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

[cocomod]

If these people do live in Canton - a jury by peers, then, I can see holdouts. This town has been divided, and I can definitely see some people holding their opinion come Heck or high water. Even IF they didn't know anything at all about the case coming in to the trial, they may definitely know some of the dynamics of the town. This town has been undergoing a cultural war - a civil war of sorts. I have lived in small towns. It is very clear that there are those that are believed to be "above" the law so to say. There are those that are tired of the same "status quo". There ABSOLUTELY feels like there is corruption in the political arena. There may be some on the jury that are part of the "establishment", or have family that are. They may be highly offended at the mere mention of corruption! They may be holding their high "moral" ground to show that they flat out don't believe the defense because it is a smear on "their" community. Just a point of view I have given the now real possibility of a hung jury.

 

[JerseyWasHome2]

It was said that the O'Keefe family went to a nearby VFW function room to await any movement in the case. And I believe the Read group was at a church hall nearby. They have to be close enough to get back to the courtroom within five minutes.

Thank you!

 

[Wishbone]

Stupid question here because I really have not watched many trials. What are the defense and prosecution teams doing all day while the jury deliberates? What are family and friends on both sides doing? Are they all literally in the courtroom together whispering and just trying to be patient for hours and days?

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

 

[Yemelyan]

If these people do live in Canton - a jury by peers, then, I can see holdouts. This town has been divided, and I can definitely see some people holding their opinion come Heck or high water. Even IF they didn't know anything at all about the case coming in to the trial, they may definitely know some of the dynamics of the town. This town has been undergoing a cultural war - a civil war of sorts. I have lived in small towns. It is very clear that there are those that are believed to be "above" the law so to say. There are those that are tired of the same "status quo". There ABSOLUTELY feels like there is corruption in the political arena. There may be some on the jury that are part of the "establishment", or have family that are. They may be highly offended at the mere mention of corruption! They may be holding their high "moral" ground to show that they flat out don't believe the defense because it is a smear on "their" community. Just a point of view I have given the now real possibility of a hung jury.

I think the jury pool is pulled from all of Norfolk county, not just the town of Canton. There's over 700,000 people in Norfolk County.

Edit to add...here's an article on how people get chosen to report for jury duty in MA. How Does Massachusetts Decide Who Gets Summoned For Jury Duty ?

 

[turaj]

If these people do live in Canton - a jury by peers, then, I can see holdouts. This town has been divided, and I can definitely see some people holding their opinion come Heck or high water. Even IF they didn't know anything at all about the case coming in to the trial, they may definitely know some of the dynamics of the town. This town has been undergoing a cultural war - a civil war of sorts. I have lived in small towns. It is very clear that there are those that are believed to be "above" the law so to say. There are those that are tired of the same "status quo". There ABSOLUTELY feels like there is corruption in the political arena. There may be some on the jury that are part of the "establishment", or have family that are. They may be highly offended at the mere mention of corruption! They may be holding their high "moral" ground to show that they flat out don't believe the defense because it is a smear on "their" community. Just a point of view I have given the now real possibility of a hung jury.

my understanding is that the jury pool was from the wider area...trial in Dedham 6 miles from Canton so I assume not all live in Canton. I don't know much about the area or how many actually live in Canton.

 

[Wishbone]

You say that, but I'm aware of a case (Hassan Bennett) where a jury had a 11-1 deadlock in favor of acquittal, and the prosecution STILL chose to keep retrying him until he got acquitted. Because of that, I fully expect that KR will be retried forever until she's either convicted or acquitted.

great, then you already have the answer, kindly disregard mine.....

 

[turaj]

I think the jury pool is pulled from all of Norfolk county, not just the town of Canton.

yes and I bet they steered clear of those living in Canton.

 

[OldCop]

Why is it so hard to believe they are just standing firm in their stance because it’s simply what they believe?

What they believe…. Not what the evidence proves or disproves. This sentence says it all @LaineyJ .

 

[jepop]

We just have to look around this thread to see how divided this jury may be. And why is this? In most cases the jury tends to favor the prosecution - the defendant must be guilty or we wouldn’t be here.
From the beginning of this trial the prosecution acted like the defense; defending their charges instead of proving them. Weeks were spent talking about the weather and butt dials and other minutiae. If the prosecution’s case were strong, they would have come out swinging, and they would have proved that KR killed JOK with her vehicle. It would have, should have, taken days to prove it. Lally would have given us facts supported by strong evidence. He would tell us how those wounds on JOK’s arm were made. He would show us how a vehicle could cause the lethal wound on the back of John’s head. He would explain why investigators violated virtually every tenet of crime scene investigation, evidence collection, and witness interviews but were still able to arrest and charge the real perpetrator. He would tell us how magical pieces of tail light appeared days after the crime scene search, some of which weren’t even from the defendant’s vehicle and explain away missing videos and text messages. He wouldn’t have a trooper telling us it just is. But he didn’t do that because he didn’t have the proof and he knew it.
So, since the defense does show us proof that JOK did not die from being struck by a motor vehicle through science, medicine, forensic science, kinetics and physics, why do some jurors not see it? Because, the fact is that some people can not clear their minds of biases, past experiences, of their dislike of defense lawyers, their trust in law enforcement officers, of the way the defendant looks or comports himself, or they hate science and think that cellphone data is a bunch of mumbo jumbo. They can not disassociate themselves from their personal feelings or beliefs and make a compartment in their minds into which they put the EVIDENCE in the case to the exclusion of all other things. They literally do not have the ability to parse out the facts. MOO

Thank you for this reply. You word my concerns far better than I'm able. I agree with you one hundred percent and think it's a legitimate opinion to hold and voice. moo

 

[LaineyJ]

What they believe…. Not what the evidence proves or disproves. This sentence says it all @LaineyJ .

I agree. Your long post was spot on, imo

 

[Deleted member 246707]

What they believe…. Not what the evidence proves or disproves. This sentence says it all @LaineyJ .

It's a fine line.

One person's proof is another person's inconclusive evidence or opinion.

 

[fluffypaste]

Could the defense have averted this by having KR testify?

 

[TTF14]

Could the defense have averted this by having KR testify?

I doubt it. I don't think the defense could have done any better than they did, unless maybe call some of the <mod edit: name variation> Alberts back up to testify.

 

[OldCop]

It's a fine line.

One person's proof is another person's inconclusive evidence or opinion.

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.

 

[turaj]

I doubt it. I don't think the defense could have done any better than they did, unless maybe call some of the <mod edit: name variation> Alberts back up to testify.

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.

 

[kittythehare]

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.

You did ask nicely. I'm shocked you received no response.

The victim's own body shows no evidence of a vehicular homicide, none at all..
That alone should be definitive enough.

 

[clearskies1]

The attorney fees to defend KR must be huge. Alan Jackson would not be inexpensive. I can't imagine paying for the defense of a second trial.

 

[TTF14]

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.

Yes, stressing reasonable doubt more would have been good.

 

[kittythehare]

The attorney fees to defend KR must be huge. Alan Jackson would not be inexpensive. I can't imagine paying for the defense of a second trial.

She was cleaned out , expert witnesses do not run cheap and the delays imposed by the prosecution throughout contributed to this.

She has nothing now, nor do her parents..

If this goes full hung, they are unlikely to recover any costs at all..
That is so sad,

 

[OldCop]

Could the defense have averted this by having KR testify?

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.