After Lindsay Clancy's criminal defense attorney made a surprise appeal to President Donald Trump for a pardon Tuesday morning, legal experts dismissed the request as unrealistic while questioning the strategy.
"There isn't going to be a pardon for the simple reason there is no mechanism by law which would allow said pardon," said Mark Bederow, a New York City-based criminal defense attorney who has been following the case.
The 36-year-old former nurse faced three counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson and 8-month-old Callan. After their deaths, she attempted to kill herself and was paralyzed from the injuries. Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial for Clancy Friday after jurors deadlocked following a full week of deliberations.
"This is a very credible, skilled lawyer, and these comments, I think, lack credibility," Bederow told Fox News Digital. "In some level, they lack seriousness because we know it, it's not going to happen — so I don't see the advantage of giving an interview where the only thing people are talking about is Lindsay Clancy's attorney is seeking a pardon or intervention from the president of the United States in the Massachusetts state case."
Clancy attorney Kevin Reddington said Clancy's "life was ruined" after she went to an inexperienced doctor who prescribed medications to treat her postpartum depression in an interview on ABC's "potential deal with prosecutors after Clancy's trial over the deaths of her three young children ended with a deadlocked jury Friday.
He has also said he views his client, a former labor and delivery nurse, like a daughter.
"I think lawyers have to be careful getting too close to a client," said Donna Rotunno, a Chicago-based criminal defense attorney and Fox News contributor. "It is very clear and admirable in some ways how invested Reddington is in Lindsay Clancy, however, if it starts to affect your professional judgment, it’s time to reevaluate."
Reddington did not immediately respond to requests from Fox News Digital for comment.
The trial centered on whether Clancy was criminally responsible for her actions at the time she strangled each of them with exercise bands in 2023, and the defense argued she wasn't due to postpartum psychosis.
"I would hope that if the prosecution is going to try this again, they would find better experts with the proper expertise and who are willing, assuming there's a basis to do so, [to] take the defense expert's testimony and report and explain in English why it lacks any credibility whatsoever," Bederow told Fox News Digital. "Because if they go forward, they can't win unless the defense expert is entirely and thoroughly discredited, given the way the Massachusetts law puts the burden of proof on the prosecution."
Fox News' Adam Sabes contributed to this report.