Mistrial Chaos: Lawyer Runs To Trump

A defense lawyer asked President Trump to pardon a Massachusetts defendant in a state murder case, even though presidential pardons do not cover state charges.

Story Snapshot

Kevin Reddington asked President Trump on national TV to pardon Lindsay Clancy after a mistrial.
A judge declared a mistrial when jurors could not reach a unanimous verdict.
Presidential pardons apply only to federal crimes, not state prosecutions.
The case spotlights confusion about mistrials and growing public pressure on legal decisions.

Defense Appeal to President Trump After Mistrial

Attorney Kevin Reddington made a direct public plea to President Trump to pardon Lindsay Clancy. He delivered the request during a Good Morning America interview after the court declared a mistrial. He asked the President to consider Clancy’s hardships and to “consider a pardon.” News clips and write-ups captured the appeal and noted its timing soon after the deadlocked jury. The defense also signaled interest in talks with local prosecutors about next steps in the case.

The trial concerned the deaths of Clancy’s three children and drew national coverage for weeks. The judge declared a mistrial when jurors reported they were hopelessly deadlocked. A mistrial means the proceeding did not reach a binding verdict. The charges remain, and the state can try the case again. A mistrial is not a finding of guilt or innocence. It simply ends that jury’s work without a verdict, leaving options open for both sides.

Legal Limits on Presidential Pardons in State Cases

Constitutional and legal guidance limit presidential pardons to “offenses against the United States,” which means federal crimes. That power does not reach state prosecutions, like a Massachusetts murder case. The American Bar Association, Supreme Court commentary, and the Justice Department’s Office of the Pardon Attorney all describe this boundary in clear terms. People who face state charges must seek relief from state authorities, such as a governor or a state clemency board.

This boundary explains why national clemency appeals in state cases often serve a symbolic role. They can apply public pressure or signal broader concerns but do not change the state court docket. Requests to the President may energize supporters, raise money, or shape media narratives. They do not halt a state retrial or dismiss state charges. Only state prosecutors and state judges can decide how a case like this proceeds in Massachusetts courts.

Why the Appeal Resonates Beyond One Case

This plea tapped into wider anger about the justice system and mental health. Many Americans doubt that powerful institutions listen to them. Some see a system too harsh and slow to admit mistakes. Others see a system too lenient and blind to victims. High-profile mistrials inflame both views. They foster the belief that outcomes depend more on spin and status than on facts and law, which deepens distrust on the left and the right.

Lawyer asks Trump to pardon Lindsay Clancy after deadlocked jury

Lindsay Clancy’s attorney, Kevin Reddington, has appealed to President Donald Trump to consider a pardon for his client following a mistrial in her murder trial last week.

ABC News reports that Reddington made the… pic.twitter.com/2fg44tnFLQ

— Rifnote (@viarifnote) September 8, 2026

Public confusion also grows when legal terms get blurred. A mistrial can sound like a win or a loss, but it is neither. It resets the case. The state may retry it. The defense may seek a deal. The judge may address disputed issues before a new jury hears it. Clear rules still exist, even when emotions run high. Understanding those rules helps citizens judge the next steps without losing sight of due process.

What Happens Next in Massachusetts

State prosecutors now decide whether to retry Clancy, seek a plea, or drop the case. The defense may press for reduced charges or raise mental health claims again. Any presidential action would not change the state court path. If the case returns to trial, a new jury will hear the evidence under the judge’s rulings. If the parties reach an agreement, the court will review it. These are state decisions under state law, not federal ones.