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

[kuromiiiilove]

3rd party not being used but clearly the finger is pointed not too subtly at Brian Higgins. Is he not a third party?

He is a third party in the literal sense, but the third-party culprit defense is a specific legal strategy that requires a pretrial hearing. The defense must ask the court for permission to argue that someone else committed the crime, and the judge has to rule the evidence admissible under Section 1105. If they don’t go that route, or the judge denies it, they can still mention Higgins in ways that don’t cross the evidentiary line.
- They can reference facts already in evidence like Higgins being in the area, inconsistencies in his story as part of general reasonable doubt, not as a formal claim that he did it.
-They can suggest that the investigation was incomplete or failed to follow up on other suspects.
-They can emphasize that ‘someone’ else might have done it without directly accusing him.

 

[kuromiiiilove]

i heard Yanetti argue that there are multiple options for a guilty verdict and only one for NG?

Correct. There appears to be one overarching NG box, and 7 possible ‘guilties’ for the charges and lesser includes. The defense wanted each guilty option to have its own NG check box.

Edit: spellcheck

 

[Tortoise]

<modsnp>. The threshold to admit third-party culprit evidence (relevance, non-speculation, substantial probative value etc.) is not the same as assuming the burden of proof at trial.

I haven't said the defence has the burden of proving a 3rd party culprit did it. It is always the prosecution's burden to prove their case BRD. The defence has to establish foundation through evidence for making a claim that it was someone or something else (a dog for instance). That is what they have tried to do here.

 

[Soulmagent]

to be clear as I am not.....is this the exact same verdict slip that caused all the confusion last time or has it been changed?

It has been changed from the last trial yes.

 

[Tortoise]

Watch the hearing before closings. The defense was not doing a third party culprit defense so this is not relevant. Not getting your point. The defense was very effective. Watch the pre trial stuff, they are fine to evolve as they go and that is exactly what they did, and they did it very well. Jmo

I've linked the hearings and quoted from them.

 

[jepop]

i heard Yanetti argue that there are multiple options for a guilty verdict and only one for NG?

Yeah I raised this before. If the defense hangs on one of the lessers there is no option to tick not guilty on any of the others and she is potentially up for retrial on the entire manslaughter charge, even though they have all discussed and agreed to ng on the others as they move down the list.

Because the only Ng box for count 2 is Ng for all at the top of the slip. This is a massive issue if they agree Ng on others and are hung on one lesser, including the so called stand alone OUI lesser.

 

[turaj]

Correct. There appears to be one overarching NG box, and 7 possible ‘guilties’ for the charges and lesser includes. The defense wanted each guilty option to have its own NG check box.

Edit: spellcheck

well that sure seems like the better way to do it but moot issue now. Bev not changing anything

 

[Leilei]

I haven't said the defence has the burden of proving a 3rd party culprit did it. It is always the prosecution's burden to prove their case BRD. The defence has to establish foundation through evidence for making a claim that it was someone or something else (a dog for instance). That is what they have tried to do here.

• 32 minutes ago

• 
  
• Add bookmark
• #267

Sorry but it is correct

It is a legally protected right not have to prove one's innocence, but if the defendant is raising 3rd party culprit defence they have to bring some evidence of it. Otherwise no one else is going to do it for them, and they won't have given the jury anything to deliberate. It doesn't mean they have to collect their own DNA evidence etc, but they at least have to raise a reasonable doubt by showing means and opportunity.

I've linked the judge's ruling on 3rd party culprit just above, which specifically shows the defence had that burden.

 

[turaj]

Yeah I raised this before. If the defense hangs on one of the lessers there is no option to tick not guilty on any of the others and she is potentially up for retrial on the entire manslaughter charge, even though they have all discussed and agreed to ng on the others as they move down the list.

Because the only Ng box for count 2 is Ng for all at the top of the slip. This is a massive issue if they agree Ng on others and are hung on one lesser, including the so called stand alone OUI lesser.

Sounds like the potential for a take two of trial one.... hung jury.

 

[keek]

There are people that need this to be guilty for their own personal careers. Hoping for the hammer down on them quickly along the line. You see this in front of you every time the trial is on. IMO

 

[jepop]

Sounds like the potential for a take two of trial one.... hung jury.

Maybe... there's a good chance the Ng of all box gets the tick at the top of count 2, or if they do want to find her guilty of something, the stand alone O,UI which is not anything to do with JO. I listened to the instructions and imo cw probably didn't meet the burden for the OUI stand alone lesser though. Jmo

 

[Soulmagent]

Sounds like the potential for a take two of trial one.... hung jury.

NO,please .
Nullify is a way better option and this is the perfect case for it!

 

[missy1974]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1934618918695342325

 

[jepop]

Sounds like the potential for a take two of trial one.... hung jury.

I guess the prob is if they are hung on a lesser, this slip ensures she'll be retried on the primary manslaughter charge again, not just the lesser in question. Totally fail to see how this system is just or fair in the event of hung on one option. Jmo

 

[Soulmagent]

""if the options aren't flying ,there must be a nullifying?"
"if the dog bit, you must acquit"
If Mass says you hit a man ,bet you'll spend months watching a fan"

 

[Bethlamb16]

Correct. There appears to be one overarching NG box, and 7 possible ‘guilties’ for the charges and lesser includes. The defense wanted each guilty option to have its own NG check box.

Edit: spellcheck

As it should!

 

[missy1974]

They are live now, but Michael Easter was on! The witness that the defense was not allowed to call (I think?) I just went back to when he joined the show... at about 1:50:00 into the live show.. if anyone is interested.

https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1DXxyqNOqkdxM

 

[jepop]

They are live now, but Michael Easter was on! The witness that the defense was not allowed to call (I think?) I just went back to when he joined the show... at about 1:50:00 into the live show.. if anyone is interested.

https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1DXxyqNOqkdxM

Yeah he was an expert the judge refused. The defense wanted him for their hybrid Bowden defense (sub standard investigation with potential suspect s ignored). They raised that ruling with the judge again the day before closings when nutting out specific jury instructions.

 

[turaj]

I guess the prob is if they are hung on a lesser, this slip ensures she'll be retried on the primary manslaughter charge again, not just the lesser in question. Totally fail to see how this system is just or fair in the event of hung on one option. Jmo

Yanetti made a comment to the judge who insists on something profora on the verdict form ...he said that even though it is the standard it may not be the easiest and best for a jury to understand. Seems lilke this form has limitations but until they actually revise it judge is using it. I think she can deviate but runs the risk of appeal?

 

[Soulmagent]

Yanetti made a comment to the judge who insists on something profora on the verdict form ...he said that even though it is the standard it may not be the easiest and best for a jury to understand. Seems lilke this form has limitations but until they actually revise it judge is using it. I think she can deviate but runs the risk of appeal?

She is all in on an appeal market anyway. Go for gold ,BEV.