Lindsay Clancy Attorney’s Trump Pardon Plea May Backfire

A surprise plea from Lindsay Clancy’s criminal defense attorney for President Donald Trump to consider a pardon drew swift skepticism Tuesday, with legal analysts calling the request improbable and questioning the thinking behind it.

“There isn’t going to be a pardon for the simple reason there is no mechanism by law which would allow said pardon,” said Mark Bederow, a New York City criminal defense attorney who has been closely following the case.

Clancy, 36, a former nurse, was charged with three counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of her children: 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson and 8-month-old Callan. After the children died, she tried to take her own life and was left paralyzed from her injuries. On Friday, Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial after jurors remained deadlocked following a full week of deliberations.

“This is a very credible, skilled lawyer, and these comments, I think, lack credibility,” Bederow told News Outlet. “In some level, they lack seriousness because we know it, it’s not going to happen — so I don’t see the advantage of giving an interview where the only thing people are talking about is Lindsay Clancy’s attorney is seeking a pardon or intervention from the president of the United States in the Massachusetts state case.”

Clancy’s attorney, Kevin Reddington, made the appeal during an interview Tuesday on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” saying his client’s “life was ruined” after she sought help from an inexperienced doctor who prescribed medication for postpartum depression. Asked what comes next for Clancy, Reddington turned his message directly to the president.

“I’d like to say that perhaps Donald Trump, who felt compelled to speak out about this case, may very well — Mr. President, I would hope that you would consider this young lady the type of the person she is, what she’s been through, and consider a pardon,” he said.

In a separate interview with Massachusetts’ WBZ-TV, Reddington said that while he understands Trump has no grounds to issue a pardon on state charges, he felt that the president could potentially influence the case.

“He certainly has an awful lot of clout, and I’m sure that were he hypothetically to reach out to [Plymouth County District Attorney] Tim Cruz, they’re both Republicans, I don’t know, maybe that would be something that Tim would listen to and consider,” he said. “I think any type of help that we can get is helpful.”

The goal could be to gain leverage in potential plea negotiations with Cruz’s office, said Josh Ritter, a Los Angeles-based attorney and Fox News contributor.

“I think he knows that this will publicly agitate this entire case and perhaps be beneficial to him in plea negotiations with the district attorney,” he told News Outlet. “I think he even feels that it benefits him even if Trump doesn’t entertain it — it creates more kind of political pressure for people in the state of Massachusetts who don’t support Trump.”

Reddington, who has been praised by legal analysts for his work on the case, also told GMA he would be open to discussing a potential deal with prosecutors after Clancy’s trial over the deaths of her three young children ended with a deadlocked jury Friday.

He has also said he views his client, a former labor and delivery nurse, like a daughter.

“I think lawyers have to be careful getting too close to a client,” said Donna Rotunno, a Chicago-based criminal defense attorney and Fox News contributor. “It is very clear and admirable in some ways how invested Reddington is in Lindsay Clancy, however, if it starts to affect your professional judgment, it’s time to reevaluate.”

Reddington did not immediately respond to requests from News Outlet for comment.

The trial centered on whether Clancy was criminally responsible for her actions at the time she strangled each of them with exercise bands in 2023, and the defense argued she wasn’t due to postpartum psychosis.

“I would hope that if the prosecution is going to try this again, they would find better experts with the proper expertise and who are willing, assuming there’s a basis to do so, [to] take the defense expert’s testimony and report and explain in English why it lacks any credibility whatsoever,” Bederow told News Outlet. “Because if they go forward, they can’t win unless the defense expert is entirely and thoroughly discredited, given the way the Massachusetts law puts the burden of proof on the prosecution.”