Kwasi Gyamfi Asiedu
Live reporter

The court has finished for today, but it's not the last word we'll hear on the intricate murder trial of Lindsay Clancy, which has captivated a nation.

After more than an hour of arguments, we're no closer to getting answers to many of the questions that remain about the status of the trial.

Key among them is what prosecutors will do next. They said after the hearing that they haven't yet made a decision.

There are also questions about what will happen to the motions proposed by the defence.

These include a request for the judge to dismiss the entire case. The defence has also requested the release of jury notes, which are typically kept private. We won't know what happens to these until at least the next hearing on 2 November.

And if a new trial does go ahead, defence lawyer Kevin Reddington has already told Judge Sullivan he can't hold one before next June - that's more than eight months from now.

Meanwhile, we're ending our live coverage of today's proceedings, but you can read more about this story here.

Defence again dissects prosecution's evidence - here's whypublished at 18:22 BST 29 September

18:22 BST 29 September

Ione Wells
North America correspondent

Today’s hearing wasn’t about rehashing arguments of the trial itself.

But you might have noticed that Lindsay Clancy’s lawyer was dissecting the prosecution’s evidence again: saying it failed to provide enough evidence to prove she knew what she was doing, and describing how Clancy had to be told what happened when she woke up from a coma in hospital.

This is because her lawyer, Kevin Reddington, has filed a motion saying the case should be dismissed because - he argues - the government failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

He’s now trying to convince the judge to use his powers to find her not guilty. The judge is weighing this up along with other motions we’ve discussed, so we cannot know how convincing - or not - the judge has found his argument until the next hearing on 2 November.

Previous motions like this were dismissed, though.

Ana Faguy
US reporter

Image source, Reuters

One of the motions discussed during today's hearing was a request from Reddington to find Clancy not guilty.

Reddington put forward a new defence, arguing there wasn’t enough evidence to prove that she killed her children.

It was a puzzling turn in the argument after weeks of passionate remarks from the defence lawyer, which focused on Clancy’s mental health rather than whether she had murdered her children.

“This entire case is based on speculation,” Reddington said today.

Throughout the trial, Reddington didn’t dispute that Clancy had killed her children, but urged the jury to find that she wasn’t criminally responsible because she was suffering from a severe psychiatric disorder.

Image source, Reuters

A lawyer for the lone juror who wanted to find Clancy guilty during private deliberations says her client is being singled out for holding a minority view among the 12 jurors.

Heather O'Connor, who represents juror Michael Desronvil, is challenging a motion by Clancy's defence team seeking the juror's phone records and jury notes.

"Jurors have a right to privacy," O'Connor tells reporters outside court.

She says granting the motion would be a setback for jurors in future cases, echoing arguments made by prosecutors in court.

"Jurors should not have to worry about coming in and having them outed because they take a stance different from everyone else.

"There are people that believe heavily, one way or another, and what that has done is [it has] created a situation where somebody that has that minority vote is being attacked, and that is not how this system should work."

• Earlier, Michael Desronvil said he wanted the focus to return to the three children who were killed

Image source, Reuters

As we mentioned in our recap, the prosecution did not confirm whether it plans to retry Lindsay Clancy.

After the hearing, Plymouth District Attorney Tim Cruz tells local CBS station WBZ-TV that his office has not yet decided whether to seek a retrial.

Cruz says his office is still moving forward as though a second trial is imminent, but he is waiting to see how the motions play out.

Tinshui Yeung
Live page editor

Here's a recap of the key points from what we heard at the court hearing.

• The prosecution did not confirm whether it plans to retry Lindsay Clancy
• The defence again argued that the evidence brought against Clancy by the government was insufficient - the prosecution strongly rejected those claims
• The prosecution opposed the defence's motion to release juror notes and sidebar discussions, saying news conferences about the case had already had a "chilling effect" on whether jurors want to serve
• Many of Clancy's supporters gathered outside the courtroom during this morning's proceedings

Towards the end of the hearing, there was a rare discussion among the judge, the defence and the prosecution. The judge tried to set a date for a new trial, while both sides said key motions had to be resolved first. You can read the exchange here.

The next hearing will be on 2 November, when the judge will hear further arguments on the defence's request to dismiss the case in full - as well as push both sides to discuss trial scheduling.

Expect more wrangling over outstanding issues after today's hearingpublished at 16:57 BST 29 September

16:57 BST 29 September

Ione Wells
North America correspondent

The prosecution and defence have been intensely at odds with one another throughout this case but found a rare piece of common ground today.

They both agreed that setting a new trial date would not be helpful until other legal issues are resolved first. And that’s where their differences lie.

The defence wants the case dismissed, arguing the prosecution didn’t prove her guilty. It says it did provide sufficient evidence.

It also wants notes of juror conversations held in private released, to investigate whether the lone juror who wanted to find her guilty did - indeed - express more than “reasonable” doubt. Other jurors allege he did, something he strongly denies.

The prosecution for its part wants a “gag order” preventing the defence from discussing certain details with the media.

I sense, given how the last days of the trial went, that we are going to see more wrangling over these issues for some time.

The judge has set a new date of 2 November to weigh up these requests, but even when he provides a judgment, the two sides could try to appeal them.

Reddington's earlier comment saying he agreed with prosecutor Jennifer Sprague's concerns about trying to schedule a date for a new trial date drew laughter from those in the courtroom.

"Believe it or not, I agree with her," Reddington says.

As for when a new trial might take place, Reddington tells Judge Sullivan he can't do one before next June.

The judge says he will consider all the arguments heard today, adjourning court until 2 November.

The discussion about when a potential retrial could take place continues, with the judge urging lawyers to start considering possible dates even as several key motions remain unresolved.

"Why don't we just pick a trial date?" he asks, noting that only a few weeks ago there was discussion about moving the case forward quickly. "Now nobody wants to pick a trial date."

But both the prosecution and defence argue that important legal questions still need to be decided first.

"I'm concerned that any trial date we pick might not be realistic," prosecutor Jennifer Sprague tells the court.

Defence lawyer Kevin Reddington says he agrees.

The judge acknowledges those concerns but says he is keen to keep the case moving and avoid unnecessary delays.

He then directs both sides to return on 2 November prepared to discuss scheduling.

Image source, Getty Images

The judge is now discussing scheduling. We already heard that other motions will be discussed on 2 November.

The judge asks the room, and presumably the public watching online, not to read into the fact that the case is going to continue to be discussed at another date.

"This is not indicating how I'm going to rule on any other motions," Sullivan says.

He also suggests that the parties select a potential trial date now, rather than wait 30 or 60 days.

"Why would we not just pick a trial date," the judge asks, seeming a bit frustrated.

But both Sprague and Reddington agree that they don't want to do that.

Reddington even says he can't believe he's agreeing with the prosecutor, and the room begins to laugh.

An attorney representing the Boston Globe newspaper and WBZ television station is also arguing for the release of side bar conversations and jury notes.

Jennifer Sprague once again objects saying jurors have a right to privacy and the right to come to verdict without fanfare should be protected.

Image source, Getty Images

Defence lawyer Martin Weinberg is arguing for the release of juror notes and sealed sidebar transcripts, saying the request goes to the heart of constitutional rights and the defence bid to dismiss the case.

He says the material is needed to support arguments that a mistrial was not justified, and that retrying Lindsay Clancy could violate double jeopardy protections.

Weinberg argues one key juror note remains sealed despite being central to questions about whether the juror should have been questioned rather than the trial ending in a mistrial.

He says limited redactions could protect juror anonymity while allowing the public access to the documents.

The prosecution's Jennifer Sprague says: "We would object to this motion."

"What has been happening with this case outside of this courtroom in press conferences has had a chilling effect on whether a juror would even want to serve on a case in this commonwealth," she says.

Up next, Judge Sullivan is hearing a motion from the defence to subpoena notes sent to the court by the jurors at trial and the release of a transcript of conversations made out of public view during the trial.

Shanan Buckingham, one of the prosecutors, is continuing to outline how to define criminal responsibility.

She says that the fact that Reddington wants to argue that Clancy was suffering from psychosis doesn't mean that prosecutors cannot prove otherwise with evidence of observations of her, that she was not displaying signs of psychosis.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, she says, presented an argument that there was a motive in this case.

With that, prosecution's argument ends and Buckingham returns to her seat as the court moves on to further motions.

Image source, Getty Images

The prosecution goes on to say that the defence of lack of criminal responsibility only comes into effect when it is raised by the defence.

Buckingham says that, once it is adequately raised, the burden switches to the Commonwealth to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant did not lack criminal responsibility.

She also argues that the evidence on criminal responsibility has two prongs:

"The Commonwealth can prove the defendant criminally responsible by either proving, one, that the defendant did not have a mental disease or defect, or by the second prong where we're talking about substantial capacity."

She reminds the court that mental disease has no clear definition.

The defendant was showing signs and symptoms of mental illness leading up to the incident, but the Commonwealth does not have to rely on that to determine whether she is criminally responsible, she says.

The prosecution is now up and says Clancy's defence is only now challenging the evidence heard in court throughout the trial.

Attorney Shanan Buckingham says while there were objections to the evidence, they never said there was no evidence.

She says state prosecutors presented numerous pieces of evidence showing Clancy was in a healthy mental state at the time of the murders.

"The Commonwealth met its burden," she says.

Reddington wraps his remarks - in his dramatic style - that the prosecution did not prove probable cause.

Clancy should be found not guilty, he says as he ends his remarks and the prosecution gets ready to take to the microphone.

Reddington argues that the government "comes into this courtroom and says that the reason that she killed these kids is because she was sick of being a mother".

But then they "backed off on that like a poodle on a linoleum floor", Reddington says, instead arguing that she was not in a psychosis.

Reddington asks: "Forget about the law, forget about the motions, forget about everything. Talked by human beings. Why would this woman, who the evidence shows clearly and unequivocally was a nurse, a mother, a friend, did nothing wrong in her life... Why would she kill those three children?"

Image source, Getty Images

The prosecution has the burden of proof, defence lawyer Reddington continues in closing.

He is arguing that a jury can draw an inference that there is reasonable doubt based on the lack of an adequate police investigation.

"In this case, there was no investigation," he says. "They just immediately assumed this woman was guilty."

He also says the expert witness doctors the prosecution presented were not qualified to tell of Clancy's mental state because of postpartum psychosis.