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

[I am not Sherlock H.]

Wait, so if she gives that instruction and then they come back, she's legally obligated to release them? Holy mackerel, we are entering dangerous territory.

I am wondering the same. Wonder if the judge was required to give them the charge at this time - or was there simply an option to suggest they continue to deliberate?

In other words….. was there an option to simply ask them to continue without invoking the charge? So the next time if they are still stuck isn’t the end? And a declared mistrial? MOO

 

[Wishbone]

We are nearing 3:00 PM. It is likely there will not be a verdict today.

You could be right. So come Monday we could get the mistrial.

 

[kittythehare]

Pretty sure this will end up hung.
also likely CW will re try her because stakes are so high with Fed investigation as well ongoing..
I can't believe it but I do.

 

[Wishbone]

I am wondering the same. Wonder if the judge was required to give them the charge at this time - or was there simply an option to suggest they continue to deliberate?

In other words….. was there an option to simply ask them to continue without invoking the charge? So the next time if they are still stuck isn’t the end? And a declared mistrial? MOO

I don't believe she gave them the charge, but as the judge likes to remind us, she makes the decisions.

 

[mzmarymac]

Wondering if the definition of "reasonable doubt" needs to be read to the jury. When you're deadlocked, there probably some reasonable doubt.

beyond a reasonable doubt

www.law.cornell.edu

"Beyond a reasonable doubt is the legal burden of proof required to affirm a conviction in a criminal case. In a criminal case, the prosecution bears the burden of proving that the defendant is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. This means that the prosecution must convince the jury that there is no other reasonable explanation that can come from the evidence presented at trial. In other words, the jury must be virtually certain of the defendant’s guilt in order to render a guilty verdict."

 

[mrjitty]

For the record, I never said it was a conspiracy. Just that it's not a good way to handle the picking of a foreperson.

Apologies - my comment was not directed at anyone in particular. It just gets a bit exhausting to read all the comments implying the Judge is somehow biased for doing her job as required.

 

[themonk]

This is a disaster for everyone involved. Just horrible.

the way of the world these days it seems

 

[acutename]

I think there are people who believe that KR "confessed" at the site of JOK's body and they are not interested in the physical evidence or that her statements (not recorded, BTW) might have been different or hysteria AND they believe there is a dead victim, so there is a guilty party IMO.

 

[jepop]

This jury? Hell no. They only had a few hours to deliberate Tues and asked to leave early Wed and Thurs. Before lunch today they’re ready to give up. I have no idea what kind of misery is going on in the jury room but based on what little the public knows unfortunately this jury doesn’t seem committed to go the distance. Guessing the truth is the vast majority of jurors are very conscientious and want to do the hard work but one or two holdouts clearly refuse to consider anyone elses argument. And are being so rude and obnoxious about it the other jurors think they never will. I envision a holdout with no social skills/empathy who’s enjoying the opportunity to bully others with their words. Wouldn’t be surprised if they’ve caused some jurors to break down in tears and the rest, thinking it’s futile, just want the abuse to stop.

Good post. A couple of toxics in there would explain a lot; early leaving times, crying alternate, dismissed jurors at random intervals, smirkys when entering court with news of being hung. Jmo

 

[themonk]

I think there are people who believe that KR "confessed" at the site of JOK's body and they are not interested in the physical evidence or that her statements (not recorded, BTW) might have been different or hysteria AND they believe there is a dead victim, so there is a guilty party IMO.

I wonder if these same people dismiss things like 'tell them the guy was never in the house' ?

 

[sunspun]

I wonder if these same people dismiss things like 'tell them the guy was never in the house' ?

"Exactly!" ;-)

 

[Curiousobserver]

I think there are people who believe that KR "confessed" at the site of JOK's body and they are not interested in the physical evidence or that her statements (not recorded, BTW) might have been different or hysteria AND they believe there is a dead victim, so there is a guilty party IMO.

She did say it, several different people testified that they heard it. But even if we give the defense the benefit of any doubt and just change that to could I have hit him, or did I hit him (their own words). Karen Read thought at the time it was a perfectly reasonable explanation for how he got there in their version, and a confession according to the people who were there.

 

[jepop]

I am giving up on any kind of verdict this week

View attachment 513981

Alexa or siri probably know the answer

 

[themonk]

She did say it, several different people testified that they heard it. But even if we give the defense the benefit of any doubt and just change that to could I have hit him, or did I hit him (their own words). Karen Read thought at the time it was a perfectly reasonable explanation for how he got there in their version, and a confession according to the people who were there.

hm yes, and perhaps someone can assist me, but did not various people think JO had been in a fight upon seeing his injuries?

would that not also be 'a perfectly reasonable explanation' ?

 

[jepop]

I wonder if these same people dismiss things like 'tell them the guy was never in the house' ?

Yes ofcourse they have to ignore and dismiss all real evidence; expert, circumstantial supported by rational inference and direct (ie JMc as lying eye witness to lexus' whereabouts)jmo

 

[GoBuckeyes]

What would be grounds for appeal should she be found guilty, of anything on the form?

It would start with the bias of the form itself.

 

[jepop]

And then let them come back in on Monday morning bright and early. I wonder if the judge can suggest they bring a lunch? MOO

yeah byo jury until you sort it

 

[Vaderman]

I had a bad feeling when I logged back in after a few hours and this thread wasn't at the top of the active list that there wasn't good news. I didn't think hung jury would be a strong possibility.

Edited for clarity.

 

[GoBuckeyes]

As much as I've grown to dislike the Judge and the Prosecutor in this case, I don't believe they've done anything that could actually result in KR getting a new trial if she's convicted. The threshold for getting a new trial after you've been convicted is a high bar.

The only thing that I think might have some teeth to it is Lally lying about the DNA in his closing. I believe he made an explicit claim in his closing that no other DNA besides John's was found on the car, which is proveably false. That might be something, but still probably not.

Perjury can definitely lead to a new trial. You could take your pick there.

 

[arielilane]

@KristinaRex

For any curious law nerds: if the jury comes back deadlocked again, the judge (at her discretion) will give a "last resort" instruction known as the Tuey-Rodriguez instruction (see below). If the jury is hung after that -- mistrial.





3:17 PM · Jun 28, 2024

https://twitter.com/x/status/1806768878879396132