Karen Read accused of backing into boyfriend and leaving him to die *MISTRIAL*

1691951367971.png

This woman didn't do this. I'd be willing to bet that someone in the house did it. Someone in the house looked up "How long will it take for somebody to die in the cold." Karen couldn't have done that search.

Is there a cover up conspiracy?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, wouldn't that, by your own statistics, give her a not guilty verdict? Plus, if I'm reading the statute correctly, that has to be brought up by the end of the prosecution ending their closing arguments, which has not happened and we are past that point now.

then we have this


(a) Return​


The verdict shall be unanimous. It shall be a general verdict returned by the jury to the judge in open court. The jury shall file a verdict slip with the clerk upon the return of the verdict.
Plus, IF this was to even possibly go by a majority rule verdict and it was in favor of not guilty, which would make the verdict not guilty, there would be no remorse for the CW to retry her.

I can pretty much guarantee that the CW works not agree to even allow this to happen as a "majority rule" because of this.
 
Well, wouldn't that, by your own statistics, give her a not guilty verdict? Plus, if I'm reading the statute correctly, that has to be brought up by the end of the prosecution ending their closing arguments, which has not happened and we are past that point now.

then we have this


(a) Return​


The verdict shall be unanimous. It shall be a general verdict returned by the jury to the judge in open court. The jury shall file a verdict slip with the clerk upon the return of the verdict.
What if they cannot reach a unanimous verdict? Can the judge then give a direction?
 
I guess this makes it blatantly clear that there will be abolutely no "majority rule" verdict in this case

In a Massachusetts Criminal Trial, of any type, whether murder or an OUI, the verdict must be unanimous, meaning that all six jurors have to agree whether the verdict is guilty or not guilty. If jurors cannot reach a unanimous verdict, it is called a hung jury and the Commonwealth is permitted to retry the case.

 
What if they cannot reach a unanimous verdict? Can the judge then give a direction?
It appears not.

 

Updated: 9:26 AM EDT Jun 25, 2024
David Bienick
Reporter

<snip>

  • 1:26 p.m. Jury sent to begin deliberations.
  • 1:25 p.m.The clerk pulls out the "bingo cage" and selects two jurors as alternates. Both are women. They leave the jury box and sit in a corner of the courtroom. The final jury is composed of six women and six men.
  • 1:24 p.m. A couple of jurors seated next the foreman are smiling at him about his nomination.
  • 1:23 p.m. The judge finishes her instructions and calls the attorneys to the bench for a sidebar.
  • 1:22 p.m. The judge says the foreperson must be certain of the unanimity of a verdict before announcing it the judge. He nods affirmatively.
  • 1:20 p.m. The jury will not be provided with a transcript of the testimony. They will need to rely on their memories of what witnesses said.
  • 1:17 p.m. The judge has not spoken individually with the jurors during the trial but she did question them individually during jury selection. The judge encourages jury not to take a straw poll at the start of deliberations but rather to start by talking about the evidence.
  • 1:15 p.m. Judge selects juror in seat number one to serve as foreperson. He says, "I will."
  • 1:11 p.m. Leaving scene of accident resulting in death 1/ operated motor vehicle 2/ drove on public roads 3/ knowingly collided with victim 4/ caused injury 5 / failed to stop 6 / sought to avoid prosecution.
  • 1:09 p.m. Vehicular manslaughter while OUI includes the lesser charge of motor vehicular homicide 1/ operated motor vehicle 2/ drove on public roads 3/ was under the influence 4/ operated in negligent manner 5 / caused death. (Note negligent vs reckless).
  • 1:06 p.m. Vehicular manslaughter includes a lesser charge of involuntarily manslaughter 1/ caused death 2/ intended conduct that caused death (for this they may consider alcohol level) 3/ wanton or reckless conduct (more than negligence).
  • 1:02 p.m. Vehicular manslaughter while under the influence: 1/ operated motor vehicle 2/ drove on public roads 3/ under the influence of alcohol with BAC of 0.08% or greater 4 / drove wantonly or recklessly 5/ caused death.
  • 12:54 p.m. Judge explains second-degree murder: 1/ defendant caused a death 2/ intended to do so, intended to serious harm, or did something that a reasonable person would know created strong likelihood of death. (This is more than negligence.)
  • 12:50 p.m. The judge says they must not consider the fact that Read chose not to testify nor even discuss it during deliberations.
  • 12:47 p.m. Brian Albert, Jen McCabe, Colin Albert and Kerry Roberts remain seated with the O'Keefe family. By inviting them here, the O'Keefe's may be sending a signal to the jury about whose story they believe.
  • 12:40 p.m. The judge is now instructing the jury on how to consider any problems with the police investigation. She says they can decide to exclude or give less weight to elements of the investigation if they feel it is not credible.
  • 12:36 p.m. The judge says jurors will be able to keep their notes during deliberations but should not share them with each other.
  • 12:29 p.m. The judge is explaining reasonable doubt. She's using some of the same language she did when speaking to each of the jury pools.
  • 12:27 p.m. Judge thanks the jury and begins her instructions. She will give them some legal definitions, the elements of the crimes, charges and guidelines for deliberating.
  • 12:26 p.m. Jury returns and judge begins delivering instructions.
  • 12:16 p.m. The judge excuses the jury for a break recess before issuing her instructions for deliberations. Read speaks with her family then leaves the courtroom.
 
I guess this makes it blatantly clear that there will be abolutely no "majority rule" verdict in this case

In a Massachusetts Criminal Trial, of any type, whether murder or an OUI, the verdict must be unanimous, meaning that all six jurors have to agree whether the verdict is guilty or not guilty. If jurors cannot reach a unanimous verdict, it is called a hung jury and the Commonwealth is permitted to retry the case.

All 6 jurors ? Huh? What does that mean?

There are 12 jurors right?
 
All 6 jurors ? Huh? What does that mean?

There are 12 jurors right?
Im not sure why it states 6 but it makes it clear that it must be unanimous

ahhhh. the reference to the six jurors is in a particular case this article is about, but it clearly states the law of unanimous verdict.
 

Updated: 9:26 AM EDT Jun 25, 2024
David Bienick
Reporter

<snip>

  • 12:13 a.m. Lally concludes his closing argument with a quote from John Adams. The judge tells him time is up then allows him to say his final sentence.
  • 12:09 a.m. Jackson's closing argument included references to tyranny and justice. He complimented the jurors for their civic duty. Lally's closing is more of a recitation of evidence he presented at trial.
  • 12:06 a.m. Jackson's notes were printed and in a binder. Lally's notes are handwritten on a yellow legal pad.
  • 12:02 a.m. Lally mockingly asks if Brian Albert was such a "criminal mastermind" why did he leave O'Keefe on his own front yard.
  • 11:59 a.m. Lally says the reason the "magic hair" and the glass were still on the bumper is because the SUV was caked in snow and ice.
  • 11:57 a.m. "I know it was a lot of testimony about snow," Lally says. But he says there was a purpose to that. Says O'Keefe had no snow under him when he was found. Says that indicates how long he'd been there.
  • 11:55 a.m. Lally says Read did not take off her shoes when she arrived at O'Keefe's house with McCabe and Roberts even though that was O'Keefe's rule. Lally says she knew didn't have to because she knew O'Keefe was dead.
  • 11:52 a.m. Lally has notes in front of him but seems to be talking off the cuff for part of his argument. Jackson stuck closer to his script.
  • 11:50 a.m. Lally says Read repeatedly asked at the scene "Is he dead?" because he says she was looking for confirmation.
  • 11:46 a.m. Read leans over and whispers something to Jackson. Now she takes a breath mint and folds her arms in front of her.
  • 11:44 a.m. Lally says Read tried to call O'Keefe 53 times and called several other people but never called 911.
  • 11:41 a.m. Read is looking down at a document in front of her. Now she looks up at the ceiling.
  • 11:36 a.m. Jurors seem to have the same expressions as during Jackson's closing argument. The juror with his head down earlier is doing the same now.
  • 11:34 a.m. Lally says Read was the first to spot O'Keefe in the snow because he says she'd already gone back to the scene that morning.
  • 11:28 a.m. Lally shows more of the timeline and starts playing the voicemail messages she left.
  • 11:26 a.m. Lally is now showing what he says was the Read's SUV's route to 34 Fairview Road.
  • 11:25 a.m. The jurors are all looking at the timeline on the screen. A couple are leaning forward. One has to lean to the side to see around Lally.
  • 11:23 a.m. Read is not looking at the timeline being shown to the jury. Instead, she is writing a note that she then passes to Jackson.
  • 11:22 a.m. Lally's timeline shows that Read had nine drinks that night between 8:58 p.m. and 10:54 p.m.
    11:19 a.m. Lally is showing this timeline about what he says happened leading up to O'Keefe's death.
  • 11:18 a.m. Lally says Proctor's text messages are inexcusable but provide no evidence of a conspiracy or cover-up.
  • 11:15 a.m. "Little things matter," Lally says. He encourages the jurors to pay attention to the evidence.
  • 11:12 a.m. "I hit him, I hit him, I hit him," Adam Lally says as he begins his opening arguments, citing what first responders say they heard Read say at the scene.

BBM

Let's examine all of the options of what to do with the body.

1. Take the body and dump it somewhere.
(Problem, where is the body? Who killed this cop? They have to do a thorough investigation. A policeman was killed, and he had to have entered the house.)

2. bag it and put it in the backyard.
(Where is his body? Again, a cop was killed. They have to do a thorough investigation, and he had to have entered the house.}

3. Put the body on the front lawn and come up with something.
(Well, Karen had been calling him incessantly all night. Let's find a way to blame it on her. Make a few calls around. Karen hit him with her car, ok?)

AWESOME!! One of our friends is the lead investigator!

Get rid of the dog, sell the house ASAP.
 
What if they cannot reach a unanimous verdict? Can the judge then give a direction?

The judge will tell them to return and keep deliberating. A couple of times, after the foreman tells the judge they're deadlocked, a mistrial is declared. The whole thing starts over again.
 
The judge will tell them to return and keep deliberating. A couple of times, after the foreman tells the judge they're deadlocked, a mistrial is declared. The whole thing starts over again.
That is if the CW files again. Would they really want to go through this again and give the prosecution a chance to get even better experts or a different judge?
 
No, it's pretty standard across all the states, IIRC.
I have been following trials in the US and never knew this.. It is the opposite in UK and Europe.

 

Forum statistics

Threads
3,010
Messages
241,065
Members
970
Latest member
NickGoGetta
Back
Top Bottom