OT - Karen Read Trial in Massachusetts

[Willi Kid]

"Auntie Bev"...It seems like from the limited stuff I've heard/read, she has given the prosecution the benefit of every even moderately close call...interested to hear what those with more info think

Might look like that but pretty std rulings by Auntie Bev. The good doctor wasn't listed by the defense as an expert witness nor were her reports provided to the prosecution in violation of the Mass Rules of Criminal Procedure. The judge actually allowed her to testify despite this violation out of fairness to Karen Reid's defense. But since the Doctor strangely got herself involved in the case recently by proactively reaching out to the defense team through an intermediary and telling them she was a dog bite expert, she was limited to this area of expertise. Reminded me of John Cusack and Rachel Weisz in "Runaway Jury."

 

[CL82]

The mechanical engineering guys can't talk about cause of death either, because they aren't MDs.

I actually agree with that one. Cause of death would be outside of a ME's expertise.

 

[HuskyHawk]

I actually agree with that one. Cause of death would be outside of a ME's expertise.

Oh sure, but cause of death was evidently hypothermia and blunt force trauma to the head. So how did he get hit in the head and come to be lying in the snow? That they should be able to speak to. I don't know how it went today so I don't know what the judge disallowed.

 

[NJHusky]

Might look like that but pretty std rulings by Auntie Bev. The good doctor wasn't listed by the defense as an expert witness nor were her reports provided to the prosecution in violation of the Mass Rules of Criminal Procedure. The judge actually allowed her to testify despite this violation out of fairness to Karen Reid's defense. But since the Doctor strangely got herself involved in the case recently by proactively reaching out to the defense team through an intermediary and telling them she was a dog bite expert, she was limited to this area of expertise. Reminded me of John Cusack and Rachel Weisz in "Runaway Jury."

Why couldn’t any of the defense Dr testify as to what they thought the injury was? I’m sure an ER doc has seen thousands of car accident cases, as would the ME. Why were they limited to saying it looked like a dog bite. What about the blunt Force trauma?

 

[NJHusky]

Might look like that but pretty std rulings by Auntie Bev. The good doctor wasn't listed by the defense as an expert witness nor were her reports provided to the prosecution in violation of the Mass Rules of Criminal Procedure. The judge actually allowed her to testify despite this violation out of fairness to Karen Reid's defense. But since the Doctor strangely got herself involved in the case recently by proactively reaching out to the defense team through an intermediary and telling them she was a dog bite expert, she was limited to this area of expertise. Reminded me of John Cusack and Rachel Weisz in "Runaway Jury."

Assuming u r a litigator….are her rulings as pro prosecution as they appear to me?

 

[huskiesouth]

Assuming u r a litigator….are her rulings as pro prosecution as they appear to me?

Totally

 

[Willi Kid]

Assuming u r a litigator….are her rulings as pro prosecution as they appear to me?

I haven't been watching the case carefully enough to accurately answer the question. As a general matter, judges do not like being overturned on appeal (whether in their criminal or civil dockets). In a criminal case, only the defendant can appeal once there's a jury verdict. As a result, in addition to principles of fairness to defendants that are up on serious charges, some judges tend to rule for defendants on 50-50 balls during the trial. I think both reasons (fairness to Karen R and ability to potentially appeal) might have played a role in the judge's decision to allow the Dr to testify to the possible dog bite marks despite being perturbed by the potential violation of MA Rules of Civil Procedure by the defense. Can't speak to earlier matters in the trial as I haven't been following.

 

[Willi Kid]

I haven't been watching the case carefully enough to accurately answer the question. As a general matter, judges do not like being overturned on appeal (whether in their criminal or civil dockets). In a criminal case, only the defendant can appeal once there's a jury verdict. As a result, in addition to principles of fairness to defendants that are up on serious charges, some judges tend to rule for defendants on 50-50 balls during the trial. I think both reasons (fairness to Karen R and ability to potentially appeal) might have played a role in the judge's decision to allow the Dr to testify to the possible dog bite marks despite being perturbed by the potential violation of MA Rules of Civil Procedure by the defense. Can't speak to earlier matters in the trial as I haven't been following.

typo: Rules of Criminal Procedure not Civil Procedure

 

[NJHusky]

I haven't been watching the case carefully enough to accurately answer the question. As a general matter, judges do not like being overturned on appeal (whether in their criminal or civil dockets). In a criminal case, only the defendant can appeal once there's a jury verdict. As a result, in addition to principles of fairness to defendants that are up on serious charges, some judges tend to rule for defendants on 50-50 balls during the trial. I think both reasons (fairness to Karen R and ability to potentially appeal) might have played a role in the judge's decision to allow the Dr to testify to the possible dog bite marks despite being perturbed by the potential violation of MA Rules of Civil Procedure by the defense. Can't speak to earlier matters in the trial as I haven't been following.

Thx

 

[HooperScooper]

How will Karen Read's trial end? Here’s what legal experts had to say.

As jury deliberations begin in the Karen Read murder trial, several legal experts offered their takeaways and predictions.

www.boston.com

 

[Kolumbo]

Closing Arguments
I think the Defense starts at the 3 hours reaming mark

 

[HitDog]

The jury got the case at 1:26 EDT

 

[M.S.G.]

6 minutes in, don't think it will be much longer

 

[NJHusky]

I didn’t see any of the testimony live but that was a VERY impressive closing argument by the defense.

 

[NJHusky]

6 minutes in, don't think it will be much longer

There are several counts. U have to give them at least 10min per count.

 

[aburks41]

If the verdict comes back not guilt (which is how I would vote) what happens next? Does the investigation into O'Keefe's death continue? Although I think it's pretty obvious that he was killed in that house and all of these cops are in on it so I would assume the investigation never goes anywhere unless someone cracks

 

[7774]

If the verdict comes back not guilt (which is how I would vote) what happens next? Does the investigation into O'Keefe's death continue? Although I think it's pretty obvious that he was killed in that house and all of these cops are in on it so I would assume the investigation never goes anywhere unless someone cracks

I'd say waiting to see what comes out of the federal case is what's next.

 

[Rocktheworld]

That was kind of a quirky hair splitting. Basically she can say the injuries look like he was bitten by a dog, but she can't say the injuries are inconsistent with a pedestrian being hit by a car. I've trouble with the second part. I'm sure she's seen hundreds of car versus pedestrian accidents and is competent to form an opinion whether the injuries he received are consistent with that.

And she also eliminated the biomedical engineer from testifying as to cause of death because he’s not MD, but the MD (for the defense) can’t make a definitive statement…?

I’d bet she’s seen over a thousand vehicle vs pedestrian accidents.

 

[HuskyHawk]

If the verdict comes back not guilt (which is how I would vote) what happens next? Does the investigation into O'Keefe's death continue? Although I think it's pretty obvious that he was killed in that house and all of these cops are in on it so I would assume the investigation never goes anywhere unless someone cracks

Just a reminder, the jury doesn't know what we know. That's on purpose. So in a case like this, where we're almost all thinking "not guilty" it may be a lot closer for the jury based on the much more limited access to information and evidence that they have.

That said, I'd be astonished if they got a unanimous guilty verdict. I wouldn't be shocked if one or two people thought she was guilty and thus this drags on a little.

 

[Kolumbo]

This prosecutor's closing is awful. He's not the easiest to understand. He went through the texted argument they were having that afternoon.

8:51 pm - Karen arrives at CF McCarthy's
8:58 pm - Karen received Drink #1 - Vodka soda tall cylinder glass lime and a straw?
10:29 pm - Karen received Drink #7
I mean, that's a lot of drinks
10:54 Karen & John arrive at the Waterfall
Receives Drinks #8 & 9

 

[huskyjawz]

This prosecutor's closing is awful. He's not the easiest to understand. He went through the texted argument they were having that afternoon.

8:51 pm - Karen arrives at CF McCarthy's
8:58 pm - Karen received Drink #1 - Vodka soda tall cylinder glass lime and a straw?
10:29 pm - Karen received Drink #7
I mean, that's a lot of drinks
10:54 Karen & John arrive at the Waterfall
Receives Drinks #8 & 9

Those must have been measured single shot drinks or she wouldn't be able to stand, never mind drove home. What is she 100 lbs. soaking wet?

 

[Kolumbo]

Those must have been measured single shot drinks or she wouldn't be able to stand, never mind drove home. What is she 100 lbs. soaking wet?

He mentioned something about pouring shots into her existing drink or something. I didn't understand him and I don't think I've seen that at a bar so I am not sure what was going on.

 

[87Xfer]

It's pretty wild that (a) nobody saw her hit him (b) nobody heard anything (c) there's no physical evidence on the car or body suggesting she hit him. That's the case, without even going into the mismatch of injuries with what they say happened, the shoddy police work, the destruction of evidence, the text messages, the Paramedic who just happened to show up at work 4 hours early at like 3 AM to take the call. You can't even keep this stuff straight.

I have no idea what the hell happened, and we won't know because they did everything they could to prevent us from knowing.

Disclaimer: I'm just reading through this thread from the beginning. And I live 2,000 miles away so I'd heard basically nothing about it until an article I stumbled across yesterday. But I thought they scrubbed her vehicle data and it showed her reversing 60 ft at 20+ mph, and the dead guy's DNA was found on the vehicle rear bumper and broken tail light? If true, how's the defense acounting for that? Or was that BS somehow? Again, apologies if the answer is deeper in this thread.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Disclaimer: I'm just reading through this thread from the beginning. And I live 2,000 miles away so I'd heard basically nothing about it until an article I stumbled across yesterday. But I thought they scrubbed her vehicle data and it showed her reversing 60 ft at 20+ mph, and the dead guy's DNA was found on the vehicle rear bumper and broken tail light? If true, how's the defense acounting for that? Or was that BS somehow? Again, apologies if the answer is deeper in this thread.

I am not sure what the reversing 60 feet showed at all. Is the prosecutor arguing that she went backwards 60 feet and hit the victim? He was a cop. He would have gotten out of the way.

The same investigator who is good friends with the other primary suspects did find the dead guy's DNA on the vehicle.

The broken tail light occurred at the defendant's house the next morning per her security cameras. The prosecution lied about this initially.

 

[aburks41]

Just a reminder, the jury doesn't know what we know. That's on purpose. So in a case like this, where we're almost all thinking "not guilty" it may be a lot closer for the jury based on the much more limited access to information and evidence that they have.

That said, I'd be astonished if they got a unanimous guilty verdict. I wouldn't be shocked if one or two people thought she was guilty and thus this drags on a little.

What do you mean they don't know what we know? Aren't they sitting in court seeing the same evidence (or lack thereof) we're seeing? I only recently started following this because it blew on all of my feeds over the last 2 weeks so I missed like the first half of the trial. I saw snippets of the early testimonies from Jen McCabe and that crew.

I just can't believe that any juror would think that a car traveling at 25 MPH wouldn't have more damage after hitting a big guy, and also that the dead guy didn't have a single injury that would show he got smacked by a car and launched 30 feet (other than a head injury).