Plymouth, Massachusetts - The latest hearing following the mistrial in Lindsay Clancy's murder case was heated, with defense attorney Kevin Reddington verbally sparring with Judge William Sullivan and the prosecution over the lone holdout juror and whether a retrial is necessary. Here's what went down, and what will happen next.

At Monday's motion hearing, Clancy's defense team, led by Reddington, pushed for Judge Sullivan to dismiss the murder charges against Clancy on the grounds of double jeopardy. Assistant Plymouth County District Attorney Jennifer Sprague, on the other hand, confirmed its intent to retry the case without saying the charges it plans to bring against Clancy.

Clancy was charged with first-degree murder for the strangulation deaths of her three young children that she had with ex-husband Patrick Clancy. Her defense admitted she committed the physical acts, but argued the lack of criminal responsibility, claiming she was suffering from acute postpartum psychosis and over-prescription of psychiatric medications.

The first trial lasted 22 days, and after several days of jury deliberation, it ended in a mistrial on September 4 due to an 11-1 hung jury.

Fast forward to Monday, November 2, when the motion hearing took place at Plymouth Superior Court.

Defense attorney Martin Weinberg argued double jeopardy was at play on behalf of Clancy, claiming that Judge Sullivan failed to conduct a sufficiently probing "voir dire" into the holdout juror before declaring a mistrial.

The defense further argued that retrying Clancy violates double jeopardy because the mistrial lacked "manifest necessity," claiming that the notes from the jury foreperson showed the holdout "Doe" juror refused to apply the judge's legal instructions.

Because of this, Clancy's defense argued that Judge Sullivan prematurely declared a mistrial instead of investigating potential juror misconduct, which could have led to an acquittal rather than a retrial.

Judge Sullivan disagreed with the defense's claims and fired back, saying, "Didn't I do a voir dire? Didn't I ask each individual [juror]? And the concerns of coercion is something I have to worry about."

Assistant DA Sprague argued, "It is clear from the record that this juror did not refuse to deliberate. He refused to agree," later adding, "We are here because Juror Doe did not vote the way that the defense needed."

Judge Sullivan said at the end of the hearing that he'd take the defense’s double jeopardy motion to dismiss under advisement and would make a decision in the coming weeks. He also indicated a potential March 2027 start date for the retrial, should it occur.

The next status hearing in the Clancy case is set for 10 AM on Monday, November 16.