10
Loading video...
By Hannah Parry
Associate News Editor
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
Lindsay Clancy's attorney has asked President Donald Trump to pardon his client, days after her murder trial ended in a mistrial.
The request came Tuesday during an interview with ABC's Good Morning America, when defense attorney Kevin Reddington appealed directly to the president to consider Clancy's case.
"Mr. President, I would hope that you would consider this young lady, the type of person she is, what she's been through, and consider a pardon," Reddington said.
Read More on News
Clancy has been charged in Massachusetts with the deaths of her three children: Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months old. The children were killed at the family's home in Duxbury in January 2023. The case has drawn national attention, in part because of the defense's argument that Clancy was experiencing postpartum psychosis at the time of the killings.
Trump cannot pardon Clancy because she faces state charges in Massachusetts, not federal charges. The president's pardon power only applies to federal offenses and does not extend to crimes prosecuted under state law. If Clancy received an executive pardon for the charges against her, that authority would rest with the governor of Massachusetts, subject to the state's clemency process and the advice and consent of the Governor's Council.
Although Trump cannot pardon Clancy, Reddington's public appeal could bring renewed attention to the case and pressure Massachusetts prosecutors to consider an alternative to another trial after the jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict.
Reddington has said previously he hopes to reach an agreement with Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz rather than go through another trial.
...
Who Is Kevin Reddington?
Reddington is a veteran Massachusetts criminal defense attorney who has represented Clancy throughout her high-profile case. His defense centered on postpartum psychosis. Reddington argued that Clancy was experiencing hallucinations and was not criminally responsible for killing her children.
Prosecutors presented a different account, arguing that Clancy understood her actions and had planned the killings.
Following the jury's deadlock, he said he had "crushed the prosecution in court." He later characterized the comment as bravado after a lengthy and emotionally charged trial, while maintaining that he believed the defense had presented a strong case.
He also criticized the lone juror who prevented the jury from reaching a unanimous verdict, saying he believed the juror was not following the law. At the same time, Reddington acknowledged the juror's right to hold that position.
Can Lindsay Clancy Be Pardoned?
A pardon is theoretically possible, but it would have to come through Massachusetts, not the White House.
The Massachusetts governor, currently Democrat Maura Healey, has the authority to grant pardons for state offenses, subject to the advice and consent of the Governor's Council. The state's Advisory Board of Pardons also reviews clemency applications and makes recommendations.
Newsweek reached out to Healey's office for comment.
A pardon is an act of executive clemency. Clancy has not been convicted. The first trial ended without a verdict because the jury was deadlocked. That leaves Massachusetts prosecutors to decide whether to retry the case or pursue another outcome.
Constitutional law attorney and Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley questioned Reddington's decision to ask Trump for a pardon, saying the attorney knows the president cannot pardon someone facing state charges.
"You're absolutely correct. He cannot pardon for state offenses," Turley said during a Fox News interview Tuesday. He called the request "a strange thing for him to raise," adding that the chances of Trump pardoning Clancy were "about the same as my coaching the Chicago Bears this season."
Turley, who said he thought Reddington did "a very good job during the trial," was more critical of the defense attorney's closing argument and his comments about the holdout juror.
"I thought he did a better job than the prosecutors," Turley said of Reddington's performance during the trial. But he said Reddington "did a horrendously bad job in the summation," arguing that the closing argument "weakened that case just as it was going into jury."
Turley said prosecutors, who had struggled to present a cohesive narrative earlier in the trial, "pulled it together" during their closing argument and "actually offered a narrative that made sense."
But he identified Reddington's public attack on the holdout juror as the biggest issue.
"The biggest issue is, of course, his attack on the holdout juror," Turley said.
Turley also said he expects prosecutors are likely to seek a retrial. "I think the odds are that there will be a retrial," he said, arguing that there may be little room for a plea agreement given the positions both sides took during the first trial.
He also questioned whether prosecutors will be able to find an impartial jury if the case is tried again.
"Very few people are undecided in this case," Turley said, pointing to the intense public attention surrounding the proceedings. If there is another trial, he said, prosecutors will likely need to move the case and conduct "a very long voir dire or jury selection process."
...
Do You Have to Plead or Be Found Guilty to Be Pardoned?
A conviction is not always a prerequisite for a pardon. In the federal system, presidents have historically issued pardons before a person is convicted, and even before criminal proceedings conclude.
The best-known example is President Gerald Ford's 1974 pardon of Richard Nixon, which covered federal offenses Nixon "may have committed" during his presidency. Nixon had not been charged or convicted at the time.
What Has Donald Trump Said About the Lindsay Clancy Case?
Trump has publicly commented on the case since the mistrial.
After the jury failed to reach a verdict, Trump told reporters at the White House that he had been following the case, adding that, "It’s hard not to. It’s on television so much."
"It’s a shame. It’s a horrible tragedy," he added. "I see what’s happened, and it looks like it’s a hung jury. And I think the judge just said it’s going to be a mistrial.
"I assume there’s going to be another trial. It’s a terrible situation. Look, she did a horrible, horrible thing. Can’t be worse. But you’ll find out what the price to pay is. There’ll be a price. It’s going to be a mental institution or jail or something. But I guess they’re going to go through another trial. It’s too bad," he added.
Related Story
The Lindsay Clancy Mistrial is the Worst of All Outcomes
Why Did the Lindsay Clancy Case End in a Mistrial?
The trial ended in a mistrial on September 4 after the jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict following roughly 38 hours of deliberations.
The central issue was whether Clancy was criminally responsible for the deaths of her children. The defense argued that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and auditory hallucinations that affected her ability to understand or control her actions. Prosecutors argued that Clancy knew what she was doing and had planned the killings.
Reddington has said he believes 11 jurors supported a finding that Clancy was not criminally responsible, with one juror favoring conviction.
During deliberations, Reddington sought to have the holdout juror removed, arguing that the juror was not applying the law correctly. The judge rejected the request, and an emergency appeal seeking intervention was unsuccessful.
The case now moves into an uncertain next phase.
Contact Newsweek editors on this story: Kate Nalepinski and Sam Wilson.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines