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]

@AppleTreeGreen

JOK answered his phone at 12:29:44

Do we know if this call is definitely answered or did it go to VM?

 

[jepop]

The CW's own witness, Trooper Nicholas Guarino, a forensic expert, testified on direct examination as to KR's phone contacting JOK's home wifi at 12:36 a.m. On cross, Guarino agreed with the defense that KR's vehicle could not have been outside the Alberts' house after 12:40 a.m.

So J McCabe was wrong, and both parties agree she was wrong. So what? The CW's case doesn't need her erroneous testimony, on that point, and doesn't need to stick with it for closing argument. Trooper Guarino's contrasting testimony was in evidence and properly relied upon for that purpose. It is very much appropriate for the CW to use closing argument to present a timeline of facts in evidence and for the jurors to give it the weight they deem appropriate.

Witnesses make mistakes of recollection all the time. The pertinent question is always: what substantive difference does the mistake make? This is particularly true when the witness is not law enforcement, or a hired expert, but a non-professional "civilian", whose testimony is under compulsion because they have relevant knowledge.

Ryan Nagel testified that his conversation with sister Julie in front of the Alberts' house lasted about 30 seconds. It was pointed out to him on cross that he had previously testified that it lasted about 5 minutes. His response was, essentially, "If I said it, I said it." There's nothing to indicate any motivation to lie on his part. Also, IMO, no particular significance that can be attached to the difference, one way or the other. (Sister Julie said the convo lasted about 3 minutes.)

Right, Lally forgot his own witness would testify to the 12.36am wifi connection at Meadows when he gave his opening statement which posited the 12.45am timeline. Then JMc gets on the stand and happens to confirm that timeline (pre Guariano). I think this must be why I had forgotten it was actually Lally's own witness who contradicted both him (Lally) and JMc. Moo

As I said, what I find interesting is the confluence between Pros timeline as laid out in the opening and J Mc's rather insistent testimony. And how this coincides with her denials about the numerous calls she made at that time. Even when confronted with the digital evidence of their existence and subsequent deletion, she kept insisting the calls didn't happen, before conceding the butt dial explanation which also made zero rational sense. Jmo

In any event, because of the lies and credibility issues surrounding this witness, I'm less inclined to just think, yeah she must have got the times wrong, no biggie. Why did Lally's opening timeline coincide so neatly with JMc's testimony? It seems to me that Lally forgot about what Guriano (sp?) would testify to re the wifi evidence, imo because he was over focussed on using J Mc to try and suggest JO was hit by KR between approx 12.40 and 12. 45. He didn't want KR arriving at Fairview, say, by 12.21am because of the step data recovered from JO's phone ( defense produced solid analyses about what that data likely indicates and the timing is very important). Moo

Anyway, sometimes the devil is in the details and this particular sequence of events within the trial itself IMO deserves a little more scrutiny than writing off as ' it's just your average misremembering thing and simple mistake'. The evidence cw used to create the timeline was contested throughout the trial. AFAIK, the CW never produced anything to tie down exactly what time RN arrived at Fairview or exactly what time KR and JO arrived. But testimony from RN suggests they arrived pretty much simultaneously ( please correct me if wrong but I don't recall an irrefutable time stamp for RN's arrival, and JMc's testimony has too many credibility issues). Jmo

 

[mrjitty]

The only explanation I came come up with for that is Lally simply messed up. I agree he probably wanted to use JMc as his anchor.

 

[AppleTreeGreen]

@AppleTreeGreen



Do we know if this call is definitely answered or did it go to VM?

IIRC, according to his call logs it was answered and the call lasted for 8 seconds. The article below has one copy of it but I believe there were more than one report.

Why so many butt dials? Who called who and when in the Karen Read case

After 18 days of testimony, the jury in the Karen Read murder trial has been presented with an enormous amount of information. Prosecutors say Read dropped her boyfriend John O’Keefe, a Boston police officer, off at a house party hosted by a fellow officer, Brian Albert, in January 2022, struck...

www.nbcboston.com

Edit: I found a tweet with another call log chart from trial 1 referencing it

https://twitter.com/x/status/1906420109649838128

 

[Izzylizzy]

Uh, oh.

Live in 72 minutes
April 9 at 2:00 PM

 

[Seattle1]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1910023810809487453

 

[sds71]

@KristinaRex
It appears the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to decide whether it will take Karen Read's case at a conference on April 25. #WBZ

https://twitter.com/x/status/1910052174899347824

 

[Linda7NJ]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1910064865353285999

 

[Wishbone]

On Wednesday, three more jurors were seated, bringing the total to 15.
So far, eight men and seven women have been selected for the jury. The court seeks to seat 16 jurors, of whom 12 will end up deliberating and four will serve as alternates.

Just 1 more juror needed before Karen Read's retrial gets underway

The court seeks to seat 16 jurors, of whom 12 will end up deliberating and four will serve as alternates.

www.wcvb.com

 

[Spectrix]

On Wednesday, three more jurors were seated, bringing the total to 15.

So close, I hope there aren't any more drop outs. KR is suggesting that opening statements could be underway as early as Tuesday.

 

[sunspun]

Yes. It's in necessary to understand what the state appeal court and federal court said about partial verdicts and revealing a verdict.

The internal straw polling that juries do is not the verdict. This seems to be widely misunderstood. It only becomes the verdict when it is written in to the jury forms and read into Court. Before then any juror can still change their minds!

When the D, CW and Judge Cannone received the third note, the game theory begins, as there are three possibilities out there. For example;

The CW might believe the jury could be hanging on murder but guilty on manslaughter for example - but polling might well have acquitted on murder and hung on manslaughter!

Reverse for the D. Polling might have revealed hanging on murder but guilty on manslaughter.

They don't know what a poll might have uncovered, and nor do we - though we can guess directionally. So neither polled. Sleeping dogs lying etc

This is also why the Judge correctly did not poll - due to the risk of coercing a verdict that the jury has told her point blank they do not have.

IMO the inevitable endpoint of the D argument to the Supreme Court is that in hanging scenarios the Judge must poll the jury to avoid this exact scenario. But there are very good policy reasons why we don't do that!

MOO

RE: POLLING THE JURY

It seems like allowing a juror to change their mind at the polling point would create a problem, but it seems that it doesn't. I've never heard of a case in which polling a jury resulted in a different count than what the foreperson announced when returning from deliberations with the verdict. Have you? Any idea how common this is?

I can see a situation where one or more jurors were in the minority but eventually were convinced to join the majority under pressure from other jurors to reach a verdict, but when polled, reverts to their original stance, simply because they may find it easier to stick to their guns when not directly face to face with the other jurors who were trying to sway them to their view. If they changed their vote due to hard peer pressure, polling removes that, so I could see them feeling more confident in casting a dissenting vote. But does this ever really happen in reality? And if so, are they then just sent back to continue deliberations? It really seems to me like this should be fairly common, but AFAIK, it isn't.

 

[mrjitty]

RE: POLLING THE JURY

It seems like allowing a juror to change their mind at the polling point would create a problem, but it seems that it doesn't. I've never heard of a case in which polling a jury resulted in a different count than what the foreperson announced when returning from deliberations with the verdict. Have you? Any idea how common this is?

I can see a situation where one or more jurors were in the minority but eventually were convinced to join the majority under pressure from other jurors to reach a verdict, but when polled, reverts to their original stance, simply because they may find it easier to stick to their guns when not directly face to face with the other jurors who were trying to sway them to their view. If they changed their vote due to hard peer pressure, polling removes that, so I could see them feeling more confident in casting a dissenting vote. But does this ever really happen in reality? And if so, are they then just sent back to continue deliberations? It really seems to me like this should be fairly common, but AFAIK, it isn't.

I have heard of the jury being polled after the verdict was read in but i have never heard of it being different - but according to google it happens and thus polling is an important right!

It seems the purpose is to ensure each juror really agrees with the verdict via a last chance to change their minds.

This is part of the reason why I am so strongly in agreement with the State Appeal Court and the Federal Court in denying Read's appeal. There really is no verdict based only on the straw poll in the jury room. As a question of both substance and form, the verdict must be delivered in open court to be final.

Here is one of many articles confirming the above

 

[mzmarymac]

Regarding jury polling. I really do not think that is the issue. The issue is that the question of whether or not they were able to reach a unanimous verdict on ANY of the charges was never asked. That should be asked every time there are more than one charge. It is unfair to the defendant to not be given a possible acquittal for one or more charges when they are facing several. Not sure if it is a standard, but it most certainly should be, as it completely flies in the face of the spirit of the constitutionally protected right against double jeopardy. JMO.

 

[mrjitty]

Regarding jury polling. I really do not think that is the issue. The issue is that the question of whether or not they were able to reach a unanimous verdict on ANY of the charges was never asked. That should be asked every time there are more than one charge. It is unfair to the defendant to not be given a possible acquittal for one or more charges when they are facing several. Not sure if it is a standard, but it most certainly should be, as it completely flies in the face of the spirit of the constitutionally protected right against double jeopardy. JMO.

The Defence already had the option to poll the jury if they wanted to. The highly experienced attorneys chose not to. The reason is they don't want to risk uncovering an adverse verdict.

So it standard already - at the parties discretion if they chose to do so.

The reason the Judge does not so do every time is to avoid the suggestion that the Judge is coercing a verdict. Everyone would have been big mad if the jury hung, then the judge polled the jury and uncovered a guilty verdict on one charge. Then we'd be hearing about how the biased judge was not satisfied and pressured the jurors into a verdict.

Trials have been going on for many moons and there is method to the madness.

IMO

 

[mzmarymac]

The Defence already had the option to poll the jury if they wanted to. The highly experienced attorneys chose not to. The reason is they don't want to risk uncovering an adverse verdict.

So it standard already - at the parties discretion if they chose to do so.

The reason the Judge does not so do every time is to avoid the suggestion that the Judge is coercing a verdict. Everyone would have been big mad if the jury hung, then the judge polled the jury and uncovered a guilty verdict on one charge. Then we'd be hearing about how the biased judge was not satisfied and pressured the jurors into a verdict.

Trials have been going on for many moons and there is method to the madness.

IMO

I get what you are saying, but I disagree respectfully, with the terminology. I do not consider asking the jury if they were able to reach a verdict on ANY of the charges the same as polling a jury. Polling a jury is done after a verdict is read. It is a way to insure the jury is unanimous and that each person has to state under oath that this is their verdict. What I am saying is that there should be a process by which we can determine if the jury can reach a verdict on any of the charges, as opposed to all 3. We can argue whether that is a correct approach, but to me, at least, it is different than "polling" the jury. JMO.

 

[Wishbone]

I get what you are saying, but I disagree respectfully, with the terminology. I do not consider asking the jury if they were able to reach a verdict on ANY of the charges the same as polling a jury. Polling a jury is done after a verdict is read. It is a way to insure the jury is unanimous and that each person has to state under oath that this is their verdict. What I am saying is that there should be a process by which we can determine if the jury can reach a verdict on any of the charges, as opposed to all 3. We can argue whether that is a correct approach, but to me, at least, it is different than "polling" the jury. JMO.

Agree. Another question should have been did the jurors even understand the questionnaire. In my estimation they did not.JMOO

 

[mrjitty]

I get what you are saying, but I disagree respectfully, with the terminology. I do not consider asking the jury if they were able to reach a verdict on ANY of the charges the same as polling a jury. Polling a jury is done after a verdict is read. It is a way to insure the jury is unanimous and that each person has to state under oath that this is their verdict. What I am saying is that there should be a process by which we can determine if the jury can reach a verdict on any of the charges, as opposed to all 3. We can argue whether that is a correct approach, but to me, at least, it is different than "polling" the jury. JMO.

The defence could have polled the jury on each charge.

MOO

 

[SteveS]

I don't think the term "straw poll" properly expresses what the jury members have said happened.

Instead, they said they REACHED A "NOT GUILTY" VERDICT on 2 of the charges, but not able to come to a verdict on the 3rd.

However, the jury form DEMANDED by the biased judge did not allow them to state that outcome (on individual charges, it allowed a guilty but did not allow a not guilty). I would think that should be a MAJOR part of the appeals and questions of violations of constitutional rights in that trial.

I believe the judge with her bias knew the form and its consequences and I think her actions at the trial's end made that clear. When the jury told the court they could not agree on all, the judge rushed the case to a quick dismissal by mistrial without allowing ANYONE to ask any questions. She couldn't get them out of there fast enough, and imo it was because she knew the potential existed that an unrecorded not guilty verdict for 1-2 charges was possible with her DEMANDED wording on the form.

 

[PamCake]

I'd agree that if there was irrefutable evidence that search had been typed at 2:27 AM - then we've got a whole other case. The problem is... it makes zero sense.

The defense wants us to believe she went home... sat around looking at her kids' basketball schedule... then randomly made a single mistyped search and that was it?

Or, does it fit with exactly the story she told of several hurried searches at the moment they found JOK?

I'd say the same for the scratch marks. If there was irrefutable evidence it was a dog, of course, we're looking a whole other case... but by itself - what? JOK went into the house... he was immediately bashed... then attacked by a dog... then bizarrely dragged out and dumped on the side of the yard and left to die... while a dozen or so continued the night's party and all remain utterly silent about events?

C'mon.

I can imagine a scenario where JOK goes into the house and proceeds directly downstairs, either through the back yard fence while the dog, BA, BH, and CA are outside, OR from the front door, UNSEEN by the majority of the party-goers. A violent incident takes place in that basement that gravely injures him, causing him to bleed profusely down his shirt and vomit onto his pants. He is possibly left there propped up against a wall while the 3 males try to revive him, and then he is brought outside around the time Lucky the plow driver sees the Ford Edge on the road. The other people in the house never know what happened in the basement, and thus truly testify to that fact.

 

[Seattle1]

IMO, the jury foreperson also didn't help the matter with the three, flowery worded, apologetic notes sent to the Judge! As the appellate provided in their 36-page ruling linked below, the jurors failed to state in any of these notes that they reached a unanimous verdict on two of the charges (or any), and instead, this account was alleged post-trial by some jurors. We also know the jurors didn't understand the verdict slip -- just as the defense had predicted.

Mass. SJC denies Karen Read’s bid to get 2 of her 3 criminal charges dismissed