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.

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?"

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.

Reddington is going through the immediate aftermath of Clancy's actions. He's doing it in a rather theatrical manner, which is typical of what we've seen of Clancy's lawyer.

He says what is "most chilling" is that when Clancy came out of her coma after the three children were strangled, she was told exactly what happened.

Reddington questions why Clancy would have to be told what happened, if she recalled it. While he's doing this he's forcefully banging on his table to emphasize his point.

There's no evidence, he says, that Clancy admitted she did it.

Clancy's lawyer, Reddington, is still making his case before the judge.

He asks the court to recall the evidence presented at trial and ask: "Where's the evidence that she did this?"

He then takes us back to the events of the night.

Reddington also accuses the police of having "no investigation" into the details of the case, as he takes the court through specific evidence presented of Clancy's self-harm after the deaths of the children.

"This entire case is based on speculation," he says.

The defence is now arguing that the court should overrule the mistrial verdict and find Clancy not guilty.

Clancy's lawyer Kevin Reddington calls out the bifurcation of the case - which is the distinction of Clancy admitting she killed the children versus admitting she was criminally responsible.

This was a feature of the case throughout the weeks it was argued over the summer.

He notes that the case was discussed nationwide, including by politicians and President Donald Trump.

Reddington addresses once again that the government has the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, emphasising that this is due process.

We're hearing now that there was a motion to bar prejudicial statements, commonly known as a gag order.

As we mentioned earlier, the motion argues that Clancy's lawyer, Reddington, has been actively speaking to the media and commenting on issues such as how the defendant was doing and feeling, and how witnesses testified.

This raises constitutional issues, the judge tells the court.

He says that he'll consider this motion on 2 November.

The defence has asked the judge to dismiss the case.

Prosecutors say they need more time to respond, arguing they were not aware until late last week that the defence wanted the motion heard today.

"We were not aware that that was going to happen, and so we really had a very limited time in which to delve into this 34-page memorandum that was submitted by defence counsel and prepare for this motion today," the prosecution says.

The defence argues the motion raises significant issues and could bring the litigation to an end.

The judge agrees it is a significant motion and says he understands prosecutors may need additional time to prepare. He schedules a hearing on the motion for 2 November.

This is the first time we're seeing Lindsay Clancy since the mistrial was declared.

She's sitting next to her lawyer, Kevin Reddington, and is wearing a blush-coloured crochet-appearing short-sleeve shirt.

Image source, Pool

Judge William Sullivan begins by discussing the motions before the court.

That include a renewed motion for a required finding, a motion to preserve juror records and an enquiry into "Juror Doe", meaning the lone juror.

Lindsay Clancy is now back in court for the status conference in the case against her.

This is the first time since her murder trial ended in a hung jury earlier this month.

You can watch live above. We will also bring you text updates throughout.

Image source, Reuters

We’re now seeing a picture of a Plymouth County Sheriff’s van arriving at court.

It is apparently the same van Clancy was taken into when she came out of court each day and her supporters can be seen waving at it.

We’ll let you know as soon as Clancy appears.

Image source, Reuters

While our wait continues, we have also learned that the prosecution team have filed a motion to "preclude prejudicial extrajudicial statements to the media", also known as a gag order.

The motion argues that Clancy's lawyer, Kevin Reddington, has been actively speaking to the media and commenting on issues such as how the defendant was doing and feeling, and how witnesses testified.

Reddington has also spoken about the jurors deliberating in the case, which the motion describes as "most disturbing". On 3 September, the motion says, Reddington referred to the "hold out juror" as "he", and "ensured that the juror would be publicly identified".

The prosecution says the court should therefore "limit the extrajudicial statement made in this case to ensure the fair administration of justice".

WBZ-TV and Boston Globe Media Partners filed a motion opposing the gag order, BBC's US partner CBS reports.

Image source, AFP via Getty Images

Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz, whose office is leading the prosecution case, has arrived at court in Plymouth, Massachusetts.

We are still waiting for proceedings to begin, but expect Lindsay Clancy to appear in court soon.

We're still waiting for this hearing to kick off.

But here's a look outside the courtroom as people line up to go in, including reporters, spectators and supporters of Clancy.

Aside from the Clancy case, there is regular court business happening within the three levels of the Massachusetts courthouse.

Image source, Getty Images

Image source, Getty Images

Ana Faguy
US reporter

I spent days in the Massachusetts courthouse where we're expecting to see Lindsay Clancy today, for the first time since a mistrial was declared in her murder trial.

There's room for a few dozen members of the press - seats which, given the spectacle that has surrounded this case, will likely be full.

There's also spaces for Clancy's family and friends who were often seen sitting in the wooden benches behind her.

And there's even room for some members of the public to watch.

Since the last time all of these people were in the courtroom together, we've learned a lot more about the jury that could not reach consensus.

I expect we'll hear more about those 12 individuals today as we potentially learn what happens next in this case.