MISTRIAL MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #17

[Seattle1]

I keep going back to the jury note:
"The deep division is not due to a lack of effort or diligence but rather a sincere adherence to our individual principles and moral convictions. To continue to deliberate would be futile and only serve to force us to compromise these deeply-held beliefs.”

What are they referring to? I am sure the jurors were sincere in their “feelings”, but do we now throw out facts and evidence?
This scares me.

The message is another reason why I think the split was likely for the lesser included charge of involuntary manslaughter. Especially if you were in the camp believing that the defendant had already arrived at the victims home (and connected to his wifi) at the time JOK was allegedly killed.

I dunno. Did some think KR acted with negligence when she left JOK at 34 Fairmont Rd, Canton, MA? I think there could be a difference of opinion on whether KR should have waited for JOK to waive her off, rescue him from a rowdy crowd, or go to the door to learn he took a tumble before he ever reached the Albert's front door.

IMO, if I found myself on this panel, I think I'd be more inclined to believe that JOK's encounter heading from the street to the Albert's entrance was with Chloe who had been let outside versus with KR's SUV! As a large dog owner with many Alaskan winters behind me, I think I could feel very strongly about this. JMO

 

[OldCop]

The judge said 'she never saw a note like it'. It would be Interesting to know who penned that note (the foreman?) and what their background (life experience, moral etc., ) is.

I’d like to know, too. The note referred to “our” principles and “us”. According to the alternate juror, everything was hunky dory and kumbaya between jurors.
I feel like the jury devolved into a hippie peace cult from the 70’s and no one wanted to hurt anyone’s feelings. Or, now that I think of it, maybe they are snowflakes from the 2020’s who just can’t deal with criticism or get anxiety from acting like grownups.
Maybe jurors need crying rooms so they won’t be emotionally damaged from making hard decisions.
I guess I sound pretty unsympathetic. I do realize this was a long difficult trial, but come on jurors, you should have stepped up to the plate and made those long hours in Norfolk County Superior Court worth it.

 

[Universecalling]

What’s really eye opening and somewhat interesting in this case is the expectation of proper behavior by those involved.

KR is vilified for her behavior that night- called 50 times, screamed angry Tex’s and VMs , “admitted “ to hitting him, asked dozen people if she hit him, said he was dead before finding him, left w her parents shortly after, told OK fam she’ll probably never talk to them again, no electronic data deleted on her phone, etc.

Not your typical behavior from the accused. What society usually sees is tears, suspect helping search for the missing, sadness, no admission to the act, denial if questioned, etc.

Alberts and McCabes exhibited particularly shady behavior.

Not coming out while there’s a screaming woman under their window, denying everything, dog and home rid of, deleting dozens of calls and texts, not disclosing Colin, questionable google searches, coordinating timelines, life 360 issues, listening on each others convos w investigators, telling each other what to say to the police, offering gifts to investigators, Jen’s 911 call “there’s a man passed out in the snow “ (not “ my friend, a police officer badly hurt, hurry!), mean girl-ing Karen w “maybe he spent the night at Bella’s house” while she’s frantic in the car, Jen never running into the house to get her BIL, a first responder to help, not even to get blankets or to check if her sister is ok, fugitive task force detective leaving his house unlocked all night and saying his nest camera isn’t hooked up.

YET! For many, those behaviors are accepted and used as proof of their guilt or innocence. But, completely inverted. Like the dishonest presentation of the garage video.

Ps. I realized I should have used semicolon rather than colon. Apologies if it’s a tough read.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

I’d like to know, too. The note referred to “our” principles and “us”. According to the alternate juror, everything was hunky dory and kumbaya between jurors.
I feel like the jury devolved into a hippie peace cult from the 70’s and no one wanted to hurt anyone’s feelings. Or, now that I think of it, maybe they are snowflakes from the 2020’s who just can’t deal with criticism or get anxiety from acting like grownups.
Maybe jurors need crying rooms so they won’t be emotionally damaged from making hard decisions.
I guess I sound pretty unsympathetic. I do realize this was a long difficult trial, but come on jurors, you should have stepped up to the plate and made those long hours in Norfolk County Superior Court worth it.

Yes….. and sure raises some good questions! Hopefully more of the 12 jurors will take the opportunity to go on record (even with the court) if needed. Since IIUC the alternate juror was not in deliberations sort of hard to gauge that input IMO?

Reflecting that the judge noted words to the effect that the court / she had never seen a note such as that (two notes!) - then contrast that with some of the other declarations by the judge such as ‘that is how we do things in MA’ (or whatever was said…… ) - I start to wonder why wasn’t more done by the court / judge to inquire for better clarification and deliberations? And I wonder procedurally if there were some missteps made? If so, those need to be examined, assessed, and remedied as appropriate. IANAL. MOO

 

[Seattle1]

The note referred to “our principles and “us”

Perhaps this quote applied to whether or not you strongly believe that your local LE and investigators are upright and noble citizens. IMO, this question alone could easily cause a divide based on principles. It breaks my heart every time I remember JOK's occupation. In death, he deserved so much better. MOO

 

[OldCop]

Ps. I realized I should have used semicolon rather than colon. Apologies if it’s a tough read.

I really don’t know if I can put any faith in your posts if you can’t discern whether to use a colon or a semicolon. Thank goodness you weren’t the one writing the notes to the judge.

 

[Universecalling]

I really don’t know if I can put any faith in your posts if you can’t discern whether to use a colon or a semicolon. Thank goodness you weren’t the one writing the notes to the judge.

Listen, I try really hard to stay a smidge above trooper Paul level. The struggle is real, though.
And let’s not even mention my sentence structure and the rest of the grammar. Because if we do, my immigration status may get revoked. And I really like it here!!

 

[fluffypaste]

Unfortunately, I don't believe the defense motion has any chance of being successful. Not unless every single juror comes forward and testifies, and even that might not be enough.

However, regardless of whether or not the motion ends up being successful, Jackson did the right thing by putting it forward. It exposes a huge error by the judge in that she failed to inquire about all of the charges before declaring a mistrial.

 

[Universecalling]

Unfortunately, I don't believe the defense motion has any chance of being successful. Not unless every single juror comes forward and testifies, and even that might not be enough.

However, regardless of whether or not the motion ends up being successful, Jackson did the right thing by putting it forward. It exposes a huge error by the judge in that she failed to inquire about all of the charges before declaring a mistrial.

I think the judge will have no other option than to call in the jurors for a hearing and do a poll. Probably won’t be public, but if she doesn’t it will be a really bad look, and only fuel the public more.

 

[ch_13]

I think the judge will have no other option than to call in the jurors for a hearing and do a poll. Probably won’t be public, but if she doesn’t it will be a really bad look, and only fuel the public more.

It's even possible the prosecution will join the defense in requesting a voir dire of the jury.

If they don't and the judge denies the defense motion, then we're in for years of appeals before any retrial can take place. The DA might prefer a quick resolution over having this case drag on and on.

 

[Seattle1]

I think the judge will have no other option than to call in the jurors for a hearing and do a poll. Probably won’t be public, but if she doesn’t it will be a really bad look, and only fuel the public more.

I think it's possible the Judge might elect to make inquiry of the jurors "in camera review" proceeding where the basic principle of "in camera review" is for the Judge's private audience/consideration until a ruling can be made. This is private and generally conducted in Chambers with only the Judge. This would also protect the identity of the jurors. MOO

 

[fluffypaste]

I'm so glad this trial was filmed, otherwise nobody would believe it happened.

 

[mrjitty]

Then again, if Jurors believed the CW failed to prove this greater charge of manslaughter while operating a motor vehicle under the influence of liquor, they may have been hung up on the lesser included charge of involuntary manslaughter. We really have no idea what the panel were split on-- especially knowing they acquitted the defendant on Count 3.

So basically this might have been a drunk driving accident? *

ETA * according to some jurors

 

[iusedtofloat]

So basically this might have been a drunk driving accident?

No. The accident reconstructionists the FBI contracted stated John was not hit by a vehicle. There is zero evidence that he was hit by any vehicle, whether it be a Lexus or a snow plow. No broken bones, no bruises below his face. Defensive wounds on hands. Likely dog scratches/bites on arm.

 

[mrjitty]

No. The accident reconstructionists the FBI contracted stated John was not hit by a vehicle. There is zero evidence that he was hit by any vehicle, whether it be a Lexus or a snow plow. No broken bones, no bruises below his face. Defensive wounds on hands. Likely dog scratches/bites on arm.

Right but per @Seattle1 if the jury hung on involuntary manslaughter at least some of them did not agree with that - IMO

 

[kittythehare]

So basically this might have been a drunk driving accident? *

ETA * according to some jurors

They didn't check BAC for several hours post alleged murder so that will not wash methinks.

 

[AppleTreeGreen]

“Sincere adherence to independent principles and moral convictions”

“To continue to deliberate would be futile and only serve to force us to compromise deeply held beliefs”

At first I thought the note wasn’t referencing a division based on disagreements about whether KR did or did not hit JOK with her vehicle. The opposing arguments on this topic brought forth by both the prosecution and defense can be differentiated by the results of their scientific, forensic and medical analyses. Regardless of which opinion one chooses if the data, tests, results, analyses, specimen collection and data collection or record maintenance are reliable, truthful and standardized on both sides than one should not feel morally or ethically compromised IMO.

At first I did wonder if was the OIU that made some jurors feel compromised as it alone would have many moral/ethical implications even without the mention of the lawful ones.

Another part does wonder though if it is the reliability is the or an additional factor in the division. For example, though a defense witness testified that based on his his scientific and medical findings JOK was not hit nor killed by a vehicle perhaps there are some jurors who perceive or accept the tail light pieces found on the lawn as reliable proof? Though I find the defense expert witnesses more reliable overall both because of the scientific and medical data and analyses they applied to produce their results whereas LE unfortunately improperly collected, contained and maintained their evidence for the case and thus as a result, contaminated and compromised the reliability of samples that should have had forensic value. I think a a result reliability would be less of a cause of moral distress because one side, the defense, objectively has superior reliability in terms of the data and analytics they put forward.

As a result, I do the OUI on Count may be cause of much of what the note is referring to

JMO

 

[Forest_Wood]

en’s 911 call “there’s a man passed out in the snow “ (not “ my friend, a police officer badly hurt, hurry!), mean girl-ing Karen w “maybe he spent the night at Bella’s house” while she’s frantic in the car, Jen never running into the house to get her BIL, a first responder to help, not even to get blankets or to check if her sister is ok, fugitive task force detective leaving his house unlocked all night and saying his nest camera isn’t hooked up.

You know, this is a very good point you've made. Why would Jen NOT think something awful had happened to her brother in law and sister inside the house when finding a police officer dead on the ground outside their home? If you find someone dead laying outside a home, would you not automatically wonder if the people inside the house may also have been harmed, that something might have occurred like a robbery or assault, with bodies everywhere? But nope, she never attempted to go inside to make sure they were alright. It never crossed anyone's minds? She only went inside later, after a cop told her to go wake them up IIRC.
MOO.

 

[Forest_Wood]

The judge said 'she never saw a note like it'. It would be Interesting to know who penned that note (the foreman?) and what their background (life experience, moral etc., ) is.

AI technology I suspect.
It was too perfect to be written by an average person IMO.

 

[waldojabba]

Most of my family is in Vermont and my brother ran a plow for our town. My aunt owns/operates a rock salt business in Barre, MA. For those from regions without snow, towns and cities, especially before a known major storm, send plow trucks out to either salt the roads or spray a salt brine solution to prevent icing of the roads beforehand so people can still travel (if they must) and the plows have an easier time plowing snow off the roads.

Plows run multiple passes throughout a storm as precautions. In my hometown, with a tiny public works budget, the plows will run as soon as the snow begins to stick and accumulate. They don’t know exactly how much snow will fall, but the more they clear earlier on, the less the public is at risk or inconvenienced while traveling.

**As an aside, in the northeast, we call big storms “Nor’easters,” not “blizzards.” Just a small vent because that has chapped my backside this entire time. We, New Englanders, KNOW how to drive in that kind of winter weather, and those few inches overnight being called a “blizzard” had me laughing out of sheer appall. Obviously, my own opinion.

Thanks for being this up. I have been meaning to post a definition of blizzard from the beginning. Lots of snow is not required to be a blizzard.
“Officially, the National Weather Service defines a blizzard as a storm which contains large amounts of snow OR blowing snow, with winds in excess of 35 mph and visibilities of less than 1/4 mile for an extended period of time (at least 3 hours).”

Winter Storms and Blizzards