Lindsay Clancy prosecutors say they will retry her, but don't know if she'll face murder charges again

Lindsay Clancy's future is still hanging in the balance as the prosecution refuses to say what charges she could face at a retrial.The 36-year-old former nurse was back in a Massachusetts courtroom on Monday, where lawyers argued over motions to dismiss the case, investigate the holdout juror and place a gag order on the attorneys as she faces a retrial for the killings of her three children. Prosecutors said they want to retry Clancy again after her first trial ended in a hung jury, split 11 to 1 to acquit, in September, but have not specified what charges she will face.Clancy was charged with triple first-degree murder for the January 2023 killings of her children, five-year-old Cora, three-year-old Dawson and eight-month-old Callan.She admitted to strangling the kids but pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, saying she was suffering severe postpartum psychosis and was overmedicated by doctors. On Monday, Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague said the state 'is not at that point yet' to decide on what charges Clancy would face at retrial and would like to wait for Judge William Sullivan to rule on the defense's motion to dismiss.Defense attorney Kevin Reddington blasted the district attorney's office for failing to decide on the charges, and demanded Clancy be given a speedy trial with Sullivan overseeing the case before he retires next year.'Why do we not know if the next trial is going to be murder in the first degree or a lesser charge or no charge?' he said. Lindsay Clancy was back in court on Monday, where lawyers made arguments to dismiss her case, investigate the holdout juror and on a gag order in the case Clancy was charged with triple first-degree murder for the January 2023 killings of her children, five-year-old Cora, three-year-old Dawson and eight-month-old CallanState law requires Sullivan to retire from the bench when he turns 70 on June 15, 2027.Reddington called Sullivan's retirement 'the elephant in the room' and demanded a speedy trial for Clancy if he does not grant their request to dismiss the case.'I want a trial, I want it with you, and I want it this spring,' he said. 'I am not going to have this woman incarcerated for the next year or two or three.'Judge Sullivan set Clancy's next court date for November 16 at 9am ET, where he will decide on the motions and pick a retrial date for March.During Monday's hearing, Sullivan and Reddington sparred over the holdout juror, Michael Desronvil.'I'm going to stop you right there,' Sullivan said as Reddington mentioned the holdout by his name.Reddington replied, 'No, you're not going to stop me.'Sullivan then threatened to end the hearing.'There's no need to bring out that juror's name,' the judge said.Reddington then argued the holdout juror 'got more facetime than I do' after speaking with the media.Clancy's attorney, Martin Weinberg, who previously represented Karen Read, also argued the case should be dismissed because the jury was not impartial. Defense attorney Kevin Reddington and Judge William Sullivan sparred over arguments about using the holdout jurors nameHe claimed the court's decision to declare a mistrial was made 'in the heat of the moment.''We contend, based on these jury notes, that not all 12 jurors were following your instructions,' Weinberg said.The prosecution and an attorney for Desronvil argued the motion should be dismissed and accused the defense of targeting Desronvil because he did not reach the conclusion they wanted. The hearing comes as Clancy's civil attorneys are claiming they believe if given the opportunity, she would commit suicide.'She doesn't want to be here. She wants to be with her children, and if given the opportunity, I have no doubt in my mind at all that she would take her own life,' attorney Rosemary Scapicchio told CBS News.Scapicchio said all Clancy thinks about 'is that her kids are no longer here,' and that she has 'horrible dreams.''She walks around all day with that right here in her face, every single solitary day, and then she sleeps and has horrible dreams about this,' she said.Clancy's trial was upended by a lone holdout juror who refused to change his vote, leading Clancy's attorneys to try to reverse the mistrial over allegations he had 'reasonable doubt.' The prosecution and an attorney for Desronvil argued the motion should be dismissed and accused the defense of targeting Desronvil because he did not reach the conclusion they wantedThe juror, Michael Desronvil, denied that he had reasonable doubt, and prosecutors argued in their filing this week that the Supreme Court has previously ruled against 'post-trial juror revelations about their deliberations to affect the analysis.'Meanwhile, Clancy's ex-husband, Patrick, is also moving forward with a wrongful death lawsuit against Lindsay's former doctors, and last week his attorneys argued that the tragic killings of his children could have been prevented.Patrick's lawyer, Howard Cooper, said he believes that once Lindsay's Fifth Amendment issues, which protect against self-incrimination, are resolved, she will be able to take the stand. He claimed that she would testify that her doctors were aware of her thoughts about harming her children, but they failed to act.'You know who hasn't testified yet, Your Honor? Lindsay Clancy. We allege in our complaint that she is going to confirm that she told these defendants that she had homicidal ideation,' Cooper said in court this week.'We believe that Lindsay Clancy, once her Fifth Amendment issues are resolved, one way or the other, will testify that she told these defendants explicitly that she had homicidal ideation, that she was worried about something awful happening to her kids.'Reddington has pushed back on those claims.'It has come to my attention that counsel for Patrick Clancy represented to the court in his civil case that my client, Lindsay Clancy, will testify about statements she made to her healthcare providers,' he told CBS Boston.'Lindsay Clancy never told any of her healthcare providers that she harbored homicidal ideation toward her children,' he added.'She never indicated that she intended to testify in Mr Clancy's lawsuit, and no one acting for her ever represented that she would. Mr Clancy's counsel does not speak for Lindsay Clancy.'Patrick's lawsuit lists some of the medical providers who testified in the blockbuster trial, including Dr Jennifer Tufts and nurse Rebecca Jollotta, and accuses them of failing to properly treat her, which, 'resulted in tragedy, namely, allegations that Lindsay took the lives of her children.''If Defendants had not acted negligently, and rather had provided adequate care, it is more likely than not that Patrick and Lindsay's children would still be alive today,' the lawsuit stated.Tufts and Jollotta, along with other medical providers Patrick is suing, South Shore Health System and Aster Mental Health, have denied the allegations and filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit.This is a breaking news story...