MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #35 Retrial

New Posts

Forest_Wood said:
What happens with a Missing Witness motion if it's granted?
Click to expand...
IIUC.. an instruction can be given to the jurors, that they can basically say that if he had been called, that it would not have been favorable for the CW. Not the exact words, but you get the idea.

I think it also allows them to say it in closing... that the CW didn't even call their lead investigator, or maybe they can say that anyway? I'm not sure.
 
Shady Lady, the claim that the defense had some sort of burden to present and prove who did this if not KR is spectacularly wrong, and in fact explicitly contrary to MA law.

The defense CAN BE allowed to suggest a specific alternate killer(s), but only by permission that must be granted in advance of trial. They did so in T1, but decided against that choice in T2.

As a result, they can (and clearly did, of course) show that KR is Not Guilty of the alleged crime, and they can even show evidence pointing to someone else having done it, but they cannot (and did not, of course) argue who that was. They left that to the cw to figure out, as it's their job to investigate and find the real killer, not the def's.

I think it was a great decision, frankly, as T2 was more focused on showing the clear truth that KR could not have hit him, since the evidence of JOK body and KR vehicle clearly showed that vehicle could not have hit him. Simple truth to convey.
 
turaj said:
Most commentators agree that with the limits on closing they SHOULD get the case before lunch today. They would not deliberate over the weekend.
Click to expand...
She gave the jurors today off, and chances are that she'll send them home after closing arguments tomorrow.
Since they're "way ahead of schedule".
IMO.
 
SteveS said:
Shady Lady, the claim that the defense had some sort of burden to present and prove who did this if not KR is spectacularly wrong, and in fact explicitly contrary to MA law.

The defense CAN BE allowed to suggest a specific alternate killer(s), but only by permission that must be granted in advance of trial. They did so in T1, but decided against that choice in T2.

As a result, they can (and clearly did, of course) show that KR is Not Guilty of the alleged crime, and they can even show evidence pointing to someone else having done it, but they cannot (and did not, of course) argue who that was. They left that to the cw to figure out, as it's their job to investigate and find the real killer, not the def's.

I think it was a great decision, frankly, as T2 was more focused on showing the clear truth that KR could not have hit him, since the evidence of JOK body and KR vehicle clearly showed that vehicle could not have hit him. Simple truth to convey.
Click to expand...
I agree, this trial, it actually seems much clearer to me.

( I have NEVER watched all of the McAlberts testimony from 1st trial) I did watch a bit of BH's testimony though.
 
For the Twitter law students trying to rationalize by claiming that Brennan didn’t need his rebuttal case out of a position of strength, allow me to help by acting as an adjunct professor at the Twitter Law School. Prosecutors like any other lawyer ALWAYS want the last word. ALWAYS. There is no bigger advantage in litigation than getting the last word. And the prosecution gets it. The chance to rebut what the other party says is a gift. If the prosecution possessed credible testing that successfully rebutted the ARCCA witnesses and dog wound evidence (as Brennan repeatedly claimed for weeks he had), 100 of 100 prosecutors would do it. Brennan aborted and allowed the defense to finish strong. Primacy and recency, folks. Huge advantages for the prosecution. Brennan abandoned this opportunity. If you think he did so because he felt he had enough and didn’t want to piss off the jury, you need your head examined. Does he look like the kind of lawyer who cares or has any self-awareness about how his demeanor impacts the jury? He gave away his “final word” advantage because he knew his witnesses were going to get clobbered and/or to save his own rear end by being implicated in misconduct related to the sketchiness surrounding the x-rays and hoodie. It’s not that complicated.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1933150635873939868
 
SteveS said:
Shady Lady, the claim that the defense had some sort of burden to present and prove who did this if not KR is spectacularly wrong, and in fact explicitly contrary to MA law.

The defense CAN BE allowed to suggest a specific alternate killer(s), but only by permission that must be granted in advance of trial. They did so in T1, but decided against that choice in T2.

As a result, they can (and clearly did, of course) show that KR is Not Guilty of the alleged crime, and they can even show evidence pointing to someone else having done it, but they cannot (and did not, of course) argue who that was. They left that to the cw to figure out, as it's their job to investigate and find the real killer, not the def's.

I think it was a great decision, frankly, as T2 was more focused on showing the clear truth that KR could not have hit him, since the evidence of JOK body and KR vehicle clearly showed that vehicle could not have hit him. Simple truth to convey.
Click to expand...

The defence didn't decide against it.

They motioned pretrial to be allowed to name all 3 alternates. The Judge struck one pretrial due to lack of evidence and prohibited the other 2 in opening, but said she would consider allowing the other 2 to be argued in closing if the defence could introduce sufficient foundation at trial. They failed to do so for whatever reason, so it appears they cannot argue those 2 people in closing.

As such the alternates are not on the table as they have not been raised as an issue sufficient to support reasonable doubt. It's an illustration of the type of situation where the defendant does require an evidential foundation for an argument to be put before the jury.

The defendant can of course always argue generically that someone else caused John's death.

"As to Colin Albert, the defendant's proffer contains no additional evidence than that presented at the first trial, and it is insufficient to support a preliminary finding that Colin Albert had the motive, intent, and opportunity to commit the crime," Cannone wrote in her ruling.

Related to Higgins and Brian Albert, Cannone wrote that the defense's argument to allow their testimony is "barely sufficient, and the history of the first trial casts doubt on the seriousness of the claim."

www.cbsnews.com

Karen Read defense cannot argue Colin Albert could have killed John O'Keefe, judge rules

The judge in Karen Read's second trial ruled that the defense will not be allowed to blame Colin Albert as part of their third-party culprit defense.
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com

MOO
 
Anyone listening, Bowden ....

This subsection is derived from Commonwealth v. Bowden, 379 Mass. 472, 486 (1980). Evidence concerning the inadequacy of a police investigation is known as “Bowden evidence,” and a defense based on the inadequacy of the investigation is known as a “Bowden defense.” A defendant may argue that deficiencies or omissions in the police investigation create a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

... and 174 more.
Total: 743 (members: 175, guests: 568)

Online statistics

Members online
175
Guests online
568
Total visitors
743
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
625,478
Messages
18,504,577
Members
240,809
Latest member
10 :)
Back
Top