WASHINGTON (AP) — The widow of an airman killed on a combat mission in the Middle East said it took a viral social media post to get resolution from the Pentagon on issues related to her husband's benefits and basic pay months after his death.
Maj. Alex Klinner, 33, was one of six crew members of a KC-135 refueling aircraft that crashed in western Iraq in March while supporting operations against Iran. He's one of 18 U.S. service members killed, along with 790 wounded, since the war began more than six months ago.
The Air Force reached out to his widow, Libby Klinner, this week to clarify that his final paycheck would include hazard pay and combat-related tax breaks. This occurred after she voiced frustration on social media at being told by a military officer assigned to support her after her husband’s death that he was ineligible for those benefits because “we were not at war.”
“My husband lost his life because we’re in a war, and then I was told that because it’s not technically a war, we lose out on something,” Klinner told The Associated Press. “It all comes down to principle.”
Her post, made over the weekend, gained national attention. Vice President JD Vance promised to look into her case after being asked about it during a White House briefing on Thursday.
“We want to be as helpful as we can and ensure she gets everything that she is entitled to,” Vance said. “My message to her would be, ‘We love ya, we’re grateful for the sacrifice and we very much take very seriously our commitment to get you what you need to get.’”
In response to a separate question, Vance rejected the use of the word “war” to characterize U.S. fighting in Iran, saying that “there is no active shooting.” The military has launched strikes against targets in Iran twice this week, and Iran has retaliated by firing on U.S. allies in the Gulf.
On Friday, President Donald Trump called U.S. strikes “intermittent" and defended Vance's comments.
“I call it a military conflict because it’s small potatoes for us,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.
In late July, the Trump administration created a new, separate category in the Pentagon's casualty count system for those killed and wounded in renewed U.S.-Iran fighting. Pentagon officials said the change was necessary because “Operation Epic Fury,” the original name for combat operations against Tehran, had ended. Since July 7, all U.S. casualties in the Middle East have been tallied under “Overseas Operations.”
Libby Klinner said Air Force officials contacted her this week to say they were initiating a review of her husband's pay. The Air Force acknowledged to her Thursday that it had initially provided inaccurate information and clarified that she was receiving the full pay and benefits her husband was owed, she said.
She said she was told that her husband's paycheck had already included but incorrectly itemized the combat-related hazard pay and tax breaks.
The pay incentives commonly known as “combat pay” are $225 per month and are not conditioned on a formal war declaration but just that the service member be in an area where there is “grave danger of physical injury” or be “killed, injured, or wounded by a hostile fire event,” according to a military website.
Alex Klinner’s final paycheck would have included half that amount since troops are paid twice per month. It is difficult to calculate how much in federal tax breaks Klinner would have been receiving without more information.
Klinner declined to specify the amount of money she was initially told her husband, an eight-year Air Force veteran from Birmingham, Alabama, would be ineligible to receive.
The Air Force said officials spoke with Klinner this week to “ensure all her questions are fully addressed” and confirmed that “all eligible combat theater benefits were included” in her husband's pay.
“We remain committed to providing clear information and continued support to Mrs. Klinner, as well as all the families of the Airmen who died in the KC-135 crash,” the Air Force added.
Broadly, errors in pay in the military are very common because service members can often gain or lose eligibility for a variety of payments depending on their deployment status, duty location or even family factors. As a result, unlike their civilian counterparts, some troops can see their paychecks change many times a year depending on many factors — something that also increases the likelihood of errors.
A GoFundMe for Libby Klinner and her three young children, launched in the days after her husband’s death, has raised more than $1.5 million.
Klinner said she hoped that by speaking out, other grieving families receive clear information from the outset.
"I am very fortunate to have a significant support system around us and a platform to advocate for myself and for my kids. Other families may not have those resources," she said. “If I can do anything to make this awful situation a little bit easier for someone else to navigate, then I am more than willing to do so.”
Brook reported from New Orleans. Brook is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.
In this photo provided by the U.S. Air National Guard, U.S. Air Force Capt. Alex Klinner, operations flight commander for the 99th Air Refueling Squadron, completes another lap during the Shell 77 Memorial Run at Sumpter Smith Joint National Guard Base, Birmingham, Ala., May 2, 2025. (Paul Mann/U.S. Air National Guard via AP)
PLYMOUTH, Mass. (AP) — Lindsay Clancy's trial judge declared a mistrial Friday after an emergency defense appeal was denied. Judge William Sullivan ended the trial after jurors on Friday sent a note for a third time saying they couldn't unanimously decide whether to hold her criminally responsible for killing her three young children in 2023.
Deliberations took a dramatic turn Thursday when the foreperson told the judge that a lone holdout was refusing to follow the court’s instructions about reasonable doubt. Clancy’s defense has argued that the judge’s refusal to remove the juror undermines the trial.
Clancy, a 36-year-old former labor and delivery nurse, doesn’t deny strangling her children in the basement of their home. Defense attorney Kevin Reddington blamed postpartum psychosis. Jennifer Sprague said Clancy knew what she was doing.
Postpartum psychosis is estimated to afflict 1 to 2 per 1,000 women after delivery. Experts at the Cleveland Clinic describe it as a mental health emergency affecting someone’s sense of reality. Though most people with postpartum psychosis don’t harm their children, mothers with severe cases may try to do so.
Here’s the latest:
During remarks to reporters, Reddington spoke affectionately about Clancy, saying “she’s like a daughter to me.”
“My heart breaks. She deserved an acquittal,” he said.
At another point, a reporter noted that Cruz said the focus should remain on the children.
“My client is well aware of the fact that her three kids, who she loved dearly, are the victims in this case,” Reddington said.
“She deserved an acquittal,” he lawyer said.
And despite some sharp exchanges in court, Reddington said he deeply respects the judge. He referred to Sullivan as “Sully” when he talked to reporters.
“He’s a great guy. He was a wonderful defense lawyer before he became a judge. Everybody loves him, he’s a fair guy,” Reddington said.Reddington said his ‘heart breaks’ for Clancy
“She deserved an acquittal,” he lawyer said.
And despite some sharp exchanges in court, Reddington said he deeply respects the judge. He referred to Sullivan as “Sully” when he talked to reporters.
“He’s a great guy. He was a wonderful defense lawyer before he became a judge. Everybody loves him, he’s a fair guy,” Reddington said.
Outside the courthouse, Reddington blasted the juror who he believes stood in the others’ way of an acquittal.
“They know 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,” he said. “You could see how defeated they were sitting there. I got a funny feeling they would have gone on for another week if they had to. So I hope that guy can sleep well at night.”
Cruz praised trial prosecutors Shanan Buckingham and Jennifer Sprague, “both mothers themselves.”
“They went home to their families after each long day in court. They embraced the most difficult trial assigned to them with utmost professionalism,” he said.
The president said he followed television news coverage of the Lindsay Clancy trial in Plymouth, Massachusetts.
“It’s a terrible situation. Look, she did a horrible, horrible thing,” Trump said. “Can’t be worse. But you’ll find out what the price to pay is. There’ll be a price — a mental institution or jail or something.”
“I have never been swayed to act a certain way or make certain decisions based upon public sentiment,” he said.
“This was and has always been about getting justice for those three little babies. We’re here at this courthouse today because those children are not. ... Children were murdered, and it’s our job to seek justice,” District Attorney Timothy Cruz said.
“This case is not about the healthcare system, or about how women are treated in it,” or the diagnosis of different medical conditions, he said. “Those are all important issues. They stir emotion. Sometimes they stir anger.
“I understand that postpartum depression has impacted the lives of countless women and families, and I sympathize with their struggles. The investigation in these heinous killings, however, did not establish that they were caused by such depression,” Cruz said.
“You only cared when the kids were dead. Why didn’t you care about the mother?” someone yelled.
Someone else yelled, “God bless those children,” as the press conference wrapped up.
“I understand that this has been an emotional trial for everyone,” Plymouth District Attorney Timothy Cruz said.
“This case was about Lindsay Clancy and what she did ... the cruel and calculated killing of three innocents.”
“This was and has always been about getting justice for those three little babies,” Cruz said. “Children were murdered and it’s our job to seek justice.”
Cruz said there would not be an immediate decision about a second trial.
— Correction: This post was updated to correct that Cruz referred to Clancy’s children as “three little babies,” not “beautiful babies.”
Shira Diner, a lecturer at Boston University law school and former public defender, told The Associated Press however that “it seems very unlikely that this judge would agree to overrule what the jury decided, which was nothing, and enter his own opinion.”
After the jury was dismissed, the judge and lawyers discussed their next steps.
The judge set a hearing for Sept. 29 at which Reddington likely will ask Sullivan to declare Clancy not guilty, a rare step but one that is allowed under state law.
The hearing could also reveal details about a possible second trial.
Neither the jury nor Clancy nor her family shows any emotion as the judge announces the mistrial.
Judge Sullivan called court back into session and confirmed that the emergency defense appeal was denied.
The judge said he would declare a mistrial as planned, but Reddington continued to object, saying federal law protecting criminal defendants was being violated.
He again requested a jury inquiry.
And again, the judge denied it, declaring a mistrial and calling jurors into the courtroom.
He then thanked the jurors for their service and dismissed them.
The appeal petition said removing the juror “is particularly important because the juror’s reasoning reflects a bias against those who suffer from debilitating mental illness, a protected category under both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and Article 114 of the Massachusetts Constitution.”
Defense attorneys wrote the top court in Massachusetts in their emergency request for relief that the reasoning of one of the jurors “reflects a bias against those who suffer from debilitating mental illness.”
The defense brief says the high court has held that just one juror who is not impartial violates a defendant’s right to have an impartial jury.
It says the trial court judge “need not simply accept the juror’s professions of fidelity and impartiality,” but rather can determine whether the juror is credible in light of the other jurors’ statements.
“The judge appears to be abdicating the responsibility” to weigh the evidence of juror malfeasance, the defense argues. “This is not abuse of discretion; it is failure to exercise discretion at all.”
A member of Massachusetts’ highest court has quickly heard arguments in a last-ditch effort by Clancy’s lawyers to stop a judge from declaring a mistrial.
The defense team wants the court to order the trial judge to further question a juror about applying the law and following instructions during deliberations in the high-profile trial.
Justice Dalila Argaez Wendlandt heard arguments over video conference and then said, “I need to make a decision.”
She said she’s taking the appeal “under advisement,” and offered no timeline for her decision.
The defense appeal asks the top court in Massachusetts to require the trial judge to do two things:
″(1) to inquire into the ability of the identified juror to apply the law or (2) prohibit the further deliberations of a juror identified by the jury foreperson as biased and refusing to follow the court’s instructions on reasonable doubt unless and until the court determines by individual voir dire that the juror is willing and able to follow the court’s instructions.”
“The judge appears to be abdicating the responsibility to weight the evidence of juror malfeasance. In other words, this is not abuse of discretion; it is failure to exercise discretion at all,” the brief says. “A mistrial at this point is entirely avoidable, but only if the court does its job.”
Participants were told the lunch break would be from 1 p.m.-2 p.m.
Attorney Dana Goldblatt said she filed the emergency appeal on behalf of Lindsay Clancy’s defense attorney Kevin Reddington at 12:29 p.m. on Friday.
Trial judges don’t often allow a defense attorney to file such emergency petitions, said Joseph Perullo, a criminal defense attorney in Massachusetts.
The petition will be considered by a single justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court who will look at whether the trial judge abused his discretion, committed a reversible error of law or did something that is “egregious and should be corrected prior to a mistrial being announced.”
The justice could initially grant a stay pausing the trial court proceedings and then consider the merits of the defense attorney’s petition in a process that would give the prosecutors a chance to present their arguments.
But “that is a high bar,” Perullo said. He doubts the justice will pause the trial proceedings to consider the merits.
More than an hour has passed since the judge gave the defense one hour to file an emergency appeal of his pending mistrial declaration.
Reached for comment, the clerk’s office for the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts told The Associated Press that it is in the process of receiving all the documents related to the emergency appeal.
The case would essentially go back to the same status as before the trial — Clancy could be charged with murder and held at a psychiatric hospital awaiting a resolution of the criminal case.
Prosecutors would have to decide whether to try again with a new jury. If they do, the jury selection process would begin again and a new trial would be scheduled.
Prosecutors could also offer a plea deal to Clancy, said Brad Bailey, a Boston defense attorney and former prosecutor who is not involved in the case.
“Any time the threat of a retrial with murder one hanging over the client is re-interjected, defense lawyers will, at the very least, explore whether or not there’s any interest in a resolution,” Bailey said.
▶ Read more
Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague told the judge a mistrial was required because he had already read to the jury the legal instruction sometimes known as a “dynamite charge.”
Reddington argued the judge still had discretion: “The court has the ability to send the jury back,” he said.
Sounding exasperated, the judge said “I don’t feel I have any choice but to declare a mistrial at this time.”
Reddington then requested that the jurors be polled “as to whether or not there has been a decision reached on murder one, murder two, manslaughter or anything like that.” If they did reach such a decision, prosecuting her again on those charges would be double jeopardy, he said.
Sprague objected, saying the court can’t delve into jury deliberations. “I don’t think anything else is required at this point other than a declaration of mistrial unfortunately.”
Sullivan then said, “Over the defendant’s objection, I am going to declare a mistrial at this point.”
Then Reddington pushed back, and the judge gave him one hour to appeal to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
Criminal defense attorney Joseph Krowski, who has been observing the trial, commented about Friday’s developments outside the court in Plymouth, Massachusetts. He said the defense wants a judge on the state’s highest court to consider an emergency stay because Reddington believes there “is a structural defect to this trial by the failure to remove the juror or do an inquiry.”
Judge Sullivan read the jury foreperson’s note aloud in open court: “It is with a heavy heart that we report we are unable to come to a unanimous decision and will not be able to.”
Sullivan and Reddington went back and forth after the judge signaled that he would declare a mistrial and summon the jury to break the news.
Then the judge suddenly gave Clancy’s lawyer time to seek an appeal to stop his mistrial order.
“What I’m asking for is time to file a single-justice appeal for this travesty,” said Reddington, who was upset over Sullivan’s refusal to remove a juror.
“I’ll hold off for an hour,” the judge said.
The clock began around 11:30 a.m.
Clancy’s parents, Paula and Mike Musgrove, and her sister, Allison Ozga, showed no reaction but stared straight ahead. Clancy’s expression wasn’t visible to the gallery.
The defense then raised objections and the jury was not brought in.
Prosecutors and Reddington are being brought up to a podium and the court clerk showed them something. It is unclear what it was.
Now they’ve returned to their tables and the judge has returned to the bench.
With nearly 100 people packed inside, a court officer told the public outside “there is no more room” and closed the courtroom doors.
First the media and now members of the public are re-entering the courtroom.
The prosecutors are at their table. Reddington is sitting next to Clancy. Clancy’s parents and her sister are two rows back.
There’s a line for media seats that’s 15 people deep, with journalists either standing or sitting on the floor behind an orange cone after court security moved them back from the door.
The benches outside the courtroom are filled with about 20 members of the public, some dressed in pink to show their support for Clancy. Many are waiting to get a seat in the courtroom, which has been filled to capacity.
Reddington urged Sullivan to “forcefully” explain the jury instruction about how to apply reasonable doubt to deliberations, and not use a “soft” approach.
“What do you want me to do? Get a brass band?” the judge responded. “The fact that I perhaps didn’t give it my full inflection — I’m sorry about that but I’m not an actor. I’m just giving the instruction.”
Sullivan then promised to give the instruction again “with more pizzazz,” a remark that caused laughter in the courtroom.
The judge ultimately gave the jurors one more reminder about following his instructions before sending them back to the jury room.
“That juror told you that he would be able to apply the law to the fact as you asked him. Based on this note from this juror it clearly and unequivocally indicates they are 11-1 and this person will not apply reasonable doubt to the evidence to return a not guilty verdict.”
Sullivan disagreed, saying law only allows a juror to be discharged for personal reasons having nothing to do with the case or their relationship with the other jurors.
Before the jury was brought into the courtroom Friday, Reddington beseeched the judge to deal with the juror referenced in the foreperson’s note on Thursday.
“I have never seen a situation like this where a foreperson on the jury is so courageous as to speak on behalf of 11 jurors and indicate that a juror, number which I will not mention, and I quote, ‘has made statements acknowledging doubt but refuses to apply it to the verdict,’” Reddington said.
Reddington said the juror “looked you in the eye and lied” when the judge questioned him after receiving the note.
Criminal defense attorney Joseph Krowski Jr. has been following the trial and commented outside court about the judge’s challenge at this point in the deliberations.
“The jurors aren’t saying that there’s just a factual disagreement with the holdout — they’re saying that that juror is refusing to follow the law,” Krowski said Thursday evening.
“Now, I don’t want to speculate. I’m not in there, and I don’t know what the disagreement is, and how do we know that that juror’s even right or wrong on the law, but you could see the visceral reaction from attorney Reddington, and it looked like to me that he’s frustrated.”
“Judges have to be careful into inquiring into what’s being discussed during deliberation. So if he gets another communication, then I’m sure he would have a very, very confined, carefully constrained voir dire,” Krowski said. “One more communication that they’re at an impasse would mandate a hung jury, mistrial.”
“I wanted to remind you, as I instructed you earlier, it is your duty as jurors to accept the law as I gave it to you,” he told them. “You must follow the law as I give it to you whether you agree with it or not.”
“With that, you may now resume your deliberations.”
Sullivan acknowledged to the jury that he got a note from the jury on Thursday.
“If there are any notes in the future ... make sure we don’t put down where everybody is numerically,” Sullivan told them.
Despite a request from Reddington, Sullivan has ruled that he will not do a further inquiry of the juror.
Court has reopened and reporters and the public have filed in. There is not an empty seat.
The judge is now here and lawyers are discussing further instructions to the jury.
Reddington filed a motion Friday requesting a standing order so there will “be no further sidebars” and that “all related proceedings will be handled in open court.”
Sullivan has often used sidebars to discuss legal issues with the defense and prosecution, especially during jury deliberations. During those sessions, no one in court can hear what is being discussed.
Defense attorney Kevin Reddington told reporters after leaving court Thursday that the foreperson’s note identified the holdout juror to the judge.
He said he’s hoping that before the judge questions that juror on Friday, attorneys on both sides will get to argue over the specifics of that inquiry.
Reddington wants that debate out in the open, not in a private sidebar conversation.
A deadlocked jury returns Friday for the seventh day of deliberations in the Lindsay Clancy trial, a day after the jury’s foreperson informed the judge that a single juror wasn't following the court’s instructions about reasonable doubt.
The extraordinary disclosure made Thursday in the form of a note delivered to the judge offered the clearest glimpse yet of what may be keeping jurors from reaching a verdict on whether the Massachusetts mother is criminally responsible for killing her three children.
The jury has twice told Judge William Sullivan that it is unable to agree on a verdict. On Thursday, Sullivan brought in each juror individually and questioned them in private. The judge then reread his instructions on reasonable doubt before sending them back to continue deliberating. Soon thereafter, he sent them home.
Lindsay Clancy's parents, Mike Musgrove, left, Paula Musgrove walk back to Plymouth County Superior Court after a recess for lunch in Lindsay Clancy's murder trial Friday, Sept. 4, 2026, in Plymouth, Mass. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa)
Judge William Sullivan indicates he was going to declare a mistrial before changing course and giving Lindsay Clancy's defense attorney one hour to appeal as the jury in the case has indicated they they are unable to reach a verdict on Friday, Sept. 4, 2026, in Plymouth, Mass. (Greg Derr/The Patriot Ledger via AP, Pool)
District Attorney for Plymouth County Timothy Cruz, front, leaves court after the judge declared a mistrial in Lindsay Clancy's murder trial at Plymouth County Superior Court, Friday, Sept. 4, 2026, in Plymouth, Mass. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa)
Defense attorney Kevin Reddington reacts to the judge's decision to declare a mistrial in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial on Friday, Sept. 4, 2026, in Plymouth, Mass. (Greg Derr/The Patriot Ledger via AP, Pool)
Defendant Lindsay Clancy looks at the jury after Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial in Clancy's murder trial on Friday, Sept. 4, 2026, in Plymouth, Mass. (Greg Derr/The Patriot Ledger via AP, Pool)
Lindsay Clancy watches jury members as Judge William Sullivan polls them during her murder trial at Plymouth Superior Court in Plymouth, Mass., Monday, Aug. 31, 2026. (Greg Derr/The Patriot Ledger via AP, Pool)
Judge William Sullivan asks the jury to continue deliberations during Lindsay Clancy's murder trial at Plymouth Superior Court in Plymouth, Mass., Tuesday, Sept. 1, 2026. (Greg Derr/The Patriot Ledger via AP, Pool)
Mike Musgrove, father of Lindsay Clancy, center right, sits with family as they listen to the judge tell the jury to keep discussing a possible verdict after jurors said they couldn't agree for a second time whether Clancy is criminally responsible for killing her three children in 2023, Wednesday, Sept. 2, 2026, in Plymouth, Mass. (Greg Derr/The Patriot Ledger via AP, Pool)
Timothy Cruz, Plymouth County District Attorney, center, leaves Plymouth Superior Court, Thursday, Sept. 3, 2026, in Plymouth, Mass. (AP Photo/Josh Reynolds )
Lindsay Clancy and attorney Kevin Reddington watch as Judge William Sullivan tells the jury to keep discussing a possible verdict after jurors said for a second time they couldn't agree whether Lindsay Clancy was criminally responsible for killing her three children in 2023, Wednesday, Sept. 2, 2026, in Plymouth, Mass. (Greg Derr/The Patriot Ledger via AP, Pool)
