President Trump urged Massachusetts prosecutors and Lindsay Clancy's defense team to negotiate a deal rather than retry the mother who strangled her three children, while correctly noting he has no power to pardon her on state charges.

Trump told reporters Monday that the Clancy case was "a very sad situation" with "no winner," days after defense attorney Kevin Reddington launched a public campaign asking the president to intervene in a case that falls entirely outside federal jurisdiction. The comments came after a five-and-a-half-week trial at Plymouth Superior Court ended in a mistrial on September 4, when a single holdout juror prevented a unanimous verdict after more than 37 hours of deliberation.

Eleven of the twelve jurors, nine women and three men, voted to acquit Clancy, 36, by reason of insanity. One refused. Judge William Sullivan declared the mistrial that afternoon, and the question of what comes next has consumed the case ever since.

Reddington's pardon gambit targets a Republican DA, not the White House

Reddington, Clancy's lead attorney, went on Good Morning America on September 8 to make a direct appeal to Trump. His words were carefully chosen, and his real target may not have been the Oval Office at all.

Just The News reported that Reddington made the public appeal despite knowing full well that a presidential pardon cannot reach state criminal charges. Days later, he appeared on CBS Boston and made the underlying strategy more explicit:

"If President Trump feels that this is a case that warrants that type of intervention from the executive branch, if you will, even though, legally, it's not a federal case, he certainly has an awful lot of clout."

As National Review noted, Reddington's actual aim was to use Trump's political influence to pressure Plymouth County District Attorney Tim Cruz, a fellow Republican, into declining a retrial. Reddington said as much openly: "I'm sure that, were he hypothetically to reach out to Tim Cruz, you know, they're both Republicans, and I don't know, maybe that will be something that Tim would listen to and consider."

That is not a pardon request. It is a pressure campaign dressed up as one, run through morning television.

Trump acknowledged the limits of his office, and still nudged toward a deal

Trump's Monday remarks showed he understood the jurisdictional line. He told reporters the case involved state charges and that any resolution belonged to the parties involved. But he also made clear he saw little point in a second trial.

"I hope they can work something out. That's something they have to work out."

He called Reddington "a very good attorney" and described the broader situation in blunt terms:

"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."

That framing, mental institution or jail, but a price either way, suggests Trump sees the case as one where accountability is not in question, only the form it takes. He did not promise to intervene, did not call Cruz, and did not signal any intent to act. He simply said what a lot of people watching the case already think: another trial may not be worth the cost.

Eleven jurors saw insanity, one refused to apply his own doubt

The mistrial itself was remarkable. After more than 37 hours of deliberation across nearly a week, the jury split 11, 1 in favor of acquittal by reason of insanity. Notes from the jury forewoman claimed the lone holdout admitted he had reasonable doubt about Clancy's mental competency but refused to apply that doubt to his vote.

Reddington sought an emergency order to force the jurors back for one final round of deliberations. It failed. Judge Sullivan declared the mistrial, and the case landed in limbo.

The facts of the underlying crime are not in dispute. In January 2023, Lindsay Clancy strangled her three children, Cora, 5; Dawson, 3; and Callan, 18 months, with exercise bands at the family's home in Duxbury, Massachusetts, a small town about 35 miles south of Boston. She admitted to the killings during the trial. After strangling the children, she attempted suicide by jumping from an upstairs window. She survived but was left paralyzed and permanently confined to a wheelchair.

The defense argued Clancy was not legally responsible for her actions. Her attorneys said she had been overmedicated while suffering from postpartum depression and that the cocktail of drugs she was prescribed brought on psychosis. Eleven jurors found that argument persuasive. The twelfth did not, or would not act on it.

Governor Healey holds the pardon power and won't say a word

The person who actually has the authority to pardon Lindsay Clancy is Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey. She has refused to say whether she would consider it. That silence is its own kind of answer.

Healey, a Democrat, faces no political upside in pardoning a woman convicted, or even accused, of killing three children, regardless of the psychiatric evidence. Reddington's decision to bypass the governor entirely and appeal to a Republican president who lacks the legal authority tells you everything about where he thinks the political leverage sits.

As we previously reported, Reddington's pardon request was legally impossible from the start. Federal pardons do not reach state charges. Every lawyer involved knows this. The appeal was never about the law. It was about the cameras.

Reddington has also signaled openness to a negotiated resolution with DA Cruz, whom he says he has known for 30 years. After the mistrial, he said he hoped Cruz would "revisit that issue and we could work something out that will be acceptable for both sides." Whether Cruz, who rarely agrees to plea deals, will entertain that offer remains an open question. Cruz has not responded publicly.

A retrial nobody wants but nobody can avoid

The case now sits in a difficult position. A retrial means re-presenting weeks of psychiatric testimony, crime-scene evidence, and the wrenching details of three children's deaths to a new jury, with no guarantee the result will be different. The first jury came within a single vote of acquittal. A second jury could split the same way.

Trump framed the dilemma plainly: "There is no winner there. There's no win no matter what you do. Three children are dead." He is right about that much. The children, Cora, Dawson, and Callan, are gone. Their father, Patrick Clancy, has lost his family. Lindsay Clancy will spend the rest of her life in a wheelchair regardless of the verdict.

The question is whether a second trial serves justice or merely repeats the first one's failure. DA Cruz has the authority to offer a plea. Governor Healey has the authority to pardon. Trump has neither, and said so. Reddington's media tour was designed to create political pressure where legal options had run out.

When a defense attorney's best strategy is to go on morning television and beg a president who cannot legally help, the case has moved past the courtroom and into something else entirely. The law still has to catch up.