Reddington lowered his head before delivering his direct message to the president.
‘I’d like to say that perhaps Donald Trump, who felt compelled to speak out about this case.
‘Mr President, I hope that you would consider this young lady, the type of person she is, what she’s been through, and consider a pardon.’
The appeal represents a remarkable development in a case that has drawn national attention since Clancy was accused of killing her three young children inside the family’s Duxbury, Massachusetts, home in January 2023.
Trump had addressed the case publicly on Friday as jurors appeared unable to reach an agreement. His comments came shortly before Plymouth Superior Court Judge William Sullivan formally declared a mistrial.
‘It’s a shame. It’s a horrible tragedy. I see what’s happened and it looks like it’s a hung jury.
‘I think the judge has said it’s going to be a mistrial, so there’s going to be another trial. It’s a terrible situation. Look, she did a horrible, horrible thing.
‘Can’t be worse. But you’ll find out what the price to pay is. There’ll be a price. It’s going to be mental institution or jail or something, but I guess they’re going to go through another trial.’
Trump’s remarks apparently prompted Reddington to make his public appeal, although there is a significant constitutional problem with the request.
Clancy is being prosecuted under Massachusetts state law. The president’s pardon authority applies to federal offenses, meaning Trump cannot simply erase the state murder charges currently pending against her.
Any pardon or comparable form of clemency would therefore have to come through Massachusetts rather than the White House.
Still, Reddington used his television appearance to make an emotional defense of his client. He described Clancy as an intelligent and hardworking woman and emphasized the relationship that developed between attorney and client during the lengthy proceedings.
‘I do feel a very strong bond with Lindsay because of the type of person she is. She’s such a wonderful, wonderful person.’
The attorney was also questioned about his aggressive comments after the trial collapsed into a deadlock.
Following the mistrial, Reddington declared that he had “crushed” the prosecution. Stephanopoulos pressed him on whether he wished he had chosen different words.
Reddington did not back away from the substance of his statement, although he acknowledged that his wording could have been more measured.
‘I don’t regret saying it at all. I think that the defense was very strong and I think it went in very well.
‘I think I perhaps could have been a little more circumspect dealing with prosecutor, Tim Cruz, and instead of saying I crushed him, I could I have said I did a good job.’
Despite the courtroom confrontation, Reddington indicated that he remains open to reaching an agreement with Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz instead of forcing Clancy through another lengthy trial.
The attorney said he has known Cruz for approximately three decades and suggested that the two sides could potentially find a resolution.
‘I’m willing to listen to Tim Cruz. I’ve known Tim for 30 years. I hope, however, after this trial, that he would revisit that issue and we could work something out that will be acceptable for both sides,’ he added.
Reddington also offered his interpretation of what happened inside the jury room. According to the defense attorney, 11 jurors supported finding Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity, while a single juror prevented the panel from reaching a unanimous decision.
That claim, however, came from Clancy’s attorney and was not a verdict. The jury ultimately failed to reach the unanimous agreement required to resolve the charges.
Clancy, 36, has acknowledged that she strangled her three children—5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson and 8-month-old Callan—with exercise bands. She has pleaded not guilty to murder.
Her defense centered on an insanity argument, with Reddington maintaining that she was experiencing postpartum psychosis and was not legally responsible for the killings.
Prosecutors strongly disputed that explanation. The Commonwealth argued that Clancy understood her actions and deliberately carried out the killings.
The case took another tragic turn immediately afterward. Clancy attempted suicide by jumping from a second-story window. She survived the fall but suffered severe injuries that left her paralyzed and dependent on a wheelchair.
The jury spent more than 37 hours deliberating after hearing more than five weeks of testimony and evidence. Their inability to reach a verdict ultimately brought the proceedings to a halt.
Judge Sullivan declared a mistrial Friday after efforts to continue deliberations failed. The defense had also challenged the conduct of the juror who reportedly remained opposed to the position favored by the other members of the panel.
For now, Clancy remains charged.
Prosecutors have not announced whether they will seek a new trial, pursue a negotiated resolution or take another legal path.
Reddington’s direct appeal to Trump adds another unexpected chapter to a case already filled with dramatic courtroom developments. But regardless of Trump’s personal views on the matter, the president does not possess the constitutional authority to pardon someone for charges brought under Massachusetts state law.
If Clancy is to receive legal relief from the state charges, that relief would have to come through Massachusetts’ own judicial or executive system.
The next decision by prosecutors could therefore determine whether this highly publicized case returns to court—or whether the two sides ultimately find a way to resolve it without another trial.
