VERDICT WATCH MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #15

[clearskies1]

I don’t think so, but there are many people who believe that if a defendant doesn’t testify, that means he’s guilty. On the other hand, if a juror feels a dislike for the defendant, hearing them testify is like sticking it in their face and it can backfire.
Finally, some defendants just aren’t good on the stand. Some are charismatic and likeable, some may have sour dispositions which may turn off a juror. Signs of nervousness may look like the defendant is lying. It’s always a gamble putting the defendant on the stand.

Agree. In a case like this, where many believe that reasonable doubt is all over the place, I would be very hesitant to blow it by putting my client on the stand. JMO.

 

[turaj]

I don’t think so, but there are many people who believe that if a defendant doesn’t testify, that means he’s guilty. On the other hand, if a juror feels a dislike for the defendant, hearing them testify is like sticking it in their face and it can backfire.
Finally, some defendants just aren’t good on the stand. Some are charismatic and likeable, some may have sour dispositions which may turn off a juror. Signs of nervousness may look like the defendant is lying. It’s always a gamble putting the defendant on the stand.

I don' think it would have helped. The truth is she does not come across as likable. Rather aloof and big ego. She was very involved in her case and often turning around to her family. She does not evoke much sympathy. That did not impact my feeling of NG.

 

[JerseyWasHome2]

The okeefe's and friends are at the bar drinking and KR and company are at the church across from the courthouse.

What a difference in approaches on how to kill the time.

 

[keek]

What a difference in approaches on how to kill the time.

DIfferent crowd. I do NOT see KR's father at a VA hall at alllllllll. Maybe they were offered a place of respite and I hope refreshment and peace.

 

[Judy Sleuth]

I think it would have been helpful to explain more clearly the charges and how to go about the verdict form. Stress more the reasonable doubt. Also maybe less on the "framed" angle.

Bold by me

If I understand correctly, the only "Not Guilty" box available on the form says not guilty to the charge indicated AND to all lesser charges. So if someone believes she is not guilty of the murder charge, but is guilty of one of the lesser charges, that person cannot mark the "Not Guilty" box. Perhaps that's why the jury is hung: they might all 12 agree that she's not guilty of murder, but they are split on the lesser charges. That means they are NOT unanimous on the sole "Not Guilty" option printed on the form.

 

[JerseyWasHome2]

Bold by me

If I understand correctly, the only "Not Guilty" box available on the form says not guilty to the charge indicated AND to all lesser charges. So if someone believes she is not guilty of the murder charge, but is guilty of one of the lesser charges, that person cannot mark the "Not Guilty" box. Perhaps that's why the jury is hung: they might all 12 agree that she's not guilty of murder, but they are split on the lesser charges. That means they are NOT unanimous on the sole "Not Guilty" option printed on the form.

Those lesser charges still accuse of her of being responsible for his death in some manner, though. And it seems the feeling for many is that she wasn’t, so it seems hard to imagine they’d even be hung on the wording for those other options.

 

[Moonsie]

Bold by me

If I understand correctly, the only "Not Guilty" box available on the form says not guilty to the charge indicated AND to all lesser charges. So if someone believes she is not guilty of the murder charge, but is guilty of one of the lesser charges, that person cannot mark the "Not Guilty" box. Perhaps that's why the jury is hung: they might all 12 agree that she's not guilty of murder, but they are split on the lesser charges. That means they are NOT unanimous on the sole "Not Guilty" option printed on the form.

Each charge has its own page. The 2d degree murder charge was the first page. The manslaughter charges were the 2d page. The “leaving the scene” charges were the last page.

 

[thebedbug]

Exactly, and if that person feels that the evidence is inconclusive, that should equate to reasonable doubt.
The defense does not have to prove that their defendant did not commit the crime they are charged with.
The prosecution has to prove that they did.
For what it’s worth, I asked (nicely) in the last thread of someone, who posted that they would be a holdout for a guilty verdict, if they could explain their thought process and what has convinced them that KR was guilty, but they did not respond.

I'd hold out for guilty.

- I think the evidence shows he was struck by KR's car and killed ~12:30am.
- I believe the testimony of the people at the Albert's house.
- I believe KR's actions in the morning after JO was killed were telling.
- With all due respect to the defense's experts - I thought they varied in terms of effectiveness - but I didn't find any of them convincing to the level that the Occam's Razor explanation doesn't fit.

I feel like the circumstances both hurt and helped KR. If it hadn't been snowing and in a dark area, no way does she even have a chance to get away with it. On the other hand, those same circumstances (in my mind) really eliminate a lot of "reasonable" doubt options. I'm left with either 1) she did it or 2) the conspiracy/cover up.

Now a lot of people here say the defense doesn't have to "prove" anything... that's true... but they do have to convince a juror that the doubt is reasonable and in this case (for me), they'd have to prove things that really point to a cover up.

1) they didn't prove JO ever made it into the house.
2) they didn't prove that he was attacked by a dog.
3) they didn't prove that JM made that internet search at 2:27 AM.

Had they been able to do so with any of those 3 (and maybe something else I'm forgetting) - my thoughts on reasonable doubt would certainly be different.

* I also don't recall the defense offering any (what I consider) even remotely believable motive for a conspiracy murder. At one point, I do remember Jackson alluding to JM "luring" JO and KR to the house... and I nearly spit out my drink as I thought that was the most absurd and ridiculous characterization of the events we could all see (from the video) of the night at The Waterfall.

 

[GoBuckeyes]

It should be noted that of the 15 or so people who were at the scene and testified, only four claim to have heard her. At least one of those said he heard it in a different location than the other three, the second was likely in the back of the ambulance when it was said, and the other two were accused of being conflicted.

Karen wasn't detained after she reportedly made the statement. None of the cops heard it (even though the testimony was that they were in earshot) and no one wrote it down at the time. It wasn't much later until there's any physical record of the "I hit him" statement. In fact, the first time there's a record of Jen McCabe stating Karen said it came 1 1/2 years later in the federal grand jury proceedings.

And, finally, the Canton PD dashcam was running when Karen reportedly made the statement yet it didn't pick it up, even though she was said to be screaming it.

Everyone can judge the truth or falseness of whether she said it on their own, but just saying that several people heard it doesn't really tell the full story.

It wasn't even brought up for 18 months!?!?

 

[ch_13]

It wasn't even brought up for 18 months!?!?

Well, Jen McCabe says differently of course. She says that she definitely told a cop, but the cop never wrote it down. And she says that she never mentioned it in her state grand jury testimony because she wasn't asked directly about it.

It's also important to mention that a couple of months before the federal grand jury (when she's first on record) is when Jen's name became publicly associated with this case and the "Hos long to die in cold" google search.

 

[fluffypaste]

I'm watching Lawyer Lee and she just played a clip of the Judge asking both sides if they consider the jury to have conducted "due and thorough" deliberations.

My question, how are the attorneys supposed to have any idea about that?

 

[ch_13]

If the Karen Read trial ends in a hung jury, would the state re-try the case? ‘New evidence’ might be needed, legal expert says​

If the Karen Read trial ends in a hung jury, would the state re-try the case? ‘New evidence’ might be needed, legal expert says

Northeastern law professor discusses the possibility of a retrial if jurors can’t reach a unanimous verdict in the Karen Read trial.

news.northeastern.edu

Daniel Medwed, a Northeastern University distinguished professor of law and criminal justice, says that a hung jury means the state could retry the case. But Medwed says that new evidence would likely be needed.

“I think they might talk a big game in the immediate aftermath about retrying her,” Medwed says of prosecutors. “But ultimately, unless new evidence emerges, I think it might be a tough hill to climb and they might not pursue it.”

 

[turaj]

I'm watching Lawyer Lee and she just played a clip of the Judge asking both sides if they consider the jury to have conducted "due and thorough" deliberations.

My question, how are the attorneys supposed to have any idea about that?

I had the exact same question. I am still surprised at defense reaction. I have never seen a first note of impass sent that the jury was not encouraged to go back.

 

[TIGER0822]

Maybe, but I still don't see why the jury has to believe in a conspiracy or frame up in order to find JR ng. There was a mountain of evidence to create reasonable doubt that JO could have been hit by a vehicle and that is what the cw failed to prove BARD. That evidence certainly has to somehow be disregarded to come to a conclusion that KR is guilty. jmo

 

[Trebor5591]

I don' think it would have helped. The truth is she does not come across as likable. Rather aloof and big ego. She was very involved in her case and often turning around to her family. She does not evoke much sympathy. That did not impact my feeling of NG.

Regarding her "likability factor", her use of vulgar and accusatory language in those phone messages would also negatively affect that. Plenty of people don't like that.

 

[Yemelyan]

Losing my mind over here. What was the point of 4:15??
IMO

I've been thinking about this one. Originally I thought if they wanted to go to 4:15 they were close to a verdict. Now I'm thinking that they just wanted to show the judge they were hard at work after she made comments about one day being a shorter day etc.

 

[Yemelyan]

If the Karen Read trial ends in a hung jury, would the state re-try the case? ‘New evidence’ might be needed, legal expert says​

If the Karen Read trial ends in a hung jury, would the state re-try the case? ‘New evidence’ might be needed, legal expert says

Northeastern law professor discusses the possibility of a retrial if jurors can’t reach a unanimous verdict in the Karen Read trial.

news.northeastern.edu

Daniel Medwed, a Northeastern University distinguished professor of law and criminal justice, says that a hung jury means the state could retry the case. But Medwed says that new evidence would likely be needed.

“I think they might talk a big game in the immediate aftermath about retrying her,” Medwed says of prosecutors. “But ultimately, unless new evidence emerges, I think it might be a tough hill to climb and they might not pursue it.”

Interesting. I'm trying to remember if there was new evidence in the Emanuel Lopes case (the previous one that Judge Cannone presided over that ended in mistrial the first time, then the second time got a conviction after the jury initially hung), or if they just went straight back to re-trying it.

Of course it will matter what the split was - in the Lopes case there was only one holdout for not guilty the first time so it made sense to try again.

 

[turaj]

Those lesser charges still accuse of her of being responsible for his death in some manner, though. And it seems the feeling for many is that she wasn’t, so it seems hard to imagine they’d even be hung on the wording for those other options.

if basically you don't think she hit him with her car then I don't know how it can be anything but NG on lesser

 

[nightowl1975]

..refusing to show up, more like.

If it's a thing that the holdouts are utterly prejudiced and making no sense, just dug in, they're likely to be bold enough to decide not to bother..

I doubt this happens. One, it’s not legally allowed. Two, if they simply quit and refused to continue, they could be replaced with alternates. So they must not care too much about their position if they’re willing to abdicate to an alternate.

 

[turaj]

Lawyer Lee is going over the interactions with Judge and Jury this morning. She noted and I agree there was something about that response..."lunch is coming" and continue deliberating. It seems like a few more words might have been good as I can imagine having lunch again is not what they had in mind. They wanted to leave. I bet some were not prepared for that response. Now as I listen again defense was ready for the more severe response similar to Allen charge but she did not want to use that yet. I am sure the judge will do all possible to get a verdict.