Big Update After Lindsay Clancy Attorney Asks Trump For Pardon
Lindsay Clancy’s defense attorney has issued an extraordinary appeal to President Donald Trump following the mistrial in her Massachusetts murder case, asking the president to consider a pardon he has no constitutional authority to grant.
Attorney Kevin Reddington made the request days after Trump commented on the closely watched case and said Clancy would ultimately face “a price,” whether through imprisonment, commitment to a psychiatric institution or another legal outcome.
“Mr. President, I would hope that you would consider this young lady, the type of person she is, what she has been through, and consider a pardon,” Reddington said during a television interview Tuesday.
The appeal may attract public attention, but it collides with a clear constitutional limit on presidential power.
Trump Cannot Pardon State Offenses
Article II of the Constitution authorizes a president to grant pardons only for “Offenses against the United States.” That authority covers federal offenses—not criminal charges brought under state law.
The Justice Department similarly explains that the president cannot grant clemency for a state conviction. A defendant seeking relief from state charges must pursue it through the appropriate state government.
Because Clancy is being prosecuted under Massachusetts law, Trump cannot pardon her, dismiss the case or prevent state prosecutors from pursuing another trial.
Reddington has acknowledged that legal reality while suggesting the president could still use his public platform to influence the broader conversation surrounding the case.
But under America’s federal system, the final decision remains with Massachusetts authorities—not the White House.
Jury Deadlocks After Six-Week Trial
Clancy, 36, is charged in the January 2023 deaths of her three children: Cora, 5; Dawson, 3; and Callan, 8 months. The children were killed inside the family’s home in Duxbury, Massachusetts.
Her attorneys do not dispute that Clancy killed them. Instead, the defense argued that she lacked criminal responsibility because she was suffering from severe mental illness, including postpartum psychosis.
Prosecutors maintained that Clancy understood her conduct and deliberately carried out the killings.
After a six-week trial and approximately 38 hours of deliberations, jurors informed the court Friday that they could not unanimously determine whether Clancy was criminally responsible.
Defense attorneys have claimed the jury was divided 11-1 in favor of finding her not criminally responsible. The jurors themselves have not publicly verified that account.
The mistrial was neither a conviction nor an acquittal, meaning prosecutors remain legally free to try Clancy again.
Defense Pushes for Treatment Instead of Prison
Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz has not announced whether his office will pursue a second trial, negotiate a resolution with the defense or take another approach.
Reddington has made clear that he wants prosecutors to avoid another lengthy trial and instead reach an agreement. He has also said he would oppose any deal requiring Clancy to serve time in prison, arguing that psychiatric treatment is the appropriate outcome.
During his television appearance, the attorney again pointed to evidence that he says documented Clancy’s declining mental condition before the children’s deaths.
Reddington cited messages, medical treatment and attempts to seek assistance as indications that Clancy had been experiencing severe psychiatric problems well before January 2023.
Prosecutors, however, argued during the trial that the evidence demonstrated planning, intent and awareness inconsistent with the defense’s assertion that she lacked criminal responsibility.
Decision Belongs to Massachusetts
Trump described the children’s deaths as a “horrible tragedy” following the mistrial and indicated that he expected the legal process to continue.
Reddington’s public appeal has now pulled the president further into a nationally scrutinized case. Yet publicity cannot expand the constitutional powers of the presidency.
Whether Clancy faces another jury will be decided by Massachusetts prosecutors. Any potential state clemency would also have to come through Massachusetts—not President Trump.
Clancy is scheduled to return to court on Sept. 29, when attorneys are expected to address what happens next, The New York Times reported.
Until then, Reddington’s appeal may influence public debate. Constitutionally, however, Trump cannot provide the pardon Clancy’s attorney is requesting.