Lawyer Asks Trump for Pardon He Can’t Grant

A defense lawyer asked President Trump to pardon a Massachusetts defendant even though presidential pardons do not cover state crimes.

Story Snapshot

Lindsay Clancy’s attorney publicly asked President Trump for a pardon after a mistrial.
The judge declared a mistrial when jurors could not agree on a verdict.
Presidential pardons apply only to federal offenses, not state cases like this one.
A mistrial is not an acquittal; prosecutors can often try the case again.

What Prompted the Pardon Appeal

Defense attorney Kevin Reddington asked President Trump on national television to consider a pardon for Lindsay Clancy after her murder trial ended in a mistrial. He made the appeal during an interview on Good Morning America and referenced her hardships. The request followed days of coverage about the hung jury and next legal steps. The public nature of the ask drew attention because it came right after the deadlock and because it aimed at the White House.

The judge declared a mistrial when jurors said they could not reach a unanimous verdict. The transcript records the court finding the jury deadlocked and ending the trial without a verdict. A mistrial does not decide guilt or innocence. The charges still exist, and the state can often retry the case. That legal posture explains why both sides began talking about next steps right after the ruling.

Why a Presidential Pardon Does Not Fit This Case

Presidential clemency covers “offenses against the United States,” which means federal crimes. The Department of Justice says the President’s authority is limited to federal offenses and cases prosecuted in the name of the United States in the District of Columbia. An offense that breaks state law is not covered. Because the Clancy matter is a Massachusetts state prosecution, a presidential pardon would not reach it.

Legal guides from Congress and major legal groups agree on this limit. Analyses explain that federalism places federal and state pardons in different hands. Presidents cannot pardon state crimes, and governors cannot pardon federal crimes. This structure protects state courts from federal intrusion and keeps federal courts separate from state prerogatives. That is why, in state cases, clemency runs through the governor or a state board, not the Oval Office.

What a Mistrial Means for Next Steps

A mistrial often restarts the clock rather than stopping a case for good. The law treats the trial as if it did not produce a result. Prosecutors can often try the case again, seek a plea deal, or narrow the charges. Defense teams may press for dismissal or a favorable agreement. The outcome depends on evidence, witness readiness, and strategy. The public may feel whiplash, but a hung jury is a pause, not an end.

Governor Maura Healey declined to say whether she would pardon Lindsay Clancy after the Duxbury mother's attorney made a public appeal to President Trump to pardon his client. https://t.co/lBdwzszfUG

— The Boston Globe (@BostonGlobe) September 8, 2026

For families and communities, the limbo can feel like more failure by institutions. People on the right see a system that drags on without clear results. People on the left see a system that struggles to weigh mental health and justice at the same time. Both sides see officials talking past each other while cases stall. Clear rules exist, yet public appeals that ignore them add noise and raise hopes that law cannot meet.

The Broader Signal in a High-Profile Ask

Public pleas for federal pardons in state cases are rare but not new. They often function as pressure campaigns aimed at shaping opinion or nudging local actors. The law is settled, but the microphone is powerful. When lawyers bypass the proper channel, which is the governor or a state clemency board, they may win attention but not relief. The split between spectacle and statute feeds the sense that process bows to politics.