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
- Thread starter Bishop Black
- Start date
New Posts
-
Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #194
- Latest: photographer4
shotgun09
'Certified' Boomer
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2009
- Messages
- 4,240
- Reaction score
- 44,236
IMO, this jury was not heard, and wants to be heard.
This trial's outcome was misrepresented in the fact that reportedly the jury did come to a unanimous decision on 2 out of 3 counts. If the judge in this case refuses to let the jury's true decision stand, then she will be doing the people of MA a great disservice. Not just KR, but all The People.
Double Jeopardy should not be allowed. Period.
The judge should allow the jurors their decision. Change the law, make a precedent.
MOO
This trial's outcome was misrepresented in the fact that reportedly the jury did come to a unanimous decision on 2 out of 3 counts. If the judge in this case refuses to let the jury's true decision stand, then she will be doing the people of MA a great disservice. Not just KR, but all The People.
Double Jeopardy should not be allowed. Period.
The judge should allow the jurors their decision. Change the law, make a precedent.
MOO
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
(highlighted by me)
IMO, the Constitution trumps some procedural detail. The double jeopardy clause was written because the founding fathers were concerned about just this issue: a zealous prosecutor retrying someone after they were found not guilty by a jury. It shouldn't matter that the jury misunderstood how they were supposed to communicate their findings, as long as they were unanimous that KR was not guilty on some of the charges.
Using technicalities to deny someone their constitutional rights is an enormous miscarriage of justice, and I would say this no matter who was on trial and how I personally felt about their guilt.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
(highlighted by me)
IMO, the Constitution trumps some procedural detail. The double jeopardy clause was written because the founding fathers were concerned about just this issue: a zealous prosecutor retrying someone after they were found not guilty by a jury. It shouldn't matter that the jury misunderstood how they were supposed to communicate their findings, as long as they were unanimous that KR was not guilty on some of the charges.
Using technicalities to deny someone their constitutional rights is an enormous miscarriage of justice, and I would say this no matter who was on trial and how I personally felt about their guilt.
This!
I work with a number of Boston attorneys who keep going back to "well, the sheets were never signed so there is no verdict and no need to talk further about the jury's intent."
But this is not a game where it's merely unfair when the ref blows a call and the wrong winner is declared. This is someone's life. The judge mismanaged her courtroom starting even before the trial started. It's pretty clear the jury didn't understand her confusing instructions and would have communicated their NG agreements had she bothered to ask if they were hung on all counts before rushing them out the door. Or made sure before and during deliberations they understood they could decide on some counts even if they were stuck on one or two. It sounds like they did not know this.
A good judge would contact jury members now and find out for sure what happened. No need to publish their names or even what they said. But as past is usually prologue, I suspect she will stick with technicalities over the Constitution and this mess will end up in appeals court where hopefully this issue is reviewed in a light favorable to the defendant's Constitutional rights.
fluffypaste
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2020
- Messages
- 356
- Reaction score
- 2,510
I cannot see any valid argument against bringing back the jury and just asking them what happened. Then, if even a single juror says that they might've voted to convict on Counts 1 or 3, the matter is settled.
I didn't say "bring them back". The judge can speak with them individually if she chooses and they're willing to talk to her. She doesn't even need to speak to all of them to verify one way or the other. Note that not a single juror has come forward to contradict the multiple claims (five by now, I believe) they all agreed she was Not Guilty on two counts.
Not that she will. But the idea that a technicality basically caused by a judge's incompetence is allowed to trump an individual's Constitutional rights is wrong, and I suspect Read will win the argument in the end.
shotgun09
'Certified' Boomer
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2009
- Messages
- 4,240
- Reaction score
- 44,236
I believe that in yesterdays hearing, Weinberg was very effective in " Buttering Up " the judge in this case. He even sprinkled a little sugar on top. He gave her the glorious view of her... Judge Beverly Cannone ...coming to the rescue of the US Constitution and KR's right's if she allows the jury to be heard. I think the judge liked that. She will be portrayed in a Netflix series ya know...
IMO
I believe that in yesterdays hearing, Weinberg was very effective in " Buttering Up " the judge in this case. He even sprinkled a little sugar on top. He gave her the glorious view of her... Judge Beverly Cannone ...coming to the rescue of the US Constitution and KR's right's if she allows the jury to be heard. I think the judge liked that. She will be portrayed in a Netflix series ya know...
IMO
The only thing that gives me pause about the Honorable Judge Beverly Cannone and this upcoming decision is the fact that she knows now for sure that it's not just the "pink people" who are viewing her handling of this case with disdain. By dismissing the two counts (come on. She knows Read didn't intentionally murder anyone) there will still be a re-trial and she comes out of this ordeal looking much better.
And it's not just the Netflix documentary. Some Hollywood actor will be playing her in the "based on a true story" drama some day.
Last edited:
A judge ruling on her mistake! Fair and impartial.Thank you! I was feeling the same watching her. Maybe Weinberg just sounded too wise and calm for her ears.
Based on what precedent?
Dbm
Seattle1
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Messages
- 40,970
- Reaction score
- 426,332
I believe that in yesterdays hearing, Weinberg was very effective in " Buttering Up " the judge in this case. He even sprinkled a little sugar on top. He gave her the glorious view of her... Judge Beverly Cannone ...coming to the rescue of the US Constitution and KR's right's if she allows the jury to be heard. I think the judge liked that. She will be portrayed in a Netflix series ya know...
IMO
I think it's undisputed by everybody except perhaps the Court that the jurors received both inadequate juror instructions, and the 'verdict form' itself was questionable-- given the jurors did not understand they could tell the Judge that on a multiple count Indictment, they reached unanimous decisions on two of the counts.
MA Statute (Rule 27 - Verdict) provides doing so requires the consent of the Judge who clearly did not tell the panel she wanted to learn if/when they reached a unanimous verdict on any of the multiple counts filed against KR, and would record these verdicts. IMO, when the Statute puts the discretion on the Court, this does not fall on the attorneys but squarely on the Judge. It certainly didn't fall on the jurors!
For example, pursuant to Rule 27, when there are two or more offenses (or defendants tried together), the jury may, with consent of the judge at any time during its deliberations or be required by the judge to return a verdict or verdicts where a verdict has been reached; and thereafter the jury may in the discretion of the judge resume deliberations.
It doesn't follow that the CW and the Court both want to punish the defendant when they failed to guide and/or inform the panel of the very remedy available-- at the discretion of the Judge.
To be clear, Rule 27 provided for the verdicts on Counts 1 and 3 to be recorded prior to dismissing the jurors. We'd not be having the discussion had this been explained to the jurors. MOO
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
I would think it’s hearsay until there’s some kind of sworn affidavit from a juror, could be wrong and the other 2 is friends of jurors that’s totally hearsay. Have to see how it plays out. This is why I am a bit skeptical of this motion to dismiss. It would obviously be a shocking...
www.websleuths.com
Forest_Wood
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2017
- Messages
- 1,498
- Reaction score
- 9,994
I've been watching MP's testimony and cross again. It's pretty unbelievable some of the things he texted to his friends. How did KR's lawyers find out about his personal texts? Is that something the FBI uncovered? Would the FBI have authority to view his personal phone during their investigation? It seems intrusive. I can see them inspecting a work phone, but his personal device? Wondering what made them go to that length.
I'm pretty sure the defense got them in the FBI cache.
In Massachusetts, if you are a state employee and you use your personal phone even a little for work, it's considered a work phone. Not sure the FBI requires the distinction though, given their broad powers.
Why the lengths? The FBI isn't investigating the murder of John O'Keefe. They don't have jurisdiction. But they can investigate the investigators with regard to this case or any other involving some of the players. Wouldn't shock me if this case is part of something bigger, or at least representative of a pattern.
Seattle1
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Messages
- 40,970
- Reaction score
- 426,332
Intrusive? Try exculpatory evidence in those messages. Not only was MP relieved of his duties with MSP, the DA's office just issued a Brady letter to 13 criminal defense lawyers regarding their cases investigated by MP.
So no, I disagree there was anything intrusive about obtaining and admitting his text messages into evidence at trial.
Lead investigator reads his ‘unprofessional & regrettable’ texts on stand in Karen Read murder trial
Outside of court, Karen Read said, “I would like for the state police to say something about the language they heard.”
It was the prosecution that first introduced the texts to the jury. Proctor did not read off any texts that would indicate cover-up.
Defense Attorney David Yannetti also spoke about Proctor’s texts including one where Proctor says he hates Yannetti.
“They clearly show his hatred and bias for Karen and his defense team,” Yannetti said. “There’s no benefit of him putting in writing to his bosses what exactly he’s doing so I think that’s of no consequences.”
Forest_Wood
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2017
- Messages
- 1,498
- Reaction score
- 9,994
That was done AFTER the FBI investigation though - not before.Intrusive? Try exculpatory evidence in those messages. Not only was MP relieved of his duties with MSP, the DA's office just issued a Brady letter to 13 criminal defense lawyers regarding their cases investigated by MP.
So no, I disagree there was anything intrusive about obtaining and admitting his text messages into evidence at trial.
Lead investigator reads his ‘unprofessional & regrettable’ texts on stand in Karen Read murder trial
Outside of court, Karen Read said, “I would like for the state police to say something about the language they heard.”www.boston25news.com
It was the prosecution that first introduced the texts to the jury. Proctor did not read off any texts that would indicate cover-up.
Defense Attorney David Yannetti also spoke about Proctor’s texts including one where Proctor says he hates Yannetti.
“They clearly show his hatred and bias for Karen and his defense team,” Yannetti said. “There’s no benefit of him putting in writing to his bosses what exactly he’s doing so I think that’s of no consequences.”
My question was related to what prompted the investigation into MP in the first place by the FBI. If the defense knew about MPs actions (abhorrent texts, drinking on duty, etc) from the testimonies during the FBI investigation, what triggered the FBI investigation to begin with.
It's a good question. Anti-Karen Read internet pundits would have us believe it was because David Yannetti has friends in high places at the agency and he dropped a dime because someone told him Proctor was dirty. And/or it was because of some bad blood between the former US Attorney (before Josh Levy) and Michael Morrissey, Norfolk County DA.
Neither are satisfactory answers, IMO. It's pretty hardcore to obtain a trooper's personal phone records and I can't imagine the FBI would do it as a personal favor or because of someone's grudge. Or on a lark. And of course, it wasn't just Proctor's phone they obtained as part of their investigation.
Again, I think it all fits into a bigger puzzle. One we can't glimpse unless the FBI starts arresting targets. They always work very slowly.
Forest_Wood
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2017
- Messages
- 1,498
- Reaction score
- 9,994
Thank you @HarmonyE.
Agree! It's one thing to get a search warrant for a company phone and quite another to gain access to an employee's personal phone.
I wonder which phone Proctor's supervisor, Bukhenik, used when Proctor texted him derogatory comments about KR, to which Bukhenik gave a thumbs up and liked the comment.
Proctor said he was not disciplined for that. However, Tully said he admonished Proctor for those text messages and sent the matter up the chain of command.
MOO.
I could be wrong, but I don't think the FBI really cares about Proctor's disgusting comments. I mean, clearly he's a low life who shouldn't be a cop but that stuff is all the problem of the state, not the Feds. I'm happy the FBI went out of their way to make sure everyone knew about them, but I doubt Proctor's personal texts about a defendant are what they were looking for.