Lindsay Clancy’s defense attorney is taking his fight all the way to President Donald Trump — with an extraordinary public plea following the dramatic mistrial in her triple-murder case.

There’s just one enormous problem:

Trump doesn’t have the constitutional power to do what he’s asking.

Attorney Kevin Reddington publicly called on Trump to consider pardoning Clancy, the Massachusetts mother charged with killing her three young children, despite the fact that presidents cannot pardon defendants for state crimes.

The remarkable appeal came just days after Trump himself weighed in on the nationally watched case, saying Clancy would ultimately face “a price” through prison, a mental institution or another legal outcome.

Now Reddington is asking the president to look at Clancy’s background and history of severe mental-health problems before Massachusetts prosecutors decide whether to put her through another trial.

“Mr. President, I would hope that you would consider this young lady, the type of person she is, what she has been through, and consider a pardon,” Reddington said during a television interview Tuesday.

There’s One Major Constitutional Problem

The request immediately runs headfirst into the Constitution.

Article II gives the president power to grant pardons only for “Offenses against the United States.”

In other words: federal crimes.

Clancy’s case is being prosecuted entirely under Massachusetts state law.

That means Trump cannot pardon Clancy, dismiss her charges or otherwise use presidential clemency powers to end the prosecution.

The Justice Department has similarly made clear that presidential clemency does not extend to state convictions. Relief from state criminal charges must come through the appropriate state process.

Reddington has acknowledged that legal reality.

But he appears to be looking for something else from Trump: influence.

The defense attorney has suggested the president could still use his enormous public platform to weigh in as Clancy’s attorneys push prosecutors toward another resolution rather than a second trial.

Three Children Dead, One Question Divided The Jury

Clancy, 36, is charged in the January 2023 deaths of her three children — Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, just 8 months old — inside the family’s Duxbury home.

Her attorneys do not dispute that Clancy killed the children.

The explosive question at trial was whether she was criminally responsible when she did it.

Her defense argued that Clancy was suffering from severe mental illness, including postpartum psychosis, and therefore could not be held legally responsible for her actions.

Prosecutors fiercely disagreed.

They argued that Clancy understood what she was doing and deliberately carried out the killings, pointing to evidence they said demonstrated planning and awareness.

After a grueling six-week trial, jurors spent approximately 38 hours deliberating.

They couldn’t reach a unanimous verdict.

Defense attorneys have said the final split was 11-1 in favor of finding Clancy not criminally responsible, though the individual jurors had not all publicly confirmed their votes.

The deadlock forced a mistrial.

And that means this case is far from over.

Prosecutors Could Put Clancy On Trial Again

A mistrial is neither an acquittal nor a conviction.

Massachusetts prosecutors remain free to try Clancy again.

Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz has not announced whether his office will pursue another trial, negotiate a resolution with Clancy’s attorneys or take another path.

Reddington has made clear what he wants.

He is urging prosecutors to avoid another lengthy trial and instead reach an agreement with the defense.

But there’s another line he says he won’t cross.

Reddington has said he would oppose any agreement requiring Clancy to serve prison time, arguing that she belongs in psychiatric treatment rather than behind bars.

The defense attorney has continued pointing to messages, medical treatment and Clancy’s attempts to seek help before the killings as evidence that she was suffering from serious psychiatric problems.

Prosecutors have countered that other evidence demonstrated planning and awareness inconsistent with the defense’s claim that Clancy lacked criminal responsibility.

Then Trump Entered The Picture

The already explosive case took another turn when Trump publicly weighed in following the mistrial.

The president called the deaths a “horrible tragedy” and indicated that he expected the legal process to continue.

Days later, Clancy’s attorney went on television and appealed directly to Trump.

It is a stunning development in a case that has already captivated the country.

But regardless of how Trump responds, the constitutional reality remains unchanged.

Donald Trump cannot pardon Lindsay Clancy for Massachusetts state charges.

Any decision about retrying Clancy remains in the hands of Massachusetts prosecutors, while any potential state clemency would have to come through Massachusetts — not the White House.

Clancy is scheduled to return to court on September 29, when attorneys are expected to discuss what comes next.

Until then, Reddington’s remarkable appeal to Trump could dramatically increase the political and public pressure surrounding the case.

But it cannot give the president a pardon power the Constitution simply does not provide.

A juror who ultimately voted to acquit Lindsay Clancy by reason of insanity has now revealed a stunning detail about what happened behind closed doors:

She entered deliberations believing Clancy was guilty.

Juror No. 5, who has remained anonymous, said she initially believed the Massachusetts mother was criminally responsible for killing her three young children — before changing her vote during the tense deliberations that ultimately ended in an explosive 11-1 deadlock and mistrial.

‘Originally, I felt that she was guilty and she was criminally responsible for it.’

But even after ultimately siding with the majority of jurors who favored acquittal by reason of insanity, the woman admitted she still hasn’t completely shaken that belief.

‘Maybe I still believe that Clancy is guilty, in a certain way,’ she admitted.

The revelation offers a dramatic glimpse inside a jury room that became bitterly divided while deciding one of the most disturbing and closely watched murder cases in the country.

Three Children Dead — And A Jury Facing An Agonizing Question

Clancy, 36, is charged with killing her three children — Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, just 8 months old — inside the family’s Duxbury, Massachusetts, home in January 2023.

Clancy admitted strangling the children with exercise bands but pleaded not guilty.

Her attorneys argued that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis so severe that she could not appreciate the wrongfulness of what she was doing.

Prosecutors presented a dramatically different case.

They maintained Clancy was criminally responsible and deliberately killed her children.

Juror No. 5 initially found herself leaning toward the prosecution.

And one piece of evidence in particular left her shaken: the 911 call made by Clancy’s husband, Patrick, after discovering the children.

‘I will never be the same after that 911 call,’ the juror said.

The recording was played inside the courtroom but has never been publicly released.

The juror also directly pushed back against online conspiracy theories accusing Patrick Clancy of killing the children and framing his wife.

‘If these people could have heard that visceral, blood-curdling scream,’ she said. ‘It was horrifying.’

Then Her Vote Changed

Despite entering deliberations believing Clancy was guilty, the juror said her view began shifting as the panel painstakingly examined the evidence surrounding Clancy’s mental state.

The question was no longer simply whether Clancy had killed her children.

She had admitted that.

The battle was over whether she was legally criminally responsible when she did it.

‘I think this was a woman who was not mentally healthy, she was in the throes of a significant mental crisis,’ the juror said.

‘I really just felt like she was so deep in it that she couldn’t see her way out, and this was the only option.’

As deliberations continued, the juror ultimately concluded prosecutors had failed to eliminate enough doubt for her to convict.

‘There was not a single moment throughout that presentation of that case that you could say, ‘Oh yep, 100 percent I’m certain she did it,” she recalled. ‘There is too much gray area.’

That conclusion moved her from believing Clancy was criminally responsible to joining the 11 jurors prepared to acquit her by reason of insanity.

But one juror refused.

One Holdout Stopped The Verdict

The jury’s inability to reach unanimity eventually came down to a single holdout.

Three other jurors who spoke publicly after the trial criticized the unidentified man for refusing to change his position.

Juror No. 5, however, offered a surprisingly different assessment.

‘This standalone juror was not the only one that was unwilling to see things from the other side, so I’m going to kind of defend that individual,’ she said.

She described a jury room filled with forceful opinions as the debate intensified.

‘There were some big personalities in that room, but at the end of the day, I feel like it just came down to an inability to move past your convictions.’

The deliberations reportedly became so heated that arguments could be heard from outside the jury room.

Other jurors have claimed the holdout acknowledged having reasonable doubt but nevertheless refused to return a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity.

Foreperson Roni Carlson recalled believing at one point that the jury had finally broken through and reached an agreement.

Then the holdout refused again.

‘but I’m still not going to say she’s not guilty,’ Carlson recalled.

A Mistrial — And A Stunning Look Inside The Jury Room

After more than a week of deliberations failed to produce a unanimous verdict, Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial on Sept. 4.

The final vote stood at 11-1.

But the latest revelation from juror No. 5 shows that the overwhelming final split tells only part of the story.

At least one of the 11 jurors ultimately prepared to acquit Clancy had walked into deliberations believing exactly the opposite.

She thought Lindsay Clancy was guilty.

Then, after days of examining the evidence, debating her mental state and wrestling with the legal standard for criminal responsibility, she changed her vote.

And even now, after the mistrial, her own words reveal just how unsettled she remains:

‘Maybe I still believe that Clancy is guilty, in a certain way.’

You’re driving to work. Picking up your kids. Going to the grocery store. Visiting a friend.

You haven’t committed a crime. You aren’t a suspect. You’re just going about your life.

But there may be a camera recording your vehicle — and creating a digital record of where you were, when you were there, and what your vehicle looked like.

And chances are, nobody asked for your permission.

Flock cameras are spreading across America. The debate isn’t simply about whether they can help catch criminals. The far more uncomfortable question is:

How much surveillance are Americans expected to accept before someone finally says enough?

You may have already driven past one without knowing it.

Small cameras mounted near neighborhood entrances, intersections, and major roads can look like ordinary security equipment. But automated license plate reader systems such as Flock Safety can capture passing vehicles, recording the license plate, vehicle characteristics, time, and location.

That means your movements can become part of a searchable database even if you have never committed a crime or been suspected of one.

And that should make every driver stop and think.

You Don’t Have to Be a Criminal

This is where the issue gets uncomfortable.

You don’t have to be under investigation.

You don’t have to be a suspect.

You don’t have to have done anything wrong.

You simply have to drive past a camera.

The system can capture your vehicle anyway.

According to unFlockIt, ALPR systems can create searchable records showing where vehicles have been seen and when. The organization argues that interconnected camera networks can allow information collected locally to become accessible beyond the community where it was originally captured. unFlockIt

Think about what that means.

A trip to the grocery store.

A visit to a doctor’s office.

A stop at a friend’s house.

A drive across town.

All of it could potentially leave another digital footprint.

And once that information exists, there is a question we should all be asking:

Who gets to look at it?

This Isn’t Just About Catching Criminals

To be fair, supporters of Flock cameras have a compelling argument.

Automated license plate readers can help police locate stolen vehicles, identify suspects, and respond to serious crimes.

Nobody wants criminals getting away with violent offenses or stolen vehicles disappearing without a trace.

But public safety and privacy don’t have to be mutually exclusive.

The real issue is what happens when a tool designed to help investigators identify suspects also captures information about everyone else.

That distinction matters.

Traditional police investigations generally begin with a reason to investigate someone.

Mass data collection works differently.

The database can exist first. The search can come later.

And that raises an uncomfortable question:

Should simply driving down a public road be enough to place your vehicle into a database that someone can potentially search later?

One Camera Is One Thing. A Network Is Something Else.

Maybe one camera doesn’t sound particularly alarming.

It sees your vehicle.

The moment passes.

You drive away.

But what happens when cameras aren’t operating independently?

What happens when they’re part of a much larger network?

unFlockIt describes a national network in which participating agencies can potentially share access to ALPR data beyond the community where it was originally collected. unFlockIt

Now the issue becomes much bigger than one camera at one intersection.

A single camera might capture one moment.

A connected network can potentially reveal patterns.

Where a vehicle has been seen.

When it was seen.

Which locations it passed.

And potentially how those sightings connect across different jurisdictions.

That is an extraordinary amount of information about ordinary Americans who may have done absolutely nothing wrong.

And once that infrastructure exists, who decides what it can eventually be used for?

What Happens When the Technology Gets Even Better?

Here’s another question worth asking.

Technology doesn’t usually get weaker.

It gets cheaper.

Faster.

More sophisticated.

More connected.

Today, we’re talking about license plates and vehicle characteristics.

But surveillance technology continues to evolve.

So the question isn’t just what these systems can do today.

It’s what they’ll be capable of doing five or ten years from now — and whether the rules protecting Americans will have kept up.

That is why waiting until the technology is everywhere could be a serious mistake.

The time to establish boundaries is before the infrastructure becomes impossible to roll back.

Communities Are Starting to Push Back

And this isn’t some fringe concern dreamed up by a handful of conspiracy theorists.

Communities are actually beginning to challenge these systems.

In August 2026, Kendall County, Texas commissioners unanimously voted not to renew a Flock Safety contract covering more than 50 cameras, following public concerns about privacy, transparency, and data protection. MySanAntonio reporting

And Kendall County isn’t alone.

Recent reporting has documented growing resistance to Flock cameras in places including Tampa Bay and Pittsburgh, where residents have questioned whether the public-safety benefits justify the potential privacy risks. Axios reporting

The debate is spreading because the technology is spreading.

So Who Made This Decision?

This may be the question that deserves the most attention.

Who authorized the cameras in your community?

Did residents vote on them?

Were people given meaningful notice?

Did most residents even know they were being installed?

And perhaps most importantly:

Do ordinary citizens have any meaningful say in what happens to the information being collected about them?

Those are not anti-police questions.

They’re not anti-technology questions.

They’re accountability questions.

Citizens should be asking:

• Who authorized these cameras?
• Were residents given meaningful notice?
• How long is the information retained?
• Who can search the database?
• Can outside agencies access local data?
• What safeguards prevent abuse?
• Are searches audited?
• What happens if the information is wrong?
• Can citizens see the policies governing the system?
• Can the community vote on whether these systems should remain?

If government is going to collect information about innocent people, the public deserves to know exactly what is being collected, who can access it, and what prevents that power from being abused.

Supporting Police Doesn’t Mean Supporting Unlimited Surveillance

There is an important distinction that often gets lost in this debate.

You can support police officers.

You can want dangerous criminals caught.

You can want stolen cars recovered.

And you can still believe government surveillance should have limits.

Those positions aren’t contradictory.

In fact, meaningful limits and transparency may be exactly what is needed to preserve public trust in the technology.

Because once people begin believing that they’re being watched everywhere they go, trust starts disappearing.

Don’t Wait Until It’s Everywhere

The worst time to start asking questions is after the cameras have become permanent fixtures throughout your community.

Whether you support Flock cameras or oppose them, you should know where they’re located and how the information they collect is being used.

That’s exactly why projects like unFlockIt are drawing attention to the issue. The organization has created a national map intended to help people identify ALPR cameras near them and is organizing support for its national petition. unFlockIt

✍️ Your Community. Your Data. Your Voice.

If you believe Americans deserve greater transparency and stronger limits on warrantless surveillance, sign the unFlockIt petition and make your voice heard.

SIGN THE UNFLOCKIT NATIONAL PETITION

You can also use unFlockIt’s map to see reported surveillance cameras in your area. View the unFlockIt map

Because ultimately, this isn’t about whether technology is good or bad.

It’s about power.

It’s about what happens when the ability to collect information about ordinary citizens becomes easier than ever.

And it’s about whether Americans get to establish the rules before that power becomes impossible to take back.

So ask yourself:

Should the government be able to record and search where ordinary Americans drive when those people have never been suspected of a crime?

Maybe your answer is yes.

Maybe it’s no.

But shouldn’t you have a say?

Because the cameras are already watching.