Lindsay Clancy's Lawyer Asks For a Pardon During Interview

Kevin Reddington was on Good Morning America and made a stunning appeal. He asked Donald Trump to pardon Lindsay Clancy, his client whose trial ended in a mistrial on September 4, 2026.

The request was shocking for a couple of reasons. First, the jury was deadlocked, but most seemed to be in favor of not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility. If the numbers that have been reported are accurate, it was 11 to 1.

His strategy was a winning one; why change course now?

First, it needs to be said that a pardon for Clancy is very unlikely. She was not brought up on federal charges, a must for the president to be able to issue one. A seasoned attorney like Reddington would know this. Was this perhaps a way to stay in the headlines? Doubtful. This is a man who knows his way around the courtroom and the media circus that envelops most of his cases.

Second, Clancy was not convicted of a crime. Her trial ended with a hung jury. The second most important ingredient for a pardon is the defendant being found guilty of the crime of which they are accused. Again, a first-year law student would know this, so someone of Reddington's stature certainly knows it.

Both of those things make it confounding that Reddington would ask for a pardon for his client. While it is widely accepted that he cares for her and is protective of her, why would he take a legally dubious route that could threaten the legacy of his career?

The answer is relatively obvious and laid out in the same interview in which the headline came from.

In the same interview, Reddington said that he is hoping that prosecutors will sit down and negotiate a plea deal with him before a second trial takes place.

Before the first trial went forward, Reddington also hoped to broker a deal for his client. At that time, the Commonwealth did not seem interested. Many believe they saw this case as a slam dunk conviction and decided to go for the glory rather than justice for the three young victims at the heart of the case.

Clancy killed her three children before attempting to take her own life in January 2023. She was charged with the murders less than a day after, while she lay in a coma.

The prosecutors were the only ones who saw Clancy as a monster of epic proportions. Her ex-husband, Patrick Clancy, said that he didn't marry a monster; his former wife just continued to get sicker, and there was no one who could help her. Even the state's own expert witness said that she was in a state of psychosis when the murders happened.

Why not agree to a plea deal?

Watching the actions of the prosecutorial team is eye-opening. A lot of what they did was meant to generate headlines and play on the jurors' emotions, rather than following the law. These lawyers were not interested in doing right by their constituents, Clancy, or the three babies. Rather, it appeared as though they wanted to advance their own careers.

What comes next?

On September 29, 2026, Judge Sullivan will hear arguments for and against issuing a directed verdict in the case. This was one of the outcomes that was described in What Could Happen in The Lindsay Clancy Case?.

It is described as a long shot, something the defense would do, just to add more fuel to their appeal arsenal. Something that is full because of prosecutorial misconduct and bad decisions by the judge.

A directed verdict of not guilty is a rare move by a trial judge, even in a case like Lindsay Clancy's. It would say that the commonwealth did not prove that the defendant committed the crimes in which they are charged beyond reasonable doubt. There is almost no way the judge will grant this.

By Clancy's and Reddington's own statements, she committed the murders. The real question was about her mental health in this case. Judge Sullivan would not have the option to declare her not criminally responsible.

The best bet would be to take the prosecutors' actions, like bringing religious and emotional factors into the case, to a higher court. Judge Sullivan refused to sanction the state for their actions. While he struck much of it from the record, the damage with the jury was already done.

Those appeals might take a while, but they would help inch closer to the results that Reddington wanted. He doesn't want Clancy to get away with murdering her children; rather, he wants her to get the help that she needs.

A plea bargain with the prosecution team would get them one step closer to that.