The six-week criminal trial of Lindsay Clancy has collapsed without a verdict, with the judge declaring a mistrial.
Warning: This story contains details of a crime that may be distressing for some readers.
The Massachusetts mother was charged with three counts of first-degree murder over the deaths of her three children at their Boston home on January 24, 2023.
But after weeks of conflicting testimony, jurors were unable to reach a consensus.
Here is what to know about what comes next.
First, catch me up
The trial was to determine whether Ms Clancy was criminally guilty of her children's murders.
While she did not deny killing her children, her defence team argued she had been suffering from postpartum psychosis after the birth of her youngest son and should not be held criminally responsible.
They said the condition left her "begging for help" and spiralling for months.
The prosecution argued she was a "functioning" mother who meticulously planned the murders.
Ms Clancy was facing life in prison without parole if convicted, while a not guilty verdict would have seen her committed to a state mental health facility.
On the day the children were killed, Patrick Clancy, Ms Clancy's then-husband, returned home from running errands to find her lying paralysed in their backyard, having attempted to take her own life by jumping from their second-storey bedroom window.
He found their two eldest children dead from strangulation in the family basement. Their youngest, who was eight months old at the time, died in hospital a few days later.
The televised trial spanned six weeks and heard more than four weeks of witness testimony, reviving long-standing debates about how postpartum mental health is treated in the US.
But the 12-person jury, which was made up of nine women and three men, was unable to reach a unanimous verdict after deliberating for almost 40 hours.
It was revealed in court that the jury had complained that one among them had refused to follow the law on "reasonable doubt".
It is not clear exactly how the jury reached an impasse, but Kevin Reddington, a defence lawyer for Ms Clancy, suggested the lone juror stood in the way of an acquittal.
"They know they were robbed by one man, for whatever his agenda was, who stole seven weeks of the life of these other jurors that were so attentive, so beautiful, so wonderful," he said outside the courthouse.
"You could see how defeated they were sitting there. I got a funny feeling they would have gone on for another week if they had to. So I hope that guy can sleep well at night."
Judge William Sullivan said on Friday, local time, he had "no choice" but to declare a mistrial.
What does a mistrial mean?
A mistrial is when a trial ends without a verdict.
It does not mean the case is closed, though, and prosecutors are free to start a new trial with a new jury.
Will the prosecution retry Clancy?
Plymouth County District Attorney Tim Cruz told reporters after the mistrial that no decision had been made on whether prosecutors would retry the case, but that his goal was always "getting justice for those three little babies".
Still, New York Law School professor Heather Ellis Cucolo told the Associated Press that prosecutors would need to weigh several factors, including the potential expense and the likely outcome.
"I know the prosecutor stated openly that he would not allow public opinion to sway his decision, which is accurate, but the prosecution serves the public," she said.
"If it is believed that justice must be served by another trial, that is something the prosecutor's office will take into account and weigh very heavily."
Mr Reddington also noted it would be difficult to find another set of jurors, given the level of attention the first trial garnered.
"New York, Washington, Georgia, Japan, India, I don't know anywhere."
Jurors need to start a trial with little to no outside knowledge of a case to ensure a fair and impartial trial.
Boston-based defence lawyer Randy Gioia, who was not involved in the trial, told the Associated Press that in his view, prosecutors should not put Ms Clancy through another trial.
"Why put everyone through the trauma again: 16 to 18 jurors, all the witnesses, Patrick Clancy," he said.
"What's to be served here when we've had a long trial and long deliberations? You don't have a strong case. You almost lost the case."
So, what happens now?
Mr Sullivan has set a hearing for September 29 at which time Mr Reddington will likely ask him to declare Ms Clancy not guilty, though such a request is believed to be unlikely to succeed.
It's also where prosecutors could reveal whether they will move to put Ms Clancy on trial again.
Prosecutors could also choose to seek a plea deal or drop the case entirely.
Ms Clancy has been confined at a state psychiatric hospital before and during the trial. She would remain in custody through a second trial.
