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

While prosecutor Jennifer Sprague lays out her arguments over the motion to dismiss the case, here's a refresher on how we got here today.

Lindsay Clancy is a 36-year-old Massachusetts mother and former labour and delivery nurse who has admitted to killing her children, Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, who was eight months old, in January 2023.

Clancy was charged with first degree murder, which is punishable by life in prison, but pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. Her defence team argued she was suffering postpartum psychosis and should not be found criminally responsible.

Lindsay Clancy’s ex-husband, mother, mother-in-law and psychiatrist all gave evidence.

Patrick Clancy says his wife’s mental health took a "big spiral" about a month before their deaths.

Her mother-in-law says Clancy was "begging for help" before killing her three children.

The jury at her trial was unable to come to a unanimous verdict, with one holdout juror leading to a mistrial.

Weinberg just wrapped his arguments over the motion to dismiss the case.

Now, we'll hear from Prosecutor Jennifer Sprague.

You can still watch proceedings live by pushing the button at the top of this page.

Image source, Reuters

There's a back and forth happening now between Weinberg and Judge Sullivan about what a judge's role is in a case like this with a singular holdout juror.

Weinberg suggests that Judge Sullivan should have probed the holdout juror further to find out what exactly the reservations were and if the holdout juror was following the law.

He references some other cases before Judge Sullivan interrupts and says he has to be careful during jury deliberations and says it's a different type of analysis.

Judge Sullivan has just interrupted Weinberg and his arguments.

Weinberg says the judge should have questioned the jurors individually to determine if the holdout juror was deliberating in good faith and following the law.

If the juror was following the law, no one wants to "shill the holdout juror".

And that's when Judge Sullivan interrupts, appearing frustrated, and says: "Didn't I do that? Didn't I bring all the jurors in? Didn't I question them? You're saying I should have done it a second time?"

As a reminder, during the trial, Judge Sullivan brought the 12 jurors in and had them confirm one by one that they could follow the courts directions, a procedure known as voir dire.

Weinberg argues the court should reconsider decisions made “in the heat of battle".

Clancy's lawyer questions whether there was a legal necessity to declare a mistrial in September.

The jury notes indicate that not all 12 jurors were following and understanding the directions the judge gave them, Weinberg says.

As a reminder, one of the juror notes sent to the judge in September during deliberations said: "A member of the jury is unable to follow instructions on reasonable doubt, how should we proceed?"

There are a handful of motions the court is going to hear today.

The first one they are going to discuss is a motion to dismiss the case, Judge Sullivan says.

Martin Weinberg, one of Clancy's lawyers, is speaking about that now.

Image source, Reuters

Judge William Sullivan is now in the room, as are the lawyers and Clancy.

Clancy is wearing a light blue shirt and has her head pointed straight ahead.

Stick with us as we bring you the latest from today's hearing.

You can also watch live above.

Ana Faguy
US Reporter

Judge William Sullivan could make a determination over whether the case can proceed on Monday or he could rule later in writing, criminal defence lawyer Elyse Hershon tells the BBC.

And how the District Attorney's office wants to proceed could be determined ahead of Monday's hearing, during it or even days after, she says.

"The three charges of first-degree murder are still pending; they are still hanging over Lindsay Clancy's head unless and until the DA announces otherwise," Hershon says.

Historically, Cruz, the district attorney, has made comments and announcements about the case at press conferences after court finishes. That could happen again this week, she predicts.

It is also likely, Hershon says, that Judge Sullivan pushes the lawyers on both sides to get a trial date on the calendar during Monday's hearing.

"It does not mean it's definitely going to be a jury trial, but [they will want to] put something in the books, hold those dates. It's a big chunk of time. It's four, five, six weeks of the court calendar; that's hard to fit in at the last minute," she adds.

"I would anticipate they block off the time while they go through all these motions and the DA's office figures out what it wants to do."

Image source, Getty Images

Lindsay Clancy’s defence team has filed multiple motions since her trial fell apart earlier this month.

Her lawyer, Kevin Reddington, wants the judge to investigate the lone juror that wanted to convict Clancy of murder, including by looking into calls and texts he made during deliberations.

A lawyer for the juror has said the latest defence motion was a "Looney Tunes" attack on his client for doing his civic duty. The juror, Michael Desronvil, has said there was "enough proof that she [Clancy] knew exactly what she was doing".

In a separate motion, Reddington is also asking for the case against Clancy to be dismissed entirely, arguing that a retrial would violate double-jeopardy protections that prevent someone from being tried for the same crime twice.

Prosecutors have yet to say whether they will retry her.

Ana Faguy
US Reporter

While the state's legal team has not explicitly said they will pursue a retrial, District Attorney Timothy Cruz and the prosecutors who argued the case have consistently said they want justice for Clancy's children.

Last week, prosecutors asked Judge William Sullivan to reject the motion to dismiss charges against Clancy on the grounds of double jeopardy - the protection that you cannot be tried twice for the same crime.

They argue mistrial procedures were properly followed by the court, and thus they have a right to seek justice again on behalf of the children.

"Because a mistrial was properly declared due to the manifest necessity of a deadlocked jury, the defendant's motion to dismiss should be denied," prosecutors wrote in the motion.

Image source, Getty Images

Not many concrete details came out of Lindsay Clancy’s last hearing in September - but it did give us some idea of what we can expect today.

Clancy’s defence is still trying to get the judge to dismiss her case entirely, something state prosecutors obviously oppose. The defence also wants an inquiry into the lone juror who was not in favour of declaring Clancy not guilty.

Those topics are both likely to come up today, and the judge may have made decisions on both fronts.

Another thing we might get today is a date for a retrial of Clancy. Last time they were in court, the judge told state prosecutors to come back next time with a date and a plan. They still haven’t publicly stated their intention to retry her - and a retrial could be fraught with complications. We’ll see about that today.

• December 2017-2019 - Clancy experienced “some anxiety” following the birth of her first and second child, according to court documents
• May 2022 - In the months following the birth of her third child, Clancy began experiencing severe postpartum mental health issues
• September 2022 - She experienced debilitating anxiety, insomnia, sleeping only approximately three hours per night, and exhaustion during the day, court papers said. By 15 September, she had made an appointment for psychiatric care
• October 2022 - November 2022 - Clancy said she began experiencing racing thoughts overnight and reported that her anxiety had gotten worse while she was undergoing medical treatment for psychiatric problems
• December 2022 - “I have thoughts of harming the kids,” Clancy told her then-husband and mother in early December, court documents said. She also reported having paranoid delusions that people could hear her thoughts
• Early January 2023 - Clancy admitted herself to a psychiatric hospital for five days. Within a week of being discharged, she says her hallucinations resumed. "You should harm the children,” she reported hearing in these hallucinations, according to court documents
• 23 January 2023 - The last day that Clancy saw her psychiatrist for treatment
• 24 January 2023 - Clancy is accused of killing her three children and then attempting to take her own life
• 4 September 2026 - A Massachusetts judge declares a mistrial after a single juror prevented the jury from unanimously finding Clancy not guilty by way of insanity
• 29 September 2026 - Clancy appears in court for the first time after the mistrial, with her lawyers pushing for the judge to dismiss the case. The judge asks prosecutors to come to the next hearing with answers on a potential retrial.

Ana Faguy
US Reporter

The trial of Lindsay Clancy filled US televison channels and social media over the summer as people became gripped by the details of a young mother who killed her three children, while allegedly battling postpartum psychosis.

At the end of the summer, I spent days in the Massachusetts courthouse where we're expecting to see Lindsay Clancy today, for the second time since a mistrial was declared in her murder trial.

There's room for a few dozen members of the press - seats which, given the spectacle that has surrounded this case, will likely be full.

There's also spaces for Clancy's family and friends who were often seen sitting in the wooden benches behind her.

And there's even room for some members of the public to watch.

Eyes across the country will be on Clancy and the hearing with the hopes that there's some clarity about what happens in next in her case.

Stick with us as we find out what happens next.

Sakshi Venkatraman
Live page editor

Warning: This story contains distressing details

Lindsay Clancy, the US mother who admitted to killing her three children in 2023, is back in court today after her murder trial fell apart in September.

This is the second hearing in Clancy’s case since a jury could not decide whether or not to convict her of the crime and the judge declared a mistrial.

Prosecutors say Clancy intentionally killed her children, but she has pleaded not guilty to murder, with her lawyers arguing that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and was not in control of her actions at the time of the killings.

Clancy’s lawyers are pushing for the judge to dismiss the case entirely, while state lawyers are weighing potentially retrying her. She could be tried again for murder - or for a lesser charge. Details of that, including a possible new trial date, may emerge today.

We will bring you the latest here, and you can also follow along by pressing watch live above.