Lindsay Clancy is scheduled to return to a Massachusetts court Monday as her defense team and Massachusetts prosecutors debate whether to dismiss the charges, retry the charges or retry on lesser charges. Defense attorney Kevin Reddington may argue that a retrial could violate Clancy’s constitutional protection against double jeopardy, while Judge William Sullivan could rule at the hearing or later in writing.

Sullivan will hear arguments on several motions Monday, including the defense request to dismiss the charges on double-jeopardy grounds. The possible outcomes are dismissal of the charges, a retrial on the same charges or a retrial on lesser charges. Heather Cucolo, a New York Law School professor and mental health law expert, told the BBC the hearing will likely focus on a narrow question: whether this was a routine mistrial caused by a genuinely deadlocked jury or an improperly terminated trial.

Cucolo said Reddington may argue that a retrial could violate Clancy’s constitutional protection against double jeopardy, which bars a person from being tried for the same crime twice. Legal experts cited by BBC News agreed that outcome is unlikely. “The public attention that’s been put on this trial and the need to have some conclusion in the near future, I think that the judge is going to say that this mistrial was appropriate, was legally accurate, and that they need to now look to set a date for a retrial,” Cucolo said.

Prosecutors have given their clearest indication yet that they are seeking a new trial before a different jury. In a statement last week, they said the Commonwealth should be permitted to continue to pursue justice for Cora, Dawson and Callan Clancy. Prosecutors could also reduce the charges in a potential second trial or dismiss them altogether.

Prosecutors asked Sullivan last week to reject the motion to dismiss on double-jeopardy grounds. They argue that the court properly followed mistrial procedures and can therefore seek justice again for the children. In their filing, prosecutors wrote: “Because a mistrial was properly declared due to the manifest necessity of a deadlocked jury, the defendant’s motion to dismiss should be denied.”

The first trial ended in a mistrial after a 12-person jury failed to reach a consensus. The jury first heard the case in August 2026 but could not agree unanimously on whether prosecutors had proved Clancy guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, as U.S. law requires. Sullivan declared a mistrial in early September. BBC News also published an account by Ione Wells examining how the trial ended without a verdict.

BBC News reported that Clancy, a 36-year-old American, had not denied killing her three children in 2023. Her defense team argues that she was suffering from severe postpartum psychosis at the time, while prosecutors say the killings were intentional.

At a court appearance later in September, Reddington argued that Sullivan should dismiss the case; prosecutors said the state had “met its burden” in proving her guilt. The hours-long exchange did not produce a clear answer about whether the charges would be dismissed, retried on the same counts or retried in a reduced form. Those discussions resume Monday.

Reddington’s team has explored a variety of legal avenues and is pressing for the charges to be dismissed or dropped. In September, he asked for Clancy to be found not guilty under Rule 25, a Massachusetts provision that states a defendant should be found not guilty if prosecutors do not present enough evidence at trial. Sullivan denied the request.

Sullivan seemed confident in September that the case would be retried, saying he wanted to “get this thing moving.” He asked both sides to prepare to discuss possible trial dates at the November hearing. Reddington said he would be unable to go to trial until at least June 2027 if the case were retried.

Massachusetts District Attorney Timothy Cruz said at the time that prosecutors had not yet decided whether to retry Clancy. “We’re doing our due diligence; we’re going to continue doing that,” he said. “We’re going to do what we can for the children. That’s what this case is about.”

The state’s legal team has not explicitly said it will retry, although Cruz and the prosecutors who argued the case have consistently said they want justice for Clancy’s children. Criminal defense lawyer Elyse Hershon told the BBC that Sullivan could determine Monday whether the case can proceed or could rule later in writing. She said the district attorney’s office could decide before the hearing, during it or days afterward.

Hershon said three first-degree murder charges remain pending against Clancy unless the district attorney’s office announces otherwise. She also noted that Cruz has historically made comments and announcements about the case at press conferences after court proceedings finish, and predicted that could happen again after Monday’s hearing.

Hershon expected Sullivan to push the lawyers on both sides to place trial dates on the calendar during Monday’s hearing. She said reserving dates would not mean a jury trial was certain and estimated that a jury trial would require four, five or six weeks of the court calendar. She said that block would be hard to fit in at the last minute. Hershon anticipated that “they” would block off the time while the motions and the district attorney’s decision remained unresolved: “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.”