President Trump shut down a public appeal from Lindsay Clancy's defense attorney for a presidential pardon, correctly noting that the Massachusetts murder case falls outside federal authority, leaving the 36-year-old former nurse facing a retrial for killing her three young children.
Kevin Reddington, the veteran defense attorney representing Clancy, made the unusual move of asking Trump directly for a pardon during a national television appearance on Good Morning America. Just The News reported that Reddington appealed on air for Trump to "consider this young lady and the person she is, what she's been through, and consider a pardon." The request came days after a judge declared a mistrial in Clancy's case when jurors deadlocked after a full week of deliberations.
Trump responded on Sunday by stating plainly what any first-year law student could tell you: a president can only pardon federal offenses. Clancy faces three counts of first-degree murder under Massachusetts state law, charges that sit entirely beyond the reach of the White House.
The defense attorney knew Trump lacked the constitutional authority to intervene. National Review reported that Reddington's real strategy was to leverage Trump's political influence to pressure Plymouth County District Attorney Tim Cruz, a Republican who has held the seat since 2001, into dropping the retrial. Reddington himself stated the goal plainly: "The goal is pretty simple. It's to seek help from Trump."
It was a media play dressed up as a legal request. And Trump did not take the bait.
Trump acknowledged Reddington's reputation as a capable lawyer. Fox News Digital reported that the president said:
"He's a good attorney. I've heard from other people he's a very good attorney."
But Trump stopped well short of doing what Reddington wanted, inserting himself into a state prosecution. Instead, Trump expressed sympathy for the situation while making clear he expected the legal process to continue.
"There's no winner there. There's no win no matter what you do. Three children are dead."
He added: "I hope they can work it out. That's something they have to work out... There is no win there."
Lindsay Clancy, a 36-year-old former nurse, is charged with strangling her three children, Cora, 5; Dawson, 3; and Callan, just 8 months old, at the family's home in Duxbury, Massachusetts, in January 2023. After killing the children, Clancy attempted to take her own life. She survived but was left paralyzed.
Her defense has centered on a claim that she suffered a psychotic break linked to postpartum depression. Reddington told ABC that Clancy had sought treatment from a psychiatrist he described as inexperienced, who prescribed medications before the killings. The defense has framed Clancy as a victim of inadequate medical care rather than a deliberate killer.
The pardon power has become a recurring flashpoint in American politics. Biden privately weighed pardoning Trump in 2023, and governors have drawn fire for controversial clemency decisions, including Minnesota Governor Walz's pardon of a convicted child sex offender, which sparked bipartisan outrage.
Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial earlier this month after the jury, nine women and three men, split 11 to 1. Eleven jurors reportedly favored acquittal on grounds that Clancy was not criminally responsible. One holdout kept the panel from reaching a unanimous verdict either way.
That lopsided split gave Reddington an opening. If nearly the entire jury was ready to acquit, why not press for a deal, or, failing that, try to get the most powerful man in the country to lean on the prosecutor?
Retired Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Jack Lu told Fox News Digital that a plea deal would be a "good idea" and in the public's "interest." But Lu predicted prosecutors will press forward and again seek a first-degree murder conviction at retrial.
That assessment tracks with the political reality facing DA Cruz. Walking away from a case involving three murdered children, regardless of the defendant's mental state, would be a career-defining decision for any elected prosecutor. The 11-to-1 jury split may embolden the defense, but it also puts enormous pressure on Cruz to prove his office can secure a conviction on a second try.
Trump, for his part, made clear before Sunday that he expected accountability. In an earlier statement, the Washington Examiner reported that Trump said:
"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."
That framing, acknowledging the horror of the crime while leaving room for a mental-health outcome short of prison, may be the closest Trump comes to signaling anything to the Plymouth County DA's office. It is not an endorsement of leniency, but it is not a demand for maximum punishment either.
Breitbart noted that Trump had previously called the Clancy case a "horrible tragedy" during a press gaggle, suggesting he had been tracking the case before Reddington's formal appeal.
The pardon request was not Reddington's only play. He has also indicated he is hopeful for a negotiated agreement directly with the district attorney's office, suggesting the public appeal to Trump was one prong of a broader strategy to avoid a second trial.
Whether Cruz's office is open to negotiations remains unclear. No public statements from the DA have surfaced outlining next steps for the retrial or any willingness to consider a plea. The scheduling of a new trial has not been announced.
Governors have shown varying appetites for using clemency in high-profile cases. New York Governor Hochul's pardon of a convicted felon recently upended a Supreme Court immigration case, illustrating how executive clemency can ripple far beyond the individual case.
Open questions remain. What specific medications was Clancy prescribed before the killings? Who was the psychiatrist Reddington described as inexperienced, and what was the course of treatment? Did the lone holdout juror provide any public explanation for refusing to acquit? None of these details have been publicly resolved.
Trump drew the right line. A president who respects constitutional boundaries does not reach into state courtrooms, no matter how tragic the case, and no matter how loudly a defense attorney asks on morning television. The legal system in Massachusetts will have to sort this one out on its own.
