What Lindsay Clancy's defense is arguing as she returns to court after a mistrial

EDITOR'S NOTE: This story includes discussion of suicide. If you or someone you know needs help, the national suicide and crisis lifeline in the U.S. is available by calling or texting 988.

Lindsay Clancy is returning to court Tuesday, almost a month after a judge declared a mistrial in the case about whether she should be held criminally responsible for the murder of her three children.

The status hearing is expected to lay out the next steps for the 36-year-old former labor and delivery nurse, whose case drew widespread interest and sparked debate around postpartum mental healthcare. But it is unlikely to mark an end to the proceedings, legal experts told PBS News.

READ MORE: What the Lindsay Clancy trial reveals about a broken postpartum mental health system

This "is less about relitigating Lindsey Clancy's guilt than determining what legal path remains after the mistrial," said Marian Braccia, law professor at Temple University.

Clancy doesn't deny killing her children before attempting to die by suicide in 2023. But she pleaded not guilty, arguing that her mental state was impaired due to postpartum psychosis at the time of the deaths.

Judge William Sullivan reached the Sept. 4 mistrial declaration after a jury was unable to come to a unanimous decision following seven days of deliberation and one holdout juror.

READ MORE: Key things to know about Lindsay Clancy's case after judge declares mistrial

A mistrial is neither a determination of guilt nor an acquittal. It essentially put Clancy back to where she was before the trial: with pending first-degree murder charges.

Now, the prosecution must decide whether to retry the case, lessen the charges, reach a plea deal or drop the charges entirely. But the state may not come to that conclusion at the status hearing.

In the weeks since the trial's end, Clancy's defense team has filed motions that seek to prevent a retrial, including one to dismiss the case and another to investigate the lone holdout juror. Legal experts told PBS News those motions are likely to face an uphill battle and decisions are expected to be appealed. 

On Tuesday, Sullivan is expected to determine where the parties stand, review pending motions and set a schedule for what comes next.

Here's what to know about the next steps in Clancy's case.

What are Clancy's lawyers asking for

The defense is seeking further investigation into the hung juror and his phone records, and argues that Sullivan should never have declared a mistrial.

A deadlocked jury is the "classic example" of the circumstance under which a judge can declare a mistrial, Braccia said.

Generally, judges are given "considerable discretion" to determine whether a jury is "hopelessly deadlocked," Heather Cucolo, an expert in mental health law and a professor at New York Law School, said in an email.

During the trial, the jury's foreperson indicated to Sullivan that there was one holdout juror who refused to follow the law on reasonable doubt.

Clancy's defense lawyer asked for the juror to be removed. Instead, Sullivan repeated his instruction on reasonable doubt and read the jury what is known as a "dynamite charge," designed to encourage jurors to keep deliberating even after they have said to be at a deadlock.

Watch a clip from the courtroom above.

In the weeks since the trial, jurors in interviews have said that Michael Desronvil, the holdout juror, admitted that he had reasonable doubt, but refused to say Clancy was not guilty by reason of insanity.

READ MORE: Jurors speak out about Lindsay Clancy mistrial and the lone holdout

In a statement posted by Desronvil's lawyer, the juror said that he "didn't have any doubts."

The defense claims a retrial would violate Clancy's constitutional rights against double jeopardy, which prevents a person from being tried twice for the same crime following an acquittal or conviction.

Sullivan must now decide whether there was deadlock or whether there should have been further judicial intervention before he declared the mistrial. Additionally, the law is protective of the secrecy and independence of jury deliberations, legal experts said.

This motion is "a long shot," David Rossman, criminal law expert and emeritus professor at Boston University said in an email.

"Courts are generally reluctant to second-guess a juror's reasoning simply because that juror disagreed with the majority," Cucolo said.

Another motion related to the prosecution's evidence

Clancy's lawyers have also filed a motion claiming that the evidence presented by the prosecution at the first trial was legally insufficient to convict her.

The move asks Sullivan to determine whether the "evidence was legally sufficient for any rational juror to find criminal responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt," Braccia said.

WATCH: The central issue that the Lindsay Clancy jury will be deliberating

"If the commonwealth presented evidence that could support a finding of criminal responsibility, and the defense presented evidence pointing the other way, that's ordinarily the kind of factual disagreement we expect a jury to resolve," she said. The motion "is asking whether the commonwealth's evidence cleared the threshold necessary to let the jury make that choice in the first place."

The motion is "very difficult" for the defense to argue, Braccia said.

Will the commonwealth retry the case?

It's unclear at this time whether the prosecution will move for a retrial.

Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz told reporters outside the courthouse on the day Sullivan declared a mistrial that there would "be no decisions made today regarding that."

Rossman said he expects Cruz to choose to retry the case, because "dismissing it would be an admission of failure, something unlikely to come from a law-and-order Republican."

Daniel Medwed, criminal law professor at Northeastern University, said in an email that, in the legal system, "prosecutors are often referred to as ministers of justice, and the idea is that prosecutors never 'lose,' whether acquittal, conviction or mistrial, so long as the outcome is considered fair."

There are several factors the commonwealth must account for in making any decision, Cucolo said, including juror reactions, defense strategies and whether there is additional evidence to strengthen their case.

"In deciding whether to proceed, prosecutors will ask a fundamental question: Can we reasonably expect a conviction before a new jury?" she said.

The previous trial's 11 to 1 jury favoring the defense "is information that no prosecutor, no litigator can ignore," Braccia said. "That doesn't necessarily dictate the next decision, but it absolutely belongs in the calculus."

Brad Bailey, a former prosecutor and criminal defense attorney in Boston, told PBS News after the mistrial declaration that the state is "unlikely going to get any better result than a hung jury" and a retrial "is an exercise in futility."

Watch the PBS News Hour segment in the player above.

However, a retrial on the same charges is not the state's only option.

Prosecutors may try the case on lesser charges such as second degree murder or manslaughter. Or they could reach a plea deal with Clancy.

Clancy's lawyer, Kevin Reddington, told CNN that he would not agree to a deal that would lead to Clancy serving time in jail.

Braccia said these decisions may not be made at the status hearing. The prosecution may wait for the defense's motions to be litigated before it reaches a final decision.

"Above all, prosecutors must consider whether there remains a good-faith basis to believe the defendant is guilty, whether continued prosecution serves the interests of justice, and whether any reasonable doubt exposed during the first trial can realistically be overcome," Cucolo said.