Lindsay Clancy’s Lawyer Issues Public Plea to President Trump for a Pardon After Mistrial

Following the declaration of a mistrial in the case of Lindsay Clancy, her defense attorney Kevin Reddington has made a direct public appeal to President Donald Trump for a presidential pardon.

Reddington appeared on Good Morning America on Tuesday, September 8, to discuss the outcome of the trial and the path forward for his client. He concluded the interview with a specific request directed at the president, who had previously commented on the 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.

A presidential pardon would not currently apply to Clancy’s case. Presidents hold authority to grant pardons only for federal offenses, and Clancy faces charges exclusively under Massachusetts state law.

Prior to the mistrial, Trump described the case to reporters as a “Horrible tragedy.” He noted that it appeared to involve a hung jury and assumed another trial would follow. “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,” Trump said.

Reddington, who has previously described Clancy as “like a daughter,” reiterated his personal connection during the interview. “I do feel a very strong bond with Lindsay because of the type of person she is,” he said. He also addressed the broader issue of postpartum mental health struggles, stating: “I just am horrified at what women have to deal with postpartum. Dealing with postpartum depression, dealing with — God forbid — postpartum psychosis and the horrific actions that occur as a result of that, people do not understand or know what they are doing. And it is real, and it is frightening.”

The case stems from events in January 2023, when Clancy sent her husband, Patrick, out on errands before fatally strangling their three children—Cora, 5; Dawson, 3; and 8-month-old Callan—and then jumping from a second-story window in an apparent suicide attempt. In the months leading up to the incident, Clancy had been receiving psychiatric care and had been prescribed various medications.

Her defense argued that she was experiencing a postpartum psychosis episode linked to the prescribed medication and was therefore not criminally responsible. The psychiatrists treating her had not issued an official diagnosis of postpartum psychosis prior to the deaths. Prosecutors countered that the killings involved “deliberate premeditation,” citing notes on her phone and her online search history.

The trial began in July. On September 4, Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial after jurors failed to reach a unanimous verdict following more than six days of deliberation. The jury informed the court three times that it was deadlocked. An emergency request by the defense for a stay from the Supreme Judicial Court was denied, after which the mistrial was formally entered.

Reddington told Good Morning America he remains “willing to listen” to District Attorney Tim Cruz. “I hope, however, after sitting through this trial and seeing the evidence that was presented from the government as well as from the defence that he would revisit that issue and hopefully would be able to work something out that would be acceptable to both sides,” he said.

He also expressed frustration with aspects of the jury’s deliberations, clarifying that his concern was not with any individual holdout juror’s right to dissent. “I would defend that individual’s right to be a holdout forever,” Reddington said. “That’s part of our judicial system, and I respect that.” His objection, he explained, centered on a note from the foreperson indicating that one juror had doubt but declined to apply the legal standard of reasonable doubt as instructed by the judge.

Reddington further addressed earlier remarks in which he claimed to have “crushed” the prosecution, describing them as “bravado” while stating he does not regret the comments. “I don’t regret saying it at all,” he said. “I think the defence was very strong and I think I went in very well. I think I could have, perhaps, been very circumspect dealing with Tim Cruz. Instead of saying I crushed them, I could have said that I did a good job.”

In other news, Canada’s Retaliatory Tariffs Take Effect as U.S. Trade Negotiations Remain Stalled