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.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?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.
It appears not.What if they cannot reach a unanimous verdict? Can the judge then give a direction?
All 6 jurors ? Huh? What does that mean?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.
Worcester District Court Jury misunderstands that verdict has to be unanimous, Massachusetts Appeals Court declines to vacate conviction
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 ...www.delsignoredefense.com
Im not sure why it states 6 but it makes it clear that it must be unanimousAll 6 jurors ? Huh? What does that mean?
There are 12 jurors right?
Karen Read trial: Live updates as jurors hear closing arguments
After 29 days of testimony, attorneys will present closing arguments on Tuesday in the trial Karen Read, the Massachusetts woman accused of hitting her boyfriend with an SUV and leaving him to die in a snowstorm.www.wcvb.com
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.
What if they cannot reach a unanimous verdict? Can the judge then give a direction?
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?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.
I thought Defence always had the last word. Not in Boston, Mass. apparently.Defense closing arguments completed. Prosecution closing arguments have started.
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?
I thought Defence always had the last word. Not in Mass apparently.
Did anyone at the party give evidence?
Did anyone at the party give evidence?
I have been following trials in the US and never knew this.. It is the opposite in UK and Europe.No, it's pretty standard across all the states, IIRC.
The CW part is correct as they would be the ones to file it, but yes, I meant they wouldn't want the DEFENSE to get a chance at the rest.What do you mean the CW? You use it to describe the defense.