Column By Mike Bibb
Just when you thought the Lindsay Clancy murder trial in Plymouth, Massachusetts, couldn’t get any wackier, now Lindsay’s attorney, Kevin Reddington, has suggested President Trump could pardon her.
Is this some kind of media stunt, or wishful thinking?
Let me reiterate, I’m not an attorney, but I’m reasonably certain the President of the United States does not have pardoning authority over state crimes or state-convicted criminals.
I’d imagine that would be the responsibility of Massachusetts state officials and the governor.
Nor can I understand why Kevin Reddington would go on national TV and bring up the possibility of Trump pardoning a triple murderer. Especially since Lindsey hasn’t officially been convicted and sentenced for the strangulation killing of her three young children.
Sounds more like Kevin is offering a preposterous suggestion, or a delusional recommendation, to a problem that is none of Trump’s concern.
Trump has enough on his plate without an additional helping of state-served Sloppy Joes as an appetizer.
Lindsay’s recent trial resulted in a “mistrial” on Sept. 4, 2026 — the jury couldn’t reach a unanimous decision.
Following the conclusion of the trial last week, Reddington lambasted a sole juror for failing to vote for Lindsay’s acquittal on the basis of her being temporarily insane.
Apparently, the juror was not of that opinion, and the vote was stuck at 11 in favor, to 1 against.
Then, a few days later, Reddington goes on ABC’s Good Morning America show and remarks, “Mr. President, I would hope that you would consider this young lady and the person she is, what she’s been through, and consider a pardon.”
It takes a 12-0 jury vote to reach a verdict for a person accused of murder. The jury had the option of deciding if Lindsay was guilty of Murder in the 1st Degree, Murder in the 2nd Degree, Manslaughter, Innocent by reason of Temporary Insanity, or an outright Acquittal.
After three separate jury votes, spanning over six days without a unanimous decision, the judge declared a mistrial and dismissed the jury.
Lindsay returned to the hospital, which is where she’s been since being arrested a few years ago. Her failure to commit suicide resulted in her being paralyzed after jumping from her second-story home window.
Presently, she is wheelchair bound.
I understand some lawyers are creative in preparing a case for trial, or retrial, and various unique tactics and strategies may be tried, but I also realize lawyers go through extensive schooling and training in state and federal laws and rules of procedure.
Then, to be licensed, they must successfully pass an attorney’s test, commonly referred to as the “Bar Examination.”
This is one of the reasons why I find Mr. Reddington’s plea to President Trump to be odd — he surely must be aware Trump is a federal employee, dealing in federal matters, while Reddington’s case is a state matter.
To my knowledge, there are no federal violations cited.
On Friday, Sept. 4, 2026, after the case was announced to be a mistrial, Trump commented, “Look, she did a horrible, horrible thing. Can’t be worse. But you’ll find out what the price to pay is.
“There’ll be a price. It’s going to be a mental institution or jail or something, but I guess they’re going to go through another trial. It’s too bad.”
An indication, it seems, that Trump realizes he can’t intervene or pardon a person for a state crime.
Particularly, one as serious as premeditated, multiple child murder.
All of which brings me back to my aforementioned opinion — Reddington knows Trump cannot use his office as a tool to excuse a person of an obviously violent and deadly state crime. That would probably be some kind of lawyer blooper if he officially requested it.
Instead, on nationwide TV, he merely asked Trump to “consider a pardon” for Lindsay. As if Trump really has the authority to grant it if he wanted to.
Many in the listening audience, and maybe members of The View, would believe Trump could do it, therefore shifting responsibility from Reddington and the state court to the President.
And when he refuses, they could always blame him for Lindsay’s predicament.
An awkward ruse, but I guess Kevin thinks it’s worth a try!
The opinions expressed in this editorial are those of the author.
