Lindsay Clancy After the Mistrial: Defense Seeks Agreement as Attorney Appeals to Trump

The legal battle surrounding Lindsay Clancy entered a new and uncertain phase following the mistrial in her Massachusetts murder case, with her defense attorney now calling for an agreement with prosecutors and publicly appealing to President Donald Trump to consider a pardon.

Clancy's five-week trial ended in a mistrial on September 4 after jurors were unable to reach a unanimous verdict following more than a week of deliberations. Clancy had pleaded not guilty to three murder charges in the deaths of her children, 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson and infant Callan, who died following the January 24, 2023 incident at the family's home in Duxbury, Massachusetts.

Her attorney, Kevin Reddington, appeared on ABC's Good Morning America on September 8 and said he hopes the defense and Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz can reach an agreement before another trial takes place.

Reddington also made an unusual public appeal directly to President Trump.

"Mr. President, I would hope that you would consider this young lady and the person she is, what she's been through, and consider a pardon," Reddington said during the interview.

Despite Reddington's appeal, a presidential pardon would not apply to the criminal charges Clancy currently faces.

The president's constitutional pardon authority applies to federal offenses, while Clancy was charged under Massachusetts state law. She also has not been convicted.

ABC News, citing information from the U.S. Department of Justice, reported that Clancy therefore would not be eligible for a presidential pardon in this case and would instead have to seek relief through Massachusetts state authorities.

President Trump had already commented publicly on the Clancy case shortly after the mistrial was declared.

Asked about the case, Trump told reporters that he had been following the trial because of the extensive television coverage.

"Look, she did a horrible, horrible thing. Can't be worse," Trump said. "But you'll find out what the price to pay is. There'll be a price. It's going to be mental institution or jail or something, but I guess they're going to go through another trial. It's too bad."

When ABC News later requested a response from the White House regarding Reddington's appeal for a pardon, the White House referred the news organization back to Trump's earlier remarks.

That is now one of the biggest unanswered questions.

Reddington said he hopes District Attorney Timothy Cruz will reconsider the case after hearing the evidence presented by both prosecutors and the defense during the five-week trial.

Cruz, however, has not announced whether his office will pursue another trial.

Speaking after the mistrial, Cruz acknowledged the intense public reaction surrounding the case but said prosecutors must focus on the evidence rather than public opinion.

"The facts are Lindsay Clancy killed her three children and the evidence suggested to us that she was in control of her actions when she committed those homicides," Cruz said.

The defense disputes that central issue.

Both sides are scheduled to return to court on September 29, when the next steps in the case are expected to be addressed.

Reddington has also expressed frustration over how the jury deliberations ended.

According to Reddington, information provided by the jury foreperson indicated there was a single male juror preventing a unanimous verdict.

Reddington alleged that the juror acknowledged having doubt about the case but did not apply the reasonable-doubt standard as instructed by the judge.

"He had agreed, according to the note from the forelady, that he had doubt but he would not present the law of reasonable doubt as presented by the judge," Reddington told ABC. "That's not right and that's why I was upset."

Those comments represent Reddington's account of what occurred during the jury deliberations and do not establish independently what motivated the individual juror.

Throughout the trial, one of the central questions was whether Clancy was suffering from postpartum psychosis when her children were killed and whether her mental condition prevented her from being criminally responsible for her actions.

Postpartum psychosis is considered a psychiatric emergency by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Under Massachusetts law, once lack of criminal responsibility is properly at issue, prosecutors carry the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not suffer from a mental disease or defect that legally relieved her of criminal responsibility at the time of the alleged offenses.

Reddington has argued that people who dismiss Clancy's mental-health defense have not seen the complete evidence presented during the trial.

"These people don't understand," he told ABC. "They don't know what she went through. They didn't see her text messages. They didn't see her journal. They didn't see the notes that she wrote."

The prosecution has maintained that Clancy was legally responsible for her actions.

For the moment, Lindsay Clancy has neither been convicted nor acquitted.

The mistrial means the criminal case remains unresolved.

Prosecutors could seek another trial, or discussions between the prosecution and defense could potentially produce a different resolution. Reddington is publicly advocating for the latter.

His appeal to President Trump has now added another dimension to a case that has attracted national attention, although presidential pardon authority cannot resolve the Massachusetts state charges.

The next significant development could come when the parties return to court on September 29.

The New England Voice will continue following the Lindsay Clancy case as the Massachusetts court determines what comes next.