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

[iusedtofloat]

I generally really try hard to see both sides in circumstances where a defendant has such a different story than the prosecution. However, I am struggling to see the prosecution's side even an inch. I cannot believe a state trooper who took "a math class" and can't even know the basic mathematic concepts of physics over not one but two ARCCA doctors who are entirely impartial to the case, hired by neither the defense nor the commonwealth. And yet the commonwealth not only didn't call them to testify, they tried to get their testimony blocked entirely, which doesn't make sense unless they know they're arguing a losing case if actual experts testify instead of state troopers.

I personally wouldn't have trusted that trooper with reciting the alphabet, let alone reconstructing a car accident (where the body was "about" here, and the car must've been "about" there, so... GUESSING) where the "crime scene spoke" to him. The commonwealth's cellphone expert? Yet another state trooper. Especially in such a high profile case, you would think they'd spring for experts...

John did a pirouette (Jackson made me laugh with that one) into the yard and died, after being hit by a Lexus weighing thousands of pounds, and somehow had no bruising below his face and no broken bones. I cannot make that make sense, no matter how hard I try.

However, the defense's position makes perfect sense what with the commonwealth's witnesses seeming to have selective amnesia the second the defense started questioning them, and the prosecution acted like JM was the one on trial and they (the CW) were her defense team. Having the 3 key people in these families sit behind JOK's family and stare directly at the jury did not sit right with me at all - I cannot even think of a trial that is comparable.

These are my thoughts and opinions.

 

[ch_13]

There’s so much about this case i do not understand. Having not been able to watch the trial some things make no sense. If 8 jurors wanted to convict her of vehicular manslaughter then why not convict her of leaving the scene?

We really don't know what the jurors thought or exactly how they voted, despite some people stating their opinions as if they are facts. At best we have some snippets from conversations discussing the deliberations which are coming to us second- or third-hand.

But, hypothetically speaking....
Count 3, "Leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death" requires intent. You have to know that you hit someone and make a decision to leave them in order to be found guilty.
Count 2, "Involuntary manslaughter while DUI" does not require intent. You could unknowingly hit someone and still be guilty.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

Thanks for confirming I was not imaging the Judges "bench side manner."

I was appalled at her reaction to the questioning of juror instructions, verdict form, and this 'my way or the highway' attitude. Especially as BC first began practicing law in 1985, and on the bench since 2009! As Dad would say, she's had enough practice!

Beverly J. Cannone.

Hello Seattle1. Absolutely….. and I wasn’t meaning to imply you had done anything of the like. It was my moving the goal post and noting some of my observations on this trial in that courtroom. And yes to those additional points you included there! MOO

 

[ch_13]

Her brother represented Chris Albert in the 90's on a charge of killing a student while driving drunk, took off, hid out, then later turned himself in. I believe he only got 6 months, 6 months. There is also the question of her involvement with the McCabe/cottage rental, one of them let the cat out of the bag of their association and hence: Auntie Bev. This is what is alerted the defense team in their ask.

In addition to what you mentioned, there were other concerns that the defense brought up in their motion to recuse, specifically a pattern of favoring the prosecution over the defense. And she was continuing to insert herself into the case after she was supposed to be rotated off.

Here's what I wrote at the time: MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023

There are four defense contentions:

1. A member of the family that Read claims killed O'Keefe bragged that his family has personal ties to the judge and he referred to her as "Auntie Bev." He also said that he would kill a blogger who has been reporting on the case and bury them in the judge's backyard. The family member has a property on Cape Cod not far from the judge's summer house.
2. The judge has been extremely late on ruling on several defense motions. One example is the request for O'Keefe's clothing in order to test it for dog DNA. The motion has been in front of the judge for 72 days so far with no ruling yet.
3. On the other hand, when the prosecution filed a motion to cancel an evidentiary hearing three days before it was supposed to occur, the court held an emergency hearing and granted the cancellation immediately, using a "legally incorrect theory". The judge also forced the defense to argue another motion without any notice or preparation time.
4. Despite the fact that she is no longer assigned to the case as part of the regular judge's rotation, she still wants to hear the upcoming motion on the gag order instead of the judge that should be assigned to it.

I know for #2, she would end up sitting on that motion for another few months before finally ruling. The dog DNA tests were not completed until shortly before the trial.

 

[OldCop]

some people will always believe the worst of you no matter what the evidence says

I guess this is how KR feels.

 

[keek]

The cameraman didn't miss it!

OH GAWD. stop it. hahahah ohhhhhhhhhh I cannot. The cameraman was so all in, hahahaha.

 

[OldCop]

I have a question. Post above says jury didn’t find her guilty on murder 2 or leaving the scene of the crime. Was she charged with murder 1?
I didn’t get to watch the trial. I am just wondering. And what charges did the jury hang on? Thank you.

The article below gives a decent explanation of the charges. The reports coming out state that she was found NG on counts 1 & 3 and hung on #2.

Karen Read verdict watch: A closer look at the charges jurors are considering

Jurors in the murder trial of Karen Read, accused of striking her Boston police officer boyfriend with her SUV, are currently deliberating her guilt or innocence on three separate charges. Prosecutors said Read struck John O’Keefe with her vehicle and then left the scene in January 2022, leaving...

www.nbcboston.com

 

[Seattle1]

On count 3, which elements were not proven?

Presumably none of the 6-- thus 100% agreement to acquit the defendant of this charge.

 

[OldCop]

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.

 

[Universecalling]

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.

Probably the biggest “jaw on the floor” moment for me, and this case was a cornucopia of them.

Deeply held beliefs, individual principles and moral convictions… imo, this is precisely the reason facts/science/logic in this case (with a truck load of reasonable doubt at every corner) did not prevail.

 

[OldCop]

Yes Seattle1. Wonderful post!

And it all circles back to this judge IMO. After watching much of this trial, courtroom treatment of counsel and the defendant, and the absence of clarity from the court on sustained or overruled objections to name only a few - I just sit here shaking my head.

Add in the IMO hurried odd behavior and pronouncements at the end by the judge to quickly excuse the jurors and clear the court. And there was the statement that the judge intended to speak with them briefly post trial. Just SMH at the time and effort expended to arrive at this point. Sure hope that the proper individuals and officials in MA are examining the rulings and court proceedings in this case. And if and where corrections or remedies are needed they are entered and enacted. MOO

Hey, 4th of July weekend was coming up. She needed to beat the traffic to the Cape and indulge in some chowdah and lobstah! What don’t you understand?

 

[LvsAMystry]

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.

My opinion and it’s literally jmo so conjecture is that the principles and moral convictions have to do with driving while intoxicated. If so, you’re right it’s scary because you can’t choose guilty to a charge that doesn’t have sufficient evidence for all facets of the charge in question.

 

[keek]

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.

It was so clear to me when that came out that the writer wanted it known that the problem was not due to facts and evidence, but no rational discussion was going to sway the holdouts due to their FEELINGS AND BELIEFS which are obviously personal to them. Yes, I was horrified. It seems that somehow they needed to be tossed out of the jury as not impartial to themselves and their deeply held beliefs. I try to think what could they be, LE are our friends (as taught as children) they would never do what the defense is saying. (must live under a rock as corruption is highly broadcasted throughout the country of the bad ones and their crimes for years horribly). People that drink and drive kill people, maybe. There seems to have been no detached and impartial thinking on the ones creating the verdict issue. Oh, plus the judge, Alberts, P.O'K and his family glaring/sad.

 

[jepop]

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.

Yes. This is one of the many instances where I see the Judge as being inexcusably remiss. I mean she reads these juror notes which imply basically that some on the jury, at the very least, are deliberating not by applying reason to evidence but via their own personal convictions, and what...she doesn't give them an instruction to counter this? Before sending them back? By saying nothing she condones it? moo

Haven't had much time lately but have skimmed the thread the last week and agree with some that maybe defense would have done better if they had placed more emphasis on closing re concept of reasonable doubt as it applys in deliberations. And yet in many ways the judge is also remiss here in not giving attorneys sufficient time for closings after such a long and complicated trial. That was at her discretion. To me yet another instance of her disdain in action.jmo. And also why in heck should the defense have to do the judge's job for her?? They already pretty much did the job of the prosecution in this trial but in reverse; proving BARD that JO was not killed via vehicular impact. Moo

I sincerely hope this latest development raised by defense's motion does not blow over but that every single jury member declares their willingness to testify as to the verdicts they did reach in respect of the charges. And I would love to see consequences for the judge, but perhaps those will only be discernible to her behind closed doors. Jmo

 

[OldCop]

Yes. This is one of the many instances where I see the Judge as being inexcusably remiss. I mean she reads these juror notes which imply basically that some on the jury, at the very least, are deliberating not by applying reason to evidence but via their own personal convictions, and what...she doesn't give them an instruction to counter this? Before sending them back? By saying nothing she condones it? moo

Haven't had much time lately but have skimmed the thread the last week and agree with some that maybe defense would have done better if they had placed more emphasis on closing re concept of reasonable doubt as it applys in deliberations. And yet in many ways the judge is also remiss here in not giving attorneys sufficient time for closings after such a long and complicated trial. That was at her discretion. To me yet another instance of her disdain in action.jmo. And also why in heck should the defense have to do the judge's job for her?? They already pretty much did the job of the prosecution in this trial but in reverse; proving BARD that JO was not killed via vehicular impact. Moo

I sincerely hope this latest development raised by defense's motion does not blow over but that every single jury member declares their willingness to testify as to the verdicts they did reach in respect of the charges. And I would love to see consequences for the judge, but perhaps those will only be discernible to her behind closed doors. Jmo

Great post.

 

[thebedbug]

There’s so much about this case i do not understand. Having not been able to watch the trial some things make no sense. If 8 jurors wanted to convict her of vehicular manslaughter then why not convict her of leaving the scene?

the leaving the scene charge requires intent.

the jury did not believe the prosecution proved intent.

 

[OldCop]

It was so clear to me when that came out that the writer wanted it known that the problem was not due to facts and evidence, but no rational discussion was going to sway the holdouts due to their FEELINGS AND BELIEFS which are obviously personal to them. Yes, I was horrified. It seems that somehow they needed to be tossed out of the jury as not impartial to themselves and their deeply held beliefs. I try to think what could they be, LE are our friends (as taught as children) they would never do what the defense is saying. (must live under a rock as corruption is highly broadcasted throughout the country of the bad ones and their crimes for years horribly). People that drink and drive kill people, maybe. There seems to have been no detached and impartial thinking on the ones creating the verdict issue. Oh, plus the judge, Alberts, P.O'K and his family glaring/sad.

Did the defense team miss the mark during voir dire? We always hope that voir dire will rule out bias, prejudice, etc. How do they delve into beliefs and moral convictions to ensure an impartial jury?

 

[Derph]

Here's another couple of points for all those who are saying that a conspiracy involving so many people is impossible. It's not just Karen Read who is saying there is corruption and a conspiracy going on in that town. There are multiple people coming forward and claiming that there are shady things going on in Canton and other towns in the area. There are other people who are not related to Karen Read and have absolutely nothing to do with her case who have lodged complaints, filed lawsuits, and claimed harassment. It's not just 1 or 2 people or cases either. How many questionable murders investigations involving the same people does it take before something is done? How many complaints, cases, lawsuits etc need to be filed before it becomes obvious that there is a pattern of misbehavior going on there? How many suspensions? How many FBI investigations does it take to start raising red flags that something very wrong is going on there in Canton? How many Internal Affairs investigations need to be opened? How many contentious town hall meetings have to happen before someone, somewhere says enough is enough?

 

[keek]

Did the defense team miss the mark during voir dire? We always hope that voir dire will rule out bias, prejudice, etc. How do they delve into beliefs and moralI convictions to ensure an impartial jury?

I don't think they can, but the juror should know to check themselves and know to see and hear evidence and facts and detach from whatever they personally feel about people or situations in their OWN outside of jury box lives.

 

[keek]

I don't think they can, but the juror should know to check themselves and know to see and hear evidence and facts and detach from whatever they personally feel about people or situations in their OWN outside of jury box lives.

I bet most of us have done this in situations that are not our lifestyle or personal ways but still help in a situation if needed or understand and ACT on that.