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 #36 Retrial

[Forest_Wood]

Plus the testimony by her friend KK is that she didn’t seem drunk at all when leaving the bar.
ETA: I think even JM testified that she didn’t seem drunk when leaving the bar. Jmo

Every single witness who was at the waterfall that night, testified that they did not see Karen drunk or experiencing any signs of being drunk. But I think the best witness of all of them was KK because she was sober, drinking water and talking with Karen for at least an hour before they left the bar, and of course she’s a pharmacist so would be more inclined to notice the signs of impairment.

 

[MerlinFalcon]

If I was a juror, I’d vote not guilty if Cannone wasn’t willing to answer the question. If it’s not crystal clear, it’s not BARD and that includes the jury instructions. For whatever reason, this is the hill Cannone wants to die on, figuratively. She’s not going to amend the verdict slip. All she wants to do is regurgitate her instructions.

I hope that if they do this, they go on Dateline and any other show like it and tells them exactly why they voted as they did. Both the judge and the prosecutor need to be discussed.

 

[mickey2942]

If I was a juror, I’d vote not guilty if Cannone wasn’t willing to answer the question. If it’s not crystal clear, it’s not BARD and that includes the jury instructions. For whatever reason, this is the hill Cannone wants to die on, figuratively. She’s not going to amend the verdict slip. All she wants to do is regurgitate her instructions.

It seems to me, the longer they deliberate, the more this looks like another mistrial or NG.

I wish we had a better choice. I like the "Not Proven", as used in UK.

 

[Younger Sister]

I'm over her sweet talking voice she uses to the jurors ugh. Tomorrow for verdict then??? JMO

I have been away from the thread most of the day. So this may be recycling what some of you already talked about. But, in the end if they get her for a OUI or a DWI then they better dish some out to the rest of the police officers and their wives that were there that night then turned around and drove.

I couldn't agree more!

 

[Angelwatch]

I hope that if they do this, they go on Dateline and any other show like it and tells them exactly why they voted as they did. Both the judge and the prosecutor need to be discussed.

It’s so frustrating because the jurors are taking their role seriously and trying to understand her charge instructions.

 

[Malleeboy]

I too think it is interesting. In a way, I was surprised that Hank wanted to go with 12:45 (when AJ said no time) because she was tested much later in the day. I would think that a jury would find it harder to "prove" she was drunk at 12:45 even though she had been drinking on film.

Hank didn't want the stand alone OUI/DUI, he argued against it, it was the Defence that wanted it.

If they hang on the OUI, and cannot return a verdict then the Commonwealth can retry the full charge 2 the vehicle manslaughter. So even though they agree she was not guilty of vehicle manslaughter, if they don't return a verdict, and were only hung on the last of the lesser included, then the whole charge is included.

 

[justwannahelp]

The jury question I found most interesting was about the time of the alleged DUI offense. Paraphrasing, what time is the DUI alleged to have occurrred - at 12:30ish or at around 5 am when she backed into John's vehicle?

Hank wanted the judge to go with 12:45 when he's claiming John was hit by her car. But it's not specified in the charging docs, so the judge wouldn't give a time.

This likely indicates that at least someone on the jury doesn't even want to consider her being legally intoxicated at around 12:30ish, but perhaps would like to consider that (as AJ suggested in his closing) that she drank while at One Meadows overnight, which is why her blood still showed a fairly high alcohol level at the hosptial the next morning.

Not sure what it means overall, but it's interesting.

I’m wondering if there is one, or are maybe 2 jurors ,who are wrestling with involuntary manslaughter. They may have told the rest of the jurors ok fine we will say NG to all bigger charges IF we can at least charge her with an OUI.

Then the jurors in NG camp said ok we can work with that, BUT we need to make sure that checking guilty of OUI doesn’t make her guilty of the bigger charge it is listed under. So then maybe they decided to ask that question as well as the time of drinking CW is alleging IN CASE the judge would have told them yes, if you check guilty OUI then you’re saying she’s guilty of the bigger charge it’s listed under. They may have thought ahead of time, IF that is the case, then we are going to have to convince the 1 or 2 outliers that legally they didn’t prove she was over the limit when she drove from bar to the Albert’s and the Albert’s back to John’s. They only proved she was over the limit after driving to Jen McCabes. she could have drank a bottle of wine at John’s when thinking John was ignoring her.

So maybe that’s why they asked both questions. Wanted to get it all squared away at once in case they needed to convince the outliers??

Or maybe they ALL think she was proven to be guilty of OUI, but only when she drove from John’s to Jen mccabes. Maybe they thought but wait if we check guilty OUI will she be found guilty of the bigger charge it’s listed under? So they asked for clarification hoping the CW was referencing OUI while driving from bar to John’s, so they could check NG for OUI therefore NG for the bigger charge.

 

[Tricia]

Please continue HERE