NOT GUILTY MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #37 Retrial

[mickey2942]

Karen Read jury asks question indicating they could acquit on most charges

Read, 45, is accused of striking her Boston cop boyfriend with her car and leaving him for dead outside a house party.

nypost.com

‘The jury in the high-profile Karen Read murder trial asked the presiding judge a question that suggests they might be leaning toward an acquittal on most charges.’

My own opinion is that this trial is a mockery. The last trial was enough. Give it up. There is something pushing this. Someone wants her found guilty and put in prison, so the whole mess is finished.

I never thought she was guilty at the first trial. The "investigation" rivaled the one done in Boulder City, CO for Jon-Benet Ramsey, Keystone cops, reminiscent of "Larry, Moe and Curly" investigate a murder. So many flaws and screw-ups it rivals a Pink Panther movie.

 

[Malleeboy]

If they decide the OUI to be 12:45, that means she was already back to John's home and the alleged collision had already taken place. It should have been 12:32 at the time he was allegedly hit. 12:45 means nothing anymore like it did in the first trial.
If they decide the OUI was 05:00 (or thereabouts), the collision had allegedly already occurred 4.5 hours earlier and she most likely drank after she got home at 12:36. So if they find her guilty on this time, it really has nothing to do with JOK.
This case has left so many discrepancies for a jury to have to figure out on their own.
MOO

Mass law is odd; they can decide guilt on OUI without a specific BAC. IT would appear a jury could convict OUI, without any proof of a BAC over the limit. Karen did admit to being tipsy in the morning, so I can see how logically the jury can get there but not sure legally it works.

12:45 was when they extrapolated the BAC to, but Karen was at home then.
No BAC extrapolation was done for 5:00 am.

But an OUI conviction is a win,

 

[KSwizzle]

The more I think about the jury slip the more stupid and ridiculous it is to me. It would be SO easy to have a flow chart with guilty or not guilty boxes on each, why wouldn’t you want the jurors to understand what they’re filling out, somebody passed away, somebody could be going to prison for a long time, what if the jury went guilty or not guilty then afterwards realized they just misinterpreted the form, just wild stuff imo

 

[floridafreshsqueez]

Idk, jail time for a first time misdemeanor OUI is unlikely but I put nothing past Auntie Bev. 2.5 years in jail is still a possibility, which I hate.

I mean, everyone involved in this case drove drunk including LE. To convict KR on any of these charges would be a joke IMO. I have faith an OUI conviction would be overturned on appeal, but if she gets sentenced to jail she’d have to spend at least some time behind bars while the conviction was appealed.

I default to AJ’s closing argument (to paraphrase) “if you’re not sure, you vote Not Guilty” and it’s that simple for me.

The chatter is that the jury seems to be in agreement that she is NG on charges 1 & 2, and they don’t want to risk a hung jury on 3. I’m not so sure there aren’t at least 1-2 hold outs that are pushing for guilty on count 3. Hoping sleep tonight will result in this jury saying “y’know what…Occam’s razor, the CW didn’t meet its burden. Not guilty on all 3 charges.”

Until we get this verdict, I’ll be a basket case

 

[Leilei]

Idk, jail time for a first time misdemeanor OUI is unlikely but I put nothing past Auntie Bev. 2.5 years in jail is still a possibility, which I hate.

I mean, everyone involved in this case drove drunk including LE. To convict KR on any of these charges would be a joke IMO. I have faith an OUI conviction would be overturned on appeal, but if she gets sentenced to jail she’d have to spend at least some time behind bars while the conviction was appealed.

I default to AJ’s closing argument (to paraphrase) “if you’re not sure, you vote Not Guilty” and it’s that simple for me.

The chatter is that the jury seems to be in agreement that she is NG on charges 1 & 2, and they don’t want to risk a hung jury on 3. I’m not so sure there aren’t at least 1-2 hold outs that are pushing for guilty on count 3. Hoping sleep tonight will result in this jury saying “y’know what…Occam’s razor, the CW didn’t meet its burden. Not guilty on all 3 charges.”

Until we get this verdict, I’ll be a basket case

BBM.
This is what the jurors need to remember and take to heart.
If they're questioning the OUI stuff, and those questions weren't answered with testimony or evidence, then it should be NG.
Fellow basket case here.
IMO.

 

[PamCake]

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.

I believe they are trying to compromise. I felt this too in the first trial. The drunk driving behavior is a real stickler for most Americans. I imagine this is a point of difference of opinion.

 

[Angelwatch]

Mass law is odd; they can decide guilt on OUI without a specific BAC. IT would appear a jury could convict OUI, without any proof of a BAC over the limit. Karen did admit to being tipsy in the morning, so I can see how logically the jury can get there but not sure legally it works.

12:45 was when they extrapolated the BAC to, but Karen was at home then.
No BAC extrapolation was done for 5:00 am.

But an OUI conviction is a win,

I assume OUI without a BAC is more for drugs. I wonder how many times it’s been used for alcohol impairment? Might be an interesting appellate issue if it’s not usually used in that manner.

 

[HarmonyE.]

\

I assume OUI without a BAC is more for drugs. I wonder how many times it’s been used for alcohol impairment? Might be an interesting appellate issue if it’s not usually used in that manner.

You can be charged and convicted of OUI without a BAC reading. Many people refuse to submit to testing for alcohol so other evidence is used. Driving erratically, odor of alcohol, behavior at scene etc.

 

[Angelwatch]

\

You can be charged and convicted of OUI without a BAC reading. Many people refuse to submit to testing for alcohol so other evidence is used. Driving erratically, odor of alcohol, behavior at scene etc.

Right, but they’ve been evaluated by a trained police officer in the absence of a BAC or breathalyzer. Not one witness stated she was impaired. Must be a Mass thing.

ETA: Then why wouldn’t everyone else at the bar also get charged? No BAC, no evaluation by trained LE, no witness to impairment. Multiple persons on bar videos were drinking. Is that all it takes?!

 

[Malleeboy]

Right, but they’ve been evaluated by a trained police officer in the absence of a BAC or breathalyzer. Not one witness stated she was impaired. Must be a Mass thing.

ETA: Then why wouldn’t everyone else at the bar also get charged? No BAC, no evaluation by trained LE, no witness to impairment. Multiple persons on bar videos were drinking. Is that all it takes?!

A trained police man miscounted the drinks from a video? Does that count?

 

[Angelwatch]

A trained police man miscounted the drinks from a video? Does that count?

Ha. I guess so.

Idk, I’m all over the place tonight trying to make it all make sense. Maybe I’m grasping.

 

[HarmonyE.]

Right, but they’ve been evaluated by a trained police officer in the absence of a BAC or breathalyzer. Not one witness stated she was impaired. Must be a Mass thing.

ETA: Then why wouldn’t everyone else at the bar also get charged? No BAC, no evaluation by trained LE, no witness to impairment. Multiple persons on bar videos were drinking. Is that all it takes?!

A blood test was done that morning. Which is probably why the jury asked the last question about the 5:07 am time frame which was when she struck John's car.

 

[justwannahelp]

I believe they are trying to compromise. I felt this too in the first trial. The drunk driving behavior is a real stickler for most Americans. I imagine this is a point of difference of opinion.

Yeh. Uber leaves people with no excuse now. I’m guessing there were no Ubers that night with a blizzard on the way or is canton too small a town for Uber?

Either way, you’re right- a stickler - and in more ways than one in this case

 

[justwannahelp]

Ha. I guess so.

Idk, I’m all over the place tonight trying to make it all make sense. Maybe I’m grasping.

This might not be allowed, but are y’all hearing that Massachusetts doesn’t allow partial verdicts? which is why they won’t put not guilty next to the lessers….

This case is floating around to back that claim up. I don’t understand the verbiage though. It’s kind of like reading a bunch of double negatives

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ma-supreme-judicial-court/1086156.html

 

[trialobsessive]

This judge absolutely loves the chaos. She is so condescending to the defense. Love it when they snap back!

It’s clear that she is engineering a mistrial, hence the non-answer to their question regarding verdict for different counts, and the lack of movement on changing the verdict slip.

What happened to the jury staying daily until 4:30 …. Oh, only if it’s going the way she wants hey?

Absolute joke.

IMO

 

[PamCake]

This judge absolutely loves the chaos. She is so condescending to the defense. Love it when they snap back!

It’s clear that she is engineering a mistrial, hence the non-answer to their question regarding verdict for different counts, and the lack of movement on changing the verdict slip.

What happened to the jury staying daily until 4:30 …. Oh, only if it’s going the way she wants hey?

Absolute joke.

IMO

I think the jury is onto her in this trial. One can hope. Clearly they seen her two-faced behavior in the courtroom.

 

[Dawookie]

Idk, jail time for a first time misdemeanor OUI is unlikely but I put nothing past Auntie Bev. 2.5 years in jail is still a possibility, which I hate.

I mean, everyone involved in this case drove drunk including LE. To convict KR on any of these charges would be a joke IMO. I have faith an OUI conviction would be overturned on appeal, but if she gets sentenced to jail she’d have to spend at least some time behind bars while the conviction was appealed.

I default to AJ’s closing argument (to paraphrase) “if you’re not sure, you vote Not Guilty” and it’s that simple for me.

The chatter is that the jury seems to be in agreement that she is NG on charges 1 & 2, and they don’t want to risk a hung jury on 3. I’m not so sure there aren’t at least 1-2 hold outs that are pushing for guilty on count 3. Hoping sleep tonight will result in this jury saying “y’know what…Occam’s razor, the CW didn’t meet its burden. Not guilty on all 3 charges.”

Until we get this verdict, I’ll be a basket case

Sadly I could see her giving KR some sort of jail time as a we got you sentence just out of spite. On the other hand, if I was a Massachusetts tax payer I'd be livid to have seen so much tax payer money spent on two trials that shouldn't have happened to end up with an OUI charge potentially being the only the only charge that sticks

 

[MerlinFalcon]

Sadly I could see her giving KR some sort of jail time as a we got you sentence just out of spite. On the other hand, if I was a Massachusetts tax payer I'd be livid to have seen so much tax payer money spent on two trials that shouldn't have happened to end up with an OUI charge potentially being the only the only charge that sticks

I agree, she will give the max amount without blinking an eye.

 

[justbeachy]

Good morning! I woke up this morning with this verdict slip confusion on my mind and literally already have a headache. LOL! I think I have confused myself at this point and I might be looking at the pre-amended verdict slip, so before I jump into my question, can someone direct me to the amended verdict slip (the ones the jurors have before them today)? Thank you!

 

[lohrtabitha]

If they decide the OUI to be 12:45, that means she was already back to John's home and the alleged collision had already taken place. It should have been 12:32 at the time he was allegedly hit. 12:45 means nothing anymore like it did in the first trial.
If they decide the OUI was 05:00 (or thereabouts), the collision had allegedly already occurred 4.5 hours earlier and she most likely drank after she got home at 12:36. So if they find her guilty on this time, it really has nothing to do with JOK.
This case has left so many discrepancies for a jury to have to figure out on their own.
MOO

Yes , I agree with all of this. And to be fair, we don't know what her BAC was at that time. There was no test performed, so how could they convict on this without proper justification?