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.

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.