prosecution will need to address the weaknesses that led to the hung jury. Bederow offered a pointed assessment of where the state's case fell short.
"I would hope that if the prosecution is going to try this again, they would find better experts with the proper expertise and who are willing, assuming there's a basis to do so, take the defense expert's testimony and report and explain in English why it lacks any credibility whatsoever. Because if they go forward, they can't win unless the defense expert is entirely and thoroughly discredited, given the way the Massachusetts law puts the burden of proof on the prosecution."
The jury's deadlock centered on whether Clancy was in a psychotic state when she strangled her children with exercise bands. The Washington Examiner noted that the 12-member panel could not reach a unanimous decision on her mental state. Reddington's defense team blamed an "inexperienced doctor" who prescribed medications for Clancy's postpartum depression, arguing that her condition spiraled into psychosis. Prosecutors will need to dismantle that narrative with stronger expert testimony if they want a conviction.
Reddington, for his part, has said he would be open to discussing a potential deal with prosecutors. That openness, combined with Ritter's theory about the pardon appeal as a negotiating tactic, suggests the defense may be angling for a plea arrangement that avoids the risk of a second trial altogether.
The public reaction to the mistrial has been intense, and the pardon appeal only amplified the spotlight on a case that already divides opinion sharply. Clancy attempted to kill herself after the deaths of her children and was paralyzed from the injuries. She has been in custody throughout the proceedings. No retrial date has been set, and the Plymouth County District Attorney's office has not publicly responded to Reddington's appeal.
When a defense attorney's best play is a televised request for something the Constitution does not allow, the legal strategy has left the courtroom, and the client is the one who pays the price.