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

[Warwick7]

It also boggles my mind that SOMEONE moved that ford edge out there at some point in the middle of the night so that it was parked directly in front of where JO was supposedly lying there in the yard since 12:30am…. then moved it again prior to his body being discovered…. yet they didn’t see his body. That’s not strange at all.

Yep!! Bam!!!

 

[Wishbone]

I'll agree to disagree on that. Ash Vallier testified that when she said they were not matched she meant their edges were not a mechanical fit, which is understandable given that a lot of pieces were too small to reconstruct. IMO

Crime lab analysts testify on DNA evidence on John O’Keefe’s clothes, pieces of taillight found at scene - The Boston Globe

On Friday, Prosecutor Adam Lally called Andre Porto and Ash Vallier, analysts at the State Police crime lab, to the stand. Here's how the day unfolded.

www.bostonglobe.com

Vallier repeatedly said the items were “recovered from Fairview Road.”

Vallier said several plastic pieces found on the lawn “fit together mechanically” during a physical match analysis, while other items did not match.

 

[BUF]

I have CourtTV on without sound watching that deliberations clock.
Anyone else doing this?

 

[jepop]

BBM
This sentence irritates me.

So, far as I know, no actual photos were taken of John where he was found.

According to testimony:

No actual measurements were taken.

There are also very few photos of the taillight pieces collected at scene over the following 3 weeks. No actual measured or marked locations for those pieces either.

At the start, the scene was never secured and no taillight pieces were found until the evening, after her car had already been collected.

And it was testified there was NO chain of custody documented for shards and clothing. Without the all important chain of custody, anyone anywhere can tamper with these items.

A mess. Michael Easter should have been permitted to testify as an expert to objective standards of competent investigative procedure. The judge agreed he was an expert and qualified, many in the legal community thought she would allow it as a no-brainer, given this was the defense's trial strategy and there was good cause. But she denied by discretion. IIRC her denial reasoned that knowledge and recognition of competent police procedure was in the "ken" of the jury/your average person. The legal community were shocked by this decision. I stopped following after that decision came down for a couple of months in disgust. Jmo

 

[Tortoise]

Crime lab analysts testify on DNA evidence on John O’Keefe’s clothes, pieces of taillight found at scene - The Boston Globe

On Friday, Prosecutor Adam Lally called Andre Porto and Ash Vallier, analysts at the State Police crime lab, to the stand. Here's how the day unfolded.

www.bostonglobe.com

Vallier repeatedly said the items were “recovered from Fairview Road.”

Vallier said several plastic pieces found on the lawn “fit together mechanically” during a physical match analysis, while other items did not match.

Quite. The edges did not match up to other edges. Nowhere has it been stated in trial 1 or trial 2 by the defence that extra pieces of plastic were recovered from the scene. They have made that point about pieces of glass however.

IMO

 

[Warwick7]

Section 1105​

Evidence that a third party committed the crimes charged against the defendant, or had the motive, intent, and opportunity to commit the crimes, is admissible provided that the evidence has substantial probative value. In making this determination, the court must make a preliminary finding that the evidence is relevant, is not too remote or speculative, and will not tend to prejudice or confuse the jury. If the evidence is otherwise inadmissible, the court must also find that there are substantial connecting links between the crime charged and a third party or between the crime charged and another crime that could not have been committed by the defendant.

Note​

Third-party culprit evidence—evidence that someone else committed the crime charged, or had the motive, intent, and opportunity to do so—is “a time-honored method of defending against a criminal charge.” Commonwealth v. Rosa, 422 Mass. 18, 22 (1996). A defendant possesses a fundamental due process right to present such evidence, Commonwealth v. Jewett, 392 Mass. 558, 562 (1984), and doubts about admissibility should be resolved in the defendant’s favor, Commonwealth v. Conkey, 443 Mass. 60, 66 (2004). Because the issue implicates constitutional rights, appellate courts review the decision to exclude third-party culprit evidence independently, rather than for abuse of discretion, and the erroneous exclusion of such evidence, upon proper objection, requires reversal unless harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Conkey, 443 Mass. at 66–67, 70. See also Commonwealth v. Buckman, 461 Mass. 24, 29–30 (2011) (trial judge had discretion to rule in advance of trial that defendant had not made adequate showing that three potential culprits were connected to the crime, and that defendant should provide advance warning to court before offering evidence or argument at trial of third-party culprit).

Defendants may introduce evidence showing that another person committed the crime charged or had the motive, intent, and opportunity to do so, see Commonwealth v. Kirkland, 491 Mass. 339, 357–358 (2023); Commonwealth v. Silva-Santiago, 453 Mass. 782, 800 (2009); that another person recently committed a similar crime by similar methods, see Jewett, 392 Mass. at 562–563; or that another person in a position to commit the charged crime had previously committed other bad acts that are related to the charged crime, see Conkey, 443 Mass. at 67–70. Where third-party culprit evidence is admissible, evidence of the third-party culprit’s consciousness of guilt may also be admitted. Commonwealth v. Shakespeare, 493 Mass. 67, 92 (2023).

While defendants are entitled to wide latitude in introducing third-party culprit evidence, the evidence must be relevant—that is, it must have a rational tendency to prove the issue raised by the defense—and cannot be too remote or speculative. Commonwealth v. Steadman, 489 Mass. 372, 383 (2022). See Commonwealth v. Andrade, 488 Mass. 522, 532–533 (2021) (evidence of ballistics match between shell casing found at scene and shell casing associated with unsolved 2006 murder properly excluded; evidence could have confused jury absent further evidence connecting unsolved murder to individuals involved in defendant’s case, and such evidence, even if available, would have created distracting “trial within a trial”).

Evidence of a third party’s ill will or possible motive to commit the charged crime, standing alone, is insufficient to qualify as third-party culprit evidence. The evidence must also show that the alleged third-party culprit had the intent and opportunity to commit the crime. Commonwealth v. Scott, 470 Mass. 320, 328–329 (2014). Compare Steadman, 489 Mass. at 383 (noting that defendant was permitted to introduce evidence that alleged third-party culprit had loud argument with victim the morning before murder at campground where victim’s body was found), and Conkey, 443 Mass. at 70 (reversible error to exclude evidence of alleged third-party culprit’s motive to commit sexual assault where third party was victim’s landlord, possessed key to her home, and had recently opened lingerie drawer in her bedroom), with Commonwealth v. Acevedo, 492 Mass. 381, 390–391 (2023) (rejecting notion that victim’s status as drug dealer and possession of weapons, together with drugs found in victim’s car and in victim’s clothing, without further specificity, provided ready-made third-party culprit defense that hypothetical rival drug dealer killed victim), Andrade, 488 Mass. at 533 (evidence that rival gang members lived near shooting and were involved in feud with victims not sufficient to support third-party culprit defense where there was no evidence that they had been nearby at time of shooting and only defendant and intended victim were seen holding guns), and Commonwealth v. Rice, 441 Mass. 291, 305–306 (2004) (evidence that alleged third-party culprit had threatened to kill victim more than one year before her murder properly excluded where no other evidence tended to show third party had been involved in murder).

In “rare circumstances,” the defendant’s constitutional right to present a defense may require the admission of otherwise inadmissible hearsay evidence to establish a third-party culprit defense. Commonwealth v. Drew, 397 Mass. 65, 72 (1986). Such evidence is admissible “only if, in the judge’s discretion, the evidence is otherwise relevant, will not tend to prejudice or confuse the jury, and there are other substantial connecting links to the crime.” Commonwealth v. Silva-Santiago, 453 Mass. 782, 801 (2009). See Commonwealth v. Morgan, 449 Mass. 343, 358 (2007) (absent witness’s statement that third party told her that he had shot victim was not admissible as statement against penal interest or as third-party culprit evidence where statement was not corroborated and third party denied making the statement when interviewed by police); Commonwealth v. O’Brien, 432 Mass. 578, 588–589 (2000) (evidence that victim had expressed fear of third party correctly excluded where there were no substantial links between third party and crime because it amounted to nothing more than witness’s opinion that third party committed crime). Where out-of-court statements concerning a third-party culprit are offered for a nonhearsay purpose, however, admissibility does not require substantial connecting links to the crime. Shakespeare, 493 Mass. at 89–91.

A trial judge need not give a specific instruction on third-party culprit evidence so long as the jury instructions, taken as a whole, adequately convey the Commonwealth’s burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime charged. Commonwealth v. Hoose, 467 Mass. 395, 412–413 (2014). “[T]he Commonwealth does not have the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that some third party is not guilty of the charged crime.” Id. at 412.

https://www.mass.gov/guide-to-evidence/section-1105-third-party-culprit-evidence

Highlighting in red by me.

No offense @Tortoise but, I'm not sure why you linked all this info. As far as I can see the third party culprit defense was not used in this case.

 

[turaj]

The last jury really wanted to not let her off the drinking and driving issue.
The jury guy VINNIE p talked to seemed to believe that they were going to find her guilty of "something" but not his death.
The logic is stunning.

if she is guilty of anything it is agreeing to go to 34 Fairview. She did not want to go. Wanted to go get some pizza.

 

[Tortoise]

No offense @Tortoise but, I'm not sure why you linked all this info. As far as I can see the third party culprit defense was not used in this case.

Because it was argued that the defence doesn't have to prove anything.

If that was the case they wouldn't have brought in their dog expert. Or ARCCA. For instance.

 

[Leilei]

I have CourtTV on without sound watching that deliberations clock.
Anyone else doing this?

I have the sound on, listening to Vinnie being a goober.

 

[Soulmagent]

if she is guilty of anything it is agreeing to go to 34 Fairview. She did not want to go. Wanted to go get some pizza.

I have thought a lot about how KR got in this position .
I have a list.
1. Cops are not your friends. (they are not even each others friends)
2. She is NOT a soccer mom.

 

[jepop]

hmmm I'm not so sure the slip changed at all from last year... there is no "not guilty" to check off. I think this is what the defense is saying was an issue last year.. and potential for it again this trial?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1934611981073318128

View attachment 595607

I'm talking about the three separate charges not charge 2 which is the same. Last year the jury did not know how to tick ng for charge 1( murder) and charge 3 ( leaving the scene of an accident). Hence when they hung on charge 2 and there was a mistrial, KR was recharged for murder and count 3 again as well as count 2 (manslaughter) because the jury did not render a verdict on any charge. That was the issue last year.

ETA that is only count 2 and it's lessers which is pictured. It is one of three slips. The other two slips (counts 1 and 3) and their accompanying instructions have been remedied. Issues remain with count 2 itself.

 

[ShadyLady]

I have thought a lot about how KR got in this position .
I have a list.
1. Cops are not your friends. (they are not even each others friends)
2. She is NOT a soccer mom.

Cops and prosecutors .......and judges have their favorites?

Judge scratching her cheek to signal prosecutor??

 

[Leilei]

I have thought a lot about how KR got in this position .
I have a list.
1. Cops are not your friends. (they are not even each others friends)
2. She is NOT a soccer mom.

3. She was convenient and not a townie.

 

[missy1974]

I'm talking about the three separate charges not charge 2 which is the same. Last year the jury did not know how to tick ng for charge 1( murder) and charge 3 ( leaving the scene of an accident). Hence when they hung on charge 2 and there was a mistrial, KR was recharged for murder and count 3 again as well as count 2 (manslaughter) because the jury did not render a verdict on any charge. That was the issue last year.

I understand that.. but I don't think that the judge changed anything in the verdict slip from last years? that was what the motion this morning was for. She denied it.

Isn't this the same slip as last year? Except #5 the OUI charge?

I don't see a "not guilty" option under each charge.

 

[ChasingKaty]

3. She was convenient and not a townie.

4. She was a "".

<MOD NOTE: added a 4. to make it clear that this member was adding to a list>

 

[ShadyLady]

3. She was convenient and not a townie.

And taking a nice bachelor off the market?

 

[Leilei]

Because it was argued that the defence doesn't have to prove anything.

If that was the case they wouldn't have brought in their dog expert. Or ARCCA. For instance.

The defense presents their case to refute or contest the plaintiff's evidence.
But, the burden of proof still falls to the Prosecution.
They have the responsibility for proving the defendant guilty beyond all reasonable doubt in a criminal trial.
The defense does not have that burden, but can provide evidence as stated above.
They aren't the same thing at all.
IMO.

 

[geevee]

Since BH didn't testify in this trial, did anyone testify to BH's Jeep being parked by the mailbox?

 

[ChasingKaty]

The defense presents their case to refute or contest the plaintiff's evidence.
But, the burden of proof still falls to the Prosecution.
They have the responsibility for proving the defendant guilty beyond all reasonable doubt in a criminal trial.
The defense does not have that burden, but can provide evidence as stated above.
They aren't the same thing at all.
IMO.

I think the defence can even NOT put up anything, if they believe that the prosecution hasn't proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Like they don't have to have an alternative theory or even call a witness. (Please correct me if I have that wrong though.)

 

[kuromiiiilove]

I think the defence can even NOT put up anything, if they believe that the prosecution hasn't proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Like they don't have to have an alternative theory or even call a witness. (Please correct me if I have that wrong though.)

You are correct! Defense has the option to present a case, but they are never required to.