It is a case that has gripped the world, and a verdict could be imminent.

Lindsay Clancy is on trial for the murder of her three children in 2023 at their family home in Massachusetts.

She is charged with three counts of first degree murder.

After days of deliberation and an inability to reach a unanimous verdict, the jury are expected to deliver another message to the judge on Friday, hopefully bringing an end to a weeks long trial.

What happened?

In the months after the birth of her third child, Ms Clancy ‘s mental health collapsed.

Manic, unable to sleep and stricken with thoughts of harming herself, she sought care from experts in post-pregnancy mood disorders, was put on multiple psychiatric medications, and when nothing worked, checked in to a psychiatric hospital.

Nineteen days after she was discharged, the murders took place.

Whether Ms Clancy killed her children is not in dispute.

But her attorney argues that she was driven by post-partum psychosis, a rare mental illness linked to the stress, sleep deprivation and hormonal changes that follow childbirth.

Prosecutors contend that she acted intentionally and bears full responsibility for the deaths, saying that she strangled her children — Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months — on January 24, 2023, after sending her then-husband, Patrick, out for some errands.

She then used multiple methods to try to end her own life and was paralysed from the waist down after jumping from the home’s second-story window.

‘She needed help’

Throughout the duration of the trial, Ms Clancy has garnered hoards of supporters.

Hundreds of women, and a few men, gathered at the court each day, many wearing pink shirts.

Some of those shirts had phrases like “She Needed Help” and “Peace For Lindsay”.

Several supporters said they wanted to raise awareness about how the mental health system treats women.

The livestreamed trial has brought attention to post-partum psychosis, a rare mental illness that Ms Clancy’s attorney Kevin Reddington says she had.

The condition is linked to the stress, sleep deprivation and hormonal changes that follow childbirth.

Researchers estimate that post-partum psychosis — which is more serious and less common than post-partum depression — afflicts 1 to 2 per 1,000 women after delivery.

While many supporters have rallied behind Ms Clancy and her spotlighting of post-partum psychosis, others are outraged that an alleged murderer is being celebrated.

A fundraiser for Ms Clancy’s parents has raised more than $US1.1 million ($A1.5 million).

Child abuse prosecutor Jonathan Hatami said he found the celebration of Ms Clancy problematic.

“We can’t be killing children and then say, ‘Oh, I’m happy now that mental health is being discussed’,” he said, as reported by The New York Times.

High-profile trial grips the world

The high-profile case has sent shock waves around the world by televising more than 80 witnesses and 300 evidence exhibits that outline gruesome details of the day Ms Clancy is accused of strangling her three young children with exercise bands before attempting to take her own life.

Mr Reddington is not disputing the alleged murders, rather arguing that Ms Clancy was suffering from post-partum psychosis and had been failed by the medical system after receiving insufficient help in the eight months following the birth of her youngest child.

Massachusetts state prosecution is attempting to have Clancy found guilty on three counts of first-degree murder representing the intentional and premeditated nature of her actions.

Forgiven by ex-husband

Ms Clancy’s ex-husband, Patrick, was the first witness called to the stand

Mr Clancy has said in interviews that he forgives his ex-wife, whom he viewed as ill rather than evil.

When he testified about his former wife’s deteriorating mental health in the months before the killings, including describing intrusive thoughts of harming the children and of suicide.

But he said she appeared to be doing better as recently as two weeks before the killings.

He closed out that testimony by going through the day of the deaths, which he said started as one of her “best days.”

Ms Clancy took Cora to a doctor’s appointment and then returned home to build a snowman with her children and work on art projects.

Jury troubles

The jury of nine women and three men have, for three days, told the judge they have been unable to reach a unanimous decision on whether the former labour and delivery nurse is criminally responsible for killing her three young children.

On Thursday, tensions boiled over, when her defence attorney asked the judge to remove a juror over claims that they were refusing to follow instructions on reasonable doubt.

Mr Reddington told Judge William Sullivan on Thursday he wanted the juror removed, warning the dispute could potentially lead to a mistrial.

“My motion is to remove this juror who refuses to listen to your instruction on reasonable doubt,” Mr Reddington said, according to The Washington Post.

The judge had brought jurors into court one by one after they sent him a note earlier in the day, asking each to affirm they were able to follow the law.

Mr Sullivan then reminded them of the legal standard for reasonable doubt and instructed them they were required to follow his directions.

Mr Reddington argued simply reading the instructions was not enough and pressed for the juror to be discharged.

Prosecutors said the judge’s approach was appropriate, while Sullivan described removing a deliberating juror as a “sensitive undertaking”.

“I don’t feel that it is proper for me to side with one side or the other of the deliberations,” Mr Sullivan said.

The jury was dismissed for the day and is due to return Friday for a seventh day of deliberations.

If jurors ultimately cannot agree on a verdict, Judge William Sullivan could declare a mistrial.

What’s next?

As the world waits for the jury to finalise their deliberations again and deliver a unanimous verdict, there are a few options for what may happen next.

Most argue that the outcome will merely determine whether Ms Clancy spends her life in prison or in a psychiatric facility.

If the jury finds Ms Clancy guilty of first-degree murder she will be sentenced to life in prison with no opportunity for parole.

However, if they decide she cannot be held criminally responsible for her actions due to her state of mind at the time of the murders, she will instead be placed in a psychiatric hospital.

The jury may also reach a middle ground where they find her guilty of second-degree murder, which infers no premeditation, or manslaughter, and shows she acted unintentionally.

Manslaughter carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison for each guilty count.

It is considered highly unlikely that the jury would reach a unanimous not guilty verdict, setting Ms Clancy free.

A mistrial, though, would be handed down should the 12 jurors be unable to unanimously decide beyond reasonable doubt whether Ms Clancy is guilty or innocent.

In this instance, the prosecution can either negotiate a plea agreement, refile and restart the trial with a new jury, or dismiss the charges altogether.

Due to the high-profile nature of the case, it could be difficult to find a new round of impartial jurors which may encourage strategic requests by the prosecution such as moving a retrial to a different legal jurisdiction and the sequestering of a new jury.

Regardless, this would not happen instantly, and Ms Clancy would remain in the mental facility where she currently resides during this process.

- With AP

If you or someone you know is experiencing family violence, phone 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732) or the Crisis Care Helpline on 1800 199 008.

Lifeline: 13 11 14.