Lawyer Asks Trump to Pardon Duxbury Mom After Murder Trial Ends in Hung Jury

Kevin Reddington, the attorney for Lindsay Clancy, made a direct appeal to President Trump on national television Tuesday morning, asking him to pardon the Duxbury mother whose murder trial ended in a mistrial last week. Clancy is charged with killing her three children at the family's home in January 2023, and jurors deadlocked after more than a week of deliberations.

"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 an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."

A Plea That Reached the White House

The request is an unusual one for a case tried in state court, where presidential pardon power does not reach. But Reddington argued that Clancy's history of mental illness, along with the help she desperately sought before the killings, makes her a candidate for mercy rather than a lifetime behind bars.

Trump was already watching the case closely. Asked about the trial the day the mistrial was declared, Trump said, "It's on television so much, it's hard not to follow it." He called the killings a "horrible, horrible thing" while making clear the legal system would decide what comes next, telling reporters a price would be paid -- "mental institution or jail or something" -- and that the case would likely go to another trial. "It's too bad," Trump said.

The White House, asked for comment on Reddington's remarks, pointed back to the president's statements on Friday.

Pardon Power Has Its Limits

There is a significant catch. The president's pardon authority covers federal offenses only, and Clancy was prosecuted by the Plymouth County district attorney's office under Massachusetts law. Because she was not convicted, she is not eligible for a presidential pardon, and any clemency would have to come from state authorities in Massachusetts.

Reddington acknowledged the practical reality, saying he hopes he and Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz can reach an agreement rather than take the case back to trial. He described Cruz as "a very hard-charging prosecutor, a conservative gentleman," and said he hopes Cruz will "revisit that issue" after sitting through five weeks of testimony.

Cruz has not decided whether to retry Clancy. "Our job is to set aside our feelings and focus solely on the facts," he said after the mistrial. "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." The two sides are scheduled to return to court on Sept. 29 to determine next steps.

The Question at the Heart of the Trial

Clancy pleaded not guilty to three counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of her 5-year-old daughter Cora, 3-year-old son Dawson, and infant son Callan on Jan. 24, 2023. She also attempted to take her own life that day.

Her five-week trial centered on whether she was suffering from postpartum psychosis -- considered a psychiatric emergency -- when she strangled the children, and whether she should be held criminally responsible for the killings. Massachusetts law required prosecutors to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Clancy did not suffer from a mental disease or defect at the time of the alleged offenses.

The jury deliberated for more than a week before reporting that it was deadlocked. Reddington said he was upset by the outcome, pointing to information from the jury foreperson suggesting a single male holdout juror had conceded doubt about the case but refused to apply the judge's instructions on reasonable doubt. "That's not right, and that's why I was upset," he said.

What Happens Next

The case now sits at a familiar crossroads in high-profile murder prosecutions. Cruz must decide whether the commonwealth can win a second trial, while the defense pushes for a negotiated resolution it can live with. The Sept. 29 court date will signal which direction the case is heading.

For the families involved, and for a president whose pardon decisions have repeatedly put criminal justice at the center of the national conversation, the aftermath of the Clancy case is far from over. A retrial would put the emotional testimony back in front of a jury, while a deal would close one of Massachusetts' most closely watched legal sagas without a final verdict.