Grace Eliza Goodwin
US reporter

Image source, Reuters

The murder trial of Lindsay Clancy, the Massachusetts mother accused of killing her three young children, has come to a close after nearly seven weeks - at least for now.

The judge declared a mistrial today after the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict.

Now prosecutors must decide if they want a retrial with a whole new jury. They could also try to reach a plea deal with Lindsay Clancy or choose not to refile the case at all - although that doesn't appear likely.

The court will reconvene at the end of the month to decide what happens next.

Clancy's lawyer said that, should the prosecution decide to retry the case - which could happen within months - he and his client will be ready for it.

The trial has garnered enormous media attention and ignited a national conversation around postpartum healthcare. Even US President Donald Trump weighed in, calling the case a "horrible tragedy".

We're ending our live coverage now, but you can read more about today's events here.

Asma Khalid
Co-host, The Global Story Podcast

In another country, the charges against Lindsay Clancy might have looked somewhat different - at least regarding youngest child, who was eight months old when he was killed.

For his death, Clancy may have faced a charge of infanticide rather than murder.

Several other Western countries - including Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland - have a specific law around infanticide.

The definitions vary, but broadly they follow the British precedent set about 100 years ago, which offers leniency to a mother for killing a baby in the first year of their life. (Though, in some countries, the age limit is higher).

The crime often carries a lighter prison sentence than murder. In Canada, for example, the maximum sentence is five years.

The rationale for an infanticide distinction "is based around the idea that the balance of the mother's mind was disturbed as a consequence of her not having fully recovered from the effects of giving birth", says Dr Karen Brennan, infanticide researcher at the University of Essex.

To be clear, the US has no infanticide law. But in 2018, Illinois, external became the first state in the nation to explicitly recognise postpartum mental health as a factor in sentencing.

All this being said, only one of Clancy’s children was an infant. Her older children were three and five years old.

You can hear more on today's episode of the BBC's podcast The Global Story.

Image source, Reuters

Kwasi Gyamfi Asiedu
Live reporter

Image source, Gamma-Keystone via Getty Images

Following the announcement of the mistrial, Judge Sullivan thanked the 12 jurors who, after several days of deliberating, could not come a unanimous decision.

Sullivan, a self-described "history buff" evoked Britain's World War Two leader Winston Churchill while expressing his gratitude to the nine women and three men on the jury.

Paraphrasing Churchill in his famous "Finest Hour" speech in 1940, Sullivan told the jurors: "Let us brace for our duties."

"I always liked that phrase," Sullivan said.

"Each one of you knew how long the case was going to go, you knew how difficult the case was going to be to listen to facts wise, but still you braced for that duty."

Pratiksha Ghildial
Reporting from court in Massachusetts

A legal expert has been weighing in on the performance of both the defence and prosecution in the trial.

Criminal Defence attorney Brad Bailey tells the BBC he believes the defence made a strong case.

‘’They presented a persuasive basis for the jury to conclude that Ms Clancy should not be held criminally responsible even though the burden of proof remained on the prosecution throughout."

Bailey believes the prosecution was ineffective at first but ‘’gained steam and focus’’ as the case progressed and presented a strong closing argument.

He adds that, despite the defence’s last minute appeal, it was always unlikely the Massachusetts Supreme Court would have blocked the declaration of a mistrial by Judge Sullivan.

CBS, the BBC's US partner, has obtained a statement from David Meier, the lawyer for Patrick Clancy, Lindsay Clancy's ex-husband.

"Patrick Clancy is grateful to the Court and to the jurors for their hard work, their commitment, and their perseverance," the statement reads.

"The loss of Patrick’s children is something from which he will never recover and from which there will never be closure.

"The prospect of reliving this tragedy through another trial is extraordinarily painful - for Patrick, for his family, and for all of us."

Image source, Reuters

Marianna Spring
Disinformation and social media correspondent

Social media feeds right now are flooded with theories, analysis and conspiracy content about the Lindsay Clancy trial. This is not the first trial by TikTok - but it's definitely captured the internet's attention.

In many of the videos, women share their legitimate concerns about a lack of support for postpartum psychosis in the US, which is central to Clancy's defence.

But some sleuths have taken it further, unpicking every moment from the court livestream and shedding doubt on whether Clancy killed her children in the first place - even though that's something to which she has already admitted.

Clancy's lawyer Kevin Reddington is the subject of fan edits and montages, while other relatives - like her ex-husband Patrick Clancy - are targeted with abuse and, in some cases, defamatory claims that go beyond evidenced criticism. There was even a viral Bratz doll re-enactment of the crime scene questioning whether she killed her children.

On a recent episode of the BBC's Top Comment podcast, fellow investigative journalist Matt Shea and I analysed how the facts of this trial are being distorted on social media - and spoke to some sleuths about why they're posting.

Sakshi Venkatraman
US reporter

Though we don't yet know what will happen next, Massachusetts criminal defence lawyer Joe Serpa says he thinks the prosecution is likely to retry this case.

"Given the number and seriousness of the charges, the public attention, and the resources already committed, it would be unusual for the Commonwealth simply to abandon the prosecution after one deadlocked jury," he says.

"If there is a second trial, a completely new jury will hear the evidence from the beginning," he adds.

"The lawyers, however, will not be starting from zero. Both sides have now seen the opposing case in full and can revise their expert examinations, cross-examinations, themes, and presentation," Serpa explains.

"The central question for a retrial may therefore be whether the Commonwealth can present essentially the same evidence with greater restraint and sensitivity, while the defense attempts to reproduce what it believes was a jury substantially inclined toward acquittal."

Reddington says the trial of Lindsay Clancy has shed light on postpartum issues and women's healthcare more broadly.

This case shows "the woeful deficiency that women have they are pregnant, when they have babies, and God forbid when they are on medication because of postpartum psychosis".

He says he hopes that there is societal change and that it "it might be the spark that lights the fire".

Remember: Clancy's legal team argued she was not guilty of murdering her children because she was suffering postpartum psychosis at the time. Prosecutors argued she was not suffering psychosis and she was aware of right and wrong at the time.

Read more here: Lindsay Clancy's trial puts postpartum psychosis in the spotlight

Reddington is asked about previous comments that his client Lindsay Clancy was not emotionally ready to deal with a new trial.

"Judge Sullivan is indicating that we are looking at sometime in the fall," Reddington says, referring to a possible new trial that could be coming.

Prosecutors have said they're still unsure if and when they will retry the case.

"She will be ready," Reddington says.

Asked how Clancy is, he says "not good", and asked how her parents are, he says "not good".

"If we didn't have that one individual, we would've had a verdict and we would be out of here," he says.

Reminder: We don't know how the jury was split or what deliberations looked like in the room.

Reddington adds that the district attorney should "revisit his facts and figure out whether or not he can prove the case" on a retrial.

Though he had tense exchanged with the judge in court, he described Judge William Sullivan as "wonderful".

He emphatically tells the group of press: "We will be back."

Read more about Reddington, Clancy's attorney known for firey exchanges in court, external.

Image source, Reuters

We're now hearing from Lindsay Clancy's lawyer Kevin Reddington, who is speaking outside the courthouse.

"Obviously this is not a time for gloating, bragging, expressing victory. It's a very sad case," he says.

He said he "crushed" the DA's case, and thanked the members of the jury "minus one".

"I'm representing a woman who is a fantastic, wonderful individual," he says of Clancy.

He describes Clancy as "brave", saying she is loved by everyone.

"Nobody had anything bad to say about her except the two prosecutors," he says.

A few different things could happen now that a mistrial has been declared.

The prosecution can choose to refile and restart the trial with a new jury. While prosecutors almost always ask for a retrial in serious felony cases like this, the district attorneys say outside the courthouse that that's a decision they are not yet ready to make.

Prosecutors could also negotiate a plea agreement with Lindsay Clancy.

Alternatively, prosecutors could dismiss the charges altogether, though that does not seem likely as they appeared eager to book the next trial status date, now scheduled for 29 September.

If a new trial is planned, Clancy will remain in the same forensic mental health facility she has been in - though her defence attorneys could ask for a review of her bail situation, said Heather Cucolo, a New York Law School professor and expert in mental health law.

Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz is asked by press: Do you think that another jury could be convinced of Clancy's guilt, if 11 of these 12 jurors were not?

"We don't know what they believed or didn't believe," Cruz says of the jurors.

We know the jury has told the judge three times that they are deadlocked in their decision, but we don't know what position any member of the jury has taken or what talks looked like in the deliberation room.

Bernd Debusmann Jr
White House reporter

While the court drama is taking place in Massachusetts, President Donald Trump is at the White House and taking questions from reporters.

One of the reporters asked him if he'd been following the Clancy trial.

In a brief answer, Trump called the case a "horrible tragedy" and said he was aware that it was likely to end in a mistrial.

"I assume there's going to be another trial," he said. "She did a horrible, horrible thing. Can't be worse."

"But you'll find out what the price to pay is," Trump added. "There'll be a price. It's going to be a mental institution or jail or something...it's too bad."

Plymouth District Attorney Cruz says "there will be no decisions made today" regarding retrying the case against Lindsay Clancy.

He says he will meet the rest of their legal team to decide, and he thanked the jury for their service in the matter.

"The facts are Lindsay Clancy killed her three children and the evidence suggested to us that she was in control of her actions when she committed those homicides," he says.

Image source, Reuters

We're now hearing from Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz.

He praises the prosecutors and investigators who worked on this case, and says trying this case was seeking justice for Cora, Dawson and Callan Clancy.

"This is a case about three children who died a violent and horrific death at the hands of the person who should have loved them the most," he says.

The court clerk repeats to the courtroom that the case has resulted in a mistrial, with the next date for a status hearing set for 29 September.

And with that, court is adjourned.

Ione Wells
Reporting from court in Massachusetts

It is surprisingly silent in the courtroom.

I think many people are in disbelief that after a brutal trial that lasted weeks, and more than 36 hours of deliberation, there is no verdict in the end. It is hard to see Lindsay Clancy’s expression. Others in the courtroom, including her mother, have neutral expressions. Her lawyer is making every last ditch attempt to appeal this.

The jury have been dismissed, but we are still in session here.

Lindsay Clancy and her attorney Kevin Reddington looked on as Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial and discharged the jury.

Clancy was expressionless but Reddington looked visibly upset by the decision, removing his glasses and looking forward.