“THERE’LL BE A PRICE” — TRUMP FINALLY SPEAKS ON LINDSAY CLANCY, AND HIS WARNING CHANGES THE STORY

For weeks, the Lindsay Clancy case has been trapped in one agonizing question: What happens when a murder trial ends without a verdict?

Then President Donald Trump weighed in.

After a Massachusetts judge declared a mistrial in Clancy’s case on Sept. 4, Trump was asked whether he had been following the proceedings. His answer was blunt.

“It’s a shame. It’s a horrible tragedy,” Trump said, adding that he had followed the case because it had been on television so much.

Then came the line that immediately changed the tone.

“She did a horrible, horrible thing. Can’t be worse,” Trump said. “But you’ll find out what the price to pay is. There’ll be a price.” He added that the outcome could involve a mental institution or jail and said he assumed another trial would take place.

But three weeks later, the meaning of that statement looks very different.

Because there may not be another trial at all.

And Trump himself has now made clear that he does not control what happens next.

Trump’s “There’ll Be a Price” Warning

Trump’s comments came at a critical moment.

Clancy’s five-week Massachusetts murder trial had ended in a deadlocked jury. The jury reportedly split 11–1, with 11 jurors supporting the defense position that Clancy should not be found criminally responsible because of severe postpartum psychosis. The lone holdout, Michael Desronvil, maintained that the evidence showed Clancy knew what she was doing and was criminally responsible.

The disagreement was fundamental.

The prosecution argued that Clancy was criminally responsible for the deaths of her three children in Duxbury in January 2023.

Her defense acknowledged that she killed the children but argued that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and therefore should not be held criminally responsible.

After days of deliberations, the jury could not reach the required unanimous decision.

Judge William Sullivan ultimately declared a mistrial.

That left the case hanging in an unusual legal limbo.

No conviction.

No acquittal.

And no final answer about whether Clancy would ever face another jury.

That was the moment Trump made his “price to pay” comment.

At the time, it sounded like a prediction that the case would continue.

But the legal battle that followed has become much more complicated.

Then Came the Pardon Request

Just days after Trump's remarks, Clancy’s attorney Kevin Reddington appeared on ABC’s Good Morning America and directly appealed to the president.

Reddington asked Trump to consider pardoning Clancy.

The request immediately raised a basic constitutional problem: Trump does not have the power to pardon someone for a Massachusetts state crime.

Trump’s pardon authority applies to federal offenses, while Clancy’s case is being prosecuted under Massachusetts state law. Reuters noted that distinction when reporting Reddington’s request.

And Trump eventually addressed the request.

His response was notably different from the tone of his earlier “There’ll be a price” statement.

“It’s actually a state situation, not a federal,” Trump said.

Asked whether he would reach out to Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz, Trump replied that he appreciated the lawyer’s position and hoped “they can work it out.”

That changed the story.

Trump was no longer talking about what punishment Clancy might face.

He was acknowledging that the next move belongs to Massachusetts authorities and the courts.

Now the Question Is: Will There Even Be a Second Trial?

This is where the case has taken its newest turn.

Clancy’s defense is now fighting to prevent a retrial.

Her lawyers have filed motions arguing that the case should be dismissed rather than sent back before another jury.

One argument invokes double jeopardy, with the defense contending that the mistrial should not have been declared under the circumstances.

The defense argues that the court had other options after concerns emerged about the lone holdout juror and that the state should not be allowed to simply restart the prosecution with a new jury.

Another motion seeks scrutiny of Desronvil's conduct during deliberations.

The defense has asked the court to investigate allegations including whether he improperly used a cellphone during jury deliberations and whether he was truthful in jury questionnaires and later questioning.

Those are allegations by the defense, not findings that the juror committed misconduct. His attorney has pushed back against the effort to question him, arguing that jury deliberations are protected.

Desronvil himself has publicly defended his position.

He said he had no doubts about Clancy’s criminal responsibility and maintained that the physical evidence, witnesses and prosecution’s case convinced him that she knew what she was doing.

That dispute could now become part of the legal fight over what happens next.

September 29 Could Become the Next Big Turning Point

The next scheduled hearing is Sept. 29.

That date could bring the case back into the spotlight — but not necessarily because prosecutors will announce a second trial.

Clancy’s attorneys are asking the judge to dismiss the case.

The defense has argued that there was no “manifest necessity” for the mistrial and that another prosecution would violate double-jeopardy protections.

Meanwhile, prosecutors have not publicly announced whether they intend to retry Clancy.

That leaves several possibilities on the table.

The case could move toward another trial.

The defense could succeed in its effort to have the charges dismissed.

Or the legal fight could continue before either side reaches a final resolution.

For now, none of those outcomes has been decided.

What Trump’s Warning Really Changed

Trump’s words created a dramatic headline because “There’ll be a price” sounded like a declaration about what would happen to Clancy.

But his later comments provide an important qualification.

The president did not announce a punishment.

He did not order a retrial.

And he cannot pardon Clancy because this is a state case.

Instead, Trump ultimately pointed back toward the Massachusetts legal system, saying there was “no winner” because three children were dead and that the matter was for the state to resolve.

That distinction matters.

Because the real fight has moved away from “What punishment will Lindsay Clancy receive?”

The bigger question now is:

Will Massachusetts get another chance to put this case before a jury at all?

That question is heading toward the Sept. 29 hearing.

And after a trial that ended 11–1, a mistrial, a presidential comment, a rejected pardon pathway and a new battle over the lone holdout juror, the next chapter could be just as consequential as the first.