The Karen Read Murder Trial
-
@George-K said in The Karen Read Murder Trial:
@LuFins-Dad interesting.
But your employee didn't buttdial you back, right?
There is so much fuckery going on in this trial.
No doubt.
wrote on 8 Jun 2024, 01:15 last edited by -
wrote on 12 Jun 2024, 16:29 last edited by
@jon-nyc said in The Karen Read Murder Trial:
The one on the left, sure.
@jon-nyc , she has Chron's disease, had 10 operations in 14 months, and has a colostomy. Still up for that?
-
wrote on 12 Jun 2024, 16:45 last edited by
Saw this on my drive into work this morning on Route 1 ....
-
wrote on 22 Jun 2024, 23:41 last edited by
The Commonwealth has rested.
Wow. What a terrible presentation of their case. Even their own witness, the medical examiner couldn't say for sure that O'Keefe's injuries were caused by an encounter with a SUV.
As I may have mentioned, there's a concurrent FBI investigation regarding possible corruption in the Canton PD.
What a totally corrupt, incompetent prosecution and investigation.
She'll walk, and she deserves to.
-
wrote on 12 Jul 2024, 01:08 last edited by
https://apnews.com/article/karen-read-boston-police-officer-murder-7222b8d74b2fb2e757209f09c437a766
Jurors in the trial of Karen Read unanimously concluded she was not guilty of murder or of leaving the scene of a deadly accident, and were deadlocked on only the remaining manslaughter charge before the judge abruptly declared a mistrial, her defense team said Monday.
The disclosure was made in a defense motion Monday in which they argued that retrying Read on those two counts “would violate” the double jeopardy protections in the U.S. and Massachusetts constitutions. If the court needs additional information, the defense said, it should approve a “post-verdict inquiry” in which they are allowed to “seek additional proof from the jurors” regarding their having “unanimously acquitted the defendant of two of the three charges against her.”
-
https://apnews.com/article/karen-read-boston-police-officer-murder-7222b8d74b2fb2e757209f09c437a766
Jurors in the trial of Karen Read unanimously concluded she was not guilty of murder or of leaving the scene of a deadly accident, and were deadlocked on only the remaining manslaughter charge before the judge abruptly declared a mistrial, her defense team said Monday.
The disclosure was made in a defense motion Monday in which they argued that retrying Read on those two counts “would violate” the double jeopardy protections in the U.S. and Massachusetts constitutions. If the court needs additional information, the defense said, it should approve a “post-verdict inquiry” in which they are allowed to “seek additional proof from the jurors” regarding their having “unanimously acquitted the defendant of two of the three charges against her.”
wrote on 12 Jul 2024, 01:15 last edited by@taiwan_girl said in The Karen Read Murder Trial:
https://apnews.com/article/karen-read-boston-police-officer-murder-7222b8d74b2fb2e757209f09c437a766
Jurors in the trial of Karen Read unanimously concluded she was not guilty of murder or of leaving the scene of a deadly accident, and were deadlocked on only the remaining manslaughter charge before the judge abruptly declared a mistrial, her defense team said Monday.
The disclosure was made in a defense motion Monday in which they argued that retrying Read on those two counts “would violate” the double jeopardy protections in the U.S. and Massachusetts constitutions. If the court needs additional information, the defense said, it should approve a “post-verdict inquiry” in which they are allowed to “seek additional proof from the jurors” regarding their having “unanimously acquitted the defendant of two of the three charges against her.”
I find it surprising that the jury was deadlocked on that last charge. I guess it's possible some people on the jury had a hard time believing that the police would do such a thing.
-
wrote on 12 Jul 2024, 01:21 last edited by
The problem is that the judge made some serious errors in her directions to the jury - "Don't return the forms unless you are ALL unanimous on ALL the charges."
She hamstrung the jury. The were unanimous in counts 1 and 3 (not guilty). But, because of the judge's instruction, they couldn't render those forms because they were divided on count #2.
Two of the jurors have reached out to counsel indicating their displeasure with the outcome. ALL of them were united in the "not guilty" on the 2nd degree murder charge.
But the judge didn't hear that - perhaps because she refused to hear that - and so she ordered a new trial on all 3 charges.
-
wrote on 12 Jul 2024, 01:29 last edited by
What a cluster.
-
What a cluster.
wrote on 12 Jul 2024, 01:32 last edited by@Doctor-Phibes said in The Karen Read Murder Trial:
What a cluster.
I've been following it closely.
"Cluster" is generous.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Karen Read Murder Trial:
What a cluster.
I've been following it closely.
"Cluster" is generous.
wrote on 12 Jul 2024, 14:07 last edited by@George-K said in The Karen Read Murder Trial:
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Karen Read Murder Trial:
What a cluster.
I've been following it closely.
"Cluster" is generous.
Yes, I was getting increasingly interested in this too, partly because of the local connection, but also because of what appeared to be truly stunning incompetence coupled with apparently fairly widespread corruption.
-
wrote on 6 Nov 2024, 05:51 last edited by
https://apnews.com/article/karen-read-officer-death-boston-trial-c91c8ad4cbf4c2ce94b15a5e8e284a1c
A judge ruled Thursday that Karen Read won’t have to give a deposition in her wrongful death lawsuit until after her criminal trial in January.
The brief from Judge William M. White Jr. on Thursday effectively delays the lawsuit, which blames Read for the death of John O’Keefe, the Boston police officer who was her boyfriend. The lawsuit also describes negligence by bars that continued to serve drinks to her despite signs she was drunk.
Read has pleaded not guilty and awaits retrial on charges of second-degree murder, manslaughter while operating a motor vehicle under the influence and leaving the scene of a fatal accident. Her two-month criminal trial ended in July when the judge declared a mistrial after jurors said they were deadlocked. The judge dismissed arguments that jurors later said they had unanimously agreed Read wasn’t guilty on the charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene.
-
wrote on 6 Nov 2024, 12:04 last edited by
Her appeal to the Massachusetts Supreme Court of Justice is this morning.
This is uncharted territory in Massachusetts, or anywhere.
The judge told the jury, "Don't come back unless you have a decision on "all three counts." They found her not guilty (12-0) on two counts but were hung on one. According to the judge's instructions, they were not permitted to come back until all three were decided.
Lots of fishy stuff in the judge's handling of the trial.
She did not allow counsel (on either side) to explain their objections. All they could do was say "objection" and she would rule. She was in CYA mode in case of appeal. Her thinking was not a matter of record.
She picked the jury foreman. I've never seen that happen. Once the jury is empaneled, that's not the judge's responsibility.
She selected which were alternates by having the clerk of the court pull numbers out of a basket. The defense never saw the numbers. IN other trials, the accused gets to do that.
She declared a mistrial before the defense had a chance to raise an objection. It was literally one minute (the timing is in the appeal) between her reading the jury's letter saying that they are hung and declaring a mistrial.
Lots of fishy stuff in the way it was handled, and I'm not even getting into the suppressed evidence (by the same judge) and other crap.
-
wrote on 6 Nov 2024, 14:05 last edited by
I forgot. Another thing that, to me, appears to be a reversible error. The judge gave each side 30 minutes for closing arguments - a ridiculously short time for a trial that lasted 8 weeks with more than 75 witnesses. That's not reversible, but certainly odd.
Where the potential error is that she had the defense go first, and the prosecution close. This is totally against tradition.
In Massachusetts, there is a specific rule for the order of closing arguments in a trial. The prosecution (in criminal cases) or the plaintiff (in civil cases) typically goes first, followed by the defense. After the defense’s closing argument, the prosecution or plaintiff is usually allowed a rebuttal argument because they bear the burden of proof.
Key Points of the Rule:
- Order:
• Prosecution/Plaintiff: Delivers the first closing argument.
• Defense: Follows with their closing argument.
• Rebuttal by Prosecution/Plaintiff: The prosecution or plaintiff is granted a brief rebuttal, but only to address points raised by the defense. - Reasoning: This structure gives the side with the burden of proof (prosecution or plaintiff) an opportunity to respond to the defense’s arguments, as they are required to establish the case “beyond a reasonable doubt” in criminal cases or by a “preponderance of evidence” in civil cases.
This rule helps ensure a fair trial by allowing the prosecution or plaintiff to clarify or counter points raised by the defense in their final argument.
- Order:
-
I forgot. Another thing that, to me, appears to be a reversible error. The judge gave each side 30 minutes for closing arguments - a ridiculously short time for a trial that lasted 8 weeks with more than 75 witnesses. That's not reversible, but certainly odd.
Where the potential error is that she had the defense go first, and the prosecution close. This is totally against tradition.
In Massachusetts, there is a specific rule for the order of closing arguments in a trial. The prosecution (in criminal cases) or the plaintiff (in civil cases) typically goes first, followed by the defense. After the defense’s closing argument, the prosecution or plaintiff is usually allowed a rebuttal argument because they bear the burden of proof.
Key Points of the Rule:
- Order:
• Prosecution/Plaintiff: Delivers the first closing argument.
• Defense: Follows with their closing argument.
• Rebuttal by Prosecution/Plaintiff: The prosecution or plaintiff is granted a brief rebuttal, but only to address points raised by the defense. - Reasoning: This structure gives the side with the burden of proof (prosecution or plaintiff) an opportunity to respond to the defense’s arguments, as they are required to establish the case “beyond a reasonable doubt” in criminal cases or by a “preponderance of evidence” in civil cases.
This rule helps ensure a fair trial by allowing the prosecution or plaintiff to clarify or counter points raised by the defense in their final argument.
wrote on 6 Nov 2024, 15:13 last edited by@George-K Interesting
- Order:
