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

[TIGER0822]

Subdivision (d)

This subdivision is based upon Fed.R.Crim.P. 31(d), but differs in that the polling of the jury is to be discretionary with the court rather than a right of the defendant so as to conform to existing Massachusetts practice. That this discretion is well-settled in the Commonwealth was recently reaffirmed in Commonwealth v. Stewart , 375 Mass. 380 (1978). See also Commonwealth v. Valliere , 366 Mass. 479, 497 (1974); Commonwealth v. Caine , 366 Mass. 366, 375 (1974); Commonwealth v. Fleming , 360 Mass. 404, 408 (1971) (jurors polled); Commonwealth v. Beneficial Finance Co., supra, at 300-301. Under Rule 31 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and under the ABA Standards Relating to Trial by Jury § 5.5 (Approved Draft, 1968), a jury is to be polled only at the request of a party or upon the court's own motion. In any case, where a jury has been polled and there is not a unanimous concurrence, compare Commonwealth v. Fleming, supra, or it appears that the verdict was a compromise or other serious doubts are raised as to its integrity, see Commonwealth v. Stewart, supra, the court may declare a mistrial, or alternatively, order further deliberations. Accord, Rules of Criminal Procedure (U.L.A.) Rule 535(e) (1974).

https://www.mass.gov/rules-of-criminal-procedure/criminal-procedure-rule-27-verdict

If I interpret this correctly, legally the judge is on solid ground. And the Defendants Attorney did not request the poll. Not good .

 

[TIGER0822]

If the FBI fully accept these reports as as close to factual that can be obtained and the jury does not, what then?

Not a great indicator of jury deliberations.

 

[ch_13]

If I interpret this correctly, legally the judge is on solid ground. And the Defendants Attorney did not request the poll. Not good .

If the judge refuses to allow the jury to be questioned on whether they'd reached a verdict on those two counts, then I'm sure the defense will appeal. The existing case law is not conclusive and adding Weinberg to their defense team indicates to me that they expect a long fight. That means that the retrial will be put on-ice, perhaps for years as the appellate process grinds on. This is a case that could easily wind up at the highest level state court.

But also, events could make the appeal moot. The Feds might drop the hammer and arrest some of the police for tampering with evidence or other crimes. Or Morrissey might not be reelected as DA in 2026, and a new DA might have a very different view of how this case should be handled. Or there might be new evidence that's uncovered, people might decide to talk, etc. The longer the wait the better it is for the defense.

 

[cocomod]

Only 4 prosecutors have ever been disbarred in all of American history.

I am sorry, I think this statistic is completely wrong.

 

[kae27]

I am sorry, I think this statistic is completely wrong.

Agreed.

 

[TIGER0822]

If the judge refuses to allow the jury to be questioned on whether they'd reached a verdict on those two counts, then I'm sure the defense will appeal. The existing case law is not conclusive and adding Weinberg to their defense team indicates to me that they expect a long fight. That means that the retrial will be put on-ice, perhaps for years as the appellate process grinds on. This is a case that could easily wind up at the highest level state court.

But also, events could make the appeal moot. The Feds might drop the hammer and arrest some of the police for tampering with evidence or other crimes. Or Morrissey might not be reelected as DA in 2026, and a new DA might have a very different view of how this case should be handled. Or there might be new evidence that's uncovered, people might decide to talk, etc. The longer the wait the better it is for the defense.

It appears that the judge and the AG are very firmly on the same page, and that they favor the prosecutor. I think it will be an uphill battle. MOO

 

[Pipersand]

I am a lawyer (law professor) in Canada, and my husband is a prosecutor. We have discussed this crazy situation and both of us are adamant that regardless of any interpretation of the rules and common law, ethics apply here.

If there is evidence the jury may have reached a unanimous (but unreported) verdict on charges #1 and #3, the CW should seek that confirmation. The CW should agree to conduct an inquiry (not into deliberations, but into the jurors' understanding that a unanimous verdict was reached). If 12 jurors confirm that truth, the CW should respond accordingly: proceed with charges on count #2 only.

Our understanding of justice is that ethics demand this. Justice is greater than retribution, and greater than any political will.

Just saying.

 

[Seattle1]

Only 4 prosecutors have ever been disbarred in all of American history.

What is your source to cite 4 in all of American history?

I presume OP might be referring to a specific state such as MA since I can think of two prosecutors in my own state alone recently disbarred.

 

[Seattle1]

Prosecutors respond to Karen Read defense team’s motion to dismiss charges - Boston News, Weather, Sports | WHDH 7News

DEDHAM, MASS. (WHDH) - Prosecutors fired back at Karen Read’s defense team Friday, responding to a recent motion from the defense to dismiss two of<a class="excerpt-read-more" href="https://whdh.com/news/prosecutors-respond-to-karen-read-defense-teams-motion-to-dismiss-charges/">Read More</a>

whdh.com

7/12/24

DEDHAM, MASS. (WHDH) - Prosecutors fired back at Karen Read’s defense team Friday, responding to a recent motion from the defense to dismiss two of three charges against Read.

[..]

In their response, though, lawyers for the Norfolk County District Attorney’s Office argued the defense motion “is premised upon hearsay, conjecture, and legally inappropriate reliance as to the substance of jury deliberations.”

[..]

Prosecutors said conversations between attorney Alan Jackson and two jurors that the defense referenced in its motion were inappropriate.

Prosecutors also pushed back on a defense request that Cannone investigate their claims.

 

[kittythehare]

Prosecutors respond to Karen Read defense team’s motion to dismiss charges - Boston News, Weather, Sports | WHDH 7News

DEDHAM, MASS. (WHDH) - Prosecutors fired back at Karen Read’s defense team Friday, responding to a recent motion from the defense to dismiss two of<a class="excerpt-read-more" href="https://whdh.com/news/prosecutors-respond-to-karen-read-defense-teams-motion-to-dismiss-charges/">Read More</a>

whdh.com

7/12/24

DEDHAM, MASS. (WHDH) - Prosecutors fired back at Karen Read’s defense team Friday, responding to a recent motion from the defense to dismiss two of three charges against Read.

[..]

In their response, though, lawyers for the Norfolk County District Attorney’s Office argued the defense motion “is premised upon hearsay, conjecture, and legally inappropriate reliance as to the substance of jury deliberations.”

[..]

Prosecutors said conversations between attorney Alan Jackson and two jurors that the defense referenced in its motion were inappropriate.

Prosecutors also pushed back on a defense request that Cannone investigate their claims.

#LegallyInappropriate.. that's funny coming from people who rushed this trial through, put clowns on the stand and highly legally inappropriate prosecutors..


They're playing hardball now, Morrissey's path to hell..

 

[Wishbone]

Watching Day 13. Matt McCabe is a weird dude. He thinks he's funny but he's just irritating imo.
He seemed to have his testimony well-prepared.
What I don't understand is how he saw BH's jeep in between Ryan Nagel's truck and Karen Read's SUV when Ryan, Julie, the driver and Heather never saw a jeep there. How can that be!
(on video around 3:48).

If I'm not mistaken, only a few unbelievable people even talk about the jeep being at the house that night. So, I have my doubts that it was there at all. It's possible that BH was driving something else and the jeep is nothing more than a red herring. I just can't bring myself to take anything at face value that these people have to say. JMOO

 

[ShadyLady]

It appears that the judge and the AG are very firmly on the same page, and that they favor the prosecutor. I think it will be an uphill battle. MOO

If I'm not mistaken, only a few unbelievable people even talk about the jeep being at the house that night. So, I have my doubts that it was there at all. It's possible that BH was driving something else and the jeep is nothing more than a red herring. I just can't bring myself to take anything at face value that these people have to say. JMOO

Makes the whole timeline suspect, imo.

And why do I think JM was ringleader? Rounding up all the players. At least on the coverup. Maybe it was husband that attempted to clean up phones.

 

[keek]

 

[MerlinFalcon]

View attachment 517526

Where did you see this?

 

[keek]

Where did you see this?

A different site popular with current topics all day every day. This was a new post.

 

[OldCop]

View attachment 517526

Like all criminals, you never did anything wrong until you are caught red-handed.

 

[Forest_Wood]

View attachment 517526

I'm not certain this is authentic since there's no source noted.
But I don't see any other corrective action than termination with this guy.

• He broke the law by driving a police vehicle after drinking alcohol. If his buddy KA was as hung over as he claimed via text, there is no reason to believe that MP drank less than KA that night, and yet got behind the wheel of a vehicle, and not just any vehicle, but a police cruiser, putting anybody in his path at risk of injury or death.
• He offered to leave an officer's handgun in his mailbox, creating the risk of theft and it being used in crimes.
• He demonstrated prejudice against a person he was investigating within 16 hours of being involved by texting his friends indicating KR was guilty from the beginning.
• He disobeyed a code of conduct by disclosing personal details about an active investigation to his buddies, complete with names of others and their health history.
• He didn't investigate adequately as the lead investigator, so therefore KR did not have the right to a thorough investigation that could have helped her.
• He concluded early on that the Alberts were not involved specifically because they were cops.
• He lied by saying he didn't have a close relationship with many of these players.
• He potentially planted evidence or damaged evidence with the extra glass and the taillight. (TBD).

How can his ethical and honest colleagues trust him again?
How can the public trust this man again?
He is not fit to be of service to enforce the law if he is breaking the law, bending the rules, going against SOPs, lying, meddling, and so on.

MOO.