February 11, 2025 • 39 mins
Massachusetts’ highest court rejected Karen Read’s defense bid to drop two of the charges against Read: second-degree murder and leaving the scene of a fatal accident in the death of her boyfriend, John O’Keefe. The push to drop two of Read’s charges came after Read’s defense argued that five jurors from the first trial later said they were deadlocked only on the manslaughter count, that the jurors unanimously agreed she wasn’t guilty on the charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene. This latest ruling clears the way for a second, new trial this year. Criminal defense attorney Phil Tracy joined us to discuss!
Ask Alexa to play WBZ NewsRadio on #iHeartRadio and listen to NightSide with Dan Rea Weeknights From 8PM-12AM!
Ask Alexa to play WBZ NewsRadio on #iHeartRadio and listen to NightSide with Dan Rea Weeknights From 8PM-12AM!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
As Night's side with Dan Ray on WBZ Cooston's new video.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Big decision today from the State Supreme Court. The seven
justices concluded that not only was Karen Reid going back
to trial for a series of charges related to the
death of her boyfriend, former Boston police officer John O'Keefe,
(00:29):
but in addition, in addition, she will go back to
trial on all three of the indictments that she still faces.
She went through a trial in which the first jury
last July said they were hung. They were hung jury,
and some of the jurists came forward subsequent to the
(00:54):
conclusion of the case and said that they were hung
on one of the issues, which was leaving the scene
of an accident, and that they had voted or they
were unanimous in their belief that you should be acquitted
on two of the other issues, one of them the
more serious charge of second agree murder with us. Now
(01:16):
he's Boston attorney Phil Tracy, he's the defense lawyer. And Phil,
I'm sure you've had a chance to look at this decisions,
thirty five page decision you I think Field, the decision
was the proper decision under the circumstances. Even though you
are a defense lawyer, as I understand that, I know
you are a lawyer.
Speaker 3 (01:37):
I think.
Speaker 2 (01:41):
All defense lawyers were at one point to prosecutor. Right there.
Speaker 4 (01:45):
I guess that's right.
Speaker 5 (01:47):
But in any event, thank you Dan, thanks for having
me on and good to talk to you. The sanctity
of the jury system is really something that the courts
never want to fiddle with. They don't want to make
changes in that procedure. The ananymity of the juror's names
(02:10):
and protecting the jurors from outside influence, and in this
case there was a lot is really important. So I
think the court is not going in any direction that's
going to say bring these jurors back and put them
under oath. Unless there's a racial bias or some sort
(02:31):
of you know, corruption type thing, somebody trying to buy
off a dura, that type of thing, you then bring
the jura back in and you go for it. The
deliberations did not result in a verdict, that's what they said.
They said it was dead luck, and therefore it's going
to have to go back to trial. It could be
(02:52):
a pyrrhic victory though, because the charges she was acquitted on.
If they could go back just and do the involuntary manslaughter.
That would be sounds like that's the primary position for
(03:12):
the prosecution, because it looks as if the juror those
jurors may not be any different than the new jurors,
and they would find them not guilty of secondary murder,
but possibly guilty of the involuntary Mansillam, I believe the
count was nine to three for guilty.
Speaker 2 (03:32):
Well, that's interesting that the sanctity of the jury is
that that was disclosed in the decision today. I was
not in court when the case was argued, and I
don't know if it was if it was disclosed, but
that was an interesting point. I'm surprised that the SJC
allowed that point to be memorialized in their decision. I mean,
(03:56):
it would seem to me that that could potentially influence
a future jury.
Speaker 5 (04:01):
It could, but I think you've seen Karen read on
TV on and on again.
Speaker 2 (04:10):
Well she has you know, she has the right to
function in the court of public opinion.
Speaker 5 (04:14):
Uh, she is doing a good job of it. Yeah,
And so what you're saying is that the nine to
three UH count could influence fo to jury's And that's correct,
no question.
Speaker 2 (04:29):
I just I just think that the prosecutors cannot campaign
in the court of public opinion. They you know they
they would never I think discuss the case as openly
as either she or or her lawyers have. I view
this and and we're going to disagree, so feel free,
(04:50):
you know your best shot. I view this that the
court missed an opportunity to in effect establish a procedure.
I think that judge should have on her own, as
was as they say in the court of law, Sue
Sponte should have inquired of the jurors discreetly. I should
(05:10):
have said, am I to understand that you are irrevocably
hung up and and and conflicted on all three counts?
Have you have you agreed on a verdict? Have you
come to a conclusion on any of the counts. I
think that her instructions are a little confusing, and I
(05:32):
think that that may have led to what went on here.
And I just think that the court, I would bet
you that if another judge has a similar case, councilor Tracy, where.
Speaker 5 (05:43):
From from here on in in every case that's like this.
But I think that you know, there were three counts.
There were three counts, and so they each had different
verdict slips. So this is where the jurors, I'm not
going to say they filed up, but they didn't know
(06:04):
what to do. If they had signaled that we've made
a decision on two of the three cases, she could
have taken that verdict and then this case would be
retried only on the involuntary manslaughter case. Now, in a way,
(06:25):
is what I'm alluding to, is if I think it'd
be better for the prosecution if they were only trying
her on involuntary mansluter because what I think happened in
this case, and like everybody else laid people lawyers or whatever.
I think they had an argument. She drove the car
(06:47):
and reverse twenty five miles an hour. That's an incredible factor.
She hit him. She may or may not know she
hit him. I don't think she knew she hit him.
But then, of course as she sobered up, she find it.
She said where is he now? She gets her girlfriends,
they go back. She starts yelling, I hit him. I
must have hit him. That indicates to me that that
(07:10):
is the correct result of this case. How itever comes
out that was an involuntary manslaught due to her alcohol.
You said driving the vehicle and hitting him. Whether she
knew it or not, it's you know, I mean, that's
involuntary manslaw. She didn't didn't intend to hit him.
Speaker 2 (07:32):
That's what I think I could see. Yeah, and I
can support you on that. I can see that there's
some sort of a bitter argument that might have started
at one of the bars continued, and he decided that
he wanted to go to the party, and she didn't
want to go to the party, and he said, drop
me off. He dropped her off, and she had the
car in reverse inadvertently, and that would that she would
(07:57):
drive off quickly and make us maybe so that that
could have and maybe they can pull some information out
of the electronics of the car to figure to figure
that out.
Speaker 5 (08:10):
Well, you know. The other and of course, clouded into
this was the uh are infused into this was the
borish behavior of some of the past prosecution's witness, including
police officers and state troopers. And that turned people off.
You know, that would turn a duror off. A state
police officer acting in that fashion. Yeah, that that was
(08:35):
not good.
Speaker 2 (08:36):
And and his fate, Michael Proctor, is his fate. His
professional fate still hangs in the balance. The trial starts
in April. First, it'll be interesting sebody Weinberg, who's a
good appellate lawyer, good trial.
Speaker 5 (08:48):
Lawyer, tremendous, hemendous.
Speaker 2 (08:50):
Lawyer, that that he was thinking of, you know, trying
to go into federal court because I think that the
issue here is obviously double chef and wouldn't it be
interesting if our state supreme court was somehow overruled by
the US Supreme Court. I have no idea if you'll
follow through on that.
Speaker 5 (09:13):
Well, there's no question that you know, he's a top
notch attorney. We've my office and he have had a
relationship for many years. But I don't know if the
Supreme Court would take the case. On the other hand,
the issue you just mentioned, double jeopardy is fundamental to
(09:34):
the core of of of our judicial system, whether it's
federal district court, superior court, any state of the Union.
Once you have a double jeopardy argument, that's saying that's
very held in such a high standard. In other words,
(09:55):
you can't retry somebody. Now. Of course, the jury, by
the way, the lawyers for both the prosecution and the defense,
they might have come up with the idea Judge, why
don't you check and see what counts that they They
didn't do that, so you know, but you said it earlier.
(10:16):
From now on, every time there's a case like it
with three different counts, three different verdict slips, the judge
is going to quiet, well, you hung on what one
of them? Two of them? Are all three of them,
and that's that's what's going to be the rule of
law from now on. There's no question that that's that's
(10:38):
what's going to happen.
Speaker 2 (10:39):
You know. It's it's interesting. I think I don't know
where I read this, but I think that one or
more of the members of the jury were lawyers. And
the notes that were sent back as I read them
in the context of the decision today, obviously they were
written by someone who was pretty well versed in the law.
And I wonder if, I don't know, uh, if if
(11:03):
if one of the four people, if the fourth person
of the jury was a lawyer, if maybe their language
was a little more stilted than it needed to be,
or maybe that individual was trying to be more cautious
in what he wrote in terms of notes to the judge.
Speaker 4 (11:22):
It's fascinating.
Speaker 2 (11:22):
It's a fascina any case either way, she's supposed to
go back on trial on April first as this case, and.
Speaker 5 (11:28):
I think he will go to trial on April first,
but they they could now what the strategy for an
appeal would be to finally appeal and ask for a
stay of the state court state court trial and.
Speaker 2 (11:44):
Which which again would would inure to the benefit of
the defendant, uh and would not go up. I mean
there'd be no way to. It would have to be tried,
I assume before a district court judge, and then go
through the appeals process if it ever were to get sure,
sorry to the to the US Supreme Court. I don't
think the.
Speaker 5 (12:04):
A long It's a long and winding road to get
to that spot. Phil, Phil Tracy is always yes, eggs Ded.
Speaker 2 (12:15):
Thank you so much, appreciate your analysis, and well we
will talk soon, my friend, talk to you soon. Bye
right now, bye bye Now. I'd like to hear from you,
if you are a listener, I'd love to know what
your thought is on this case. We can go. I
think most of us are familiar with the case. Uh
(12:36):
and uh. You now probably are familiar with what the
court did today. I can try to recap it for
you and give you what what what the holding of
the Supreme Court was. I thought it's a missed opportunity.
I think that the court could have said that in
this case she should go back to trial on the
manslaughter account, but the first two counts, Uh. The judge
(13:00):
should have brought the jurors back, or at a minimum,
they could have given the instructions in the body of
the case to say that that henceforwarths going for going forward.
Judges should be of this case in mind. Again, Look,
it's this is a tragedy, no matter how you look
(13:20):
at it. It's as simple as that. It's a it's
a horrific case. Never should have happened this way. John
O'Keefe should still be alive today. Maybe they would have
split and gone in different directions. But well, at the
expense that not only the financial expense, but the expense
on all all, all both of these families has just
(13:43):
been tremendous. Get your reaction to the Supreme Court decision today.
Six one, seven, two, four ten, thirty six seven nine.
My name is Dan Ray and this is Nightside. Feel
free join the conversation. Every everyone can be an armchair lawyer.
Speaker 1 (13:57):
Now bet to Dan Ray Window World Life Side Studios
on WBZ the news radio.
Speaker 2 (14:05):
So the decision that came down today from the State
Supreme Court here in Massachusetts was a unanimous decision seven
members of the court, and generally these decisions very rarely
in state court. In the federal system, at the US
Supreme Court, you often have concurrences and descents. This court
(14:27):
has a history in Massachusetts, the State Supreme Court as
a history of trying to reach consensus and speak as one,
and they indeed did speak today as one. Let me
try to get the point here that I would like
to make, and I'd love to hear what points you
(14:48):
would like to make. First of all, tremendous amount of
expense has been involved in this case, and clearly something
horrific happened. The individual victim in this cage, John O'Keefe,
lost his life. The question is is there any sort
(15:08):
of guilt that is associated with whatever took his life?
And clearly this trial went on for a long time
last spring, and it'll probably go on a long time
if and when it resumes on April first. The problem
(15:29):
that I have is that in a case like this,
in any superior court case of this magnitude. There's a
lot of pressure on the judge because the judge is
the ultimate arbiter of so many aspects of the case.
(15:49):
And when this jury came back three times saying that
they were irretrievably conflicted, and the notes that came back
with that came back from the jury, Foreman said that
they just, you know, they had reached a point where
morally they could not arrive at a decision. The question, though,
(16:13):
is when they when they told the judge that, and
they did it in notes, it's the way it works.
There wasn't much of a colloquay between the judge and
the four person of the jury, and I think the
judge could have easily asked, and I guess that the
(16:36):
defense lawyers or the prosecution could have inquired of the
judge and made a motion to request the judge. But
I think the judge on her own could have said
to the four person of the jury, am I to
understand that you are irretrievably conflicted on all three counts?
(16:57):
Or are you conflicted on merely one or two of
the counts. I'm going to, you know, prepare to to
clear a mistrial. However, before I do that. I want
to make absolutely certain that the expense and the efforts
(17:18):
by the prosecution and the defendants in this case, I
have to ask this final question, are you conflicted, are
you hung however whatever phraseology you want to employ on
all three counts, or have you reached a partial verdict
(17:38):
on any of these three counts that question, I assume
if the the jurors you know, post verdict, post trial,
are telling the truth. The four person might have said,
your honor, we are hung up on one count. We
(18:01):
have substantially agreed or agreed on two of the counts.
At that point, the judge could have said, well, please
go back and execute verdict slips on the counts on
which you have agreed, and then, of course she also
could have pulled the jurors. All of this would have
been avoided if the judge had done that. And I,
(18:27):
as Phil Tracy, said, this should now be the practice.
And I think that the court missed an opportunity today
because look, one of the things we want to try
to do is use the courts as officially and as
effective as fairly as possible. Clearly, but on a trial
like this, if the jury had agreed that there was,
you know, a unanimous consensus on one or more of
(18:51):
the counts, then the retrial could go forward on the
counts where there wasn't agreement. We're going to take a
quick break here for the new for the news at
the bottom of the hour, I'm got some callers lined up.
We'll get to Tom and Matt, and I've got some
room for you. Six six. Are you looking forward to
(19:17):
the retrial of Karen Reid on all three counts as
a result of the Supreme Court decision today and unless
her appell at attorney, Attorney Weinberg takes this case or
attempts to take this case in the federal court, I
suspect that it's on schedule for retrial on April first.
We'll see further developments. I'd love to know your thoughts
(19:39):
on the decision by the stay Supreme Court today. Back
in Nightside, right after the news at the bottom of.
Speaker 1 (19:45):
The hour night Side with Dan Ray, I'm WBZ Boston's
News Radio.
Speaker 2 (19:53):
All right, we're going to go to phone calls, and
as I say, we don't have to be a lawyer
to discuss this. This is one that really captivated us
the interest of people here and also people around the country.
Is it is a huge story. It has become a
national story. Believe it or not, Well you've seen it.
So it is. Tom is in North Andover. Tom, your
(20:15):
first this hour and nights. I appreciate you calling in.
Speaker 6 (20:18):
Go right ahead, Tom, Thanks the tust to Mike car
I am a question on how to are you the
case anyway? Mightn't have to pass able a matter, but
you know, argue like who's who's just one of the
fact focus two people in one a day and chim
you know, who have to be responsible? That's we're trying
to find out is responsible for the death. And can
(20:41):
you you know, are you returned to how much responsibility
is on the person who they're committed the crime and
the person who also died. I mean, we have a
man never the street filling up prison. It didn't look
like I've seen some videos on it. You couldn't see
any more than fifteen feet and you know he's he's
(21:01):
gonna take some responsibility for her own actions. Now her
is also you know, driving at that speed and reverse
in a blinding stand and I know how many cars
and Sue Ruth the have a lot of blind spots too.
You know the big swimmer sides and everything. And so
if you I would have chased that it's fifty one
percent of one party spot and thirty nine percent of
the other. That that could you an acrital while if
(21:23):
you were reverse at the other doesn't matter which party,
but I you were chased like that? Is that a
viable type of defense or offense?
Speaker 2 (21:33):
That would be a viable strategy in a civil suit.
If the O'Keefe family or his estate were to sue
Karen Reid, that that would be more likely than not
a different you know, different standard in a civil in
a civil action, uh in the criminal case in order
(21:55):
to convict a defendant, because it's a higher standard because
the it is just not the financial exposure that an
individual would have. You know, I fall and slip on
your property and I'm going to sue you and you
in effect your insurance company. No one's liberty is at stake.
(22:15):
Her liberty is at stake. And as a consequence of that,
in order for a judge to you know, find her guilty,
a jury of her peers has to find all the
elements of the crime that is charged beyond a reasonable doubt.
So they have to show in the in the case
of a second degree murder, that there was an intention
(22:39):
to do some harm. Involuntary manslaughter, it could be much
more someone was careless and they used such poor judgment
that it rose to the point of being reckless. Now again,
you then apply the facts of the case against whatever
(23:01):
standard you're using. And so that's why it's in a
court of law, and that's why it seems a little
mysterious to people. But she did not, I'm sure, intend
to kill him. That's why she's not charged with murder
in the first degree. I mean, if if she had,
if she had said to someone, you know, look, I'm
gonna kill him tonight, that's you know, this premeditation deliberation,
(23:25):
that's the standard for first degree murder. That's the most
serious charge. This is, as Phil Tracy said, involuntary manslaughter
case at best in my opinion, and I think also
when Phil Tracy's opinion, Uh, And they're gonna have to
go through the meat grinder again here. And it's I
(23:46):
just wish the judge could have could have asked the
questions of the jury back in July and may be
disposed of at least a portion of the case. Clied.
Have I clarified this at all for you? And know
if I confuse you?
Speaker 6 (24:02):
No, No, not really, you know, I understand the several
cases and so have been a agument in a several
case than a prosecution of a criminal case. So do
you think that the second to Throm murder was herber
prosecution which brought out some vengeance from there's ever from
the state police, from the prosecutor. And this is why
she's say they had a hung jury.
Speaker 2 (24:25):
No, no, I again, we we will never know if
the jury was hung on all three counts, you know,
or if the jury was hung on only only one
of the counts. We can No one has ever brought
all the juries back and put them under pains and
penalties of perjury, and and and and asked them questions
(24:45):
and found out the truth of the matter. I think
it would have been an interesting It would have been
an interesting process, and I don't think that it would
have been something. It might have it might have set
a new standard here in Massachusetts, but that's mood at
this point. Unless the federal judge comes in and overturns,
in effect, files an opinion that overturns what the state
(25:07):
Supreme court judge and federal judges are low to loath
to do that. Sometimes what can happen is that a
prosecutor may charge get a little aggressive on the charge,
but they have lesser included charges, or they have separate
indictment counts, and they might say, well, you hit her with,
(25:28):
you know, with three charges, and you want to hook
her on at least one. I'm not sure that's the
way the most ethical prosecutor would work. But sometimes it's
unclear even to the prosecutor. Prosecutor what really happened, and
so they cast a wider net would be the way
(25:48):
to describe it. That's the only way I could describe it.
Speaker 6 (25:53):
I appreciate that. Yeah, No, I do appreciate that. So
it's the second trial, they're going to stick with the
second degree murder, up it down to like a man's no.
Speaker 2 (26:02):
I think, no, no, no, they're gonna they're gonna go
back on. Let now, they could turn around at some point,
I guess, uh, at any point the prosecution could on
its own drop it. Bet I don't think so. I
think she's gonna go to trial if nothing else changes, uh,
or the trial will begin anew and it'll be on
the three uh, the three counts that she's facing, which
(26:23):
you know again second degree involuntary manslaughter and leaving the
scene of an accident. So that's we're gonna We're gonna
watch the movie again, I think unless the Mardy Weinberg
gets in decides to go into federal court and some
federal judge says, hey, yeah, there is a double jeopardy
argument here that's substantial. Uh. But but again, federal judges
(26:44):
in a case like this would be loath to to
overrule a unanimous decision uh by a state supreme court.
In my opinion, Tom, thank.
Speaker 6 (26:54):
You for the questions, right, Thank you, I appreciate it.
Speaker 2 (26:58):
Thanks very much. We'll talk again. Thanks six one, triple
eight nine, nineteen thirty. Or we got a couple of
lines at six one, seven, nine, three one ten thirty.
Should Karen Reid be facing this second trial on all
three counts? That's the way it looks right tonight. That's
the way it looks tonight. Uh. There was no give, no,
(27:20):
no leniency from the state Supreme Court. Matt in frank
in Franklin, Massachusetts. Matt, you're next time night side welcome Matt.
Speaker 4 (27:27):
Yeah, I was I was going to just say this.
Karen Reid know how to say no, because she's like
six or seven million dollars in debt and counting them
in beaters running. And I feel like she would probably
listen to the lawyers and go to the federal court
for an appeal, even if it's like a lost cause
like this one.
Speaker 2 (27:45):
Well, she's gonna sit with her lawyers and they're gonna
advise her, and they're gonna say, look, we think we
have a shot, or we don't have a shot. I
think this case to the State Supreme Court was was
very appropriately filed and argued clearly. It was not dismissed
out of hand. They gave the court a number of options. Look,
(28:08):
if you're fighting for your good name, your reputation as
well as your liberty, how much money would you be
willing to not be? She she has had gofund me
pages as I'm sure you know, a wellspring of no.
Speaker 4 (28:23):
I know sheould have sell her house and everything else.
I just think, I mean, in the grand scheme of things,
if she had just plugged guilty, I don't know if
they gave her the option, And like I don't know
how it affected a civil trial and everything but it
probably would have been less than the seven millions who
spent to defend yourself. Then she'd be back, probably back
(28:43):
in the workforce by this point.
Speaker 2 (28:45):
Well, I don't know about that million. I assume you're
not a lawyer, right, No, not okay, So what would
you as a non lawyer, what would you what would
you advise her to plead guilty to a second degree murder.
Speaker 4 (29:03):
The involuntary manslaughter possible, I don't know.
Speaker 2 (29:07):
Plays So when the prosecutor comes back and says to you, okay,
we we might consider the plea, but but we want
at least five year prison sentence, what do you say
then to you to your client and A ha, that's
what I'm saying. I mean, would they come back and say, oh, yeah,
(29:28):
we're gonna let you plead guilty and we'll give you
a suspended sentence. We'll give you six months of house confinement.
I don't think so. I mean, it's become such.
Speaker 4 (29:37):
A yeah, now that's what I'm just assuming. That will
probably be a couple of years. But she has medical
issues and she could be back in the work for us.
But yeah, she's spending a fortune, and that looks like
the trial is going to be the same exact thing,
because they're probably.
Speaker 2 (29:52):
Not gonna be necessarily not necessarily because generally on a retrial,
it's an advantage to the defense lawyer because they have
seen Now they have hired the Norfolk County DIA's office
has hired a special prosecutor, a very good defense lawyer
named Hank Brennan.
Speaker 5 (30:10):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (30:11):
And yeah, he's pretty aggressive, and I guess that he's
trying to glean some information from the electronics of the car.
I don't know enough about car electronics to know if
the information that that he can get access to was
not available in the first trial, and if it's dispositive,
if it shows that, you know, she went from zero
to twenty five in two seconds and traveled a distance,
(30:35):
there could be new information in a second trial.
Speaker 4 (30:39):
But but yeah, I mean, he seems to be doing
a better job presenting the case in the previous one.
The previous one just kind of dragged on.
Speaker 2 (30:45):
Non Yeah, I think Brennan will be a more formidable prosecutor.
He comes in, takes a second look, he gets a
fresh look. He's not bound by the strategy that the
prior prosecut to used. He can start from scratch. He
can he can work within the framework. It'll be an
interesting process. Matt, did you follow the first trial pretty closely?
Speaker 5 (31:10):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (31:10):
I did. I was watching while I was working, and
I just kind of went on. It was like three
days at a time of talking to like them, they
or drunk about what happened three years ago. And I
just felt like from the beginning they were trying to
push it as close to July fourth, so because I
knew to Judge out of vacation Holme in the Cape,
and I feel like they were trying to get as
close to that date as possible so that she would
(31:31):
want to get out of there. But I think that
could probably happen again if it goes the same they.
Speaker 2 (31:35):
Went right up against. I think the verdict came back
or the non verdict, the decision to declear a mistrial
accrowd in July first, and maybe that played a little
while in it. I don't know. Hey, Matt, appreciate the call.
Thank you much. That was thoughtful. Thanks good night, six
thirty one line there, six one, seven, nine thirty. I
will be more than happy to take this into the
(31:57):
into the ten o'clock hour, but you have to show
on interest. I have another topic that we have standing by. Uh,
but if you want to talk about the Karen retrial,
the decision today from the State Supreme Court. I know
that this gets into legalities, and sometimes people are are
hesitant to try to talk legalities, but look, feel free
to bring it on. Your point of view is just
(32:18):
as valuable as mine or any expert witness. Back on
Nightside right after the break.
Speaker 1 (32:23):
Now back to Dan Ray live from the Window World
Nightside Studios on WBZ News Radio.
Speaker 2 (32:30):
Okay, we may go into the next hour. Let me
go to fill in Boston. Next, phild next on Nightside,
go right ahead there.
Speaker 7 (32:36):
I know more than I could show you. But no,
you're right, there was I believe there was a lawyer
on the jury. It was a foreman. But Dan, I'm
just it always this this this course system in this
area has been around for two or hundred years whatever,
And in this case, a similar case of verdict has
(32:58):
never happened before. Wouldn't it be a case history of
a situation whether they were free charges and three different
Apparently not?
Speaker 2 (33:08):
Well, apparently not, because if there had been this same
situation and again, remember this all prompted because some of
the jurors on their own contacted the defense lawyers as
well as apparently they contacted the prosecutors when you read
the decision today, and the prosecutors said, look, if you
(33:30):
talk to us, we're going to have to share this
with the defense lawyers and with the judge and whoever
called them. According to the trial the decision today, those
people sort of backed off and said, oh, we're good,
We're good. You know, this is a little bit of
(33:50):
the involvement of the media. It was such a high
profile case. They're probably about other cases there were not
anywhere near this as a high profile case maybe which
we don't know about. I would hope that if there
had been a previous case in nineteen thirty seven or
in eighteen fifty four in which the court had ruled
(34:12):
that the judge failed to adequately question the jurors about
the status of their deliberations on each of the counts,
that the defense lawyers would have included that in their
arguments and their filings.
Speaker 7 (34:32):
I can only assume, not to top off the vacation
thing for the judge, there was also an initial problem
with the jury sheet they had to vote on with.
Speaker 2 (34:42):
Yep, there was, yeah, there was some confusion about that.
Speaker 7 (34:45):
Yes, you think that would This thing is like an
ongoing soap opera. I'm holpos think it's resolved. But she's
got probably a book coming out. I mean, hopefully to
get to pay the bills in a soap opera, a
live soap opera.
Speaker 2 (34:59):
Right, Well, she's got it. She'll have a lot of bills.
You have to sell a lot of books. You don't
know if it comes back, And if it comes back
and she gets an acquittal, she's going to be in
a much better shape to recover. But I hate everybody's
got to make those decisions. Matt talked about why not
reach a plea deal. I don't know that if you,
(35:20):
if you truly believe that you're innocent and you did nothing,
why would you want to agree to a plea deal
in jail? Yeah, I can't ask me. They wake you
up early, they don't let you sleep in Phil and breakfast,
and they're no buffet breakfast as far as I know.
(35:40):
Thanks Phil, doctor, you, Sue, good night. Let me go
back to North End over Steve. Second call of this
hour from North End, ver go ahead, Steve.
Speaker 3 (35:49):
Hey, Dan, thanks for taking my call.
Speaker 2 (35:51):
More than welcome. Thank you for calling in your next
go ahead.
Speaker 3 (35:54):
I gotta say, I've been watching this from the beginning,
and I think of myself as a pretty rational andasonable
person what I would do if I were on the jury.
And there's just so many things that don't line up right,
and everyone's second guessing how the defense went about this
the first the first time around. But it's all about
you know what, what's the coincidence and what's not And
(36:16):
if you look at it from the beginning, you look
at this, the treatment of this murder of a Boston
police officer, right the whole investigation, we use.
Speaker 2 (36:29):
It a word murder. We know it's a homicide. Okay,
we know all of that, but we don't know what's
a murder yet.
Speaker 3 (36:33):
Okay, go ahead, Okay, it appears it appears to be.
But the investigation itself was done so differently than any
other investigation that any of those whether it was a
state police, the Canton cops, whatever, had done previously. You
look at their own track record, I mean, at the
end of the day, in your estimation, my estimation, whatever,
(36:56):
this is getting more traction, and Quie frankly glad that
it that it is nationally and maybe even internationally are
people going to look back at Massachusetts in five years
and say, you know, three years, two years, what a
laughing stock? This is anything that was in their control
was either manipulated, missing, or you know, or deleted.
Speaker 2 (37:21):
Right.
Speaker 3 (37:21):
And if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck.
And I hate to use that analogy because of what
that's a good analogy.
Speaker 2 (37:28):
That's a great analogy. You know, a lot of people,
but particularly people who are supportive of Karen Reid, will
jump upon this and say, hey, look look at the history.
We had the witches, We had the Salem witch trials
in this state, and this is they will see that
as an extension of that. We had sackle Vinzetti. They'll
see that as an extension of that. You know, so
you might be you may hit upon something here.
Speaker 3 (37:50):
Well, Dan, Dan, I've been following it right, And I
don't want to say too much, but I am a
fellow Falcon as well, Bentley Falcon. And and so that's
how I partially got into this.
Speaker 2 (38:00):
I' that's what she taught. She taught she taught.
Speaker 3 (38:04):
Yeah, right, and she's a she's a rational person, you know.
There there's I'm sure she was grieving at the moment
words were put in her mouth. And its just it
is what it is.
Speaker 6 (38:15):
I mean, what what first.
Speaker 3 (38:16):
Responders don't respond, whether it's a homeowner, whether it's atf agent.
So much smells in this case, and the truth will
come out.
Speaker 2 (38:26):
Let us hope the truth. The truth should always come out.
It's as simple as that. Hey, Steve, that was a
great call. I really do appreciate it, and I'm sure
that if Karen Reid is listening, she'll appreciate the support
from a fellow Falcon. As you said, thank you so much.
We lost them, they didn't even get a chance. Sake
so long. We will stick with this. Fred and Brian,
(38:48):
you guys stay there, you'll be first up. If you're
not on the line, now's the time to dial in,
because we can always take their true calls and then
move on, or we can continue to talk about it.
You decide.
As Night's side with Dan Ray on WBZ Cooston's new video.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Big decision today from the State Supreme Court. The seven
justices concluded that not only was Karen Reid going back
to trial for a series of charges related to the
death of her boyfriend, former Boston police officer John O'Keefe,
(00:29):
but in addition, in addition, she will go back to
trial on all three of the indictments that she still faces.
She went through a trial in which the first jury
last July said they were hung. They were hung jury,
and some of the jurists came forward subsequent to the
(00:54):
conclusion of the case and said that they were hung
on one of the issues, which was leaving the scene
of an accident, and that they had voted or they
were unanimous in their belief that you should be acquitted
on two of the other issues, one of them the
more serious charge of second agree murder with us. Now
(01:16):
he's Boston attorney Phil Tracy, he's the defense lawyer. And Phil,
I'm sure you've had a chance to look at this decisions,
thirty five page decision you I think Field, the decision
was the proper decision under the circumstances. Even though you
are a defense lawyer, as I understand that, I know
you are a lawyer.
Speaker 3 (01:37):
I think.
Speaker 2 (01:41):
All defense lawyers were at one point to prosecutor. Right there.
Speaker 4 (01:45):
I guess that's right.
Speaker 5 (01:47):
But in any event, thank you Dan, thanks for having
me on and good to talk to you. The sanctity
of the jury system is really something that the courts
never want to fiddle with. They don't want to make
changes in that procedure. The ananymity of the juror's names
(02:10):
and protecting the jurors from outside influence, and in this
case there was a lot is really important. So I
think the court is not going in any direction that's
going to say bring these jurors back and put them
under oath. Unless there's a racial bias or some sort
(02:31):
of you know, corruption type thing, somebody trying to buy
off a dura, that type of thing, you then bring
the jura back in and you go for it. The
deliberations did not result in a verdict, that's what they said.
They said it was dead luck, and therefore it's going
to have to go back to trial. It could be
(02:52):
a pyrrhic victory though, because the charges she was acquitted on.
If they could go back just and do the involuntary manslaughter.
That would be sounds like that's the primary position for
(03:12):
the prosecution, because it looks as if the juror those
jurors may not be any different than the new jurors,
and they would find them not guilty of secondary murder,
but possibly guilty of the involuntary Mansillam, I believe the
count was nine to three for guilty.
Speaker 2 (03:32):
Well, that's interesting that the sanctity of the jury is
that that was disclosed in the decision today. I was
not in court when the case was argued, and I
don't know if it was if it was disclosed, but
that was an interesting point. I'm surprised that the SJC
allowed that point to be memorialized in their decision. I mean,
(03:56):
it would seem to me that that could potentially influence
a future jury.
Speaker 5 (04:01):
It could, but I think you've seen Karen read on
TV on and on again.
Speaker 2 (04:10):
Well she has you know, she has the right to
function in the court of public opinion.
Speaker 5 (04:14):
Uh, she is doing a good job of it. Yeah,
And so what you're saying is that the nine to
three UH count could influence fo to jury's And that's correct,
no question.
Speaker 2 (04:29):
I just I just think that the prosecutors cannot campaign
in the court of public opinion. They you know they
they would never I think discuss the case as openly
as either she or or her lawyers have. I view
this and and we're going to disagree, so feel free,
(04:50):
you know your best shot. I view this that the
court missed an opportunity to in effect establish a procedure.
I think that judge should have on her own, as
was as they say in the court of law, Sue
Sponte should have inquired of the jurors discreetly. I should
(05:10):
have said, am I to understand that you are irrevocably
hung up and and and conflicted on all three counts?
Have you have you agreed on a verdict? Have you
come to a conclusion on any of the counts. I
think that her instructions are a little confusing, and I
(05:32):
think that that may have led to what went on here.
And I just think that the court, I would bet
you that if another judge has a similar case, councilor Tracy, where.
Speaker 5 (05:43):
From from here on in in every case that's like this.
But I think that you know, there were three counts.
There were three counts, and so they each had different
verdict slips. So this is where the jurors, I'm not
going to say they filed up, but they didn't know
(06:04):
what to do. If they had signaled that we've made
a decision on two of the three cases, she could
have taken that verdict and then this case would be
retried only on the involuntary manslaughter case. Now, in a way,
(06:25):
is what I'm alluding to, is if I think it'd
be better for the prosecution if they were only trying
her on involuntary mansluter because what I think happened in
this case, and like everybody else laid people lawyers or whatever.
I think they had an argument. She drove the car
(06:47):
and reverse twenty five miles an hour. That's an incredible factor.
She hit him. She may or may not know she
hit him. I don't think she knew she hit him.
But then, of course as she sobered up, she find it.
She said where is he now? She gets her girlfriends,
they go back. She starts yelling, I hit him. I
must have hit him. That indicates to me that that
(07:10):
is the correct result of this case. How itever comes
out that was an involuntary manslaught due to her alcohol.
You said driving the vehicle and hitting him. Whether she
knew it or not, it's you know, I mean, that's
involuntary manslaw. She didn't didn't intend to hit him.
Speaker 2 (07:32):
That's what I think I could see. Yeah, and I
can support you on that. I can see that there's
some sort of a bitter argument that might have started
at one of the bars continued, and he decided that
he wanted to go to the party, and she didn't
want to go to the party, and he said, drop
me off. He dropped her off, and she had the
car in reverse inadvertently, and that would that she would
(07:57):
drive off quickly and make us maybe so that that
could have and maybe they can pull some information out
of the electronics of the car to figure to figure
that out.
Speaker 5 (08:10):
Well, you know. The other and of course, clouded into
this was the uh are infused into this was the
borish behavior of some of the past prosecution's witness, including
police officers and state troopers. And that turned people off.
You know, that would turn a duror off. A state
police officer acting in that fashion. Yeah, that that was
(08:35):
not good.
Speaker 2 (08:36):
And and his fate, Michael Proctor, is his fate. His
professional fate still hangs in the balance. The trial starts
in April. First, it'll be interesting sebody Weinberg, who's a
good appellate lawyer, good trial.
Speaker 5 (08:48):
Lawyer, tremendous, hemendous.
Speaker 2 (08:50):
Lawyer, that that he was thinking of, you know, trying
to go into federal court because I think that the
issue here is obviously double chef and wouldn't it be
interesting if our state supreme court was somehow overruled by
the US Supreme Court. I have no idea if you'll
follow through on that.
Speaker 5 (09:13):
Well, there's no question that you know, he's a top
notch attorney. We've my office and he have had a
relationship for many years. But I don't know if the
Supreme Court would take the case. On the other hand,
the issue you just mentioned, double jeopardy is fundamental to
(09:34):
the core of of of our judicial system, whether it's
federal district court, superior court, any state of the Union.
Once you have a double jeopardy argument, that's saying that's
very held in such a high standard. In other words,
(09:55):
you can't retry somebody. Now. Of course, the jury, by
the way, the lawyers for both the prosecution and the defense,
they might have come up with the idea Judge, why
don't you check and see what counts that they They
didn't do that, so you know, but you said it earlier.
(10:16):
From now on, every time there's a case like it
with three different counts, three different verdict slips, the judge
is going to quiet, well, you hung on what one
of them? Two of them? Are all three of them,
and that's that's what's going to be the rule of
law from now on. There's no question that that's that's
(10:38):
what's going to happen.
Speaker 2 (10:39):
You know. It's it's interesting. I think I don't know
where I read this, but I think that one or
more of the members of the jury were lawyers. And
the notes that were sent back as I read them
in the context of the decision today, obviously they were
written by someone who was pretty well versed in the law.
And I wonder if, I don't know, uh, if if
(11:03):
if one of the four people, if the fourth person
of the jury was a lawyer, if maybe their language
was a little more stilted than it needed to be,
or maybe that individual was trying to be more cautious
in what he wrote in terms of notes to the judge.
Speaker 4 (11:22):
It's fascinating.
Speaker 2 (11:22):
It's a fascina any case either way, she's supposed to
go back on trial on April first as this case, and.
Speaker 5 (11:28):
I think he will go to trial on April first,
but they they could now what the strategy for an
appeal would be to finally appeal and ask for a
stay of the state court state court trial and.
Speaker 2 (11:44):
Which which again would would inure to the benefit of
the defendant, uh and would not go up. I mean
there'd be no way to. It would have to be tried,
I assume before a district court judge, and then go
through the appeals process if it ever were to get sure,
sorry to the to the US Supreme Court. I don't
think the.
Speaker 5 (12:04):
A long It's a long and winding road to get
to that spot. Phil, Phil Tracy is always yes, eggs Ded.
Speaker 2 (12:15):
Thank you so much, appreciate your analysis, and well we
will talk soon, my friend, talk to you soon. Bye
right now, bye bye Now. I'd like to hear from you,
if you are a listener, I'd love to know what
your thought is on this case. We can go. I
think most of us are familiar with the case. Uh
(12:36):
and uh. You now probably are familiar with what the
court did today. I can try to recap it for
you and give you what what what the holding of
the Supreme Court was. I thought it's a missed opportunity.
I think that the court could have said that in
this case she should go back to trial on the
manslaughter account, but the first two counts, Uh. The judge
(13:00):
should have brought the jurors back, or at a minimum,
they could have given the instructions in the body of
the case to say that that henceforwarths going for going forward.
Judges should be of this case in mind. Again, Look,
it's this is a tragedy, no matter how you look
(13:20):
at it. It's as simple as that. It's a it's
a horrific case. Never should have happened this way. John
O'Keefe should still be alive today. Maybe they would have
split and gone in different directions. But well, at the
expense that not only the financial expense, but the expense
on all all, all both of these families has just
(13:43):
been tremendous. Get your reaction to the Supreme Court decision today.
Six one, seven, two, four ten, thirty six seven nine.
My name is Dan Ray and this is Nightside. Feel
free join the conversation. Every everyone can be an armchair lawyer.
Speaker 1 (13:57):
Now bet to Dan Ray Window World Life Side Studios
on WBZ the news radio.
Speaker 2 (14:05):
So the decision that came down today from the State
Supreme Court here in Massachusetts was a unanimous decision seven
members of the court, and generally these decisions very rarely
in state court. In the federal system, at the US
Supreme Court, you often have concurrences and descents. This court
(14:27):
has a history in Massachusetts, the State Supreme Court as
a history of trying to reach consensus and speak as one,
and they indeed did speak today as one. Let me
try to get the point here that I would like
to make, and I'd love to hear what points you
(14:48):
would like to make. First of all, tremendous amount of
expense has been involved in this case, and clearly something
horrific happened. The individual victim in this cage, John O'Keefe,
lost his life. The question is is there any sort
(15:08):
of guilt that is associated with whatever took his life?
And clearly this trial went on for a long time
last spring, and it'll probably go on a long time
if and when it resumes on April first. The problem
(15:29):
that I have is that in a case like this,
in any superior court case of this magnitude. There's a
lot of pressure on the judge because the judge is
the ultimate arbiter of so many aspects of the case.
(15:49):
And when this jury came back three times saying that
they were irretrievably conflicted, and the notes that came back
with that came back from the jury, Foreman said that
they just, you know, they had reached a point where
morally they could not arrive at a decision. The question, though,
(16:13):
is when they when they told the judge that, and
they did it in notes, it's the way it works.
There wasn't much of a colloquay between the judge and
the four person of the jury, and I think the
judge could have easily asked, and I guess that the
(16:36):
defense lawyers or the prosecution could have inquired of the
judge and made a motion to request the judge. But
I think the judge on her own could have said
to the four person of the jury, am I to
understand that you are irretrievably conflicted on all three counts?
(16:57):
Or are you conflicted on merely one or two of
the counts. I'm going to, you know, prepare to to
clear a mistrial. However, before I do that. I want
to make absolutely certain that the expense and the efforts
(17:18):
by the prosecution and the defendants in this case, I
have to ask this final question, are you conflicted, are
you hung however whatever phraseology you want to employ on
all three counts, or have you reached a partial verdict
(17:38):
on any of these three counts that question, I assume
if the the jurors you know, post verdict, post trial,
are telling the truth. The four person might have said,
your honor, we are hung up on one count. We
(18:01):
have substantially agreed or agreed on two of the counts.
At that point, the judge could have said, well, please
go back and execute verdict slips on the counts on
which you have agreed, and then, of course she also
could have pulled the jurors. All of this would have
been avoided if the judge had done that. And I,
(18:27):
as Phil Tracy, said, this should now be the practice.
And I think that the court missed an opportunity today
because look, one of the things we want to try
to do is use the courts as officially and as
effective as fairly as possible. Clearly, but on a trial
like this, if the jury had agreed that there was,
you know, a unanimous consensus on one or more of
(18:51):
the counts, then the retrial could go forward on the
counts where there wasn't agreement. We're going to take a
quick break here for the new for the news at
the bottom of the hour, I'm got some callers lined up.
We'll get to Tom and Matt, and I've got some
room for you. Six six. Are you looking forward to
(19:17):
the retrial of Karen Reid on all three counts as
a result of the Supreme Court decision today and unless
her appell at attorney, Attorney Weinberg takes this case or
attempts to take this case in the federal court, I
suspect that it's on schedule for retrial on April first.
We'll see further developments. I'd love to know your thoughts
(19:39):
on the decision by the stay Supreme Court today. Back
in Nightside, right after the news at the bottom of.
Speaker 1 (19:45):
The hour night Side with Dan Ray, I'm WBZ Boston's
News Radio.
Speaker 2 (19:53):
All right, we're going to go to phone calls, and
as I say, we don't have to be a lawyer
to discuss this. This is one that really captivated us
the interest of people here and also people around the country.
Is it is a huge story. It has become a
national story. Believe it or not, Well you've seen it.
So it is. Tom is in North Andover. Tom, your
(20:15):
first this hour and nights. I appreciate you calling in.
Speaker 6 (20:18):
Go right ahead, Tom, Thanks the tust to Mike car
I am a question on how to are you the
case anyway? Mightn't have to pass able a matter, but
you know, argue like who's who's just one of the
fact focus two people in one a day and chim
you know, who have to be responsible? That's we're trying
to find out is responsible for the death. And can
(20:41):
you you know, are you returned to how much responsibility
is on the person who they're committed the crime and
the person who also died. I mean, we have a
man never the street filling up prison. It didn't look
like I've seen some videos on it. You couldn't see
any more than fifteen feet and you know he's he's
(21:01):
gonna take some responsibility for her own actions. Now her
is also you know, driving at that speed and reverse
in a blinding stand and I know how many cars
and Sue Ruth the have a lot of blind spots too.
You know the big swimmer sides and everything. And so
if you I would have chased that it's fifty one
percent of one party spot and thirty nine percent of
the other. That that could you an acrital while if
(21:23):
you were reverse at the other doesn't matter which party,
but I you were chased like that? Is that a
viable type of defense or offense?
Speaker 2 (21:33):
That would be a viable strategy in a civil suit.
If the O'Keefe family or his estate were to sue
Karen Reid, that that would be more likely than not
a different you know, different standard in a civil in
a civil action, uh in the criminal case in order
(21:55):
to convict a defendant, because it's a higher standard because
the it is just not the financial exposure that an
individual would have. You know, I fall and slip on
your property and I'm going to sue you and you
in effect your insurance company. No one's liberty is at stake.
(22:15):
Her liberty is at stake. And as a consequence of that,
in order for a judge to you know, find her guilty,
a jury of her peers has to find all the
elements of the crime that is charged beyond a reasonable doubt.
So they have to show in the in the case
of a second degree murder, that there was an intention
(22:39):
to do some harm. Involuntary manslaughter, it could be much
more someone was careless and they used such poor judgment
that it rose to the point of being reckless. Now again,
you then apply the facts of the case against whatever
(23:01):
standard you're using. And so that's why it's in a
court of law, and that's why it seems a little
mysterious to people. But she did not, I'm sure, intend
to kill him. That's why she's not charged with murder
in the first degree. I mean, if if she had,
if she had said to someone, you know, look, I'm
gonna kill him tonight, that's you know, this premeditation deliberation,
(23:25):
that's the standard for first degree murder. That's the most
serious charge. This is, as Phil Tracy said, involuntary manslaughter
case at best in my opinion, and I think also
when Phil Tracy's opinion, Uh, And they're gonna have to
go through the meat grinder again here. And it's I
(23:46):
just wish the judge could have could have asked the
questions of the jury back in July and may be
disposed of at least a portion of the case. Clied.
Have I clarified this at all for you? And know
if I confuse you?
Speaker 6 (24:02):
No, No, not really, you know, I understand the several
cases and so have been a agument in a several
case than a prosecution of a criminal case. So do
you think that the second to Throm murder was herber
prosecution which brought out some vengeance from there's ever from
the state police, from the prosecutor. And this is why
she's say they had a hung jury.
Speaker 2 (24:25):
No, no, I again, we we will never know if
the jury was hung on all three counts, you know,
or if the jury was hung on only only one
of the counts. We can No one has ever brought
all the juries back and put them under pains and
penalties of perjury, and and and and asked them questions
(24:45):
and found out the truth of the matter. I think
it would have been an interesting It would have been
an interesting process, and I don't think that it would
have been something. It might have it might have set
a new standard here in Massachusetts, but that's mood at
this point. Unless the federal judge comes in and overturns,
in effect, files an opinion that overturns what the state
(25:07):
Supreme court judge and federal judges are low to loath
to do that. Sometimes what can happen is that a
prosecutor may charge get a little aggressive on the charge,
but they have lesser included charges, or they have separate
indictment counts, and they might say, well, you hit her with,
(25:28):
you know, with three charges, and you want to hook
her on at least one. I'm not sure that's the
way the most ethical prosecutor would work. But sometimes it's
unclear even to the prosecutor. Prosecutor what really happened, and
so they cast a wider net would be the way
(25:48):
to describe it. That's the only way I could describe it.
Speaker 6 (25:53):
I appreciate that. Yeah, No, I do appreciate that. So
it's the second trial, they're going to stick with the
second degree murder, up it down to like a man's no.
Speaker 2 (26:02):
I think, no, no, no, they're gonna they're gonna go
back on. Let now, they could turn around at some point,
I guess, uh, at any point the prosecution could on
its own drop it. Bet I don't think so. I
think she's gonna go to trial if nothing else changes, uh,
or the trial will begin anew and it'll be on
the three uh, the three counts that she's facing, which
(26:23):
you know again second degree involuntary manslaughter and leaving the
scene of an accident. So that's we're gonna We're gonna
watch the movie again, I think unless the Mardy Weinberg
gets in decides to go into federal court and some
federal judge says, hey, yeah, there is a double jeopardy
argument here that's substantial. Uh. But but again, federal judges
(26:44):
in a case like this would be loath to to
overrule a unanimous decision uh by a state supreme court.
In my opinion, Tom, thank.
Speaker 6 (26:54):
You for the questions, right, Thank you, I appreciate it.
Speaker 2 (26:58):
Thanks very much. We'll talk again. Thanks six one, triple
eight nine, nineteen thirty. Or we got a couple of
lines at six one, seven, nine, three one ten thirty.
Should Karen Reid be facing this second trial on all
three counts? That's the way it looks right tonight. That's
the way it looks tonight. Uh. There was no give, no,
(27:20):
no leniency from the state Supreme Court. Matt in frank
in Franklin, Massachusetts. Matt, you're next time night side welcome Matt.
Speaker 4 (27:27):
Yeah, I was I was going to just say this.
Karen Reid know how to say no, because she's like
six or seven million dollars in debt and counting them
in beaters running. And I feel like she would probably
listen to the lawyers and go to the federal court
for an appeal, even if it's like a lost cause
like this one.
Speaker 2 (27:45):
Well, she's gonna sit with her lawyers and they're gonna
advise her, and they're gonna say, look, we think we
have a shot, or we don't have a shot. I
think this case to the State Supreme Court was was
very appropriately filed and argued clearly. It was not dismissed
out of hand. They gave the court a number of options. Look,
(28:08):
if you're fighting for your good name, your reputation as
well as your liberty, how much money would you be
willing to not be? She she has had gofund me
pages as I'm sure you know, a wellspring of no.
Speaker 4 (28:23):
I know sheould have sell her house and everything else.
I just think, I mean, in the grand scheme of things,
if she had just plugged guilty, I don't know if
they gave her the option, And like I don't know
how it affected a civil trial and everything but it
probably would have been less than the seven millions who
spent to defend yourself. Then she'd be back, probably back
(28:43):
in the workforce by this point.
Speaker 2 (28:45):
Well, I don't know about that million. I assume you're
not a lawyer, right, No, not okay, So what would
you as a non lawyer, what would you what would
you advise her to plead guilty to a second degree murder.
Speaker 4 (29:03):
The involuntary manslaughter possible, I don't know.
Speaker 2 (29:07):
Plays So when the prosecutor comes back and says to you, okay,
we we might consider the plea, but but we want
at least five year prison sentence, what do you say
then to you to your client and A ha, that's
what I'm saying. I mean, would they come back and say, oh, yeah,
(29:28):
we're gonna let you plead guilty and we'll give you
a suspended sentence. We'll give you six months of house confinement.
I don't think so. I mean, it's become such.
Speaker 4 (29:37):
A yeah, now that's what I'm just assuming. That will
probably be a couple of years. But she has medical
issues and she could be back in the work for us.
But yeah, she's spending a fortune, and that looks like
the trial is going to be the same exact thing,
because they're probably.
Speaker 2 (29:52):
Not gonna be necessarily not necessarily because generally on a retrial,
it's an advantage to the defense lawyer because they have
seen Now they have hired the Norfolk County DIA's office
has hired a special prosecutor, a very good defense lawyer
named Hank Brennan.
Speaker 5 (30:10):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (30:11):
And yeah, he's pretty aggressive, and I guess that he's
trying to glean some information from the electronics of the car.
I don't know enough about car electronics to know if
the information that that he can get access to was
not available in the first trial, and if it's dispositive,
if it shows that, you know, she went from zero
to twenty five in two seconds and traveled a distance,
(30:35):
there could be new information in a second trial.
Speaker 4 (30:39):
But but yeah, I mean, he seems to be doing
a better job presenting the case in the previous one.
The previous one just kind of dragged on.
Speaker 2 (30:45):
Non Yeah, I think Brennan will be a more formidable prosecutor.
He comes in, takes a second look, he gets a
fresh look. He's not bound by the strategy that the
prior prosecut to used. He can start from scratch. He
can he can work within the framework. It'll be an
interesting process. Matt, did you follow the first trial pretty closely?
Speaker 5 (31:10):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (31:10):
I did. I was watching while I was working, and
I just kind of went on. It was like three
days at a time of talking to like them, they
or drunk about what happened three years ago. And I
just felt like from the beginning they were trying to
push it as close to July fourth, so because I
knew to Judge out of vacation Holme in the Cape,
and I feel like they were trying to get as
close to that date as possible so that she would
(31:31):
want to get out of there. But I think that
could probably happen again if it goes the same they.
Speaker 2 (31:35):
Went right up against. I think the verdict came back
or the non verdict, the decision to declear a mistrial
accrowd in July first, and maybe that played a little
while in it. I don't know. Hey, Matt, appreciate the call.
Thank you much. That was thoughtful. Thanks good night, six
thirty one line there, six one, seven, nine thirty. I
will be more than happy to take this into the
(31:57):
into the ten o'clock hour, but you have to show
on interest. I have another topic that we have standing by. Uh,
but if you want to talk about the Karen retrial,
the decision today from the State Supreme Court. I know
that this gets into legalities, and sometimes people are are
hesitant to try to talk legalities, but look, feel free
to bring it on. Your point of view is just
(32:18):
as valuable as mine or any expert witness. Back on
Nightside right after the break.
Speaker 1 (32:23):
Now back to Dan Ray live from the Window World
Nightside Studios on WBZ News Radio.
Speaker 2 (32:30):
Okay, we may go into the next hour. Let me
go to fill in Boston. Next, phild next on Nightside,
go right ahead there.
Speaker 7 (32:36):
I know more than I could show you. But no,
you're right, there was I believe there was a lawyer
on the jury. It was a foreman. But Dan, I'm
just it always this this this course system in this
area has been around for two or hundred years whatever,
And in this case, a similar case of verdict has
(32:58):
never happened before. Wouldn't it be a case history of
a situation whether they were free charges and three different
Apparently not?
Speaker 2 (33:08):
Well, apparently not, because if there had been this same
situation and again, remember this all prompted because some of
the jurors on their own contacted the defense lawyers as
well as apparently they contacted the prosecutors when you read
the decision today, and the prosecutors said, look, if you
(33:30):
talk to us, we're going to have to share this
with the defense lawyers and with the judge and whoever
called them. According to the trial the decision today, those
people sort of backed off and said, oh, we're good,
We're good. You know, this is a little bit of
(33:50):
the involvement of the media. It was such a high
profile case. They're probably about other cases there were not
anywhere near this as a high profile case maybe which
we don't know about. I would hope that if there
had been a previous case in nineteen thirty seven or
in eighteen fifty four in which the court had ruled
(34:12):
that the judge failed to adequately question the jurors about
the status of their deliberations on each of the counts,
that the defense lawyers would have included that in their
arguments and their filings.
Speaker 7 (34:32):
I can only assume, not to top off the vacation
thing for the judge, there was also an initial problem
with the jury sheet they had to vote on with.
Speaker 2 (34:42):
Yep, there was, yeah, there was some confusion about that.
Speaker 7 (34:45):
Yes, you think that would This thing is like an
ongoing soap opera. I'm holpos think it's resolved. But she's
got probably a book coming out. I mean, hopefully to
get to pay the bills in a soap opera, a
live soap opera.
Speaker 2 (34:59):
Right, Well, she's got it. She'll have a lot of bills.
You have to sell a lot of books. You don't
know if it comes back, And if it comes back
and she gets an acquittal, she's going to be in
a much better shape to recover. But I hate everybody's
got to make those decisions. Matt talked about why not
reach a plea deal. I don't know that if you,
(35:20):
if you truly believe that you're innocent and you did nothing,
why would you want to agree to a plea deal
in jail? Yeah, I can't ask me. They wake you
up early, they don't let you sleep in Phil and breakfast,
and they're no buffet breakfast as far as I know.
(35:40):
Thanks Phil, doctor, you, Sue, good night. Let me go
back to North End over Steve. Second call of this
hour from North End, ver go ahead, Steve.
Speaker 3 (35:49):
Hey, Dan, thanks for taking my call.
Speaker 2 (35:51):
More than welcome. Thank you for calling in your next
go ahead.
Speaker 3 (35:54):
I gotta say, I've been watching this from the beginning,
and I think of myself as a pretty rational andasonable
person what I would do if I were on the jury.
And there's just so many things that don't line up right,
and everyone's second guessing how the defense went about this
the first the first time around. But it's all about
you know what, what's the coincidence and what's not And
(36:16):
if you look at it from the beginning, you look
at this, the treatment of this murder of a Boston
police officer, right the whole investigation, we use.
Speaker 2 (36:29):
It a word murder. We know it's a homicide. Okay,
we know all of that, but we don't know what's
a murder yet.
Speaker 3 (36:33):
Okay, go ahead, Okay, it appears it appears to be.
But the investigation itself was done so differently than any
other investigation that any of those whether it was a
state police, the Canton cops, whatever, had done previously. You
look at their own track record, I mean, at the
end of the day, in your estimation, my estimation, whatever,
(36:56):
this is getting more traction, and Quie frankly glad that
it that it is nationally and maybe even internationally are
people going to look back at Massachusetts in five years
and say, you know, three years, two years, what a
laughing stock? This is anything that was in their control
was either manipulated, missing, or you know, or deleted.
Speaker 2 (37:21):
Right.
Speaker 3 (37:21):
And if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck.
And I hate to use that analogy because of what
that's a good analogy.
Speaker 2 (37:28):
That's a great analogy. You know, a lot of people,
but particularly people who are supportive of Karen Reid, will
jump upon this and say, hey, look look at the history.
We had the witches, We had the Salem witch trials
in this state, and this is they will see that
as an extension of that. We had sackle Vinzetti. They'll
see that as an extension of that. You know, so
you might be you may hit upon something here.
Speaker 3 (37:50):
Well, Dan, Dan, I've been following it right, And I
don't want to say too much, but I am a
fellow Falcon as well, Bentley Falcon. And and so that's
how I partially got into this.
Speaker 2 (38:00):
I' that's what she taught. She taught she taught.
Speaker 3 (38:04):
Yeah, right, and she's a she's a rational person, you know.
There there's I'm sure she was grieving at the moment
words were put in her mouth. And its just it
is what it is.
Speaker 6 (38:15):
I mean, what what first.
Speaker 3 (38:16):
Responders don't respond, whether it's a homeowner, whether it's atf agent.
So much smells in this case, and the truth will
come out.
Speaker 2 (38:26):
Let us hope the truth. The truth should always come out.
It's as simple as that. Hey, Steve, that was a
great call. I really do appreciate it, and I'm sure
that if Karen Reid is listening, she'll appreciate the support
from a fellow Falcon. As you said, thank you so much.
We lost them, they didn't even get a chance. Sake
so long. We will stick with this. Fred and Brian,
(38:48):
you guys stay there, you'll be first up. If you're
not on the line, now's the time to dial in,
because we can always take their true calls and then
move on, or we can continue to talk about it.
You decide.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
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!