Lindsay Clancy is going back to trial.

At a hearing in Plymouth Superior Court on Monday, prosecutors told Judge William Sullivan they intend to retry Clancy for killing her three young children. Her first trial ended in a hung jury in September.

"Your honor, this would be a retrial," Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague said. "As to what that looks like will depend."

Sullivan said he's aiming for March. "I'm thinking sometime in March if we can do that, or earlier if possible," he said.

On January 24, 2023, inside the family's home in Duxbury, Massachusetts, Clancy strangled her children with exercise bands. Cora was 5. Dawson was 3. Callan was 8 months old. Cora and Dawson died that night. Callan died days later. Clancy then tried to kill herself by cutting her wrists and neck and jumping from a second-story window. She survived.

Clancy never denied killing them. At trial, her lawyers argued she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and couldn't be held criminally responsible, Massachusetts' version of the insanity defense. The jury split 11 to 1. Eleven jurors were ready to accept that defense, which would have sent her to a psychiatric hospital instead of prison. One juror wouldn't. The judge declared a mistrial on September 4.

Now the case starts over.

Prosecutors haven't decided yet whether to bring the same three first-degree murder charges or something lesser. Sprague said that decision will wait until Sullivan rules on several pending motions.

The biggest is a defense request to throw out the charges entirely. Clancy's lawyers argue a second trial would violate double jeopardy. They say the judge should have questioned the holdout juror more closely after other jurors complained about him. Prosecutors say the mistrial was handled properly, and that a hung jury is exactly the situation where the law allows a retrial. "It's not for the trial judge to choose sides in a deadlocked jury and decide," Sprague said.

Hung juries almost never stop a retrial. The double jeopardy protection kicks in after an acquittal, and this jury didn't acquit. It couldn't agree.

The defense is also pressing for answers. Clancy's lawyer, Kevin Reddington, asked why prosecutors can't say now whether the next trial will be for first-degree murder, a lesser charge or nothing at all. He also wants Sullivan, who faces mandatory retirement in June, to hear the retrial himself this spring. "I want a trial, and I want it with you, and I want it this spring," he told the judge.

Prosecutors, meanwhile, want a gag order limiting what both sides say to the press. They pointed to Reddington's public comments, including calling for a presidential pardon for Clancy and saying the other jurors were "robbed" by the holdout. The defense calls a gag order unconstitutional.

Sullivan took everything under advisement: the motion to dismiss, the requests about the holdout juror and the gag order. Both sides are due back on November 16. If the judge rejects the motion to dismiss, they'll set a trial date.

If it's March, Cora, Dawson and Callan will have been gone more than four years before a jury gets another chance to decide.