Judge William Sullivan rejected a defense motion to dismiss the case on double jeopardy grounds. Clancy's lawyers argued that Sullivan should not have declared a mistrial when jurors reported they could not reach a unanimous decision on first-degree murder charges, and that he instead should have questioned them further.

The defense pointed to a note from the jury foreperson during deliberations indicating that one juror was unable to follow the judge's instructions on reasonable doubt. They contended the judge could have replaced that juror and potentially avoided a mistrial, meaning a retrial would violate Clancy's constitutional protection against being tried twice for the same crime.

Sullivan disagreed, writing that jurors may be dismissed only under specific criteria that were not met in this case.

"The Court understands the frustration of the defendant and the jurors that despite the utmost diligence, the jury ultimately was unable to reach a verdict in this emotionally grueling and complicated case," Sullivan wrote. "While a party may desire a procedure that increases the odds of receiving a favorable outcome to the case, the Court's primary concern must be protecting the fairness of the proceedings and avoiding the possibility of a coerced verdict."

The judge also denied a defense request for a limited inquiry into the holdout juror and to preserve juror records, including questionnaires completed during jury selection. After the trial, it emerged that the holdout juror had a pending restraining order against him, and other jurors said publicly that he had used his cellphone during deliberations. Sullivan ruled that further investigation would be an "improper intrusion" into the juror's privacy and "would serve to discourage citizens from being willing to serve as jurors in the future."

A third motion, brought by prosecutors, sought a gag order restricting attorney comments to the media. Prosecutors argued that Clancy's attorney, Kevin Reddington, had helped create a "carnival atmosphere" during the trial and should be barred from making out-of-court statements that could prejudice a future jury. Sullivan denied the request, writing that "the Commonwealth has failed to meet its burden to justify the extreme remedy of a prior restraint."

Plymouth County District Attorney Tim Cruz has not said whether he will seek another trial, or whether he would again pursue first-degree murder charges. If prosecutors pursue lesser charges such as second-degree murder or manslaughter, the defense could request a bench trial without a jury.

The Monday hearing is expected to clarify the path forward in a case that has drawn intense public attention and raised difficult questions about mental health, the justice system and the rights of defendants and jurors alike.