MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #20 Retrial

[mrjitty]

Canton Community Forum Audit Review with
Q & A from the public.

This is devastating to the defense

Will it even be admissible?

 

[cocomod]

I honestly feel for John O’Keefe’s family. They have suffered terrible losses! But, I also believe in investigative and judicial integrity. I can not turn a blind eye to such a poor investigation and a horrible prosecution. OJO deserves justice, but not at the expense of true BARD unbiased court proceedings. It is too important to all of us!

This isn’t the KR show, this is a lesson in our court system and our LE integrity. I would be absolutely livid if I were a relative and this poor of an investigation was done. I loved the interview that the LYK watched with the former police officer. He is not wrong.

 

[Wishbone]

Local News

Canton residents call for change, transparency following police department audit​

Canton residents call for change, transparency following police department audit

Canton residents got their chance Saturday to comment on an independent review of that town's police department, and how they handled high-profile cases such as the deaths of John O'Keefe and Sandra Birchmore.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[keek]

Local News

Canton residents call for change, transparency following police department audit​

Canton residents call for change, transparency following police department audit

Canton residents got their chance Saturday to comment on an independent review of that town's police department, and how they handled high-profile cases such as the deaths of John O'Keefe and Sandra Birchmore.

www.cbsnews.com

They would need to get rid of all the people involved the morning of JO'K being found who were found to have been untruthful at witnesses, to be trusted again in their town positions . Clean slate.

 

[Linda7NJ]

They would need to get rid of all the people involved the morning of JO'K being found who were found to have been untruthful at witnesses, to be trusted again in their town positions . Clean slate.

That’s not the recommendation the independent audit found.


“Matt Germanowski, senior director of 5 Stones Intelligence, said there was no evidence to support conspiracies that police attempted to frame Read, as her defense team has alleged.

"There's a lot of reasons that don't involve corruption or gross negligence. Weather, training, equipment, time, experience," Germanowski said. "So what people should take away is that the current police administration embraced the audit, they welcomed the recommendations and they implemented them."

 

[mrjitty]

Does anyone know what was reported in terms of the jury's supposed view on the charge they hung on? While it has no legal basis, it would be interesting to know the split view of whether or not this was 'vehicle involved'.

 

[mrjitty]

I get why the defence has skillfully advocated and publicised this issue, but it really is just black letter law that there was no verdict on any count. There are at least 2 good reasons. The first is not all jurors have been asked what their thinking was - we just have claims from some jurors. The second is once the jurors leave the courtroom, they are exposed to outside info, so there is no safe way to re-poll them.

So while it might be frustrating for the defence in that they now realise they were close to 'winning', they did have the opportunity to poll the jury and chose not to. The Judge followed the correct procedures as the jury deliberated - as confirmed on appeal. So while I am unhappy with the Judge on some points - this is not one of them.

I feel this was a high stakes situation where Yanetti and co, as highly experienced attorneys, decided they did not want to open the box. That is on them and not the Judge.

Something I found interesting in the appeal and habeas judgements is just how limited the Judge is in terms of how she can inquire of the jury. But I get why this is. e.g if the facts were reversed, you would not want to see the Judge teasing out a guilty verdict when the Jury had told the Judge 3 times clearly in writing they were deadlocked. Nor would you want a Federal judge stepping in to manufacture a verdict later.



IMO

Federal judge denies Karen Read's request to drop 2 charges, question jurors

A federal judge has denied Karen Read's request to drop two charges against her and said Judge Cannone was not wrong in declaring a mistrial.

www.cbsnews.com

So I had a bit of a wider listen around on this topic and it's my guess the Supreme Court will not take this on. Various attorneys like Bederow make convincing arguments on an interests of justice basis, but I am not sure any of them can get past the pragmatic issue of how juries work. Essentially if you polled the jury days or weeks later, there is simply no way to know if the verdict was the same as what they would have reached in the jury room - or perhaps better worded, the verdict they actually failed to deliver. So unless you change how juries are going to work in future, there is no way the SC would want to open the door to this.

Secondly and maybe even more importantly, IMO there is a real risk with these partial verdicts, which is illustrated by neither side choosing to poll.

It's clear the D did not want to poll, because they might uncover a guilty verdict on one charge - but nevertheless have to go to retrial on murder. As it turned out, it was closer to the other way round.

To me all that raises the question of whether you want to change Jury directions etc to tease partial verdicts out. I suspect not, as the system is designed to avoid any suggestion the Judge is opening the box to see if she can't snatch a guilty verdict on something.

Another interesting question here is whether it raises the question of splitting the baby by jurors, e.g voting NG on murder to get a guilty on Manslaughter because a juror feels the defendant is responsible. Is that an acquital if the jury hangs on Manslaughter? I just raise this to highlight the blackbox nature of the jury room, and how we might not want to make it more transparent.

So turning to the SC - will they want to wade into this stuff on this case? Probably not IMO. The Judge clearly followed procedure on deliberations. And if she directed the jury wrong pre-deliberation (e.g confusion about the form), you get a new trial. I don't seen the SC doing anything as chaos inducing as ordering a voir dire on all this

IMO

 

[cocomod]

I do agree that the SC will not rule in their favor; I also do believe that the judge erred in her instructions to the jury. She should have made the form and her instructions clear that they CAN vote NG on one charge and not another.

 

[twhel]

Does anyone know what was reported in terms of the jury's supposed view on the charge they hung on? While it has no legal basis, it would be interesting to know the split view of whether or not this was 'vehicle involved'.

mrjitty, I'm linking two news articles, one that has information on the supposed split of the jury, as detailed in voicemails left with the CW, and one that details the charges that went to the jury.

New court filing says 4 jurors contacted Commonwealth regarding Karen Read murder trial decision

Karen Read trial: Explaining the charges, late changes to jury form

The details on the charges are significant because the motor vehicle manslaughter charge was not a unitary one. It had two lesser included offenses: involuntary manslaughter and motor vehicle homicide. IMO, and to my interpretation, involuntary manslaughter would involve a finding that recklessness as to the likelihood of substantial harm was proved but legal intoxication was not, and motor vehicle homicide would involve a finding that the state of mind proved was only to the level of negligence, rather than recklessness.

The news report of the voicemail left with the DA was that the last vote on the motor vehicle manslaughter charge was 9-3 to convict "on the lesser manslaughter charges." This would signify that the vote was not on the "top" manslaughter charge, but leaves somewhat ambiguous which of the lesser offenses was the subject of the 9-3 split.

Massachusetts has a statute on vehicular homicide that details the punishments for various circumstances, but the actual instructions that go to juries appear to be judicially developed in such a way as to make the correspondence between the instructions and the statute less than transparent.

 

[mrjitty]

I do agree that the SC will not rule in their favor; I also do believe that the judge erred in her instructions to the jury. She should have made the form and her instructions clear that they CAN vote NG on one charge and not another.

This is actually one of the interesting jurisprudential issues raised, and much broader than this case. ie whether the judge should be active to discover partial verdicts.

Error of jury direction tends to lead to a mistrial. There doesn’t seem to be mode where it can lead to partial acquittal. Normally these issues arise where the defendant got convicted!

IMO

 

[Izzylizzy]

Peter and dad George break down Canton audit.
1 hr ago.

 

[rescuemom]

I honestly feel for John O’Keefe’s family. They have suffered terrible losses! But, I also believe in investigative and judicial integrity. I can not turn a blind eye to such a poor investigation and a horrible prosecution. OJO deserves justice, but not at the expense of true BARD unbiased court proceedings. It is too important to all of us!

This isn’t the KR show, this is a lesson in our court system and our LE integrity. I would be absolutely livid if I were a relative and this poor of an investigation was done. I loved the interview that the LYK watched with the former police officer. He is not wrong.

Makes me wonder if the family of JOK has any doubt as to how this case was handled and who really killed their loved one. I';m sure with cross they can hear the other side. I know that they want justice but I can't believe they would want the wrong person convicted.

 

[rescuemom]

I agree that a complete proper investigation was needed in order to preserve the rights of the defendant to a fair trial. The investigation failed to do so. JMOO

I'm afraid it is jusst due diligence on theire pat. Going through the motions, IMO.

 

[cocomod]

Makes me wonder if the family of JOK has any doubt as to how this case was handled and who really killed their loved one. I';m sure with cross they can hear the other side. I know that they want justice but I can't believe they would want the wrong person convicted.

His mother anns brother are absolutely convinced she is guilty. They don’t care about the errors in the investigation. They are angry that such a big deal is being made about the errors. They also don’t care about the perjury on the stand. His brother seems so angry that nothing matters but to convict her. It is a bit crazy to me; I think some of that anger should be towards the botched investigation. Even if they believe she is guilty, they should be angry the LE didn’t build a solid case IMO

 

[rescuemom]

So I had a bit of a wider listen around on this topic and it's my guess the Supreme Court will not take this on. Various attorneys like Bederow make convincing arguments on an interests of justice basis, but I am not sure any of them can get past the pragmatic issue of how juries work. Essentially if you polled the jury days or weeks later, there is simply no way to know if the verdict was the same as what they would have reached in the jury room - or perhaps better worded, the verdict they actually failed to deliver. So unless you change how juries are going to work in future, there is no way the SC would want to open the door to this.

Secondly and maybe even more importantly, IMO there is a real risk with these partial verdicts, which is illustrated by neither side choosing to poll.

It's clear the D did not want to poll, because they might uncover a guilty verdict on one charge - but nevertheless have to go to retrial on murder. As it turned out, it was closer to the other way round.

To me all that raises the question of whether you want to change Jury directions etc to tease partial verdicts out. I suspect not, as the system is designed to avoid any suggestion the Judge is opening the box to see if she can't snatch a guilty verdict on something.

Another interesting question here is whether it raises the question of splitting the baby by jurors, e.g voting NG on murder to get a guilty on Manslaughter because a juror feels the defendant is responsible. Is that an acquital if the jury hangs on Manslaughter? I just raise this to highlight the blackbox nature of the jury room, and how we might not want to make it more transparent.

So turning to the SC - will they want to wade into this stuff on this case? Probably not IMO. The Judge clearly followed procedure on deliberations. And if she directed the jury wrong pre-deliberation (e.g confusion about the form), you get a new trial. I don't seen the SC doing anything as chaos inducing as ordering a voir dire on all this

IMO

IANAL, but the jury needs to UNDERSTAND that each charge is separate of itself and the one juror that I saw interviewed did not. Of course if there was a question on that the jury could have asked, IMO.

 

[rescuemom]

I rewatched cross of some of the testimonies and really noticed how many times Lally ojected and judge sustained...like a machine gun...rat tat tat

 

[rescuemom]

I'll say again that KR is not someone I would click with to become friends but this next trial scares me

 

[Izzylizzy]

Live now

 

[Izzylizzy]

Live now

There are issues with the L&C live streaming I just posted.
The YT on TV is showing the judge and the one here is showing the ceiling with background talk.
???

 

[Tortoise]

I agree that a complete proper investigation was needed in order to preserve the rights of the defendant to a fair trial. The investigation failed to do so. JMOO

On the other hand, I believe KR has benefited from errors made. I don't believe she would have had a defense but for it. That's not excusing poor police work, it's looking at what sort of trial she might realistically have had, without the opportunities that arose to point at a cover-up.

I think this time around it's going to be a very different trial. The cw seems to have been working harder towards proving what the evidence does show, and to properly address and counter defense arguments. IMO