Clancy Lawyer’s Pardon Plea Hits Constitutional Wall

The loudest plea in this case asked the one person who cannot grant it.

Story Snapshot

Defense asked President Trump for a pardon after a mistrial in Massachusetts.
Presidential pardons do not reach state crimes; only state authorities can act.
The jury deadlocked, leaving guilt and insanity unresolved for now.
Both sides put mental-state claims on the record, with sharp expert disagreement.

The Ask That Collides With the Constitution

Defense attorney Kevin Reddington went on national television and asked President Trump to pardon Lindsay Clancy after her Massachusetts trial ended in a mistrial. The request sparked clicks and outrage, but it hits a hard wall. The United States Constitution limits presidential clemency to federal offenses. State charges live under state clemency systems. That means the only meaningful pardon path runs through Massachusetts, not the White House.

Raising a plea to the wrong office does more than miss the mark. It invites the public to see the defense as playing politics while the core legal fight remains in state court. For readers who value clear lines of authority, this matters. A family tragedy deserves sober process, not a media detour. The Constitution draws a bright line, and voters across the spectrum expect lawyers to know where it is.

What the Mistrial Actually Means

Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial after jurors could not agree on a verdict. A mistrial is not an acquittal or a conviction; it is a reset. Prosecutors can retry the case, seek a plea, or reassess evidence. The defense can press motions or negotiate. The underlying question—was Clancy criminally responsible—remains open. A hung jury can reflect complex facts, split views on mental illness, or doubts about proof, not a legal win for either side.

The deadlock followed days of testimony about Clancy’s mental state. The defense did not dispute that she killed her children. They argued that postpartum psychosis and a storm of prescribed drugs left her unable to know right from wrong or control her actions. That frame asked jurors to weigh medicine against moral blame. The jurors could not settle that clash, which is common in insanity litigation when science and intent collide.

The Dueling Pictures of Clancy’s Mind

The defense built a record that Clancy begged for help and spiraled in the months before the deaths. Reports describe a malpractice suit alleging missed bipolar disorder and chaotic prescribing that worsened her condition. The defense also sought a separate phase for jurors to judge insanity and postpartum psychosis, signaling a full-court press on mental disease or defect. These moves showed a strategy aimed at mitigation, not denial.

Prosecutors countered with their own experts. A forensic psychologist for the state testified he did not believe Clancy was in acute psychosis during the killings. Other witnesses disputed that postpartum psychosis erased criminal responsibility, and one clinician said she had not observed psychosis in sessions. This testimony gave jurors a concrete alternative: intentional, calculated acts, not a break from reality.

Postpartum Psychosis Is Real—and Legally Messy

Medical literature shows postpartum psychosis is rare but dangerous if untreated. Reviews estimate it affects about one in a thousand mothers and carries real risks of suicide and, in a small share of cases, infanticide. The term does not appear as a stand-alone diagnosis in the main psychiatric manual used in the United States, which can confuse juries. Courts still focus on the core insanity questions: did the defendant understand wrongfulness, and could she control her actions.

Lindsay Clancy’s defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, says he will file a motion to bar another trial, after the case ended in a mistrial last week. Reddington tells CBS Mornings that motion is, in part, motivated by the alleged actions of a juror who ignored the judge’s… pic.twitter.com/W1c50xYw4J

— CBS Mornings (@CBSMornings) September 9, 2026

That gap between medical labels and legal standards explains much of this trial. The defense asked jurors to see a medical emergency that crushed agency. The state asked jurors to see planning and awareness. Both sides offered experts. The jury stalemate reflects that tug-of-war. For those guided by common sense and proportional justice, the path forward is clear: let the state case proceed in the proper forum, test the expert claims in full view, and drop the showy asks that cannot be granted.