"JUROR'S TELLING RESPONSE: Female Juror Breaks Silence On Mistrial!"
CLANCY LAWYER ASKS TRUMP FOR HELP AFTER MISTRIAL - BUT THE PRESIDENT CANNOT PARDON MASSACHUSETTS MURDER CHARGES
Lindsay Clancy's attorney, Kevin Reddington, publicly asked President Donald Trump to consider a pardon after a Massachusetts jury deadlocked in her triple-murder trial. The request was real, but the legal limitation is absolute: presidential clemency reaches federal offenses, not Massachusetts crimes. Reddington later acknowledged that point and said his actual goal was to enlist Trump's political influence with Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz. The case has also moved since the pardon request. The defense now wants Judge William Sullivan to enter a finding of not guilty based on lack of criminal responsibility and has signaled a separate double-jeopardy argument against a retrial. Prosecutors have not yet announced whether they will try Clancy again.
Updated and fact-checked through Sept. 12, 2026.
The Pardon Request Was Real
On Sept. 8, Reddington appeared on ABC's 'Good Morning America' and directly appealed to Trump to consider Clancy, saying he hoped the president would take account of who she is and what she had been through.
The request came four days after Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial in Plymouth Superior Court when the jury said it could not reach a unanimous verdict.
The appeal to Trump was not invented or taken out of context. Reddington knowingly made a public request for presidential help after the mistrial.
Trump Cannot Legally Pardon Clancy's State Charges
The constitutional problem is straightforward. Article II gives the president clemency power for 'Offences against the United States' - federal offenses. Clancy is being prosecuted under Massachusetts law for three counts of first-degree murder.
That means a presidential pardon cannot dismiss her Massachusetts indictment, erase the state charges or bind a Massachusetts judge or district attorney.
Reddington acknowledged the limitation in subsequent interviews.
Whatever political influence Trump may possess, he has no constitutional power to pardon Clancy out of this state prosecution.
Massachusetts Clemency Belongs to the Governor and Governor's Council
Massachusetts has its own clemency system. The state constitution places pardon and commutation power with the governor, acting with the advice and consent of the Governor's Council.
There is another important limit: the Massachusetts Constitution says a pardon granted before conviction cannot be used by a defendant to defeat the prosecution. The state's ordinary clemency process is therefore not a substitute for resolving Clancy's pending trial charges before judgment.
If the case eventually produced a conviction, Massachusetts - not the White House - would control any state clemency process. At the current pre-conviction stage, the immediate legal decisions remain with the court and prosecutors.
Reddington Says His Real Goal Is Trump's Influence, Not Federal Clemency
Asked by WBZ-TV why he had sought a presidential pardon when none was legally available, Reddington said the goal was simply to seek help from Trump.
He suggested that Trump could review the case and potentially contact Cruz, the elected Plymouth County district attorney, in hopes that the prosecutor might reconsider how to proceed.
Reddington later told CBS that if he could ask another powerful person for help, he would, and said he would welcome Trump reaching out to the district attorney.
That makes the request a political-pressure strategy rather than a viable federal clemency petition. Trump could express a view; he cannot order Cruz to dismiss a Massachusetts murder case.
Trump Has Commented on the Case but Has Not Promised Intervention
After the mistrial on Sept. 4, Trump told reporters that he had followed the case because it had received extensive television coverage.
He called the killings a terrible situation and said Clancy had done something horrible, while speculating that the eventual consequence could involve either jail or a mental-health institution.
The White House later referred questions about Reddington's pardon request back to those comments. There has been no public announcement that Trump will contact Cruz or otherwise intervene.
Trump has acknowledged the case. He has not announced a pardon, which would be legally ineffective in any event, or a formal intervention with Massachusetts prosecutors.
The Mistrial Came After a Long Deadlock
Clancy's trial lasted about six weeks. Jurors deliberated for roughly 38 to 40 hours over seven days before Sullivan declared a mistrial on Sept. 4.
The panel had repeatedly reported that it was unable to reach a unanimous verdict. A note from the foreperson and later juror interviews indicated that the final split was 11-1.
Several jurors have since said the majority favored a verdict of not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility, while one juror remained unconvinced.
The 11-1 split is important context, but there was no verdict. Under Massachusetts law, unanimity was required.
An 11-1 Split Does Not Equal an Acquittal
The jury's internal vote did not legally acquit Clancy. A mistrial means the first trial ended without a final verdict.
Ordinarily, a hung jury permits prosecutors to try the case again because the inability of a jury to reach a unanimous verdict is a classic basis for a mistrial.
The defense argues this case was different because the foreperson said the holdout juror acknowledged doubt but refused to apply it as instructed. Sullivan declined requests to remove or further question that juror before declaring the mistrial.
The defense has a factual basis for challenging how the deadlock was handled, but the reported 11-1 vote does not by itself terminate the prosecution.
Clancy Does Not Dispute That She Killed Her Children
Clancy, 36, does not dispute that she strangled her children - Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months - with exercise bands in the family's Duxbury home on Jan. 24, 2023.
She then injured herself and jumped from a second-story window in an apparent suicide attempt, leaving her with severe spinal injuries and paralysis.
The legal dispute is primarily about criminal responsibility, not identity or whether she caused the deaths.
The defense is not arguing that someone else killed the children. It is arguing that Clancy's mental condition prevented criminal responsibility under Massachusetts law.
Massachusetts Places the Burden of Criminal Responsibility on the Commonwealth
Once lack of criminal responsibility is properly raised, Massachusetts requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was criminally responsible at the time of the offense.
A person lacks criminal responsibility if a mental disease or defect deprived the person of substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness of the conduct or to conform conduct to the law.
The defendant does not carry the ultimate burden of proving insanity under that framework.
That legal rule helps explain why the psychiatric evidence became the central issue in Clancy's trial.
The Defense Says Postpartum Psychosis Destroyed Criminal Responsibility
Reddington argued that Clancy was suffering from postpartum psychosis and other serious mental illness when she killed the children and therefore could not meaningfully appreciate the wrongfulness of what she was doing.
The defense presented psychiatric evidence and pointed to Clancy's treatment history, reported hallucinations and mental deterioration around the time of the killings.
A verdict of not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility would not necessarily mean immediate freedom. Massachusetts law allows commitment and continuing psychiatric review when a defendant remains dangerous because of mental illness.
The defense theory is a legal insanity defense, not a claim that the deaths did not occur or that mental illness automatically excuses homicide.
Prosecutors Say the Killings Were Deliberate and Clancy Knew They Were Wrong
Plymouth County prosecutors disputed the psychosis defense and argued that Clancy planned the killings, waited for an opportunity and took purposeful steps before and after the deaths.
They maintained that depression and suicidality did not establish the kind of mental incapacity required for a lack-of-criminal-responsibility verdict.
The prosecution's burden was to prove criminal responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt once the defense was properly in the case.
The mistrial did not resolve that dispute. It showed that the jury could not unanimously agree on the legal significance of the mental-health evidence.
The Defense Has Now Asked the Judge to Enter a Not-Guilty Finding
The case moved again after Reddington's appeal to Trump. On Sept. 10, he filed a motion asking Sullivan to find Clancy not guilty based on lack of criminal responsibility.
Reddington argues that the Commonwealth's evidence was legally insufficient to allow a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Clancy was criminally responsible, particularly because even prosecution experts acknowledged serious mental illness.
Massachusetts Rule of Criminal Procedure 25 allows a judge to enter a required finding of not guilty when the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law, including after a jury has been discharged without reaching a verdict in circumstances covered by the rule.
The Sept. 29 hearing is now about more than whether prosecutors want another trial. The judge is also being asked to end the case through a post-mistrial not-guilty ruling.
Reddington Has Also Raised a Double-Jeopardy Argument
On Sept. 9, Reddington said he intended to seek dismissal on double-jeopardy grounds, arguing that there was no 'manifest necessity' for the mistrial because the court should have investigated or addressed the holdout-juror issue differently.
That is a difficult argument. A genuinely deadlocked jury is ordinarily considered a classic example of manifest necessity, allowing retrial without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause.
The defense is trying to distinguish this case by arguing that the deadlock resulted from juror misconduct or refusal to apply the court's instructions rather than an ordinary good-faith disagreement over the evidence.
The double-jeopardy theory could bar a retrial if the defense prevailed, but legal analysts have described it as a long-shot argument, not an automatic consequence of the mistrial.
Cruz Has Not Announced Whether He Will Retry the Case
After the mistrial, Cruz said no immediate decision had been made about a second trial and stressed that his office remained focused on justice for Cora, Dawson and Callan.
Prosecutors could seek another first-degree murder trial if the post-mistrial motions fail. They could also consider different charges or a negotiated resolution, subject to Massachusetts law and court approval.
The next scheduled hearing is Sept. 29.
As of Sept. 12, there is no announced retrial date and no plea agreement. The prosecution remains pending.
Reddington Says Any Negotiated Resolution Cannot Include Jail
Reddington has said he is willing to discuss resolution with Cruz but has drawn a firm line against agreeing to incarceration for Clancy.
He told WBZ-TV that he would not plead Clancy to even one day in jail because he believes her actions were the product of severe illness rather than criminal intent.
That is the defense position, not a term prosecutors have accepted. Any plea agreement would require agreement from the prosecution and approval through the state court process.
Reddington's willingness to talk does not mean a deal is imminent, and his no-jail position may sharply limit the range of settlements Cruz would consider acceptable.
Clancy Remains in State Psychiatric Custody
Clancy remains at Tewksbury Hospital, where she has been receiving psychiatric and medical treatment while the criminal case continues.
Her continued hospitalization does not resolve whether she is legally criminally responsible for the 2023 killings. That question remains before the court unless the parties reach another lawful disposition.
The mistrial did not release Clancy or dismiss the charges. She remains a criminal defendant awaiting the next stage of the case.
The Strongest Defensible Conclusion
Reddington's appeal to Trump was real but legally incapable of producing the requested pardon. The president cannot erase Massachusetts murder charges; any White House role would be political rather than an exercise of federal clemency.
May you like
The legal fight is now in Massachusetts: the defense has asked Sullivan for a not-guilty finding and is challenging the prospect of retrial, while Cruz has not announced whether prosecutors will try the case again. The parties return to court Sept. 29.
The bottom line: Trump cannot pardon this state case. Clancy's fate now depends on Massachusetts courts and prosecutors.
