OT - Karen Read Trial in Massachusetts

[Kolumbo]

I know we are privy to much more than the jury is...

Getting a bad feeling, this is taking too long.

On top of that, the fireworks in the courtroom this morning over what the judge tried to pull.

Someone is a lawyer right? Is what she did allowed?

"Judge Beverly Cannone had a brief yet testy direct interaction with Read at around 10:10 a.m. Wednesday following an argument by defense attorney Alan Jackson asking that the verdict forms be redesigned.

Cannone disagreed with Jackson’s take on a lack of option for “not guilty” to subordinate charge options as being wrong and then her attention seemed to shift to the defendant.

“Excuse me. This is funny, Ms. Read? Ok. We’re done,” Cannone said before closing the brief session.

The court also answered a question from the jury this morning.

The jurors tod the court they want to be released on time today, she said, with one stressing a long-held scheduling conflict.

That question could point toward the jury being unlikely to deliver a verdict today."

Judge gets testy with Karen Read in court as jurors back to deliberate Thursday

Karen Read’s fate is still unknown after jurors finished a second day of deliberations without a verdict in the murder case — and a testy exchange between the defendant and judge during a brief cou…

www.bostonherald.com

 

[Kolumbo]

from Boston Herald Article

Verdict form
Jackson complained that the verdict form doesn’t allow jurors to check a box marked “not guilty” for the two subordinate charges. Cannone said that is the way verdict forms in Massachusetts always are and that’s “the way it is.”

“Apparently that’s how it’s going to be because of the court’s ruling. That is not as it should be and it’s over our strong objection,” Jackson said. “They need to see there is a ‘not guilty’ option for the subordinate charges. If they come back ‘guilty’ on, for instance, involuntary manslaughter, that’s immediately appealable. They didn’t have an option on the verdict form to find her not guilty. It’s almost like the court is directing a verdict to the subordinate charges.”

Cannone responded, “Ok. I disagree with you.”

Then Cannone looked at the defendant.

“Excuse me. This is funny, Ms. Read?” Cannone said sharply.” Ok. We’re done.”

 

[NJHusky]

You have outside information they can't see while sequestered. You know testimony that has been disallowed. You have way, way more information than the jury has been allowed to see. It's always this way. You can read a Turtleboy report that links all these people in ways that seem nefarious, the jury can't. The irony is this usually helps protect defendants from a lot of evidence that wouldn't be admissible at trial. In this case, it probably helps the prosecution a bit.

Were they sequestered for 2 months?

 

[Kolumbo]

This is strange to me. There is no box for "not guilty" and he strongly objected to it.

‘This is funny, Ms. Read?' Watch judge snap at Karen Read as jury deliberates

There was a dramatic exchange in Norfolk Superior Court Wednesday while the jury in the Karen Read trial deliberated the charges. It ended with Judge Beverly Cannone snapping at Read: “Excuse me, this is funny, Ms. Read? All right, we’re done.”

www.nbcboston.com

 

[Kolumbo]

I'm on it

 

[Chin Diesel]

I agree. My basic point however was that the wheels easily could have spun, with the car not moving, where the computer would register it as 20 mph for a very short distance (60 ft).

I wouldn't discount some other sensor which doesn't just measure wheel speed but measures a distance traveled- accelerometers, gyros, etc. I don't know the specifics of the Lexus in question but I wouldn't be surprised at other technology beyond just a wheel speed sensor.
Anti-skid technology works off measuring each wheels rotation. So if a few are spinning and a few are skidding the car needs to know which wheels need braking.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I'm on it

Wow. The bad press from this trial will be bad for Massachusetts. It is in the Governor’s interest to get in front of this.

 

[aburks41]

from Boston Herald Article

Verdict form
Jackson complained that the verdict form doesn’t allow jurors to check a box marked “not guilty” for the two subordinate charges. Cannone said that is the way verdict forms in Massachusetts always are and that’s “the way it is.”

“Apparently that’s how it’s going to be because of the court’s ruling. That is not as it should be and it’s over our strong objection,” Jackson said. “They need to see there is a ‘not guilty’ option for the subordinate charges. If they come back ‘guilty’ on, for instance, involuntary manslaughter, that’s immediately appealable. They didn’t have an option on the verdict form to find her not guilty. It’s almost like the court is directing a verdict to the subordinate charges.”

Cannone responded, “Ok. I disagree with you.”

Then Cannone looked at the defendant.

“Excuse me. This is funny, Ms. Read?” Cannone said sharply.” Ok. We’re done.”

This judge seems a bit suspect. Karen Read was laughing at the ridiculousness at this, not laughing at the judge in a "haha so funny" type of way. It's a common reaction for most people.

 

[HuskyHawk]

This judge seems a bit suspect. Karen Read was laughing at the ridiculousness at this, not laughing at the judge in a "haha so funny" type of way. It's a common reaction for most people.

Yeah, obviously laughing at how every single ruling goes against them. As in "you can't make this up".

 

[HitDog]

Jury done for the day. I really thought they would be done today.

 

[NJHusky]

Jury done for the day. I really thought they would be done today.

From the limited stuff I saw seemed like not guilty slam dunk. Maybe knowing more than the jury influenced that opinion

 

[BlueandOG]

I assume the state does not have "not guilty" on the form because the defendant is presumed to be not guilty; however, if the judge has discretion to make the change, I don't know why she would not make it.

 

[BlueandOG]

Also, if I was a betting person, I would put money on the following outcome:

• Second-degree murder (intended in that moment to kill him) - NOT GUILTY
• Vehicular manslaughter while under the influence of alcohol (have to prove 1) she was driving 2) on a public road 3) while drunk and 4) drove recklessly and because of that 5) killed him.) - NOT GUILTY
• Involuntary manslaughter (lesser included offense) - GUILTY

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Also, if I was a betting person, I would put money on the following outcome:

• Second-degree murder (intended in that moment to kill him) - NOT GUILTY
• Vehicular manslaughter while under the influence of alcohol (have to prove 1) she was driving 2) on a public road 3) while drunk and 4) drove recklessly and because of that 5) killed him.) - NOT GUILTY
• Involuntary manslaughter (lesser included offense) - GUILTY

4) Karen Read found guilty of involuntary manslaughter despite the fact that the prosecution was unable to even prove that the crime in question occurred, and Read getting murdered in prison while she is appealing the sentence.

 

[Hoophound]

This is gross. The local media should be making an absolute spectacle of the injustice looming. Are they?

 

[navery12]

Jury done for the day. I really thought they would be done today.

Live look at the jury

 

[Kolumbo]

Also, if I was a betting person, I would put money on the following outcome:

• Second-degree murder (intended in that moment to kill him) - NOT GUILTY
• Vehicular manslaughter while under the influence of alcohol (have to prove 1) she was driving 2) on a public road 3) while drunk and 4) drove recklessly and because of that 5) killed him.) - NOT GUILTY
• Involuntary manslaughter (lesser included offense) - GUILTY

My similar thinking. I think the verdict will be NOT GUILTY.

However, IF the jury believes Karen actually did hit him, they MIGHT go with Involuntary Manslaughter. There is no evidence at all to prove anything more than that. So many things could have happened but there is no evidence to explain what actually happened. Just one scenario, e.g., maybe he slipped, she backed up, her bumper pinned his head against a snowbank. That would be a low-speed bump which could cause serious damage. And still, it may not have killed him.

I've said this before. Whenever we have people over, I tend to know where everyone parked, I know when the last person left, and I would certainly notice if someone were lying in my yard. And because it was a snowstorm, I'd check to see if there were any cars still parked in the road.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Also, if I was a betting person, I would put money on the following outcome:

• Second-degree murder (intended in that moment to kill him) - NOT GUILTY
• Vehicular manslaughter while under the influence of alcohol (have to prove 1) she was driving 2) on a public road 3) while drunk and 4) drove recklessly and because of that 5) killed him.) - NOT GUILTY
• Involuntary manslaughter (lesser included offense) - GUILTY

What’s interesting about this is that with really no evidence at all for the first one on this list, they charged her anyway. Is there evidence for #2? Really only that she was drunk. So why even bring a charge other than involuntary manslaughter? That question leads me back to somebody wanting to provide cover for what may have been the real way he was killed.

 

[Kolumbo]

What’s interesting about this is that with really no evidence at all for the first one on this list, they charged her anyway. Is there evidence for #2? Really only that she was drunk. So why even bring a charge other than involuntary manslaughter? That question leads me back to somebody wanting to provide cover for what may have been the real way he was killed.

I think the prosecution was focusing on Karen's comments "I killed him" which if said, could have been "I killed him?" Depends on if and how she said it. If she did hit him, maybe she knew she hit him and maybe she didn't know she hit him. Then in the morning who knows, maybe she blacked out and didn't remember any of it. No Ring cameras to be found anywhere.

 

[HuskyHawk]

I think the prosecution was focusing on Karen's comments "I killed him" which if said, could have been "I killed him?" Depends on if and how she said it. If she did hit him, maybe she knew she hit him and maybe she didn't know she hit him. Then in the morning who knows, maybe she blacked out and didn't remember any of it. No Ring cameras to be found anywhere.

Of course all the person who supposedly heard that did not testify that she said that at the Grand Jury. Multiple times was asked and didn’t say she heard that. Nor did anyone else present hear her say that. I consider that whole claim to be evidence of the coverup.

 

[kibblesnbits]

I'm on it

I don't see anything wrong with that verdict slip. I'm sure they were told it's a "pick 1". If she's not guilty (#1) she's not guilty of all below. They can only find her guilty of the first "included offense" (#3) if she wasn't convicted of the primary charge (#2) - because guilty on both would be redundant since #2 also includes #3. Similarly, they can only find her guilty of the 2nd "included offense" (#4) if she wasn't convicted of the first "included offense" (#3). I sat on a murder trial and the judge spent an extensive amount of time on the jury instructions - how to interpret each charge and the options for conviction and acquittal. We spent three days going over all of the evidence and, even though it appeared he was probably guilty, we didn't come to a final verdict until we concluded that certain pieces of evidence could only add up one way - that he did it. I've not been following the case in detail and it sounds like a complete fiasco, but on this matter it sounds like an attorney feeling his oats and putting on a show.

 

[Kolumbo]

I don't see anything wrong with that verdict slip. I'm sure they were told it's a "pick 1". If she's not guilty (#1) she's not guilty of all below. They can only find her guilty of the first "included offense" (#3) if she wasn't convicted of the primary charge (#2) - because guilty on both would be redundant since #2 also includes #3. Similarly, they can only find her guilty of the 2nd "included offense" (#4) if she wasn't convicted of the first "included offense" (#3). I sat on a murder trial and the judge spent an extensive amount of time on the jury instructions - how to interpret each charge and the options for conviction and acquittal. We spent three days going over all of the evidence and, even though it appeared he was probably guilty, we didn't come to a final verdict until we concluded that certain pieces of evidence could only add up one way - that he did it. I've not been following the case in detail and it sounds like a complete fiasco, but on this matter it sounds like an attorney feeling his oats and putting on a show.

I thought the verdict slip was OK too but the attorney appealed and the judge went ahead and changed it. That in itself is very telling about this entire ordeal.

 

[Dream Jobbed 2.0]

I hadn’t heard the full Proctor cross examination until it was on Conspiracy in Canton yesterday.

Oh. My. God.

You can’t put this woman in jail for life.

 

[Kolumbo]

It states if there is no verdict by 3:30, everyone will return to the courtroom.

MA v. Karen Read: Killer or Cover-Up Murder Trial

UPDATE: A mistrial was declared in the trial of Karen Read, accused in the death of her police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe.

www.courttv.com

 

[HuskyHawk]

It states if there is no verdict by 3:30, everyone will return to the courtroom.

MA v. Karen Read: Killer or Cover-Up Murder Trial

UPDATE: A mistrial was declared in the trial of Karen Read, accused in the death of her police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe.

www.courttv.com

The sent the jury home.