Trump Makes Unexpected Clancy Announcement — Nation In Shock

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.