Lindsay Clancy’s Lawyer Asks Trump to Consider Pardoning His Client in Stunning ‘GMA’ Plea
By Chris Nesi
Lindsay Clancy’s outspoken lawyer, Kevin Reddington, directly appealed to President Trump early Tuesday to pardon the killer mom.
“Mr. President, I would hope that you would consider this young lady – the type of person she is and what she’s been through – and consider a pardon,” he told “Good Morning America” when asked what was next for Clancy after her high-profile case ended in a mistrial Friday.
The veteran 75-year-old lawyer made no mention of how he expected Trump to get involved, given that Clancy is only facing state charges, which presidents have no power to pardon. He also did not say if he hoped such unprecedented intervention would stop a second trial or save the killer if she were convicted.
Reddington only said that he hoped Trump would weigh in given that he had “felt compelled to speak out about this case,” without noting how he’s said the mom would have to “pay the price” for killing her three children: Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and baby Callan, 8 months.
“It’s a horrible tragedy,” Trump had told reporters last week.
“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,” Trump stated.
Reddington’s stunning request came at the end of the brief sit-down interview in which he gushed about his divisive client for being “a wonderful, wonderful person.”
“Just a wonderful neighbor, friend, wife, mother,” he said “I do feel a very strong bond with Lindsay.”
Reddington said he wished he had been more “circumspect” before saying his case “crushed” District Attorney Tim Cruz, but said he did not regret his braggadocious word choice.
“That’s just bravado,” he said with a smile, blaming it on the “emotions” of finishing a “six-, seven-week trial.”
“I don’t regret saying it at all,” he insisted, while conceding he “perhaps could have been a little more circumspect” and just said he “did a good job” with his defense.
He also tried to defend himself from the outrage he sparked by so aggressively blaming a juror for not sideing with the others, leading to the mistrial with a 11-1 split.
“I would defend that individual’s right to be a holdout for forever, that’s part of our judicial system. I respect that and I would certainly defend his right to do that,” he said.
His frustration with the lone holdout – who he said he didn’t think was living out a “12 Angry Men” scenario – was because of a note from the jury forelady that said he “had doubt but would not apply reasonable doubt” to his vote on the verdict.
“That’s not right, and that’s why I was upset,” he said.
Original Here
|
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐