September 13, 2024 • 18 mins
Earlier last week Karen Read’s legal team filed an appeal with the MA Supreme Judicial Court to drop two of the three criminal charges against Read. The appeal argues that “double jeopardy protections of the federal and state constitutions” bar prosecutors from retrying Read on charges of murder and leaving the scene of an accident
Ask Alexa to play WBZ NewsRadio on #iHeartRadio!
Ask Alexa to play WBZ NewsRadio on #iHeartRadio!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray Boston's news Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
I think everyone in the audience has an opinion on
the Karen Reed trial. Maybe not everyone, but a lot
of people have opinions on that, as I think all
of you know. She was charged with backing up her
vehicle and killing her Boston Police officer John O'Keefe, her boyfriend,
back in January of twenty twenty two, I believe was
(00:29):
when the allegation of this incident occurred January twenty ninth,
while there was a heavy snowstorm in the area after
they had both been out a night of bar hopping
and drinking. Prosecutors, according the boss to go I'll prosecute
to say that they argue with that she had argued
with O'Keefe and then backed into him in a rage
(00:50):
when she dropped him off at an after party at
the Canton House. Read. Lawyers say she's being framed. And
then O'Keefe went inside the house, where they say he
was fatally beaten in the basement before his body was
planted on the front lawn. Okay, the trial was held.
The jury came back deadlocked hung. The judge in the case,
(01:13):
Judge Canoni, sent them back, gave them the appropriate charges
that they are told the judge Beverly canoni that they
have listened to all the evidence and they have an
obligation to work as diligently as possible to come to
a decision of either guilt or innocence. When they came back,
(01:37):
I think it was the second or third time, saying
they were just hung. They were irrevocably hung on this case.
The judge never inquired as to whether or not they
were hung on all three charges, or if they had
reached a verdict on one or more of the three charges.
(02:00):
The judge dismissed them shortly thereafter, was matter of fact,
almost within hours, within days, jurors came forward to not
only the defense lawyers, but also to the prosecution, saying
that they had unanimously reached not guilty verdicts on the
most serious charge, which your second degree murder and also
leaving the scene of an accident where personal injury into
(02:22):
our death had occurred. They were still split on the
other issue, which was a manslaughter charge. So two of
the charges they hadmous come to a unanimous decision of acquittal.
The judge never inquired about that. The defense attorneys nor
(02:44):
the prosecutor asked the judge to inquire, but the judge
did not inquire on her own. Now, the lawyers for
Reid have gone before a single justice of the hope
to come before a single justice. I think it's a
twenty how many pages, I'm not sure how long it is,
(03:05):
but they have already filed a motion in which it's
what's called the gatekeeper statute in Massachusetts. They go before
a single justice of the state Supreme Court, and essentially
they asked him to allow them because there were certain
serious constitutional issues here, to allow them to appear and
(03:27):
get a ruling either from the single justice or from
the full court. I think my position is that this
is a very substantial case. She was tried, the jury
concluded on two of the counts that she was not guilty.
Those verdicts were never publicly rendered, which is Judge Canoni's position.
(03:53):
I think that Judge Cannoni had a responsibility to inquire
of the fourth person of the jury if they were
hung on all three counts, and by failing to do that,
in my opinion, the potential now is that Karen Reid
would be retried for a second time in violation of
(04:16):
her constitutional rights. That once you are acquitted, you cannot
be retried on that charge. It's called double jeopardy. I
think all of us understand that I am not predicting
how the court will rule, but I think the gatekeeper
will allow the hearing to occur, and I think that
(04:37):
the gatekeeper will allow to go in front of the
full panel, the seven member State Supreme Court. And I
think that the State Supreme Court, this is the case
of first impression, should come back and say, guess what.
The judge made the mistake. The judge made the mistake.
The judge, who, by the way, from everything that I know,
is a terrific judge, well respected, well respected. She recently
(05:03):
handled the case of the Weymouth police officer who was
shot uh and there was a hung jury on that case.
So look, we all make mistakes, including judges, but Karen
Reid should not have to suffer the consequences of a
mistake by the judge. You could argue it either way.
I'll take your phone calls starting right now six one, seven, two, five,
four ten thirty, six one seven, nine, one, ten thirty.
(05:26):
We're going to have one break. We take some phone
calls we get a couple of calls at least in
maybe more. Let's have at it, going to Karen and
waterdown Karen. I know you are a big supporter of Karen.
Speaker 3 (05:36):
Right ahead, Karen, Yeah, right, I totally agree with what
Judge Canoni did.
Speaker 2 (05:44):
And oh I'm i miss miss still. I wasn't trying
to be a wise guy. I thought you were. My
recollection was that you were a reporter, a supporter of
Karen Reid.
Speaker 3 (05:54):
You agree with the judge shore the same name. No, No,
she's a self serving sociopath.
Speaker 2 (06:03):
That's well, that's irrelevant to the legal issues. I mean,
go ahead.
Speaker 4 (06:07):
Well, even even even a.
Speaker 2 (06:10):
A petulant, self serving sociopath deserves due process. We lost you, okay, Well, Karen,
I'll tell you what. I give you a chance to
call back, uh, and we will will put you back on.
I'm up on my break, so I'll take a very
quick break and feel free to call back. Six one, seven, two, five, four,
(06:33):
ten thirty. If you're not Karen, you can call back
and we'll get We'll get you in as well. We'll
take a quick break back on night Side right after this.
Speaker 1 (06:40):
Now back to Dan Ray Live from the Window World
Night side Studios on WBZ News Radio.
Speaker 2 (06:49):
We're having some trouble with our phones. Pamela, call back
on this number six one seven nine ten thirty six
one seven nine three one ten thirty. Don't understand why
why the phone goblins continue to persist here? Anyway, we
have Karen back, Karen, I did not hang up on you.
I want you to know, Okay.
Speaker 3 (07:09):
Go right ahead, hang up on you. It's just i't
know what's going.
Speaker 2 (07:15):
On with your phone. WHOA WHOA? Whoa? Are you want
to sell?
Speaker 3 (07:18):
You're on a cell phone, right phone, and it just
has really spotty coverage. One of the reasons I haven't
call that right.
Speaker 2 (07:25):
Do you have do you have? Are you on a
headset or no?
Speaker 3 (07:28):
No, no, I have an iPhone eight plus three. Gav
me a favorite, Karen.
Speaker 2 (07:37):
Just talking to the mouthpiece and it'll sound better.
Speaker 4 (07:40):
Can you help?
Speaker 2 (07:41):
I can hear you a little better, just right into
the mouthpiece, because sometimes people will talk they won't talk
into the mouthpiece like I'm doing, and they'll put the
mouthpiece over their head, or they put their mouthpiece under
their chin. Talking to the mouthpiece.
Speaker 3 (07:53):
Go ahead, all right, is this better?
Speaker 2 (07:57):
Much better? Much better? Karen?
Speaker 4 (07:59):
Home run go ahead, just I was talking about how
I don't I'm not a big car fan at all.
And you know, I saw this twenty twenty special last.
Speaker 5 (08:11):
Week and it occurred to me that girl, when these persons,
I believe you get your news from primary sources and
not the internet. So I think both of us, myself
who fell off, all the cast from the Echo, and
I just concluded that, oh my god, the facts were
laid out. She had twitter to drink.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
Conclude she's guilty. Here's my question, ran him over. Okay,
that's fine, Let's hold over a second. It's we're not
talking substance here. So are you able to hear me?
You be a favorite rob, Jump in there and let's
see if you can get this phone line better. And
also make sure she can hear me, because she's a
friend and I want to make sure we get her
(08:55):
in here. Okay, just explain it to her. She'll understand.
Tom and Lancaster Tom on Knightsager. Right ahead.
Speaker 1 (09:02):
Hey, Daran, how you doing, buddy.
Speaker 2 (09:03):
I'm doing great, nice clear line. I like that you're
a former police officer. I'm thinking the judge kind of
messed up on this.
Speaker 1 (09:11):
No, I don't agree with you.
Speaker 3 (09:13):
Listen.
Speaker 2 (09:14):
If the jurors are anonymous, and the attorneys are claiming
they were contacted by the jurors, what is the proof
until the judge interviews each of the jurors to see
if they actually said that, because there's no verification without
a name. They know who the jurors are.
Speaker 1 (09:31):
No, the attorneys don't know if they're anonymous.
Speaker 2 (09:34):
Yes, they do. They know who the jurors are because
they sat in court with these people, and the jurors
have in some cases presented themselves and several of the
jurors and one of the jurors called the district attorney's office.
Just assume for a moment that the facts as we
understand them, and that is that they the jury did
come to a unanimous decision on the murder charge and
(09:57):
the leaving the scene of an accident, not in the manslaughter.
They were hung on manslaughter. But they had they had
they had come to decisions, unanimous decisions on the the
murder and the leaving the scene of an accident. The
judge did not say when they came back and said, judge,
who hung up? The judge did not say, are you
hung up on all the counts or on just one
(10:19):
or two of the counts.
Speaker 1 (10:20):
See, all right, so you're you're an attorney. Is that
supposed to be something that is supposed to be done normally?
Speaker 2 (10:26):
And this I think, I think, I think a judge
in a normal situation like that was a long trial,
should have simply asked the question of the four person have.
Speaker 1 (10:34):
You You're not supposed to think you're an attorney. It's
supposed to be a law.
Speaker 2 (10:41):
No. What I'm saying you asked me as an attorney.
I'm saying to you is the judge has great Look, Tom,
you know as well as I do. The judge has
great ability in court. The judge runs the court. If
I think that the judge in a situation like that,
the trial's gone on for months, Okay, the jury comes
back and says they're hung. There are three counts. If
(11:04):
the judge had simply said, are you hung on all
three counts or on just some of the counts? Right,
that's all she had to ask. If they had said,
we have agreed, If she if they said, your honor,
we are hung only on one count. We have agreed
on two of the counts, that's all I think.
Speaker 4 (11:25):
I think.
Speaker 1 (11:26):
I think that is a pretty basic protocol that that
should have been in place.
Speaker 2 (11:31):
So yes, and that's what I'm saying. I think the
judge made a mistake and it could be that this
would be a case which would in the future instruct
judges when the jury comes back and says we're hung.
You know, they give them the charge that called Rodrigo's
charge in different different venues that it has different, different
different phraseology. But it's like, you're the best people to
(11:51):
decide this case. You need to go back now and
sit down and try to come to a conclusion. That's
what that's what those charges are. So you've gone through
all of that.
Speaker 1 (12:00):
Yeah, now now wait now, going back to my original point,
was it not announced in some time during the trial
that the jurors' names would rename it remain anonymous.
Speaker 2 (12:13):
Right, I'm saying the jurors have come forward and many
they do not.
Speaker 1 (12:19):
They have not come forward. If they don't have any
names to verify that, we will we.
Speaker 2 (12:24):
Will agree to disagree on that. Tom. I don't think
there's any question at this point, any question at all,
but these jurors, because because there hasn't been one juror,
there's been one person. Okay, Tom, we're gonna you know what,
I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole with
you on this. If they felt, if the prosecutors felt
(12:45):
these were that they the prosecutors are not doubting. They're
saying that that because that no decision was announced in
open court, that that there was no verdict. That's what
the position of the prosecutors are. Tom. I get a
couple of more I got to get into here as well.
They thank you for your expertise, Thank you for calling. Okay,
thank you much appreciate it. Mixed up Nick and waymouth. Nick,
(13:08):
you gotta be quick for me, hero, Just give me
your quick response. Am I right or wrong on this?
I think? I think this is an interesting case, and
I'm I would not be surprised if the State Supreme
Court UH says we have we have to have a
new standard in these in these situations.
Speaker 6 (13:22):
I'm with you one hundred. There are some audities in
this case, by the way. One is the judge warned
all parties, defense, prosecution witnesses, et cetera. The wood FBI
or the acronym FBI would not be used. Why they're
behind the scenes. There's a lot going on between that
(13:44):
the town of Canton.
Speaker 5 (13:46):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (13:47):
But but we're going You're taking me down a different
rabbit hole here, and I don't want to go down
that rabbit hole either. I want to focus on the mistakes.
But here's Nick. Here's what I'm focusing on. Nick. The
judge should would have asked the jurors when they said
they were hung. The judge should have asked a simple question, madam,
mister foreman, madam madam four person, are you hung on
(14:12):
all three charges or have you had any Is there
any verdict that you have reached any partial verdict?
Speaker 1 (14:19):
That's all the judge, Who do you explain to me?
Speaker 6 (14:22):
What is with the the what do you call it?
The uh uh manslaughter? I don't get that right.
Speaker 2 (14:33):
It's not up to you and me. We're not jurors.
It's up to the I don't I'm not going to
put myself in the place of the jurors. I'm telling
you what the judge failed to do should not cause
Karen Reid to stand a second trial in violation of
her due process right now, in my opinion, you all
rights appreciate it. I got to run because I got
two more Nick, and I'm going to accommodate them as well. Okay,
(14:53):
thank you, my friend, thank you. Okay, real quickly, Frank
and Hingham, you and Kate in Foxborough, go ahead.
Speaker 1 (14:58):
Frank, hey again you were with all due respect, you're
wrong about this that the motion is. It's procedurally nonsensical.
If I was a single justice, I would deny it
without a hearing.
Speaker 2 (15:13):
How long your practice law? How long you practice law?
Speaker 1 (15:17):
Thirty eight years?
Speaker 2 (15:18):
Okay, well, thank you. I ask you the fact that
you're a veteran attorney. I take your observation's seal.
Speaker 1 (15:28):
Yeah, you're talking. You're talking about trying to reopen a
case and getting to a jury verdict after the case
is closed. So they had the opportunity there was there
what was called the jury charge conference, before the jury
was instructed. Both sides have the opportunity to say to
the judge, when you're instructing on the law, you can
(15:48):
tell them that they can come back with a verdict
on any one of the counts. They did not do
that when the jury was indicating that they were that
they were hung. That I will tell you the defense
would have known when the jury comes back and says
we're hung. The message was we've rejected the notion that
(16:09):
there's a third party culprit. So the defense is saying, okay,
they're hung between murder and manslaughter. We don't want her
to pull up jury. We want a mistrial. We want
and that'll be a victory for us. And that's what
they asked for.
Speaker 2 (16:24):
And I understand that they did not request the judge
to do that. I understand that. What I'm saying is
I think that the practice in Massachusetts, all she had
to do long trial, asked the question, and if they said,
your honor were hung on all three she'd had on
all three charges. She did not have to go further
and say, well are you eleven to one or six
to six. That's not what the judge would.
Speaker 1 (16:46):
Have to do, but it's not record and the jury,
the jury could have known.
Speaker 2 (16:51):
Okay, let's see how let's see how it comes outstand
I'm going to do this.
Speaker 1 (16:57):
The defense might say, no, we don't want you to
pull them.
Speaker 2 (17:00):
Yeah. If if they said we don't want you to
pull that's a different struck. Frank, I got one more.
I got to get in real quickly. But please call earlier,
give you much more time and do me favorite when
you when when the sac rules against the position of
taking call me back and uh and tell me that
I was wrong. Okay, well I'm not Thank you, Kate,
(17:21):
Kate and Foxborough. I'll give you thirty seconds.
Speaker 7 (17:23):
You're late, go ahead, yuh yeah, just really, I didn't
expect you to take my call. I'm not an attorney.
Speaker 2 (17:29):
I don't just tell me.
Speaker 3 (17:32):
What you think.
Speaker 2 (17:32):
It doesn't matter to tell me what you think.
Speaker 7 (17:34):
I just think the whole thing is just shady to me,
the whole thing. I just think the whole case, everything
that's happening is just very shady, all the way down
to the text messages and how the Okay.
Speaker 2 (17:45):
I'm not going to go into the substance of the case.
I'm not going to go into the substance. That's the case.
It's as simple as that. But I thank you for
calling nonetheless, and I think I think that Karen Read
should not have to stand retrial on two of the
charges in which this jury actually reached a verdict in
the sanctity of the jury room. So we get to
(18:06):
the same conclusion by a different path. Kate, thanks for
the call, appreciate it all right. We came back twentieth
hour Are you superstitious back after this
It's Night Side with Dan Ray Boston's news Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
I think everyone in the audience has an opinion on
the Karen Reed trial. Maybe not everyone, but a lot
of people have opinions on that, as I think all
of you know. She was charged with backing up her
vehicle and killing her Boston Police officer John O'Keefe, her boyfriend,
back in January of twenty twenty two, I believe was
(00:29):
when the allegation of this incident occurred January twenty ninth,
while there was a heavy snowstorm in the area after
they had both been out a night of bar hopping
and drinking. Prosecutors, according the boss to go I'll prosecute
to say that they argue with that she had argued
with O'Keefe and then backed into him in a rage
(00:50):
when she dropped him off at an after party at
the Canton House. Read. Lawyers say she's being framed. And
then O'Keefe went inside the house, where they say he
was fatally beaten in the basement before his body was
planted on the front lawn. Okay, the trial was held.
The jury came back deadlocked hung. The judge in the case,
(01:13):
Judge Canoni, sent them back, gave them the appropriate charges
that they are told the judge Beverly canoni that they
have listened to all the evidence and they have an
obligation to work as diligently as possible to come to
a decision of either guilt or innocence. When they came back,
(01:37):
I think it was the second or third time, saying
they were just hung. They were irrevocably hung on this case.
The judge never inquired as to whether or not they
were hung on all three charges, or if they had
reached a verdict on one or more of the three charges.
(02:00):
The judge dismissed them shortly thereafter, was matter of fact,
almost within hours, within days, jurors came forward to not
only the defense lawyers, but also to the prosecution, saying
that they had unanimously reached not guilty verdicts on the
most serious charge, which your second degree murder and also
leaving the scene of an accident where personal injury into
(02:22):
our death had occurred. They were still split on the
other issue, which was a manslaughter charge. So two of
the charges they hadmous come to a unanimous decision of acquittal.
The judge never inquired about that. The defense attorneys nor
(02:44):
the prosecutor asked the judge to inquire, but the judge
did not inquire on her own. Now, the lawyers for
Reid have gone before a single justice of the hope
to come before a single justice. I think it's a
twenty how many pages, I'm not sure how long it is,
(03:05):
but they have already filed a motion in which it's
what's called the gatekeeper statute in Massachusetts. They go before
a single justice of the state Supreme Court, and essentially
they asked him to allow them because there were certain
serious constitutional issues here, to allow them to appear and
(03:27):
get a ruling either from the single justice or from
the full court. I think my position is that this
is a very substantial case. She was tried, the jury
concluded on two of the counts that she was not guilty.
Those verdicts were never publicly rendered, which is Judge Canoni's position.
(03:53):
I think that Judge Cannoni had a responsibility to inquire
of the fourth person of the jury if they were
hung on all three counts, and by failing to do that,
in my opinion, the potential now is that Karen Reid
would be retried for a second time in violation of
(04:16):
her constitutional rights. That once you are acquitted, you cannot
be retried on that charge. It's called double jeopardy. I
think all of us understand that I am not predicting
how the court will rule, but I think the gatekeeper
will allow the hearing to occur, and I think that
(04:37):
the gatekeeper will allow to go in front of the
full panel, the seven member State Supreme Court. And I
think that the State Supreme Court, this is the case
of first impression, should come back and say, guess what.
The judge made the mistake. The judge made the mistake.
The judge, who, by the way, from everything that I know,
is a terrific judge, well respected, well respected. She recently
(05:03):
handled the case of the Weymouth police officer who was
shot uh and there was a hung jury on that case.
So look, we all make mistakes, including judges, but Karen
Reid should not have to suffer the consequences of a
mistake by the judge. You could argue it either way.
I'll take your phone calls starting right now six one, seven, two, five,
four ten thirty, six one seven, nine, one, ten thirty.
(05:26):
We're going to have one break. We take some phone
calls we get a couple of calls at least in
maybe more. Let's have at it, going to Karen and
waterdown Karen. I know you are a big supporter of Karen.
Speaker 3 (05:36):
Right ahead, Karen, Yeah, right, I totally agree with what
Judge Canoni did.
Speaker 2 (05:44):
And oh I'm i miss miss still. I wasn't trying
to be a wise guy. I thought you were. My
recollection was that you were a reporter, a supporter of
Karen Reid.
Speaker 3 (05:54):
You agree with the judge shore the same name. No, No,
she's a self serving sociopath.
Speaker 2 (06:03):
That's well, that's irrelevant to the legal issues. I mean,
go ahead.
Speaker 4 (06:07):
Well, even even even a.
Speaker 2 (06:10):
A petulant, self serving sociopath deserves due process. We lost you, okay, Well, Karen,
I'll tell you what. I give you a chance to
call back, uh, and we will will put you back on.
I'm up on my break, so I'll take a very
quick break and feel free to call back. Six one, seven, two, five, four,
(06:33):
ten thirty. If you're not Karen, you can call back
and we'll get We'll get you in as well. We'll
take a quick break back on night Side right after this.
Speaker 1 (06:40):
Now back to Dan Ray Live from the Window World
Night side Studios on WBZ News Radio.
Speaker 2 (06:49):
We're having some trouble with our phones. Pamela, call back
on this number six one seven nine ten thirty six
one seven nine three one ten thirty. Don't understand why
why the phone goblins continue to persist here? Anyway, we
have Karen back, Karen, I did not hang up on you.
I want you to know, Okay.
Speaker 3 (07:09):
Go right ahead, hang up on you. It's just i't
know what's going.
Speaker 2 (07:15):
On with your phone. WHOA WHOA? Whoa? Are you want
to sell?
Speaker 3 (07:18):
You're on a cell phone, right phone, and it just
has really spotty coverage. One of the reasons I haven't
call that right.
Speaker 2 (07:25):
Do you have do you have? Are you on a
headset or no?
Speaker 3 (07:28):
No, no, I have an iPhone eight plus three. Gav
me a favorite, Karen.
Speaker 2 (07:37):
Just talking to the mouthpiece and it'll sound better.
Speaker 4 (07:40):
Can you help?
Speaker 2 (07:41):
I can hear you a little better, just right into
the mouthpiece, because sometimes people will talk they won't talk
into the mouthpiece like I'm doing, and they'll put the
mouthpiece over their head, or they put their mouthpiece under
their chin. Talking to the mouthpiece.
Speaker 3 (07:53):
Go ahead, all right, is this better?
Speaker 2 (07:57):
Much better? Much better? Karen?
Speaker 4 (07:59):
Home run go ahead, just I was talking about how
I don't I'm not a big car fan at all.
And you know, I saw this twenty twenty special last.
Speaker 5 (08:11):
Week and it occurred to me that girl, when these persons,
I believe you get your news from primary sources and
not the internet. So I think both of us, myself
who fell off, all the cast from the Echo, and
I just concluded that, oh my god, the facts were
laid out. She had twitter to drink.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
Conclude she's guilty. Here's my question, ran him over. Okay,
that's fine, Let's hold over a second. It's we're not
talking substance here. So are you able to hear me?
You be a favorite rob, Jump in there and let's
see if you can get this phone line better. And
also make sure she can hear me, because she's a
friend and I want to make sure we get her
(08:55):
in here. Okay, just explain it to her. She'll understand.
Tom and Lancaster Tom on Knightsager. Right ahead.
Speaker 1 (09:02):
Hey, Daran, how you doing, buddy.
Speaker 2 (09:03):
I'm doing great, nice clear line. I like that you're
a former police officer. I'm thinking the judge kind of
messed up on this.
Speaker 1 (09:11):
No, I don't agree with you.
Speaker 3 (09:13):
Listen.
Speaker 2 (09:14):
If the jurors are anonymous, and the attorneys are claiming
they were contacted by the jurors, what is the proof
until the judge interviews each of the jurors to see
if they actually said that, because there's no verification without
a name. They know who the jurors are.
Speaker 1 (09:31):
No, the attorneys don't know if they're anonymous.
Speaker 2 (09:34):
Yes, they do. They know who the jurors are because
they sat in court with these people, and the jurors
have in some cases presented themselves and several of the
jurors and one of the jurors called the district attorney's office.
Just assume for a moment that the facts as we
understand them, and that is that they the jury did
come to a unanimous decision on the murder charge and
(09:57):
the leaving the scene of an accident, not in the manslaughter.
They were hung on manslaughter. But they had they had
they had come to decisions, unanimous decisions on the the
murder and the leaving the scene of an accident. The
judge did not say when they came back and said, judge,
who hung up? The judge did not say, are you
hung up on all the counts or on just one
(10:19):
or two of the counts.
Speaker 1 (10:20):
See, all right, so you're you're an attorney. Is that
supposed to be something that is supposed to be done normally?
Speaker 2 (10:26):
And this I think, I think, I think a judge
in a normal situation like that was a long trial,
should have simply asked the question of the four person have.
Speaker 1 (10:34):
You You're not supposed to think you're an attorney. It's
supposed to be a law.
Speaker 2 (10:41):
No. What I'm saying you asked me as an attorney.
I'm saying to you is the judge has great Look, Tom,
you know as well as I do. The judge has
great ability in court. The judge runs the court. If
I think that the judge in a situation like that,
the trial's gone on for months, Okay, the jury comes
back and says they're hung. There are three counts. If
(11:04):
the judge had simply said, are you hung on all
three counts or on just some of the counts? Right,
that's all she had to ask. If they had said,
we have agreed, If she if they said, your honor,
we are hung only on one count. We have agreed
on two of the counts, that's all I think.
Speaker 4 (11:25):
I think.
Speaker 1 (11:26):
I think that is a pretty basic protocol that that
should have been in place.
Speaker 2 (11:31):
So yes, and that's what I'm saying. I think the
judge made a mistake and it could be that this
would be a case which would in the future instruct
judges when the jury comes back and says we're hung.
You know, they give them the charge that called Rodrigo's
charge in different different venues that it has different, different
different phraseology. But it's like, you're the best people to
(11:51):
decide this case. You need to go back now and
sit down and try to come to a conclusion. That's
what that's what those charges are. So you've gone through
all of that.
Speaker 1 (12:00):
Yeah, now now wait now, going back to my original point,
was it not announced in some time during the trial
that the jurors' names would rename it remain anonymous.
Speaker 2 (12:13):
Right, I'm saying the jurors have come forward and many
they do not.
Speaker 1 (12:19):
They have not come forward. If they don't have any
names to verify that, we will we.
Speaker 2 (12:24):
Will agree to disagree on that. Tom. I don't think
there's any question at this point, any question at all,
but these jurors, because because there hasn't been one juror,
there's been one person. Okay, Tom, we're gonna you know what,
I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole with
you on this. If they felt, if the prosecutors felt
(12:45):
these were that they the prosecutors are not doubting. They're
saying that that because that no decision was announced in
open court, that that there was no verdict. That's what
the position of the prosecutors are. Tom. I get a
couple of more I got to get into here as well.
They thank you for your expertise, Thank you for calling. Okay,
thank you much appreciate it. Mixed up Nick and waymouth. Nick,
(13:08):
you gotta be quick for me, hero, Just give me
your quick response. Am I right or wrong on this?
I think? I think this is an interesting case, and
I'm I would not be surprised if the State Supreme
Court UH says we have we have to have a
new standard in these in these situations.
Speaker 6 (13:22):
I'm with you one hundred. There are some audities in
this case, by the way. One is the judge warned
all parties, defense, prosecution witnesses, et cetera. The wood FBI
or the acronym FBI would not be used. Why they're
behind the scenes. There's a lot going on between that
(13:44):
the town of Canton.
Speaker 5 (13:46):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (13:47):
But but we're going You're taking me down a different
rabbit hole here, and I don't want to go down
that rabbit hole either. I want to focus on the mistakes.
But here's Nick. Here's what I'm focusing on. Nick. The
judge should would have asked the jurors when they said
they were hung. The judge should have asked a simple question, madam,
mister foreman, madam madam four person, are you hung on
(14:12):
all three charges or have you had any Is there
any verdict that you have reached any partial verdict?
Speaker 1 (14:19):
That's all the judge, Who do you explain to me?
Speaker 6 (14:22):
What is with the the what do you call it?
The uh uh manslaughter? I don't get that right.
Speaker 2 (14:33):
It's not up to you and me. We're not jurors.
It's up to the I don't I'm not going to
put myself in the place of the jurors. I'm telling
you what the judge failed to do should not cause
Karen Reid to stand a second trial in violation of
her due process right now, in my opinion, you all
rights appreciate it. I got to run because I got
two more Nick, and I'm going to accommodate them as well. Okay,
(14:53):
thank you, my friend, thank you. Okay, real quickly, Frank
and Hingham, you and Kate in Foxborough, go ahead.
Speaker 1 (14:58):
Frank, hey again you were with all due respect, you're
wrong about this that the motion is. It's procedurally nonsensical.
If I was a single justice, I would deny it
without a hearing.
Speaker 2 (15:13):
How long your practice law? How long you practice law?
Speaker 1 (15:17):
Thirty eight years?
Speaker 2 (15:18):
Okay, well, thank you. I ask you the fact that
you're a veteran attorney. I take your observation's seal.
Speaker 1 (15:28):
Yeah, you're talking. You're talking about trying to reopen a
case and getting to a jury verdict after the case
is closed. So they had the opportunity there was there
what was called the jury charge conference, before the jury
was instructed. Both sides have the opportunity to say to
the judge, when you're instructing on the law, you can
(15:48):
tell them that they can come back with a verdict
on any one of the counts. They did not do
that when the jury was indicating that they were that
they were hung. That I will tell you the defense
would have known when the jury comes back and says
we're hung. The message was we've rejected the notion that
(16:09):
there's a third party culprit. So the defense is saying, okay,
they're hung between murder and manslaughter. We don't want her
to pull up jury. We want a mistrial. We want
and that'll be a victory for us. And that's what
they asked for.
Speaker 2 (16:24):
And I understand that they did not request the judge
to do that. I understand that. What I'm saying is
I think that the practice in Massachusetts, all she had
to do long trial, asked the question, and if they said,
your honor were hung on all three she'd had on
all three charges. She did not have to go further
and say, well are you eleven to one or six
to six. That's not what the judge would.
Speaker 1 (16:46):
Have to do, but it's not record and the jury,
the jury could have known.
Speaker 2 (16:51):
Okay, let's see how let's see how it comes outstand
I'm going to do this.
Speaker 1 (16:57):
The defense might say, no, we don't want you to
pull them.
Speaker 2 (17:00):
Yeah. If if they said we don't want you to
pull that's a different struck. Frank, I got one more.
I got to get in real quickly. But please call earlier,
give you much more time and do me favorite when
you when when the sac rules against the position of
taking call me back and uh and tell me that
I was wrong. Okay, well I'm not Thank you, Kate,
(17:21):
Kate and Foxborough. I'll give you thirty seconds.
Speaker 7 (17:23):
You're late, go ahead, yuh yeah, just really, I didn't
expect you to take my call. I'm not an attorney.
Speaker 2 (17:29):
I don't just tell me.
Speaker 3 (17:32):
What you think.
Speaker 2 (17:32):
It doesn't matter to tell me what you think.
Speaker 7 (17:34):
I just think the whole thing is just shady to me,
the whole thing. I just think the whole case, everything
that's happening is just very shady, all the way down
to the text messages and how the Okay.
Speaker 2 (17:45):
I'm not going to go into the substance of the case.
I'm not going to go into the substance. That's the case.
It's as simple as that. But I thank you for
calling nonetheless, and I think I think that Karen Read
should not have to stand retrial on two of the
charges in which this jury actually reached a verdict in
the sanctity of the jury room. So we get to
(18:06):
the same conclusion by a different path. Kate, thanks for
the call, appreciate it all right. We came back twentieth
hour Are you superstitious back after this
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.