Staff Reports
The television plea was theatrical, predictable and legally empty. After a judge declared a mistrial in the high‑profile case of Lindsay Clancy, her lawyer, Kevin Reddington, took to national TV and asked President Donald Trump to “consider” a pardon. The move made headlines — but it won’t change the law in Massachusetts.
Reddington’s On‑Air Plea to President Trump
Kevin Reddington went on Good Morning America and plainly asked President Donald Trump to “consider” a pardon for Lindsay Clancy. He did not hide the purpose: he hoped the president’s voice might prompt Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy J. Cruz to rethink the case. That’s politics, not law. Reddington himself acknowledged the obvious constitutional limit — a president cannot pardon state crimes — and framed the request as a bid for influence. If you want attention, this works. If you want justice or legal finality, it does not.
Why a Presidential Pardon Can’t Stop a State Case
Let’s state the constitutional fact plainly: the president can only pardon federal offenses. This is not a technicality. Massachusetts prosecutes this case. Only the state’s legal machinery — the DA’s office or the governor and state clemency processes — can dispose of those charges. Asking the president for relief in a state murder case is like asking a plumber to rewire your house. It makes good television, but it doesn’t fix the problem.
Political Theater, Not Legal Strategy
The Reddington plea is political theater dressed up as strategy. If the goal is to shape public opinion or draw pressure on local officials, sure, mission accomplished. But if the goal is to resolve the fate of three dead children, the better course is sober legal work and honest debate about mental‑health defenses. The trial brought competing psychiatric testimony about postpartum psychosis into the open. That’s important. It’s also not a clean excuse to enlist national political power to sway a local prosecutor.
What Should Happen Next
Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy J. Cruz must weigh whether to retry, reduce charges, or pursue a different disposition. That decision should rest on evidence, law and public interest — not on cable‑TV pressure campaigns. The Clancy case also demands a real conversation about mental health, criminal responsibility and support for families at risk. If politicians or lawyers want to help, they should push for better mental‑health services and clearer legal standards — not for headline‑grabbing appeals that confuse law with politics. And to President Donald Trump: a show of mercy demands clarity and competence, not sound bites.
