Looks like we'll be getting a re-trial of the Clancy case that fell apart this September. But what the new trial we look like, we still don't know.

Today, the parties in the Clancy case met for a court hearing. Here's what was discussed:

• Prosecutors said they are looking to retry the case, which was the day's most notable development, but "what that looks like" they don't know yet
• Kevin Reddington, Clancy's lawyer, requested that the proceedings not drag on, and have the next trial date be set soon. He seemed frustrated that the prosecutors would not specify what charges they plan to bring against Clancy
• The judge said he imagined it could would occur sometime in March 2027

The two parties also presented motions for the judge to consider:

• Reddington presented a motion to dismiss the case, and requested that Judge William Sullivan investigate the lone holdout juror in the original trial
• Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague requested a gag order, to limit what can be said to the media about the case
• A retrial date will set at a hearing on 16 November if the judge does not dismiss Clancy’s charges

The judge said he would deliberate on the presented motions and set a trial date the for next time the parties come together.

We are now concluding our live coverage.

You can read more about today's hearing here: Prosecutors hint at retrial for Lindsay Clancy on murder charges

The central question of Clancy’s trial was whether or not she was criminally responsible at the time of her children's deaths.

Prosecutors say she acted intentionally, while the defence argued that the 36-year-old mother was in the grip of severe postpartum psychosis and could not understand the consequences of her actions at the time.

In part, this case centres around this rare, but severe, condition. With postpartum psychosis, patients can experience mania and depression, as well as psychotic symptoms like delusions. In rare cases, people experiencing the condition may harm or kill themselves or other people.

But unlike postpartum depression, it is not classified in the DSM-5 - the main guide that US medical practitioners use to diagnose mental health conditions.

The absence of a clear, standardised DSM-5 definition of postpartum psychosis meant that the defence struggled to show Clancy's psychotic state met a specific criteria.

The judge says he is picturing a trial date sometime in March.

He also wants an opportunity to review the motions discussed today, while not punting the trial date discussion too far down the line.

He suggests parties reconvene in the next two weeks to set a definite date.

The hearing has now come to a close. We'll bring you a summary of what was discussed soon.

"I am not going to have this woman incarcerated for the next year or two or three," says Reddington, Clancy's defence lawyer, referring to his client.

He is requesting a trial be held this spring, and asking for the same judge to stay on the case.

Reddington seems frustrated by Sprague not specifying what charges they plan to bring against Clancy in a possible retrial.

"Why do we not know if the next trial is going to be murder in the first degree or a lesser charge, why do they need to wait for the motions? I need to know logistically," he says.

Reminder Clancy faced three counts of first-degree murder at her first trial.

Sprague says the prosecutors plan to retry the case, "what that looks like" they don't know yet.

This is the first time we're hearing that the District Attorney's office plans to retry the case.

When that might be is so not yet clear.

Judge Sullivan says the lawyers have two choices: set a trial date now or wait to hear the results of the motions and then decide.

Sprague says they want the results of the motions first.

Laura McConnell is speaking now for the defence and argues that there is no need for a gag order unless and until there is a retrial.

She also says that silencing the defence is not needed because prosecutors have not shown that anyone has been affected by Reddington's statements.

"We don't know if any potential juror has been affected by this," McConnell says.

Reddington only did interviews after a mistrial was declared, she adds.

McConnell also notes that Reddington needs to be able to speak for Clancy, who has not spoken publicly since she killed her children.

"He's not only her attorney, he's her voice," McConnell says.

The third motion being discussed is a requested gag order to limit how and what defence says to the press and to the public about the case.

Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague says that her team have continued to say "no comment" when asked questions by the press.

"They are not looking for 15 minutes of fame in this case," she says implying that Clancy's lawyer Reddington and the other defence attorneys are.

Court is back in session now to hear arguments on a third motion.

You can watch a live stream at the top of the page.

Image source, Reuters

Throughout her murder trial, Clancy has been held at Tewksbury Hospital, a state-run public psychiatric hospital in Tewksbury, Massachusetts, about 20 miles (32km) from Boston.

That’s where the 36-year-old remains after her trial collapsed in September.

The mental health facility is likely where she would still be if she had been found not guilty by reason of insanity, though if a future trial finds her guilty, she still could face jail time.

She’s arrived to each court appearance in a wheelchair. That’s because, after strangling her children in 2023, she jumped out of the second story window of her home, paralysing herself from the waist down.

The judge says he will take the second motion under advisement and calls a recess. After the break, the court will move on to remaining motions.

Stay with us, we'll provide the latest updates. You can also watch the court livestream at the top of this page.

Heather O'Connor, the lawyer for Juror Doe, just wrapped up her arguments defending her client.

She says the reason she's in court today is because Reddington and Clancy's defence team does not like how her client voted in the juror room.

Juror Doe accepted the Commonwealth's burden, O'Connor said, despite what Reddington has said.

She says the defence has “combined several allegations” to try to argue that a mistrial should not have been declared.

Here's a reminder of what you need to know about the holdout juror.

Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague asks once again for the motion to be dismissed.

She says the evidence Reddington is presenting is based on information that came up after the trial.

Sprague concludes by saying that if the court examines this one juror, it has to do the same for all 12 jurors.

The arguments over the motion regarding "Juror Doe" - the holdout juror - have resumed, Reddington, Clancy's lawyer, is first to speak.

The judge has requested to speak with council privately - known as a side bar - following a heated exchange on the background of the holdout juror.

Sometimes in US courts side bar discussions are part of the public record but in this case they are currently held privately.

Clancy's primary attorney, Kevin Reddington, is at the microphone now to begin arguments on preserving the records of "Juror Doe".

He says the name of the holdout juror out loud which enrages Judge Sullivan.

Judge Sullivan threatens to stop today's hearing.

Reddington says the juror's name is all over the place online and that "he's gotten more screentime than I have".

Judge Sullivan says that is not business that's happened in the court.

Image source, Getty Images

Judge Sullivan says he's going to take all the arguments under advisement.

He will rule on the motion to dismiss "as soon as I can".

Image source, Getty Images

Who was right in deciding if there was reasonable doubt, is for the jury to decide, not the judge or the lawyers, Sprague says.

There was nothing in the notes that indicated the alleged issues were "solely happening to that juror".

Sprague says that she can't think of a question the judge could ask the foreperson or anyone else that wouldn't have impacted the substance of the jury's deliberations.

The prosecution is making reference to the single holdout juror which left the jury unable to reach a unanimous decision during the original trial.

"It is clear... that this juror did not refuse to deliberate, he refused to agree," Sprague said.

Several jurors said following the mistrial being declared that the panel was ultimately divided 11-1 in favour of finding Clancy not criminally responsible.

The holdout juror has said he "didn't have any doubts" that she was criminally responsible for killing her three children. The jury foreperson, however, said that he had expressed doubt.

The foreperson, along with another juror, said that because the holdout would not "follow" his reasonable doubt nor offer logical reasoning for his position, they felt Clancy had not received a fair trial.

Read more: Lindsay Clancy holdout juror says he had no doubt she deliberately killed her children