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.’

Nearly 25 years after the September 11 attacks, one veteran Fox News anchor is revealing the devastating health toll he says followed him home from Ground Zero.

Eric Shawn, 69, spent weeks reporting amid the smoke, dust and wreckage of the World Trade Center after the Twin Towers collapsed. Now, decades later, he says he is confronting cancer and other serious health problems linked to his exposure.

And hauntingly, Shawn says he worried something like this could happen even as he stood in the toxic haze.

On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, Shawn was walking to work in Manhattan when American Airlines Flight 11 suddenly roared low above him, headed toward the North Tower.

“I thought it was gonna hit a skyscraper and my mind was playing tricks on me,” Shawn told PEOPLE. “You don’t think you really see what you’re seeing,”

Shawn raced to the Fox newsroom, warned colleagues about what he had witnessed and was quickly on the air.

Within hours, he was reporting from Ground Zero.

What followed was weeks of grueling 12-hour shifts inside a disaster zone unlike anything he had ever experienced.

“I was there reporting for at least a month, if not longer. We did 12-hour shifts. It was a shocking hellscape,” he recalls. “It was an overwhelming experience — seeing the photographs and seeing it on television from home certainly does not give justice to what I was confronted with and what we saw. It was just monstrous and momentous.”

Shawn had reported from war zones before. He says nothing compared to what he witnessed that night.

“I’ve covered war zones and this was by far the worst traumatic thing that a reporter can experience, just by seeing what I saw that first night,” he adds.

But for Shawn, the nightmare did not end when the cameras stopped rolling.

For weeks, he worked surrounded by what he described as a “thick haze of choking dust.” Reporters and first responders were given respiratory masks, but the contaminated air was seemingly impossible to escape.

Even then, Shawn remembers wondering what that exposure could mean decades later.

“I remember the first night thinking, ‘This is not healthy,’ just on the basis of dust. Not even knowing about carcinogens, not knowing about toxic chemicals,” he continues. “And I remember back then thinking, ‘I wonder what’s gonna happen in 20, 30 years from now.’ Well, we’re there now. This is the time period we were concerned about.”

It didn’t take decades for the first warning signs to appear.

Within roughly two months of the attacks, Shawn developed an “uncontrollable cough” that became serious enough for him to seek medical attention.

“I went to the doctor in November and he said, ‘Oh, you’ve got the World Trade Center cough.’ That’s what we called it at the time.” he recalls. “I thought, ‘I know — it’s a cough from all that dust and smoke. It’ll go away.’ No. The World Trade Center cough actually turned into acute chronic bronchitis…and I suffered from it for years.”

His respiratory problems eventually became severe.

During one particularly difficult year, Shawn needed two Prednisone shots within just 72 hours — despite his doctor telling him the standard was only two shots per year.

He was also diagnosed with gastroesophageal reflux disease, or GERD.

“It felt like I had a golf ball in my throat on and off for years,” he says.

Then came an even more frightening development.

Shawn was diagnosed with skin cancer, which he attributes to his exposure at Ground Zero to hundreds of chemical, physical and biological hazards.

And doctors discovered another alarming warning sign.

His prostate-specific antigen levels were rising rapidly. According to Shawn, physicians determined that he has “the highest level of probable” prostate cancer.

He is now undergoing testing every three months as doctors closely monitor his condition.

“So, I’m certified for cancer under the World Trade Center Health Program,” he says, referring to the federal program that provides medical monitoring and treatment to responders and survivors exposed to carcinogens including jet fuel, mercury and asbestos. “I’m just waiting and watching,” he says.

For years, Shawn largely kept what he was going through private — even from many of his colleagues at Fox News.

Now, with the 25th anniversary of 9/11 approaching, he is telling his story publicly.

His goal is to draw attention not only to his own ordeal, but to the thousands of first responders, survivors, journalists and others who continue living with illnesses associated with their exposure at Ground Zero.

Nearly a quarter-century ago, Shawn looked into the Manhattan sky and watched Flight 11 fly overhead toward the World Trade Center.

Today, the consequences of what happened in the hours and weeks that followed are still unfolding.