Lindsay Clancy’s lawyer has publicly urged President Donald Trump to pardon his client.

The Massachusetts mother, 36, was on trial for the January 2023 killings of her three children: Cora, five, Dawson, three, and Callan, eight months.

However, after almost six weeks, over 80 witnesses, and 35 hours of deliberation, the deadlocked jury of nine women and three men could not reach a unanimous decision, and her case was deemed a mistrial on Friday.

Her lawyer Kevin Reddington, who previously told reporters Clancy felt ‘like a daughter’ to him, appeared on Good Morning America on Tuesday to unpack the trial and share his thoughts on the one juror who he said ‘robbed’ them of a not-guilty verdict.

The defence attorney said he hoped that the president would ‘consider a pardon’ for Clancy given ‘the type of person she is’ and ‘what she has been through.’

‘I’d like to say that perhaps Donald Trump, who felt compelled to speak out on this case. Mr. President, I would hope that you would consider this young lady,’ Reddington said during the interview.

Reddington was seemingly alluding to the comments Trump made about the case on Friday, before Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial.

Speaking in the Oval Office, Trump said Clancy’s case was ‘hard not to follow.’

‘I followed it pretty much. It’s a shame. It’s a horrible tragedy,’ the president said, adding: ‘Looks like it’s a hung jury and I think the judge just said it’s gonna be a mistrial. I assume there’s going to be another trial.’

Trump continued, calling the case a ‘terrible situation’.

‘Look, she did a horrible, horrible thing. Can’t be worse, but you’ll find out what the price to pay is. But I guess they gotta go through another trial. It’s too bad,’ Trump concluded.

From the start, Clancy did not deny killing her children by strangling them with an exercise band in the basement of their home, before attempting to take her own life by self-harming and jumping from a second-storey window — an act that left her in a wheelchair and paralysed from the waist down.

But her defence claimed she was in a state of postpartum psychosis when the crimes took place, and therefore was not criminally responsible for her actions.

Symptoms of postpartum psychosis — which is treated as a medical emergency — include insomnia, delusions, hallucinations, severe confusion, and dangerous thoughts regarding self-harm, suicide, or harming the infant.

Clancy pleaded not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility, which Reddington later said was the majority vote from the jury.

The prosecution said that, while there was no doubt Clancy was suffering from depression, she still made a calculated decision to kill her children.

They also alleged that Clancy deliberately sent her ex-husband and father of her children, Patrick Clancy, out on an errand at the time of the killings so that she was free to commit the crimes.

Following the trial, Reddington spoke to the press about the juror who ‘refused to be persuaded’ by the other 11.

‘Where do I begin to thank these jurors, minus one,’ he said.

‘I have no idea what that guy was thinking; I have no idea he did what he did. They know that they were robbed by one man, for whatever his agenda was, who stole seven weeks of the life of these other jurors that were so attentive, so beautiful, so wonderful.’

Reddington added: ‘You could see how defeated they were sitting there. I’ve got a funny feeling that they would have gone on for another week if they had to.

‘I would like to meet with him and ask him why. I hope that guy can sleep well at night.

‘It was a horrible investigation; it was not even an investigation. This was a very sad case.’

In the latest development, the single juror who reportedly stopped Clancy from being acquitted actually ‘admitted’ he had reasonable doubt about her guilt.

However, the jury’s foreperson, Ronni Carlson, told local media he said: ‘But I’m still not going to say that she’s not guilty by reason of insanity.’

Three other jurors from the case, including the foreperson, also came forward to discuss what happened during the deliberations.

A woman who was juror number five spoke to WBZ-TV on Tuesday, though she asked to remain anonymous.

‘At the end of the day, there was so much doubt,’ the woman said. ‘The prosecution didn’t have a figurative smoking gun.

‘There was not a single moment throughout the presentation of that case where you could say “Yup, 100% I’m certain she did it” or that she didn’t do it. There was too much grey area.’

In order to convict a defendant in the United States, juries must reach a unanimous decision.

Prosecutors have not yet said if they will retry the case a second time after the mistrial. 

MORE: Woman accused of killing friend in Lamborghini crash blames him for hitting ‘boost’ button

MORE: EastEnders star Shane Richie facing trial after entering drink drive plea

MORE: Blind drunk driver who followed lorry lights for 150 miles at night is banned