The Lindsay Clancy trial is over.

But the Lindsay Clancy case is not.

After weeks of testimony and roughly 40 hours of jury deliberations, the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict. Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial, leaving the Massachusetts mother accused of killing her three children without either a conviction or an acquittal.

Now the question everyone is asking is simple:

What happens next?

And Clancy’s attorney, Kevin Reddington, has already made his position clear.

He wants to fight the possibility of another trial.

He says he is considering a legal challenge based on double jeopardy.

He has indicated that he is open to negotiating with prosecutors.

And in a recent interview, he went even further:

He hopes President Donald Trump will pardon Lindsay Clancy.

There’s just one enormous problem.

President Trump cannot pardon Lindsay Clancy’s Massachusetts state charges.

And that distinction matters.

THE TRUMP PARDON SOUNDS POWERFUL—BUT IT ISN’T LEGALLY AVAILABLE

The President’s pardon power is substantial.

But it isn’t unlimited.

Article II of the Constitution gives the President the power to grant pardons for offenses against the United States.

That means federal crimes.

It does not give the President authority to erase criminal charges brought by individual states.

The Department of Justice’s Office of the Pardon Attorney makes the point directly:

The President cannot pardon a state criminal offense.

And that’s exactly what we’re dealing with in the Clancy case.

Her prosecution is taking place in Massachusetts state court.

Not federal court.

Therefore, even if President Trump wanted to help Clancy, he could not simply sign a pardon and make the Massachusetts charges disappear.

SO WHY DID HER ATTORNEY ASK TRUMP?

This is where things get more interesting.

Reddington presumably knows the President does not possess the legal authority to pardon a Massachusetts criminal prosecution.

So why make the request?

Because a presidential pardon isn’t the only way a president can influence public discussion.

Reddington has suggested that Trump could potentially use his influence to encourage a favorable resolution.

Reports indicate Reddington has also expressed openness to negotiating with Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz.

That is fundamentally different from a pardon.

The President cannot order a Massachusetts prosecutor to drop the case.

But a high-profile presidential statement can generate enormous public attention.

And Trump has already commented publicly on Clancy’s case.

That makes Reddington’s appeal politically interesting—even if it isn’t legally capable of producing a federal pardon.

WHAT CAN ACTUALLY HAPPEN?

There are several possibilities.

And at this point, none has been finalized.

1. THE PROSECUTION RETRIES HER

This is probably the most straightforward possibility.

A mistrial caused by a genuinely deadlocked jury generally does not prevent the government from trying the case again.

The first trial ended without a verdict.

That means prosecutors can potentially bring Clancy before another jury.

Reuters reported that prosecutors have not yet made a final decision about a retrial.

And Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz has indicated that the case remains about pursuing justice for the children.

A second trial could therefore be coming.

But it wouldn’t necessarily look exactly like the first.

Both sides now know how the first trial played out.

They know which testimony resonated.

They know where jurors struggled.

They know what arguments created controversy.

And they know that the first jury reportedly ended up 11–1.

2. THE DEFENSE FIGHTS THE MISTRIAL ITSELF

This could be the next major legal battle.

Reddington says he intends to ask the judge to prevent a retrial based on double jeopardy principles.

That’s a significant move.

The Fifth Amendment generally protects defendants from being tried twice for the same offense after jeopardy has attached.

But there are important exceptions.

A mistrial caused by a deadlocked jury is one of them.

The legal question therefore becomes whether the circumstances surrounding this mistrial provided the necessary justification for ending the first trial without a verdict.

Reddington argues that there was not sufficient “manifest necessity” for the mistrial and has criticized the way the deadlock was handled.

If the court rejects his argument, prosecutors could proceed toward another trial.

If the defense succeeds, however, the prosecution could potentially be prevented from retrying her.

That may be the first major legal fight after the mistrial.

3. A PLEA DEAL

There’s another possibility that may be much less dramatic than a presidential pardon:

A negotiated resolution.

Reddington has said he is open to talking with prosecutors about a deal.

That doesn’t necessarily mean Clancy would plead guilty to the charges as originally brought.

There are numerous possible forms a negotiated resolution could take.

The parties could potentially negotiate different charges or another disposition.

But because Clancy’s defense is centered on a lack of criminal responsibility due to severe mental illness, the exact structure of any deal could become extraordinarily complicated.

And there is another problem:

What does the prosecution believe justice requires?

The prosecution spent weeks arguing that Clancy was criminally responsible for her actions.

A deal perceived as too lenient could generate enormous public backlash.

4. THE PROSECUTION COULD CHOOSE NOT TO RETRY HER

It’s also technically possible that prosecutors could decide not to pursue another trial.

That would bring the criminal prosecution to an end without a conviction.

But that does not appear to be the most obvious outcome at this point.

The prosecution spent years building this case.

More than 80 witnesses testified during the trial.

The victims were three children.

And the case has received extraordinary national attention.

The decision will ultimately come down to prosecutors and their assessment of the evidence, legal issues, resources and interests of justice.

As of now, they have not announced a final decision.

5. THE CASE GOES BACK TO COURT ON SEPTEMBER 29

For now, everyone has to wait.

A status hearing is scheduled for September 29.

That’s when we could learn considerably more about the direction of the case.

The court could address the defense’s legal arguments.

The prosecution could provide more information about its intentions.

And the next phase of the case could begin to take shape.

WHAT ABOUT THE 11–1 JURY?

This may be one of the most important pieces of information prosecutors have to consider.

According to Clancy’s attorney, the jury reportedly split 11–1, with 11 jurors favoring a finding of not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility and one juror refusing to join them.

That doesn’t mean Clancy was acquitted.

She wasn’t.

It doesn’t mean she was found not criminally responsible.

She wasn’t.

But it does tell both sides something.

Eleven jurors apparently couldn’t be convinced that the prosecution had established criminal responsibility beyond the required standard.

That’s significant.

If prosecutors retry the case, they’ll have to consider what happened inside that jury room.

Was the first jury simply unusual?

Was there a problem with the prosecution’s presentation?

Did the defense successfully create reasonable doubt?

Was the jury persuaded by the psychiatric evidence?

Or was the lone holdout simply an outlier?

The prosecution will have to decide.

THE MENTAL-HEALTH QUESTION ISN’T GOING AWAY

Regardless of what happens legally, the Clancy case has already become one of America’s most closely watched cases involving postpartum mental illness.

The defense argued that Clancy experienced severe postpartum psychosis and that her mental state prevented her from understanding the wrongfulness of her actions.

The prosecution presented a fundamentally different interpretation, arguing that she acted deliberately and remained criminally responsible.

The jury couldn’t agree.

And that disagreement is now part of the history of this case.

CLANCY REMAINS IN PSYCHIATRIC CUSTODY

For now, Clancy remains at a state psychiatric hospital.

The mistrial did not mean she simply walked out of the courthouse.

The charges remain pending.

She is still accused of the killings.

And she still has not been acquitted.

Reuters reported that she remains in custody at a state psychiatric hospital while the next steps are determined.

That distinction is extremely important.

Mistrial does not equal innocence.

Mistrial does not equal guilt.

It means the first jury failed to produce the unanimous verdict required to resolve the criminal case.

AND THEN THERE IS PATRICK CLANCY

A retrial wouldn’t only affect Lindsay Clancy.

It would also reopen an extraordinarily painful chapter for her estranged husband, Patrick Clancy.

Patrick testified during the original trial about the family, Lindsay’s mental health and the events surrounding the deaths of their children.

Another trial could mean revisiting those events all over again.

And that’s one of the realities prosecutors must weigh.

A retrial isn’t merely another legal exercise.

It means witnesses return.

Evidence is presented again.

Families relive the tragedy.

And the public watches.

WHAT ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP?

So let’s return to the headline-grabbing part of this story.

Could Trump pardon Lindsay Clancy?

No.

Not under the federal presidential pardon power.

The Department of Justice specifically states that the President cannot pardon a state criminal offense.

Could Trump influence the public conversation surrounding the case?

Absolutely.

A statement from the President would receive enormous attention.

Could Trump order Massachusetts prosecutors to drop the case?

No.

The Massachusetts prosecution is a state matter.

Could Massachusetts provide its own form of clemency?

Potentially, but that would involve Massachusetts’ own legal and constitutional mechanisms—not the President of the United States.

So when Reddington asks Trump for a pardon, the request should be understood largely as a political and public appeal, not as a legally available solution under the federal pardon power.

THERE’S ALSO A BIGGER CONSTITUTIONAL LESSON HERE

The Clancy case provides a useful reminder about America’s federal system.

We often talk about “the President” as if the President controls the entire American justice system.

He doesn’t.

The United States has federal courts.

States have their own courts.

Federal prosecutors prosecute federal crimes.

State prosecutors prosecute state crimes.

And the President’s clemency authority is tied to offenses against the United States.

That separation exists for a reason.

If a president could simply pardon people convicted under state law, the federal government would possess an extraordinary power over state criminal justice systems.

The Constitution doesn’t give the President that authority.

THE NEXT BATTLE MAY NOT BE A JURY BATTLE

Ironically, the next major development in the Clancy case may happen before another jury is ever selected.

It could happen in a courtroom involving lawyers arguing over whether there can be another trial at all.

Reddington wants the mistrial challenged.

Prosecutors must decide whether they want to retry the case.

The judge will eventually have to address the legal questions.

And then there is the possibility of negotiation.

Only after those issues are resolved will we know whether another jury will ever hear this case.

THREE YEARS LATER, THERE STILL ISN’T A FINAL ANSWER

This case began in January 2023.

More than three years later, we still don’t have a final criminal verdict.

That’s remarkable.

Three children are dead.

Their mother acknowledges that she killed them.

But the central legal question—whether Lindsay Clancy was criminally responsible for those killings—remains unresolved.

One jury couldn’t answer it unanimously.

Now the legal system has to determine what happens next.

THE CURRENT NEWS BOTTOM LINE

Lindsay Clancy’s first trial is over.

Her case isn’t.

The jury deadlocked.

The judge declared a mistrial.

The defense says it will challenge the possibility of a retrial.

The prosecution has not yet announced whether it will try her again.

A September 29 hearing is scheduled.

And her attorney, Kevin Reddington, has publicly appealed to President Donald Trump for a pardon.

But there’s an important legal reality behind that dramatic request:

President Trump cannot pardon Lindsay Clancy’s Massachusetts state charges.

The federal pardon power applies to federal offenses—not state criminal prosecutions.

So if Clancy’s case is going to end, the answer is much more likely to come from a Massachusetts courtroom than the White House.

The next chapter could involve:

A double-jeopardy fight.

A retrial.

A plea agreement.

Or prosecutors deciding not to proceed.

For now, there is no final answer.

There is no conviction.

There is no acquittal.

There is no presidential pardon waiting around the corner.

There is simply a case that remains unresolved—and a September 29 hearing that could tell us where it goes from here.

The Lindsay Clancy story isn’t over.

The first trial ended without a verdict.

Now the next legal battle begins.