In a stunning turn of events, the lawyer representing Lindsay Clancy has made a direct appeal to President Trump for a pardon—despite the fact that the case involves only state charges, which fall entirely outside presidential authority.
Kevin Reddington, the veteran defense attorney known for his outspoken style, appeared on “Good Morning America” Tuesday and urged the president to consider Clancy’s background and suffering. “Mr. President, I would hope that you would consider this young lady – the type of person she is and what she’s been through – and consider a pardon,” Reddington said.
The request comes just days after Clancy’s high-profile murder trial ended in a mistrial, with the jury deadlocked 11-1. Reddington did not explain how Trump could legally intervene, given that presidents cannot pardon state crimes. He also did not clarify whether he hoped such an unprecedented move would prevent a second trial or spare Clancy if she were convicted.
Reddington noted that Trump had previously spoken about the case, calling it “a horrible tragedy” and saying Clancy would “pay the price” for killing her three children—Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and baby Callan, 8 months. “Look, she did a horrible, horrible thing. Can’t be worse.
But you’ll find out what the price to pay is,” Trump told reporters last week.
During the interview, Reddington described Clancy as “a wonderful, wonderful person” and “a wonderful neighbor, friend, wife, mother,” adding that he feels “a very strong bond” with her. He also addressed his earlier comment about “crushing” the district attorney, admitting he could have been more “circumspect” but insisting he didn’t regret the bravado.
When asked about the lone holdout juror, Reddington defended the juror’s right to dissent but expressed frustration over a note from the jury forelady suggesting the holdout “had doubt but would not apply reasonable doubt” to his vote. “That’s not right, and that’s why I was upset,” Reddington said.
As the legal world watches closely, one question remains: could a presidential pardon ever play a role in a state case like this—or is this just the beginning of a much longer legal battle?
