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
shotgun09
'Certified' Boomer
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2009
- Messages
- 4,218
- Reaction score
- 43,995
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
- 2,503
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
- 4,218
- Reaction score
- 43,995
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: