Well there is that.Actually it's like 50-50 he got removed because he's an ass hat but they use the witness remote relationship as an excuse.
There is already a major murder case that is ready to seek dismissal because the same Statey was the chief investigator.If the FBI investigation leads to charges, can you imagine the number or state police involved convictions people will be challenging??
He can’t unless the defense moves for a directed verdict. But if they get that, it can be appealed. Defense may think it’s best to let it go to a jury. A not guilty is really, really hard to overturn. They wouldn’t even try.I do not see how the judge did not dismiss the case after the prosecution rested its case. After this train wreck of a trial, that is a HUGE red flag on the entire proceeding. Read's team should be very concerned that the fix is in.
He can’t unless the defense moves for a directed verdict. But if they get that, it can be appealed. Defense may think it’s best to let it go to a jury. A not guilty is really, really hard to overturn. They wouldn’t even try.
Cannone, however, said she was satisfied that the prosecution had met its burden and immediately denied the defense's motion.
How could a not guilty verdict be overturned?He can’t unless the defense moves for a directed verdict. But if they get that, it can be appealed. Defense may think it’s best to let it go to a jury. A not guilty is really, really hard to overturn. They wouldn’t even try.
Concept is called double jeopardyHow could a not guilty verdict be overturned?
Concept is called double jeopardy
Quoted from Google search below:
Once acquitted, a defendant may not be retried for the same offense: "A verdict of acquittal, although not followed by any judgment, is a bar to a subsequent prosecution for the same offense." This applies in all cases where a verdict of not guilty is entered by the Court against a defendant.
This is why I asked the attorney the question.Concept is called double jeopardy
Quoted from Google search below:
Once acquitted, a defendant may not be retried for the same offense: "A verdict of acquittal, although not followed by any judgment, is a bar to a subsequent prosecution for the same offense." This applies in all cases where a verdict of not guilty is entered by the Court against a defendant.
It’s just the safe thing to do. Sending it to the jury is what the judge will do except in extreme circumstances. That‘s never going to be an error.The defense did ask for the directed verdict, and the judge turned them down.
Cannone is publicly stating that she believes there is credible grounds to convict. Could all of you that were defending the judge not recusing herself weigh in on this?
Yeah obviously based on what's been presented in this thread I would think that Read, will be acquitted, but I sure would like to know what happened to the victim. It'll be interesting to see if the FBI charges anyone.Auntie Bev really is ridiculous. Karen will be fine. Unfortunately so will the Alberts.
Be careful what you wish for.so I feel like I am competent if they need an auxiliary juror or something.
I clerked at the Mass Superior Court a long time ago. Judges almost never issue a directed verdict. They want the jury to decide and they don't like the optics of taking the ball away from the jury after it sat and listened to evidence for days or weeks. After the jury presents its verdict, if the judge thinks no reasonable jury could have reached the verdict based on the evidence presented at the trial, the judge can issue a decision not withstanding the verdict which overrides the jury's decision (JNOV).The defense did ask for the directed verdict, and the judge turned them down.
Cannone is publicly stating that she believes there is credible grounds to convict. Could all of you that were defending the judge not recusing herself weigh in on this?
I clerked at the Mass Superior Court a long time ago. Judges almost never issue a directed verdict. They want the jury to decide and they don't like the optics of taking the ball away from the jury after it sat and listened to evidence for days or weeks. After the jury presents its verdict, if the judge thinks no reasonable jury could have reached the verdict based on the evidence presented at the trial, the judge can issue a decision not withstanding the verdict which overrides the jury's decision (JNOV).
They argued. She dropped him off. She drove her car in reverse for 60 feet. He was found dead. That's pretty much the evidence. Certainly not enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if it did happen that way, it could just have easily been an accident. I don't know about directed verdict and appeals, but it really is a mess.If there was ever a situation that called for a directed verdict, it was this one. The only witnesses that claim she did it A) didn't actually see her do it, and B) are either suspects or potential accomplices to a murder themselves. All other evidence that may have captured the event, such as multiple Ring doorbells, turned out to be unavailable.
I hear you but both points A and B in your comment are not infrequently present in murder cases. The jury is aware of both points. That's not to say it won't deliberate for 15 minutes and find her not guilty but certainly defendants have been found guilty with such circumstances too.If there was ever a situation that called for a directed verdict, it was this one. The only witnesses that claim she did it A) didn't actually see her do it, and B) are either suspects or potential accomplices to a murder themselves. All other evidence that may have captured the event, such as multiple Ring doorbells, turned out to be unavailable.
They argued. She dropped him off. She drove her car in reverse for 60 feet. He was found dead. That's pretty much the evidence. Certainly not enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if it did happen that way, it could just have easily been an accident. I don't know about directed verdict and appeals, but it really is a mess.
"In Read’s case, the prosecution sought to exclude three of her listed expert witnesses to prevent them from being able to testify in her defense. Without the jury being present, Judge Beverly Cannone allowed the prosecution to question these witnesses on Tuesday at length. Then, the judge announced her ruling:
"Dr. Marie Russell, a retired emergency room physician and forensic pathologist, can testify that in her expert opinion, O’Keefe’s arm injuries were consistent with a dog attack. However, the judge made it clear that Russell cannot testify about police activity or what the injuries are inconsistent with.
"Dr. Daniel Wolfe, an accident reconstruction expert, can also testify as to whether the damage to Read’s SUV and O’Keefe’s injuries are consistent with a pedestrian collision. Interestingly, Wolfe’s company was not hired by the defense, but by a “third-party agency.” Wolfe testified that the information that he was provided to analyze in order to render an expert opinion was given to him by the Department of Justice and the FBI. (Earlier this year, the existence of a pending investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts into Read’s arrest and prosecution was revealed.)
Judge Cannone reserved ruling on Dr. Andrew Rentschler, who is a biomechanical engineer and also an accident reconstructionist, and who was not hired by the defense or the prosecution. He was tasked to determine whether O’Keefe’s injuries to his head and arm were consistent with contact with Read’s Lexus SUV. Judge Cannone explained her ruling: “It’s clear to me that in Massachusetts, biomechanical engineers are not qualified to testify as to medical causation of an injury. Only an MD can do that…So I’m going to reserve ruling on the rest of his testimony. There are certain things he can testify, and I’ll hear from [Read’s defense] again before he testifies next week.”
![]()
Opinion | The Karen Read murder trial is devolving into a ‘battle of the experts’
Read’s legal team will be heavily relying on expert witnesses to try to convince the jury of her innocence.www.msnbc.com
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."Dr. Marie Russell, a retired emergency room physician and forensic pathologist, can testify that in her expert opinion, O’Keefe’s arm injuries were consistent with a dog attack. However, the judge made it clear that Russell cannot testify about police activity or what the injuries are inconsistent with."
What does this quote mean? She can testify that the injuries were consistent with a dog attack, but cannot testify what the injuries are consistent with?
Help me out here, folks.
"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 thinkThat 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.
Yes, despite being much more qualified experts than the people the prosecution put forward on average, each one was limited somewhat by the judge. The mechanical engineering guys can't talk about cause of death either, because they aren't MDs. It's a little strange, because almost no MDs would be qualified to testify about the physics behind vehicle impacts. Yet they weren't similarly limited.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.