Legal experts question Lindsay Clancy attorney's Trump pardon appeal
Legal experts are questioning the strategy behind Lindsay Clancy's defense attorney appealing to President Trump for a pardon in the Massachusetts state case, noting the president has no legal authority to pardon state convictions.
Legal experts are dismissing the surprise appeal made by Lindsay Clancy's defense attorney to President Donald Trump for a pardon, calling the request unrealistic and questioning whether the strategy could damage the lawyer's credibility.
Mark Bederow, a New York City-based criminal defense attorney who has been following the case, said there is no legal mechanism that would allow such a pardon. "There isn't going to be a pardon for the simple reason there is no mechanism by law which would allow said pardon," Bederow said.
Clancy, a 36-year-old former labor and delivery nurse, faced three counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of her three young children: 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson and 8-month-old Callan. After their deaths in 2023, she attempted to take her own life and was left paralyzed from her injuries. Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial Friday after jurors deadlocked following a full week of deliberations.
Attorney Kevin Reddington made the appeal during an interview Tuesday on ABC's "Good Morning America," saying Clancy's "life was ruined" after she went to an inexperienced doctor who prescribed medications to treat her postpartum depression. When asked what was next for his client, he addressed the president directly.
"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," Reddington said.
In a separate interview with Massachusetts' WBZ-TV, Reddington acknowledged that Trump has no grounds to issue a pardon on state charges but suggested the president could still 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."
Bederow criticized the public appeal, saying the comments lack credibility and seriousness. "This is a very credible, skilled lawyer, and these comments, I think, lack credibility," he said. "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."
Josh Ritter, a Los Angeles-based attorney and Fox News contributor, suggested the goal could be to gain leverage in potential plea negotiations with the district attorney's office. "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," Ritter said. "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 the trial ended with a deadlocked jury. He has previously said he views his client like a daughter.
Donna Rotunno, a Chicago-based criminal defense attorney and Fox News contributor, cautioned about the relationship between lawyer and client. "I think lawyers have to be careful getting too close to a client," she said. "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."
The trial centered on whether Clancy was criminally responsible for her actions at the time she strangled each of her children with exercise bands in 2023. The defense argued she was not responsible due to postpartum psychosis.
Bederow said that if prosecutors pursue another trial, they would need to thoroughly discredit the defense expert testimony. "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," he said. "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."
Reddington did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
