Blab Politics
Clancy Attorney Urges Trump to Pardon Mother After Mistrial, Even as State Law Limits Presidential Power
A murder trial that ended in a mistrial, a presidential pardon plea, and a constitutional debate over clemency keep the Clancy case in the national spotlight.
On September 4, 2026, a jury of nine women and three men failed to reach a unanimous verdict in the trial of Lindsay Clancy, a 36‑year‑old Massachusetts mother accused of strangling her three children in January 2023. The case, which began on July 20, 2026, centers on the deaths of five‑year‑old Cora, three‑year‑old Dawson, and eight‑month‑old Callan. Clancy has faced three state‑level murder charges and has been confined to Tewksbury State Hospital since the incident.
The day after the mistrial, Clancy’s defense attorney Kevin Reddington appeared on ABC’s Good Morning America and urged President Donald Trump to consider a pardon. Reddington said, “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.” The request was released to the public on September 8.
Trump’s reply was brief. In a White House press briefing the same day, he said, “She did a horrible, horrible thing. Can’t be worse.” He added that the “price to pay” would be either a mental institution or jail. The White House noted that the president’s pardon power applies only to federal offenses.
The constitutional foundation for a presidential pardon is Article II, Section 2, which grants the president authority to grant reprieves for “offences against the United States.” The Justice Department has repeatedly stated that this power does not extend to state criminal convictions. In practice, no president has issued a pardon for a state‑level murder case. Some point to Trump’s earlier pardon of former Colorado county clerk Tina Peters, who was convicted of a state crime, as precedent, but the legal effect of that action remains unclear.
Clancy’s defense has focused on postpartum psychosis. Prosecutors argue that the killings were premeditated, citing evidence such as sending her husband on an errand before the murders. The defense contends that Clancy was experiencing a psychotic episode triggered by postpartum psychosis and bipolar disorder—a claim that was a central element of the trial.
The mistrial was declared after jury foreperson William Sullivan received a note from a single juror who had not followed the judge’s instructions regarding reasonable doubt. Sullivan had directed the jury to continue deliberating, but the juror’s note suggested that the court’s guidance was not being applied. After an emergency appeal by the defense was denied, Sullivan formally announced the mistrial.
Clancy remains in custody at Tewksbury State Hospital. A status hearing is scheduled for September 29, 2026. Prosecutors have indicated a desire to retry the case later in the fall, but no definitive timetable has been set. If a new trial proceeds, a new jury will be selected and the case will resume.
The pardon request has spotlighted the limits of executive clemency. Legal scholars emphasize that the president’s power is confined to federal offenses and that state convictions lie outside that jurisdiction. The Department of Justice has stated that a presidential pardon cannot remove a state criminal conviction.
The Clancy case has become one of the most closely watched criminal trials in recent U.S. history, sparking national discussion about postpartum mental illness and the adequacy of mental health care for new mothers. The case also highlights the tension between state and federal authority in criminal matters.
At present, the only known next step is the September 29 status hearing. The outcome of that hearing will determine whether the case will proceed to a new trial or whether other legal avenues, such as appeals, will be pursued. No official response has been issued regarding the pardon request, and the White House has not indicated whether it will consider the attorney’s appeal.
The situation remains unresolved. Clancy’s legal team has sought a presidential pardon, but the constitutional and statutory limits on the president’s clemency power make such a request unlikely to be granted. The case will continue to unfold as the court schedules further proceedings and as the parties prepare for a potential retrial.
On September 4, 2026, a jury of nine women and three men failed to reach a unanimous verdict in the trial of Lindsay Clancy, a 36‑year‑old Massachusetts mother accused of strangling her three children in January 2023. The case, which began on July 20, 2026, centers on the deaths of five‑year‑old Cora, three‑year‑old Dawson, and eight‑month‑old Callan. Clancy has faced three state‑level murder charges and has been confined to Tewksbury State Hospital since the incident.
The day after the mistrial, Clancy’s defense attorney Kevin Reddington appeared on ABC’s Good Morning America and urged President Donald Trump to consider a pardon. Reddington said, “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.” The request was released to the public on September 8.
Trump’s reply was brief. In a White House press briefing the same day, he said, “She did a horrible, horrible thing. Can’t be worse.” He added that the “price to pay” would be either a mental institution or jail. The White House noted that the president’s pardon power applies only to federal offenses.
The constitutional foundation for a presidential pardon is Article II, Section 2, which grants the president authority to grant reprieves for “offences against the United States.” The Justice Department has repeatedly stated that this power does not extend to state criminal convictions. In practice, no president has issued a pardon for a state‑level murder case. Some point to Trump’s earlier pardon of former Colorado county clerk Tina Peters, who was convicted of a state crime, as precedent, but the legal effect of that action remains unclear.
Clancy’s defense has focused on postpartum psychosis. Prosecutors argue that the killings were premeditated, citing evidence such as sending her husband on an errand before the murders. The defense contends that Clancy was experiencing a psychotic episode triggered by postpartum psychosis and bipolar disorder—a claim that was a central element of the trial.
The mistrial was declared after jury foreperson William Sullivan received a note from a single juror who had not followed the judge’s instructions regarding reasonable doubt. Sullivan had directed the jury to continue deliberating, but the juror’s note suggested that the court’s guidance was not being applied. After an emergency appeal by the defense was denied, Sullivan formally announced the mistrial.
Clancy remains in custody at Tewksbury State Hospital. A status hearing is scheduled for September 29, 2026. Prosecutors have indicated a desire to retry the case later in the fall, but no definitive timetable has been set. If a new trial proceeds, a new jury will be selected and the case will resume.
The pardon request has spotlighted the limits of executive clemency. Legal scholars emphasize that the president’s power is confined to federal offenses and that state convictions lie outside that jurisdiction. The Department of Justice has stated that a presidential pardon cannot remove a state criminal conviction.
The Clancy case has become one of the most closely watched criminal trials in recent U.S. history, sparking national discussion about postpartum mental illness and the adequacy of mental health care for new mothers. The case also highlights the tension between state and federal authority in criminal matters.
At present, the only known next step is the September 29 status hearing. The outcome of that hearing will determine whether the case will proceed to a new trial or whether other legal avenues, such as appeals, will be pursued. No official response has been issued regarding the pardon request, and the White House has not indicated whether it will consider the attorney’s appeal.
The situation remains unresolved. Clancy’s legal team has sought a presidential pardon, but the constitutional and statutory limits on the president’s clemency power make such a request unlikely to be granted. The case will continue to unfold as the court schedules further proceedings and as the parties prepare for a potential retrial.
