September 20, 2024 • 50 mins
Karen Read’s appeal of a judge’s decision to deny a motion to dismiss two of the three criminal charges against her for the death of her boyfriend John O’Keefe, will be heard this November. Read’s attorneys argue they received communication from jurors indicating they agreed to acquit Read of the murder charge and the leaving the scene charge, which constitutes double jeopardy. Attorneys William Kickham and Robert George joined Dan to discuss.
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 (00:00):
It's going to be a windy and cool nights to
(00:01):
night under a mainly cloudy sky. We'll have rain at times,
which will be steady US near the coast, much of
the time west of Boston will be dry, low tempter
around fifty nine. We do have coastal flood advisories in
effect all the way through Sunday evening with the storm
system off to our south and high surf advisories are
an effect through tomorrow, as it will be breezy and
cool Tomorrow and Tomorrow night with clouds and some rain
(00:21):
at times close to the coast. Couple of showers farther
inland high sixty two Tomorrow, low fifty eight Tomorrow night,
an early shower toward the Cape Island. Sunday otherwise breezy
and cool with clouds and breaks of sun high sixty five,
clouds and some sun Monday with the cool breeze, high
again around sixty five. I'm accurate with the VideA reallotis
Brian Hops at WBZ Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
Life is full of amazing things, but sometimes it can
feel overwhelming. Whatever you're going through. The nine eight eight
lifeline is here, call or text nine to eight eight
to get mental health support around the clock twenty four
to seven. This is a message from the Massachusetts Department
of Public Health.
Speaker 3 (00:56):
If you're replacing your windows, call eight hundred six four
nine thirty six hundred eight hundred six nine thirty six
hundred a better quality window professionally installed for the right price,
right window.
Speaker 4 (01:12):
You know about courage I learned from my adoptive mom.
She said, sometimes you just gotta hold on and no,
we'll get through this.
Speaker 5 (01:20):
Mom. We are so high up.
Speaker 6 (01:22):
Hold my hand.
Speaker 7 (01:24):
No, you hold my hand.
Speaker 8 (01:26):
Here we go.
Speaker 7 (01:30):
Learn about adopting a team from Foster Care. You can't
imagine the reward. Visit adopt us Kids dot org to
find out more. This message is brought to you by
adopt Us Kids, the US Department of Health and Human Services,
and the ad Council.
Speaker 9 (01:43):
Want a satisfying meal for just six bucks, try the
new six dollars meal deal from Duncan. It's a medium
hot or iced coffee and a bacon, egg and cheese
sandwich and a side of hash browns for six bucks.
America runs on Duncan.
Speaker 10 (01:57):
Let's get back now to Night Side with Dan Ray.
I'm Al Griffith, WBZ, Boston's news radio.
Speaker 6 (02:04):
It's nice with Dan Ray on Boston.
Speaker 8 (02:10):
All right, welcome back, Thanks very much, Al Griffith. As
we head toward what we're now in our ten o'clock hour,
by the way, coming up at eleven tonight, in the
twentieth hour we do we'll do an hour. You're a
brush with celebrity. Everybody has met a celebrity during their life. Again,
to some people a celebrity as a president. Some people
it might be the local selectman or whomever. We love
(02:33):
to hear your stories about how they treated you, the good,
the bad, and the ugly. It's as simple. It's as
simple as that. We're going to talk about the latest chapter, actually,
what will be the next chapter in the Karen Reid case.
I have with me tonight. Too well experienced lawyers here
(02:54):
in the Boston area. William Kickham, who does criminal fence
work and also deals with catastrophic on TWRT cases. Never
quite heard it described that way, but Bill Kickham, Welcome
to Nightside. Bill's practices out of the community of Westwood,
Welcome Bill, how are you?
Speaker 11 (03:15):
How are you good?
Speaker 8 (03:16):
And Attorney Robert George, who has handled some extremely high
profile cases and gentlemen, let me, Hi, Bob, how are
you tonight?
Speaker 12 (03:24):
How are you doing Dan?
Speaker 8 (03:25):
I'm doing great, So let me kind of set the
stage here. And I might be dead wrong on this.
As a matter of fact, one lawyer told me the
other night I was dead wrong on this. But for
those who have followed the Karen Reid trial closely that
sat on that trial told the judge in July that
they were hung. The judge never inquired of the jury
(03:48):
as to if they were hung on all three counts
for which he was being charged, or if they had
reached a verdict on one or more counts subsequent to that.
The way this story has to developed is some of
the jurors reached out to defense lawyers, and also I
believe at least one juror reached out to the prosecution
and said, hey, we had decided unanimously to dismiss the
(04:12):
charge of second degree murder and the second charge of
leaving the scene of an accident causing personal injury and death.
They had voted to convictor on manslaughter, which was one count.
So I don't know the truth of that, but the
judge never inquired. And now the defense lawyers for Karen
Reid have petitioned the State Supreme Court here in Massachusetts
(04:36):
through a gatekeeper hearing. They were looking for a gate
keeper what I call a gatekeeper hearing in front of
a single justice. The single justice decided not to hold
a hearing, but read the file and basically said, we'll
have the full court sit on this case, hear this
case sometime in November. It is to me a case
of first impression. I'm going to ask both of these lawyers,
(04:59):
who were more experience than I am, for sure, to
tell me if they think the defendants have a chance
in this case. Obviously, they're arguing that if a jury
did sit and did reach a verdict on two of
the counts, although those that those decisions never became a
(05:20):
verdict and that they were handed into the court, should
Karen Reid have to face a second trial on all
three of these charges or should the two charges be
dismissed and she just goes to trial on the manslaught
of charge. Let me start off with you, Bill Kickham,
give me your quick sense of it, and then we'll
incorporate phone callers again. I think it's a really interesting case.
(05:43):
I think it's a case to first impression. And I
talked to one person familiar with the courts today who
feels that her lawyers might have a shot on this.
Speaker 11 (05:53):
Go ahead, Bill, Well, if it's not a case of
first impression, it's definitely.
Speaker 13 (05:59):
Impression.
Speaker 11 (06:00):
Now, Judge Tony justified her declaring mistrial because was not
acquitted on any Jerry's lips, and she wasn't acquitted on
any Jerusalem.
Speaker 8 (06:12):
Your your phone is not great, Rob, can you I'm
gonna I'm going to ask Rob to try to clean
up your phone because you're breaking up on us. So Rob,
take take Bill and get his uh, get him on
a different phone or a better phone. Let me go
to Bob George, Bob, you know, I hope you you
heard the way I set it up. I tried to
set it up as neutrally as I could. What's what's
(06:34):
your take on this? Did they is? Does she have
a shot here? Do you think?
Speaker 11 (06:39):
Well?
Speaker 12 (06:39):
What you're calling down a gatekeeper, you know appeal? Is
that basically a two eleven three. The argument is that
Judge Canon, you know who's been a you know who
is a defense lawyer for many years and now has
been a judge for many years abused your discretion when
she made her decision in this case, it's don't get
(07:00):
me wrong. They look at the law, but they have
to find that she she abused or abused or made
a mistake in using her discretion and and and and deciding, Bob.
Speaker 8 (07:14):
I've quivered with discretion for a second. My question is,
and maybe I'm seeing it incorrectly here and help me
out if i am. I'm assuming that that that she
could have said to the jury for person, are you
hung on all three counts? Or have you made a
have you come to a decision or a verdict on
(07:35):
any of these counts?
Speaker 12 (07:37):
See, that's the lynchpin, you know. I the argument that
Marty Weinberg's making on appeal, and that's that's lead. That's
lead council. Now, so we got Marty Weinberg arguing that listen,
you didn't you didn't ask the jury as to whether
they had verdicts on all three counts, sorry, or what
(07:59):
they were hung not all three counts. The problem is
the jury reported that they were hung. It's all going
to hang up on whether the SJAC decides whether or
not Trial judges have to ask jurors when they come
back hung after they come back hung three times yep.
(08:19):
In other words, the first two times that he give them,
as you know, the charge up what they call the
dynamite charge. And so what she argued in what she argued,
what she set out in her in her decision was
she had is she quoted the defense as they argued
(08:39):
once twice and three times that they wanted a mistrial declared.
So it's it's not whether she declared the miss trail improperly.
The question is whether or not she should have gone
further in asking them whether they were hung on one,
two or three g saying I don't have to do
(09:02):
it unless you ask me to you, And that's what
they're gonna have to decide. And in this state, if
you look at the case law, and I'm not saying
I know and I know the case laws experienced, but
it's not like I looked at the case law before
I came on talking to you. I can tell you
that the SJAC will be load to stick their nose
(09:23):
into what goes on in the jury room because that's
what the case law says. I'm not saying they don't
have a shot because they may look at this case
and as half the world thinks Karen should only.
Speaker 8 (09:35):
Can I just jump in for a question, Bob, you
said yes that the the SJAC is loathed to look
at what went on in the jury room. I'm asking
whether or not the the s JAC will establish a
new practice if if if let us, they look at
(09:57):
this case and they say, okay, it's her discretion and
she there was no abuse of discretion here.
Speaker 11 (10:06):
She chanced, yes, Can I step in here for a moment.
Speaker 8 (10:11):
Let me just finish that point that I'll let you in, Okay.
I'm just trying to say that that The question is
might this court want to say we need to tighten
up practice in the courtrooms and in multi count indictments.
We want judges to ask juries to expedite and to
move the system along and prevent a defendant from being
(10:32):
put in a position where arguably they they're victim their
due process to that because they're victim of a double jeopardy.
Go ahead, go ahead, Billy.
Speaker 11 (10:41):
And they need to take a corrective step here. They
may do that. I think it's less likely than more likely.
But if they do, there's a phrase that's going to
become famous and be used all over this case and
all over mistake firmative obligation if they did say what
you talked about the possibly coming out and saying that
(11:04):
we're likely phrase it that a judge has an affirmative obligation.
I'm not saying that presently a judge has that firm
the obligation, but if they were to make such a change,
likely obscured in terms of that, a judge has an
affirmative obligation to ask the jurors these questions.
Speaker 8 (11:23):
Sure, and that's how in many cases, new procedures or
an effect codified. Bob, I interrupted, you can you finish on?
Speaker 12 (11:35):
See Dan, I don't think you know. I don't. I'm
not saying it can't happen. I'm saying you're talking about
and listen, you may be right. You know, will they
make new law? If they do it, they are making
new law. But see judge abusive discretion is something else.
(11:55):
Judge Town followed the law and did an abuse or
discretion in following the law, so they would have to
change it, and then it's not abusive discretion. But just
remember one thing. Marty Weinberg's looking for a middle ground here.
The second thing he's looking for is for the case
to be remanded back to the Superior Court for her
(12:16):
to have a hearing where she hears from all the jurors. Now,
that's more like it. That's more like it, because hearing
second and third and fourth hand hearsay, you know, through
affidavits from jurors who have never taken a witness stand.
This is what happened in that jury room. This is
where it stood. If if one or two or three
(12:38):
of those jurors don't agree with that version of events,
then it is that it is, and it's over.
Speaker 8 (12:45):
It's over. So, however, what happens if they remaind and
Judge Canoni has an in camera proceeding and all the
jurors troop in and say, yeah, we agree to acquit
on one in three, you know, and and and you know,
we did not a quit on two. I would hope
(13:07):
that she would not ask where you were on two.
There have been reports that it was eight to four,
so that's a significant split. But it doesn't matter if
it's eight to four or eleven to one. What does
she do if the jurors in camera or in open
court say yeah, we did agree to a quit on
one of three, what does she do then?
Speaker 12 (13:27):
Then? She's in a different position. Then now she's looking
at okay, I've got the evidence here that this was
the vote. And then it becomes a discretionary call on
her point, you know, on her on her you know,
on her part, and if she says no again, it
goes back up yep. And then they decide, are we
going to codify new law, as Bill has said, are
(13:50):
we going to create a new affirmative obligation to ask
the jurors will tell me, are you hung on one, two,
and three or you hung on all?
Speaker 13 (13:58):
Three?
Speaker 12 (13:59):
Are words to continue the inquiry, which, by the way,
isn't what the law is, right now, that's not what
the law is. So you're right, a new law will
have to be created or sorry, new duties and new procedures,
which is new law has to be created for Canon
to not have abused her discretion. Well, for her, she
(14:21):
has not abused.
Speaker 8 (14:22):
Her I don't think she's abused discretion either. I think
the question is whether or not the s JC will
impose on superior court judges who are you know, who
are the trial judges that on a multi count case,
the defense and the prosecution are not obligated to make
emotion but she asks a simple question, are you hung
(14:42):
on all counts or are you hung on some only
some of the counts?
Speaker 11 (14:49):
Again back to the affirmative obligation. No, go, yeah, and
you could came back to back to the possibility of
of imposing an affirmative obligation of the judges. That would
be a a pretty bald, a pretty a pretty surprising move,
but it's possible.
Speaker 8 (15:05):
Okay, gentlemen, how about we just take a quick break
and that let's invite some of our non lawyers and
other lawyers to call. Clearly, we are not of one
mind on this, which is great, and I certainly will
stand down in deference to your positions. But I do
appreciate the acknowledgment that this is. I think I think
(15:27):
it's a fascinating, kate fascinating appeal on now again, I,
to the best of my knowledge, I don't think that
there is a single juror who has come forward to
either defense lawyers or to the prosecution or to the judge.
I've heard nothing that some some jura has come forward
(15:47):
and said we never agreed on counts? What at three?
And the fact that there's an absence of anyone any
legitimate jury coming forward. That kind of adds adds a
little more drama to it, in my opinion. We'll take
a break if you like to join the conversation Lawyer
or not six seven four ten thirty six one seven
(16:09):
nine three one ten thirty. I just think it's fun
to talk to legal guys like Bill Kickham and Bob George,
who has spent a lot of time in courtrooms over
the years and understand that sometimes the sands shift within
those courtrooms. And maybe we got a little bit of
a seismic ship coming up. Maybe we don't, but it's
fun to talk about it and speculate on it. And
(16:31):
we'll be back on Night Side with real phone calls
for my two guests, Attorney Bill Kickham and Attorney Bob
George both have spent a lot of time in courtrooms
and a lot of time dealing with issues like this
is and I appreciate that both of them have joined
us tonight, particularly on a Friday night. We'll be back
right after this.
Speaker 14 (16:51):
It's Night Side Boston's News Radio.
Speaker 15 (16:55):
Are you looking to sell your home in New England
and want to avoid the hassle that comes along with
listing it on the market with a real estate agent.
My name is Mike Gomes and me and my partners
have bought over one hundred houses in the last five
years all over New England and we want to buy
yours next. It's super easy to work with us. Instead
of remembering a whole phone number, just pull out your
phone and dial pound two fifty and say silver Homes
(17:19):
as the keyword, and we'll get you a cash offer
as soon as possible. We can close in as little
as two weeks, and we don't care what the property
looks like, if the property is in great condition, if
the property's in bad condition, if it needs a lot
of work, if the property has tenants, if you might
be facing foreclosure. Regardless of what the situation is, we
will buy your house. So dial pound two fifty and
(17:41):
say silver Homes. By the way, the number that we
give you is the number that you get. There's no
real estate agent commission involved, and we even offer to
pay the closing costs. So dial pound two fifty and
say silver homes.
Speaker 11 (17:54):
Now.
Speaker 6 (17:54):
The Trust Disney essential document that can help protect your
assets from a nursing home and potentially eliminate yours. Eight taxes,
cushing and Dolan are experts in elder law, estate planning,
and asset protection, and this month their new guide called
Demistifying the Top seven estate Planning Trusts can help you
learn about the various types of trust that exist, the
pros and cons of each, and ultimately which one will
(18:15):
be best for you and your family. Trusts are a
critical element to any solid estate plan, but the process
can be tricky, and that's why it's important to understand
the differences between the types of trusts that are available.
Planning for later life is a challenging process, so don't
leave your assets to chance. Call Cushing and Dolan right
now at eight six six eight four eight five six
nine nine and get your free guide today. That's eight
(18:37):
six six eight four eight five six nine nine. You
can also request the guide online by visiting their website
at Legal exchange show dot com. The proceeding is paid
for in The views expressed are solely those of Cushing
and Dolan. Cushing and Dolan and or Armstrong Advisory may
contact you offering legal or investment services. Cushing and Dolan
and Armstrong Advisory do not endorse each other and are
not affiliated.
Speaker 1 (18:55):
So much fun random job make you everywhere.
Speaker 8 (19:00):
Everything we do.
Speaker 16 (19:02):
Yeah, it's fun when jogging with you.
Speaker 17 (19:06):
The Subaru of New England all wheel Drive Away is
going on now. Drive away in the twenty twenty five
Subaru Outback with symmetrical all wheel drive. Buy with one
point nine percent financing for up to forty eight months,
or lease for just three oh five per month for
thirty six months with three thousand and fifty five duet signing.
The twenty twenty five Outback is built to discover bolds,
(19:29):
new places, explore the possibilities with the advanced capability of
standard symmetrical all wheel drive. Plus, the Outback is packed
with adventure ready features like raised roof rails with built
in crossbars and tie downs for maximum versatility and fun.
Buy with one point nine percent financing or lease for
just three oh five per month. Details at Subaru of
(19:51):
New England dot com.
Speaker 14 (19:54):
Now back to Dan Ray live from the Window World
night Side Studios on WBZ New.
Speaker 8 (20:00):
Radio, My guests on the line, and gentlemen. I know, Bob,
you are probably a little more strapped for time, so
I can let either or both of you go at
ten thirty, but I gotta I want to get a
couple of calls in for each of you. Let's see
what the folks have to say. If you if you
want to take a position, that's fine, but I think
(20:21):
it would be better to get a question for these
learned counselors. Danielle and Worcester. Danielle and Worster, you run
next on Nightside first this hour, go right ahead, Danielle
with Bill kick Him and attorney Bill kick Him and
Attorney Bob George.
Speaker 5 (20:32):
Oh this is this is almost a dream come true call.
So there's so much but I'm just gonna first of all,
I watch a lot of like law tubers. They call
the lawyers from other parts of the country. The have
YouTube channel, so they all kind of poke fun of
Massachusetts always kind of match into their own beat. You know,
(20:53):
Massachusetts don't set of law as compared to a ways
of doing things versus other states. One of the things
that comes up a lot is how the judge picks
the four person prior to alternates being named, et cetera.
Is that can you talk about that a little bit?
Because the jury for person is who seems to have
(21:15):
played a big role in all of this confusion. A
lot of the other jurors to come forward and said
that he wouldn't allow anybody to ask questions when they
didn't understand something.
Speaker 8 (21:25):
So that's a great question. I was unaware of that.
I know that he wrote a very lawyer like note
explaining to the judge.
Speaker 5 (21:34):
He's a former police officer and now it's to the
physicians positions.
Speaker 8 (21:39):
No more than I do, Danielle. Let me get Bob
or build a comment or that. Are you guys familiar
with the fella who was the four person in the jury.
I wasn't sure what his employment was, but he wrote
a very well written note to the judge since he
read an open coort about how they were hung. He did,
I don't hold the gentleman, Okay, Bob, go ahead.
Speaker 12 (22:03):
I'm familiar with the note, and I was unaware that
that the police. I knew there was a police former
police officer on the jury, which of course stunned me
in the first place. Not that police officers wouldn't make
great jurors if a police officer was on trial, but
I mean the fact is that that having a police
(22:24):
officer in this particular case, especially in light of the
allegations that were going to be made, was very odd. Now,
as far as picking a picking a foreman. A foreman
is supposed to be picked one or two ways. The
judge can pick the foreman but doesn't pick the form
until the end of the trial, or picks the foreman.
You know. The judge could pick whoever they want. Uh,
(22:46):
and I believe it or not, could be best on
site or on va deer. But a lot of judges
just picked the juror sitting in seat number nine as
the foreman, which is the front seat closest to the box.
Speaker 8 (22:58):
Uh.
Speaker 12 (22:59):
You know, and words, if you're sitting in the right seat,
you could be the foreman. In this particular case, I
doubt very much that that the cop was sitting the
former cop was sitting in seat number nine, So I
don't know how he was picked. I'm just telling you
how the foreman are usually picked. As far as this
guy goes and his background, I had heard that there
(23:20):
was a former cop on the jury, which made me
think that someone wasn't paying attention or there was something
about him in his background and his question error and
is what there that made people think he would be
a good juror for the defense and or the prosecution.
So I don't know why tell you, Bob.
Speaker 8 (23:41):
What would have your instinct told you without knowing much
about him as a police officer in the case that
involved the death of the police officer, and also some
secondary theories as to if there were police all over
this case inside the house.
Speaker 12 (23:56):
You know, I would to put a cup on that
jury in a thousand years. That's all I could tell you.
If it was me, you would would I would?
Speaker 13 (24:04):
I would not.
Speaker 12 (24:05):
Not, Okay, I put it a cup on that jury
with the allegations.
Speaker 8 (24:11):
Go ahead, daniel Go ahead, Danielle.
Speaker 5 (24:14):
That's the big that's the big hang up is no
you know, because Alton, it's a picked and it bumped somebody.
So she picked him so that we knew there's no
way he was getting bumped. That was her guy, right, You.
Speaker 12 (24:26):
Pick, you pick. You picked the foreman first, and the
foreman is the only person immune to the bump. Every
other juror in that box to get bumped after you
pick a foreman. That is common. That is common practice.
Speaker 5 (24:42):
Okay, okay, because that's one thing that's talked about in
a lot of other states that they say that that's odd.
And I thought I read somewhere that in Massachusetts law
that that is how it works. So I just wasn't sure.
Speaker 12 (24:55):
Well the well, the reason you don't pick the reason
you don't pick a foreman early in the trial is
you don't want someone to take charge over the other
jurors when everyone's an equal, uh, while they're listening to
the evidence. You never pick a formative the end of
a trial. And you also have everybody maintaining attention or
(25:16):
paying attention thinking they might be the foreman at the
end of a trial. So that's why you don't pick
a foreman until the very end.
Speaker 5 (25:24):
And the vertict slips was the other big thing that
you know, she even looked to you and Eddie to say, hey,
you know you've been in my in the courtrooms before,
and he even said, and I've never seen a vertic
slip like this.
Speaker 4 (25:36):
She.
Speaker 8 (25:38):
Slip if I'm flipped. I'm not saying it's.
Speaker 11 (25:42):
That nobody sees.
Speaker 5 (25:43):
Nobody saw the altered version that was never seen. So
they were very So there was a lot of talk,
I guess the jurors that have come forward and said,
there's been a lot of talk about that, and the
fact that the language and some of the like the
manslaughter one, this language in there about causing a chain
of events that ultimately to the death. So the fact
(26:04):
that she just simply dropped him off at this party
and he ultimately died is what they were hung on.
And so so it just seemed like there was a
lot of confusing language that caused them to they like
overthought it, so to speak.
Speaker 8 (26:19):
And I think Danielle has followed this case very closely,
very perfectly. Me get a quick comment from either Bill
or Danielle. I'm up on my break here, but I
want to get a quick comment from uh Bill, kick
him on, Bob George on anything that you happen to say.
Speaker 11 (26:36):
Gentlemen, Bob pretty much nailed it, you know.
Speaker 12 (26:41):
The funny thing, And the funny thing is is that
a lot of people know a lot more about what
went on in this case than us. And the fact
is this is the reason when you listen to Danielle
on the phone, this is the reason of what here
or a hearing with these jurors could be a Handora's
box of flying bats coming out of that court room
(27:06):
if they ever reopened, you know, an inquiry into what
happened in that jury room. When you have these kinds
of hearings, you're supposed to limit it to the to
you know, the vote, what was the vote on count one?
What was the vote on bound.
Speaker 8 (27:21):
Bob? If the twelve jurors are sitting there and uh,
and she asked them either in camera in her chambers
or in open court. Maybe she does it first in camera,
then she does it in open court. Did you she
could say did you reach a unanimous verdict on any
of the charges.
Speaker 12 (27:39):
I'm not saying that she can't say that.
Speaker 8 (27:41):
No, I'm just saying that would keep the pidora's box
a little close.
Speaker 12 (27:46):
No, let me tell you right now, the reason that
judges don't stick their noses into the jury room is
for the very reason, uh, that that that could come
true here, which is that all of these different things
like how did the jury form and treat other people?
What was it? You know, was he trying to direct
the verdict one way or the other? Was he trying
(28:08):
to you know more?
Speaker 8 (28:10):
Judge could control that. She just doesn't bring that up
as an issue or as a question.
Speaker 11 (28:14):
Right, absolutely, absolutely.
Speaker 8 (28:19):
Daniel, Thank you for the call. That was a great
call ahead.
Speaker 5 (28:22):
Thank you so much for having me. I appreciate it that.
Thank you so much.
Speaker 8 (28:25):
Have a good night, gentlemen, you can, you could if
you're willing to stay, that would be great. If, on
the other hand, either of you have an out of
town commitment or an intown commitment. Uh and and you'd
like to be off the jury of this moment? What
what is? What is your choice? Do you guys want
to stay or or get onto other things on a Friday.
Speaker 12 (28:48):
Night, Jesus say a little longer. If Bill wants to stay,
that's fine.
Speaker 8 (28:54):
Okay, So, uh my my panel of experts, Attorney, Bill,
Kick Journey, Bob George will stay. I gotta stay. But
I enjoy this. I am enjoying this. I don't get
a chance to talk to Bob or Bill as often
as I would like. When I was a TV reporter
out working in the courtrooms, we had lots of opportunities
(29:15):
to interact. And here on nightside, this for me is
a special conversation. It's one that I'm I'm just curious.
This is one that has really I had no interest
in the Karen Reid case. I had no interest in
a lot of the early stuff in the Karen Reid case.
This issue as a lawyer interests me. We'll be back
on nightside if you'd like to join the conversation, Ask
a question, express a view points six one, seven, two, five, four,
(29:37):
ten thirty or six one seven, nine three one ten
thirty back right after.
Speaker 14 (29:40):
This night side with Dan Ray on' WBZY, Boston's news radio.
Speaker 18 (29:47):
Hi, this is Steve Anders. When was last time you
serviced your some pump called the some pump Geeks at
one eight four four four three three five two two
five some pump Geeks dot Com.
Speaker 19 (29:57):
Hi, this is Kevin Keeler from Brady Built on Room.
We have been on the radio now for eighteen years
and in business for forty two years. It's hard to believe.
People ask me all the time. Why are your sunrooms
and additions so popular? Is it the fact that every
sunroom is custom made to fit the customer's house? Is
it that they're built with beautiful solid wood beams on
the inside. Perhaps it's our unlimited customization capabilities, or maybe
(30:19):
it's the fact that every sunroom or addition we make
is specifically designed for year round use. But I just
smile and say it is all of those things. Why
don't you just ask one of our thousands of happy customers.
Speaker 4 (30:29):
Hi, this is David from Buzzet's Bay.
Speaker 11 (30:31):
Many of the things I like about the sunroom that
Brady has built for us is I enjoy the feeling
of listening to a rain, watching at snow, or just
watching the sunshine.
Speaker 19 (30:41):
Don't bother look anywhere else.
Speaker 11 (30:42):
Bradybuilt to give you what you need. The best product
on the market from what I could find.
Speaker 17 (30:48):
This is Linda, Senior Sunroom Designer at Bradybilt. I'd love
to help you design your dream sunroom.
Speaker 13 (30:54):
Please call us.
Speaker 17 (30:54):
At five O eight seven nine eight twenty six hundred.
Speaker 4 (30:58):
You know about courage learned from my adoptive mom. She said,
sometimes you just got to hold on and no, we'll
get through this.
Speaker 6 (31:05):
Mom, we are so high up.
Speaker 8 (31:08):
Hold my hand, No, you.
Speaker 11 (31:10):
Hold my hand.
Speaker 8 (31:12):
Here we go.
Speaker 7 (31:16):
Learn about adopting a team from foster care. You can't
imagine the reward. Visit adopt us Kids dot org to
find out more. This message is brought to you by
adopt Us Kids, the US Department of Health and Human Services,
and the ad Council Cats.
Speaker 14 (31:33):
Hi, I'm Mike and I'm Mark.
Speaker 3 (31:34):
The owners are reliable fests doing a leading fencing company.
Speaker 6 (31:38):
Don't miss our annual back to school sale.
Speaker 14 (31:40):
We will save twenty percent of all fencing materials now
through October twenty first.
Speaker 10 (31:44):
If you've been thinking about getting a new fence, take
advantage of our awesome back to School sale and save
twenty percent.
Speaker 14 (31:51):
Just go to Reliable fencing dot com cats.
Speaker 9 (31:57):
As.
Speaker 20 (31:58):
The free iHeartRadio app has over one one hundred commercial
free stations like one Hit Wonders.
Speaker 14 (32:02):
This is the story Avenue.
Speaker 20 (32:08):
Just search one Hit Wonders and listen now on your
free iHeart Radio app, Free Never Sound It's So Good.
Speaker 14 (32:15):
BZ ten thirty one or seven point nine eighth two
available everywhere with the iHeartRadio App now number one for
podcasting and on hundreds of devices like Alexa, Google Home, Xbox,
and Sonos. W BZ Boston's news radio and iHeartRadio station.
Speaker 10 (32:34):
I'm Al Griffith with this quick check on the story's
trending right now on WBZ news Radio ten thirty. Several
members of the Tufts University of Mensmith Ross team remained
hospitalized after a work out of the school earlier in
the week led by a school a lum and Navy
sales trainee. School officials say they were being treated for
a potentially life threatening condition called ABDO and Boston Public
(32:57):
school students enjoying a duet between a world renowned piano
and their mayor.
Speaker 16 (33:01):
The mayor cop to being nervous playing next to an
international star, but she looked right at home at the
Steinway on the stage of the Boston Arts Academy. She
and long Long played for a rapt audience in Boston
public school kids.
Speaker 8 (33:11):
And so for me, this is such a special moment
to be able to be with someone who inspires people
all around the world.
Speaker 16 (33:17):
The Long Long Foundation's Keys of Inspiration program means to
grow music programs in public schools and currently finds itself
in two hundred schools worldwide. It's first the Orchard Gardens
K through eighth in Boston.
Speaker 6 (33:27):
That's wbz's Kendall Buele reporting.
Speaker 10 (33:29):
I'm Al Griffith's Night.
Speaker 14 (33:33):
Side with Dan on WBZ Boston's News Radio.
Speaker 8 (33:38):
Thank you, Al Griffith. With me, Attorney Bill Kickham of Westwood,
Attorney Bob George, both very experienced attorneys here in Massachusetts.
We're talking about the the latest appeal from the Karen
Read case, which will be heard by the State Supreme
Court in November. Very quick before we go right back
to Carls, gentlemen, and that is is the whole double
(34:02):
jeopardy due process argument as an underpinning to this affirmative
obligation concept that that we've talked about. Is the is
the SJAC going to worry about double jeopardy or due
process for Karen reid h in the context of this argument,
or will they just focus simply on the fact that
(34:24):
there is no affirmative obligation for the judge in this case.
Speaker 11 (34:28):
Well, exit the one presently. But I think that they
the constitutional issues a double jepathy, not.
Speaker 12 (34:36):
That they will be around.
Speaker 8 (34:38):
Okay, go ahead, Bob again, Rob, can you clean up?
I don't know what sort of a phone bill is
on here. We got to get them a better phone.
Go ahead, Bob.
Speaker 12 (34:46):
Well, you know, the double jeopardy argument is an attractive
argument because it would prevent the prosecution from ever trying
or again on those two counts. That's why they did
they make that argument. To process is something they're saying,
you know, is important to them in evaluating whether or
not the judge should have asked. So, you know, those
(35:07):
are constitutional arguments that also set the table uh for
for them to go further into the federal Court or
into or if it ever got to that point to
take a writ all the way up to the US
Supreme Court on these issues, if they wanted to go
that far with it, and if they need.
Speaker 8 (35:24):
A rig would they have to have a conviction to
to apply for.
Speaker 12 (35:27):
A writ, Well, they'd have to. They'd have to look for,
you know, a writ only if there's a conviction. But
if you're making federal if you're making these constitutional arguments,
you're setting yourself up for that type of appeal you
know later. I mean, these are attractive arguments to constitutional
lawyers and to appellate lawyers. So the bottom line is
(35:50):
they're just they're just doing what they have to do
to set this thing up for a further appeal later.
If that's what they need to do.
Speaker 8 (35:58):
Sure. Let me go to Chris down of the Cape.
Chris on a rainy Cape Cod Chris, welcome. You're on
with Bill Kickham and Bob George are both great attorneys.
Speaker 13 (36:09):
I do know that I think from the outer Cape
an attorney involved in the Christa Worthington trial, Bob, that
you tried, you know, very very artfully.
Speaker 12 (36:23):
Chris, Snow, how are you, Chris?
Speaker 15 (36:25):
How are you?
Speaker 13 (36:26):
Thanks? Crowding me.
Speaker 8 (36:29):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, small world, good.
Speaker 13 (36:33):
Yeah, but you wouldn't want to paint it. Uh that
that said, one of the questions I have very casually,
you know, followed this, but it is a riveting, uh
fact pattern. What are your thoughts as highly respected defense
(36:53):
attorneys and you have to look at the fact Dan
that hello, Dan, these aren't defense attorneys as am I.
One of the questions I had casually following this is
that was there an obligation on the defense to pull
(37:14):
the jury when they came back with a declaration of
a mistrial? And was the defense a little elated that
the fact that they at least got a mistrial as
opposed to a guilty.
Speaker 8 (37:28):
My answer to the second part of that question is yes,
I don't. I don't think they have a right to
hold the jury where they were they're saying, they're hung gentlemen.
Speaker 11 (37:36):
They were elated when they got when that when the
mistrial came through, they were quite fully stuf.
Speaker 12 (37:43):
Like like Chris just said they were.
Speaker 11 (37:46):
They were they.
Speaker 12 (37:47):
Were out on the front steps of the courthouse, you know,
already having their press conference after you know, after the
mistrial and declaring victory, which of course it is a victory.
Speaker 8 (37:58):
But Christ first, Chris's first question was could they pull
the jury. I think they can pull the jury after
the conviction comes in, particularly if you're if you're the
defense and it's guilty. But can they pull the jury
who said they're hung?
Speaker 12 (38:12):
So the trouble is, Chris, is if they if they
pull that jury, you're pulling. You're pulling them on the
hum You're not pulling them on each count. But but
on every case I've ever had, uhh, that I've lost
that you know, you you always ask to pull the
(38:32):
jury so you could see the hesitance. If you see
a hesitance in a juror when they're announcing guilty, you know,
where did you vote guilty? You're guilty, You're you're you're
looking at them to see where your weak spots are.
On the other hand, even if there is a weak spot,
you still cannot reach out for those jurors. You cannot
(38:54):
reach out for them because you'll end up at the
border bar overseers. Yeah, you know, answering to the panel
up there. And believe me, I'm an expert on that.
So the bottom line, the bottom line here is even
if you know and see someone's weak maybe later, maybe later,
if they're calling you like we see. The trouble with
(39:16):
this case is the calls are not necessarily coming in
from the jurors like they came into me after them
accounting Casey, I was getting calls directly from the jurors.
In this case, the calls are coming in third and
fourth hand hearsay in a totem bold fashion through friends
of jurors or people who took screenshots of conversations between jurors.
(39:41):
The jurors themselves, with the exception of maybe one did
not directly contact anyone. So if you do have this
hearing that Marty Weinberg is looking for, in the alternative,
the jurors have to come in and say it. They
have to say what we're hearing that they may say.
(40:02):
And that's where the SJAC is going to have to
look at it and decide, Oh my word, I mean,
I don't even have the jurors saying it directly to anyone,
you know, by Appa David or under oath in the courtroom.
And now I'm going to tip this thing upside down
and start shaking it around to find out what happened
(40:23):
in that jury room. And I'm telling you whether they
do it or not, and I hope they do. But
whether they do it or not, they don't want to
do it. I could tell you they don't want to
do it.
Speaker 11 (40:33):
The motivation's not there.
Speaker 12 (40:36):
Well, who wants to say, really one? I mean, there
was an option here to clean it up.
Speaker 13 (40:39):
I hear, Bob.
Speaker 8 (40:42):
According to Travis Anderson's piece into Vay's Globe, he writes,
lawyers for Reid have said, now again I realized the
hearsay component of this, but lawyers are also lawyers, they're
officers at the point. Lawyers for Reid have said that
after her first trial ended with Hunduri in July, multiple
jurors contacted them to say they unanimously voted to a
(41:03):
quit read on those two charges. Will most jurors voted
to convict her on a manslaught of charge. Travis anders
is a pretty good reporter from my recollection, and we.
Speaker 12 (41:16):
See Travis Dan Dan. Travis is a great reporter. But
he's telling you know, news reporting isn't the same as
filing an affict David in the open court. It's not
the same as getting in the winnesstand. So I'm telling
you that my memory, my memory of what I've seen
and I've read, you know, I've read some of some
of it, if not all of it, and I and
I'm more closely involved in it in different ways since
(41:38):
it happened, because I like reading this stuff. But I
can tell you that I believe. I believe that the
jurors themselves have not reduced anything to writing, have not
identified themselves, have not, you know, uh, directly contacted the court.
(41:58):
And that is going to be issue for a hearing.
But if the judge orders them in or the SJAC
orders them in, you have their names. The judge is
just going to bring them in one by one and
then they're going to have to say it on the
witness stand. How did you vote on one? How did
you vote on two? How did your vote on three?
The trouble is you don't have that yet, and do
(42:21):
you have enough now based on what you know? What
Travis Anderson's reporting isn't enough. I'm telling you what does
the court know? Conone knows. Conone knows because she's already
reviewed it all and making her decision, And the SJC
knows because it's part of the record appendix that's going
to be in front of them at this hearing in October.
(42:41):
Then then they'll decide whether it's enough for them. I'm
telling you, you know, I'm telling you what I think
might happen for them to remant it down there for
a full blown hearing like we had Chris in the
McCowan case in two thousand and seven, when every single
juror had to come in and then Judge Nickerson denied
the motion anyway. So the issue is do you deny
(43:04):
it now, do you deny it after a hearing, or
does just canon't hear it and then allow it. That's
those are the kinds of things that perhaps the s
JC might want to see.
Speaker 8 (43:14):
The other album knew. This is a case that has
had tremendous not only local interest, but also national interest.
This is this is really almost risen, not quite to
the level of an O. J. Simpson case in terms
of national comportimity, not far from it. Yeah, absolutely, Chris,
thank you very much for your call.
Speaker 13 (43:33):
Yeah, so my point with Barb.
Speaker 8 (43:37):
Chris finished, finish up. I didn't mean to cut you off.
Speaker 13 (43:39):
Go ahead, christ right, Yeah, Yeah, My point is that
I think it would you were on the precipice, if
you were a defense attorney and elated by the fact that,
oh good, we've got a mistrial, so they'll they'll drop
this because all of the witnesses are on the prosecution
are so compromised. However, I think that the expeditious way
(44:05):
to have handled this by Judge Canone is to simply say,
all right, we'll have a in camera review of this,
we'll have a hearing on this, and it would have
avoided going up. But it's a very interesting I think
in part I'm precedented in my experience that there are
(44:27):
all a whole four or five jurors coming in on
affidavits saying that.
Speaker 8 (44:32):
Well, Bob George says he doesn't know of any affidavits.
Speaker 13 (44:35):
But oh well, I guess I'm wrong on that.
Speaker 8 (44:39):
Yeah, Okay, well so far we're all shooting in the
dark a little bit because we're not experts on it.
For me, it's just an interesting question, and for me,
from my perspective is why would she not have said
to the to the jury foreman, just as a matter
of practice, are you telling the court you're hung on
all three counts?
Speaker 11 (45:00):
Right? That's my That's the point that I've been trying
to and that's the question as to whether the s
jac will move to establish an affirmative obligation on the
pod of trial judges to do that.
Speaker 8 (45:12):
Sure, well, sure it may not. It's the way. It's
the way the court works, whether it's the Miranda decision
back in the nineteen sixties, at some point the US
Supreme Court said, yeah, you know, you have to give
the guy the rights. You can't talk to him until
you've you've mirandurized him. Gentlemen, I got to take a
quick break. We got one more call, Chris, thank you
(45:32):
so much for calling. Great to hear your boys.
Speaker 13 (45:34):
Thank you so much. A great family.
Speaker 8 (45:37):
You have the best, the best.
Speaker 13 (45:39):
Uh.
Speaker 8 (45:40):
We'll take a break, and Bob, I'm going to hold
you and build for another six or seven minutes, and
I'll promise I'll let you go at noontime rather at
eleven o'clock. Quick, Rob, can you take the line six
down please? My mouse here is not working properly. We'll
be back right after this quick break on night Side.
Speaker 14 (46:02):
Now back to Dan Ray live from the Window World,
Nice Sin Studios.
Speaker 6 (46:07):
I'MBZ the news radio all right.
Speaker 8 (46:09):
Time for one quick call and a quick wrap from
both of my guests, who I very much appreciate that
Bill Kickhim a journey, Bill kick him and at Journey
Bob Georgia spent an hour of their Friday night with
us Jason and Norwood. Jason, Well, oh great, we just
lost Jason. I got there's something wrong with my board here, Rob.
If he calls back, let me know him. We'll put
(46:30):
Jason right back up because I went to click him
on and now and he's gone. Jason, call back if
you want to try to get you on. Let me
get gentlemen, as we wrap this up here, the most
likely result from this hearing before that, as a threshold question,
do either of you take any guidance from the fact
(46:53):
that the gatekeeper allowed this to go forward to the
full court?
Speaker 11 (46:58):
I do, Yeah, I do think it reflects the gravity
of what's going on here, not just in this.
Speaker 13 (47:04):
Particular case, but procedure procedure.
Speaker 8 (47:07):
In George, do you agree with that? I don't know.
Speaker 11 (47:10):
Yeah.
Speaker 12 (47:11):
Judge Joor, who kicked the case up to the full benches,
I believe she's new to the court and has you know.
I think she took Judge Judge, she just got to
point it to the bench within the last year, I believe.
And the fact is it's a good move. It's a
good move at the whole bench way, and because they
have a right to appeal it from her anyway, Sure.
Speaker 8 (47:32):
We have we have Jason back. Rob, you bring Jason up.
I don't trust my mouse right now, go ahead, Jason,
welcome to nightside.
Speaker 21 (47:39):
I will be quick, and I think I'll try and
leave time for the attorneys to respond, not the case,
which might be another motivate.
Speaker 8 (47:55):
I have no idea. What's wrong with your line? Jason?
Speaker 11 (47:59):
Uh?
Speaker 8 (48:00):
Uh? I? Rob, give it, give it a ten second?
Uh fix? And and let's give it a shot. Let's
give it a shot. If he's there, okay, Rob? Is
he Is he there or not? If not, we're going
to leave it. We lost him, okay. Well, maybe maybe
he hung up in the first place. Maybe it wasn't
my mouse, gentlemen, I think Bob George thinks it's going
(48:24):
to be remanded back to canone conone. I'm not sure
the pronunciation of her name. Uh is that true? Bob?
Speaker 12 (48:33):
I believe that Dad is a good possibility, and it's
something that can very well happen fair enough.
Speaker 8 (48:42):
A bit of a prediction from you, Bill, kick him?
Speaker 11 (48:44):
Yeah, I think it's a distinct distinct possibility. It's it's
not a certainty it is going to happen, and it's
not a certainty that it's not. But I think, I think,
I think it's a good chance it may happen.
Speaker 12 (48:54):
All Right, you got yourself out, and not to undermine
what you think, Dan, I just don't think they're going
to make new law in this case. I don't think so.
Speaker 8 (49:02):
Hey, guess that's why. That's why I'm not practicing law
full time like you guys, that I'm running a shark show. Gentlemen,
thank you both very much for your uh, your generosity
of time to know.
Speaker 11 (49:14):
Okay, I really do, Okay, glad to be here.
Speaker 8 (49:17):
You can find him in Westwood and Bob George easily available.
I know you would. You're you're out of town tonight,
and you gave us a good chuck of time, Bob,
so I'm particularly intended too. Yeah, wherever, wherever.
Speaker 11 (49:33):
Thanks Bob, Thank you, Dan, Okay, all right.
Speaker 8 (49:36):
Absolutely, thanks Bill. That's the beauty of being able to
work remotely when we come back. One of my favorite
hours we're only doing about every four months or so.
Brushes with celebrity. Everyone has met a celebrity. How did
they treat you the good, the bad, or the ugly.
This is your opportunity to tell us who was nice
and maybe who wasn't. My name's Dan Ray. This is nightside.
(49:57):
We wrapped the week on the other side of the
eleven o'clock nurse
It's going to be a windy and cool nights to
(00:01):
night under a mainly cloudy sky. We'll have rain at times,
which will be steady US near the coast, much of
the time west of Boston will be dry, low tempter
around fifty nine. We do have coastal flood advisories in
effect all the way through Sunday evening with the storm
system off to our south and high surf advisories are
an effect through tomorrow, as it will be breezy and
cool Tomorrow and Tomorrow night with clouds and some rain
(00:21):
at times close to the coast. Couple of showers farther
inland high sixty two Tomorrow, low fifty eight Tomorrow night,
an early shower toward the Cape Island. Sunday otherwise breezy
and cool with clouds and breaks of sun high sixty five,
clouds and some sun Monday with the cool breeze, high
again around sixty five. I'm accurate with the VideA reallotis
Brian Hops at WBZ Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
Life is full of amazing things, but sometimes it can
feel overwhelming. Whatever you're going through. The nine eight eight
lifeline is here, call or text nine to eight eight
to get mental health support around the clock twenty four
to seven. This is a message from the Massachusetts Department
of Public Health.
Speaker 3 (00:56):
If you're replacing your windows, call eight hundred six four
nine thirty six hundred eight hundred six nine thirty six
hundred a better quality window professionally installed for the right price,
right window.
Speaker 4 (01:12):
You know about courage I learned from my adoptive mom.
She said, sometimes you just gotta hold on and no,
we'll get through this.
Speaker 5 (01:20):
Mom. We are so high up.
Speaker 6 (01:22):
Hold my hand.
Speaker 7 (01:24):
No, you hold my hand.
Speaker 8 (01:26):
Here we go.
Speaker 7 (01:30):
Learn about adopting a team from Foster Care. You can't
imagine the reward. Visit adopt us Kids dot org to
find out more. This message is brought to you by
adopt Us Kids, the US Department of Health and Human Services,
and the ad Council.
Speaker 9 (01:43):
Want a satisfying meal for just six bucks, try the
new six dollars meal deal from Duncan. It's a medium
hot or iced coffee and a bacon, egg and cheese
sandwich and a side of hash browns for six bucks.
America runs on Duncan.
Speaker 10 (01:57):
Let's get back now to Night Side with Dan Ray.
I'm Al Griffith, WBZ, Boston's news radio.
Speaker 6 (02:04):
It's nice with Dan Ray on Boston.
Speaker 8 (02:10):
All right, welcome back, Thanks very much, Al Griffith. As
we head toward what we're now in our ten o'clock hour,
by the way, coming up at eleven tonight, in the
twentieth hour we do we'll do an hour. You're a
brush with celebrity. Everybody has met a celebrity during their life. Again,
to some people a celebrity as a president. Some people
it might be the local selectman or whomever. We love
(02:33):
to hear your stories about how they treated you, the good,
the bad, and the ugly. It's as simple. It's as
simple as that. We're going to talk about the latest chapter, actually,
what will be the next chapter in the Karen Reid case.
I have with me tonight. Too well experienced lawyers here
(02:54):
in the Boston area. William Kickham, who does criminal fence
work and also deals with catastrophic on TWRT cases. Never
quite heard it described that way, but Bill Kickham, Welcome
to Nightside. Bill's practices out of the community of Westwood,
Welcome Bill, how are you?
Speaker 11 (03:15):
How are you good?
Speaker 8 (03:16):
And Attorney Robert George, who has handled some extremely high
profile cases and gentlemen, let me, Hi, Bob, how are
you tonight?
Speaker 12 (03:24):
How are you doing Dan?
Speaker 8 (03:25):
I'm doing great, So let me kind of set the
stage here. And I might be dead wrong on this.
As a matter of fact, one lawyer told me the
other night I was dead wrong on this. But for
those who have followed the Karen Reid trial closely that
sat on that trial told the judge in July that
they were hung. The judge never inquired of the jury
(03:48):
as to if they were hung on all three counts
for which he was being charged, or if they had
reached a verdict on one or more counts subsequent to that.
The way this story has to developed is some of
the jurors reached out to defense lawyers, and also I
believe at least one juror reached out to the prosecution
and said, hey, we had decided unanimously to dismiss the
(04:12):
charge of second degree murder and the second charge of
leaving the scene of an accident causing personal injury and death.
They had voted to convictor on manslaughter, which was one count.
So I don't know the truth of that, but the
judge never inquired. And now the defense lawyers for Karen
Reid have petitioned the State Supreme Court here in Massachusetts
(04:36):
through a gatekeeper hearing. They were looking for a gate
keeper what I call a gatekeeper hearing in front of
a single justice. The single justice decided not to hold
a hearing, but read the file and basically said, we'll
have the full court sit on this case, hear this
case sometime in November. It is to me a case
of first impression. I'm going to ask both of these lawyers,
(04:59):
who were more experience than I am, for sure, to
tell me if they think the defendants have a chance
in this case. Obviously, they're arguing that if a jury
did sit and did reach a verdict on two of
the counts, although those that those decisions never became a
(05:20):
verdict and that they were handed into the court, should
Karen Reid have to face a second trial on all
three of these charges or should the two charges be
dismissed and she just goes to trial on the manslaught
of charge. Let me start off with you, Bill Kickham,
give me your quick sense of it, and then we'll
incorporate phone callers again. I think it's a really interesting case.
(05:43):
I think it's a case to first impression. And I
talked to one person familiar with the courts today who
feels that her lawyers might have a shot on this.
Speaker 11 (05:53):
Go ahead, Bill, Well, if it's not a case of
first impression, it's definitely.
Speaker 13 (05:59):
Impression.
Speaker 11 (06:00):
Now, Judge Tony justified her declaring mistrial because was not
acquitted on any Jerry's lips, and she wasn't acquitted on
any Jerusalem.
Speaker 8 (06:12):
Your your phone is not great, Rob, can you I'm
gonna I'm going to ask Rob to try to clean
up your phone because you're breaking up on us. So Rob,
take take Bill and get his uh, get him on
a different phone or a better phone. Let me go
to Bob George, Bob, you know, I hope you you
heard the way I set it up. I tried to
set it up as neutrally as I could. What's what's
(06:34):
your take on this? Did they is? Does she have
a shot here? Do you think?
Speaker 11 (06:39):
Well?
Speaker 12 (06:39):
What you're calling down a gatekeeper, you know appeal? Is
that basically a two eleven three. The argument is that
Judge Canon, you know who's been a you know who
is a defense lawyer for many years and now has
been a judge for many years abused your discretion when
she made her decision in this case, it's don't get
(07:00):
me wrong. They look at the law, but they have
to find that she she abused or abused or made
a mistake in using her discretion and and and and deciding, Bob.
Speaker 8 (07:14):
I've quivered with discretion for a second. My question is,
and maybe I'm seeing it incorrectly here and help me
out if i am. I'm assuming that that that she
could have said to the jury for person, are you
hung on all three counts? Or have you made a
have you come to a decision or a verdict on
(07:35):
any of these counts?
Speaker 12 (07:37):
See, that's the lynchpin, you know. I the argument that
Marty Weinberg's making on appeal, and that's that's lead. That's
lead council. Now, so we got Marty Weinberg arguing that listen,
you didn't you didn't ask the jury as to whether
they had verdicts on all three counts, sorry, or what
(07:59):
they were hung not all three counts. The problem is
the jury reported that they were hung. It's all going
to hang up on whether the SJAC decides whether or
not Trial judges have to ask jurors when they come
back hung after they come back hung three times yep.
(08:19):
In other words, the first two times that he give them,
as you know, the charge up what they call the
dynamite charge. And so what she argued in what she argued,
what she set out in her in her decision was
she had is she quoted the defense as they argued
(08:39):
once twice and three times that they wanted a mistrial declared.
So it's it's not whether she declared the miss trail improperly.
The question is whether or not she should have gone
further in asking them whether they were hung on one,
two or three g saying I don't have to do
(09:02):
it unless you ask me to you, And that's what
they're gonna have to decide. And in this state, if
you look at the case law, and I'm not saying
I know and I know the case laws experienced, but
it's not like I looked at the case law before
I came on talking to you. I can tell you
that the SJAC will be load to stick their nose
(09:23):
into what goes on in the jury room because that's
what the case law says. I'm not saying they don't
have a shot because they may look at this case
and as half the world thinks Karen should only.
Speaker 8 (09:35):
Can I just jump in for a question, Bob, you
said yes that the the SJAC is loathed to look
at what went on in the jury room. I'm asking
whether or not the the s JAC will establish a
new practice if if if let us, they look at
(09:57):
this case and they say, okay, it's her discretion and
she there was no abuse of discretion here.
Speaker 11 (10:06):
She chanced, yes, Can I step in here for a moment.
Speaker 8 (10:11):
Let me just finish that point that I'll let you in, Okay.
I'm just trying to say that that The question is
might this court want to say we need to tighten
up practice in the courtrooms and in multi count indictments.
We want judges to ask juries to expedite and to
move the system along and prevent a defendant from being
(10:32):
put in a position where arguably they they're victim their
due process to that because they're victim of a double jeopardy.
Go ahead, go ahead, Billy.
Speaker 11 (10:41):
And they need to take a corrective step here. They
may do that. I think it's less likely than more likely.
But if they do, there's a phrase that's going to
become famous and be used all over this case and
all over mistake firmative obligation if they did say what
you talked about the possibly coming out and saying that
(11:04):
we're likely phrase it that a judge has an affirmative obligation.
I'm not saying that presently a judge has that firm
the obligation, but if they were to make such a change,
likely obscured in terms of that, a judge has an
affirmative obligation to ask the jurors these questions.
Speaker 8 (11:23):
Sure, and that's how in many cases, new procedures or
an effect codified. Bob, I interrupted, you can you finish on?
Speaker 12 (11:35):
See Dan, I don't think you know. I don't. I'm
not saying it can't happen. I'm saying you're talking about
and listen, you may be right. You know, will they
make new law? If they do it, they are making
new law. But see judge abusive discretion is something else.
(11:55):
Judge Town followed the law and did an abuse or
discretion in following the law, so they would have to
change it, and then it's not abusive discretion. But just
remember one thing. Marty Weinberg's looking for a middle ground here.
The second thing he's looking for is for the case
to be remanded back to the Superior Court for her
(12:16):
to have a hearing where she hears from all the jurors. Now,
that's more like it. That's more like it, because hearing
second and third and fourth hand hearsay, you know, through
affidavits from jurors who have never taken a witness stand.
This is what happened in that jury room. This is
where it stood. If if one or two or three
(12:38):
of those jurors don't agree with that version of events,
then it is that it is, and it's over.
Speaker 8 (12:45):
It's over. So, however, what happens if they remaind and
Judge Canoni has an in camera proceeding and all the
jurors troop in and say, yeah, we agree to acquit
on one in three, you know, and and and you know,
we did not a quit on two. I would hope
(13:07):
that she would not ask where you were on two.
There have been reports that it was eight to four,
so that's a significant split. But it doesn't matter if
it's eight to four or eleven to one. What does
she do if the jurors in camera or in open
court say yeah, we did agree to a quit on
one of three, what does she do then?
Speaker 12 (13:27):
Then? She's in a different position. Then now she's looking
at okay, I've got the evidence here that this was
the vote. And then it becomes a discretionary call on
her point, you know, on her on her you know,
on her part, and if she says no again, it
goes back up yep. And then they decide, are we
going to codify new law, as Bill has said, are
(13:50):
we going to create a new affirmative obligation to ask
the jurors will tell me, are you hung on one, two,
and three or you hung on all?
Speaker 13 (13:58):
Three?
Speaker 12 (13:59):
Are words to continue the inquiry, which, by the way,
isn't what the law is, right now, that's not what
the law is. So you're right, a new law will
have to be created or sorry, new duties and new procedures,
which is new law has to be created for Canon
to not have abused her discretion. Well, for her, she
(14:21):
has not abused.
Speaker 8 (14:22):
Her I don't think she's abused discretion either. I think
the question is whether or not the s JC will
impose on superior court judges who are you know, who
are the trial judges that on a multi count case,
the defense and the prosecution are not obligated to make
emotion but she asks a simple question, are you hung
(14:42):
on all counts or are you hung on some only
some of the counts?
Speaker 11 (14:49):
Again back to the affirmative obligation. No, go, yeah, and
you could came back to back to the possibility of
of imposing an affirmative obligation of the judges. That would
be a a pretty bald, a pretty a pretty surprising move,
but it's possible.
Speaker 8 (15:05):
Okay, gentlemen, how about we just take a quick break
and that let's invite some of our non lawyers and
other lawyers to call. Clearly, we are not of one
mind on this, which is great, and I certainly will
stand down in deference to your positions. But I do
appreciate the acknowledgment that this is. I think I think
(15:27):
it's a fascinating, kate fascinating appeal on now again, I,
to the best of my knowledge, I don't think that
there is a single juror who has come forward to
either defense lawyers or to the prosecution or to the judge.
I've heard nothing that some some jura has come forward
(15:47):
and said we never agreed on counts? What at three?
And the fact that there's an absence of anyone any
legitimate jury coming forward. That kind of adds adds a
little more drama to it, in my opinion. We'll take
a break if you like to join the conversation Lawyer
or not six seven four ten thirty six one seven
(16:09):
nine three one ten thirty. I just think it's fun
to talk to legal guys like Bill Kickham and Bob George,
who has spent a lot of time in courtrooms over
the years and understand that sometimes the sands shift within
those courtrooms. And maybe we got a little bit of
a seismic ship coming up. Maybe we don't, but it's
fun to talk about it and speculate on it. And
(16:31):
we'll be back on Night Side with real phone calls
for my two guests, Attorney Bill Kickham and Attorney Bob
George both have spent a lot of time in courtrooms
and a lot of time dealing with issues like this
is and I appreciate that both of them have joined
us tonight, particularly on a Friday night. We'll be back
right after this.
Speaker 14 (16:51):
It's Night Side Boston's News Radio.
Speaker 15 (16:55):
Are you looking to sell your home in New England
and want to avoid the hassle that comes along with
listing it on the market with a real estate agent.
My name is Mike Gomes and me and my partners
have bought over one hundred houses in the last five
years all over New England and we want to buy
yours next. It's super easy to work with us. Instead
of remembering a whole phone number, just pull out your
phone and dial pound two fifty and say silver Homes
(17:19):
as the keyword, and we'll get you a cash offer
as soon as possible. We can close in as little
as two weeks, and we don't care what the property
looks like, if the property is in great condition, if
the property's in bad condition, if it needs a lot
of work, if the property has tenants, if you might
be facing foreclosure. Regardless of what the situation is, we
will buy your house. So dial pound two fifty and
(17:41):
say silver Homes. By the way, the number that we
give you is the number that you get. There's no
real estate agent commission involved, and we even offer to
pay the closing costs. So dial pound two fifty and
say silver homes.
Speaker 11 (17:54):
Now.
Speaker 6 (17:54):
The Trust Disney essential document that can help protect your
assets from a nursing home and potentially eliminate yours. Eight taxes,
cushing and Dolan are experts in elder law, estate planning,
and asset protection, and this month their new guide called
Demistifying the Top seven estate Planning Trusts can help you
learn about the various types of trust that exist, the
pros and cons of each, and ultimately which one will
(18:15):
be best for you and your family. Trusts are a
critical element to any solid estate plan, but the process
can be tricky, and that's why it's important to understand
the differences between the types of trusts that are available.
Planning for later life is a challenging process, so don't
leave your assets to chance. Call Cushing and Dolan right
now at eight six six eight four eight five six
nine nine and get your free guide today. That's eight
(18:37):
six six eight four eight five six nine nine. You
can also request the guide online by visiting their website
at Legal exchange show dot com. The proceeding is paid
for in The views expressed are solely those of Cushing
and Dolan. Cushing and Dolan and or Armstrong Advisory may
contact you offering legal or investment services. Cushing and Dolan
and Armstrong Advisory do not endorse each other and are
not affiliated.
Speaker 1 (18:55):
So much fun random job make you everywhere.
Speaker 8 (19:00):
Everything we do.
Speaker 16 (19:02):
Yeah, it's fun when jogging with you.
Speaker 17 (19:06):
The Subaru of New England all wheel Drive Away is
going on now. Drive away in the twenty twenty five
Subaru Outback with symmetrical all wheel drive. Buy with one
point nine percent financing for up to forty eight months,
or lease for just three oh five per month for
thirty six months with three thousand and fifty five duet signing.
The twenty twenty five Outback is built to discover bolds,
(19:29):
new places, explore the possibilities with the advanced capability of
standard symmetrical all wheel drive. Plus, the Outback is packed
with adventure ready features like raised roof rails with built
in crossbars and tie downs for maximum versatility and fun.
Buy with one point nine percent financing or lease for
just three oh five per month. Details at Subaru of
(19:51):
New England dot com.
Speaker 14 (19:54):
Now back to Dan Ray live from the Window World
night Side Studios on WBZ New.
Speaker 8 (20:00):
Radio, My guests on the line, and gentlemen. I know, Bob,
you are probably a little more strapped for time, so
I can let either or both of you go at
ten thirty, but I gotta I want to get a
couple of calls in for each of you. Let's see
what the folks have to say. If you if you
want to take a position, that's fine, but I think
(20:21):
it would be better to get a question for these
learned counselors. Danielle and Worcester. Danielle and Worster, you run
next on Nightside first this hour, go right ahead, Danielle
with Bill kick Him and attorney Bill kick Him and
Attorney Bob George.
Speaker 5 (20:32):
Oh this is this is almost a dream come true call.
So there's so much but I'm just gonna first of all,
I watch a lot of like law tubers. They call
the lawyers from other parts of the country. The have
YouTube channel, so they all kind of poke fun of
Massachusetts always kind of match into their own beat. You know,
(20:53):
Massachusetts don't set of law as compared to a ways
of doing things versus other states. One of the things
that comes up a lot is how the judge picks
the four person prior to alternates being named, et cetera.
Is that can you talk about that a little bit?
Because the jury for person is who seems to have
(21:15):
played a big role in all of this confusion. A
lot of the other jurors to come forward and said
that he wouldn't allow anybody to ask questions when they
didn't understand something.
Speaker 8 (21:25):
So that's a great question. I was unaware of that.
I know that he wrote a very lawyer like note
explaining to the judge.
Speaker 5 (21:34):
He's a former police officer and now it's to the
physicians positions.
Speaker 8 (21:39):
No more than I do, Danielle. Let me get Bob
or build a comment or that. Are you guys familiar
with the fella who was the four person in the jury.
I wasn't sure what his employment was, but he wrote
a very well written note to the judge since he
read an open coort about how they were hung. He did,
I don't hold the gentleman, Okay, Bob, go ahead.
Speaker 12 (22:03):
I'm familiar with the note, and I was unaware that
that the police. I knew there was a police former
police officer on the jury, which of course stunned me
in the first place. Not that police officers wouldn't make
great jurors if a police officer was on trial, but
I mean the fact is that that having a police
(22:24):
officer in this particular case, especially in light of the
allegations that were going to be made, was very odd. Now,
as far as picking a picking a foreman. A foreman
is supposed to be picked one or two ways. The
judge can pick the foreman but doesn't pick the form
until the end of the trial, or picks the foreman.
You know. The judge could pick whoever they want. Uh,
(22:46):
and I believe it or not, could be best on
site or on va deer. But a lot of judges
just picked the juror sitting in seat number nine as
the foreman, which is the front seat closest to the box.
Speaker 8 (22:58):
Uh.
Speaker 12 (22:59):
You know, and words, if you're sitting in the right seat,
you could be the foreman. In this particular case, I
doubt very much that that the cop was sitting the
former cop was sitting in seat number nine, So I
don't know how he was picked. I'm just telling you
how the foreman are usually picked. As far as this
guy goes and his background, I had heard that there
(23:20):
was a former cop on the jury, which made me
think that someone wasn't paying attention or there was something
about him in his background and his question error and
is what there that made people think he would be
a good juror for the defense and or the prosecution.
So I don't know why tell you, Bob.
Speaker 8 (23:41):
What would have your instinct told you without knowing much
about him as a police officer in the case that
involved the death of the police officer, and also some
secondary theories as to if there were police all over
this case inside the house.
Speaker 12 (23:56):
You know, I would to put a cup on that
jury in a thousand years. That's all I could tell you.
If it was me, you would would I would?
Speaker 13 (24:04):
I would not.
Speaker 12 (24:05):
Not, Okay, I put it a cup on that jury
with the allegations.
Speaker 8 (24:11):
Go ahead, daniel Go ahead, Danielle.
Speaker 5 (24:14):
That's the big that's the big hang up is no
you know, because Alton, it's a picked and it bumped somebody.
So she picked him so that we knew there's no
way he was getting bumped. That was her guy, right, You.
Speaker 12 (24:26):
Pick, you pick. You picked the foreman first, and the
foreman is the only person immune to the bump. Every
other juror in that box to get bumped after you
pick a foreman. That is common. That is common practice.
Speaker 5 (24:42):
Okay, okay, because that's one thing that's talked about in
a lot of other states that they say that that's odd.
And I thought I read somewhere that in Massachusetts law
that that is how it works. So I just wasn't sure.
Speaker 12 (24:55):
Well the well, the reason you don't pick the reason
you don't pick a foreman early in the trial is
you don't want someone to take charge over the other
jurors when everyone's an equal, uh, while they're listening to
the evidence. You never pick a formative the end of
a trial. And you also have everybody maintaining attention or
(25:16):
paying attention thinking they might be the foreman at the
end of a trial. So that's why you don't pick
a foreman until the very end.
Speaker 5 (25:24):
And the vertict slips was the other big thing that
you know, she even looked to you and Eddie to say, hey,
you know you've been in my in the courtrooms before,
and he even said, and I've never seen a vertic
slip like this.
Speaker 4 (25:36):
She.
Speaker 8 (25:38):
Slip if I'm flipped. I'm not saying it's.
Speaker 11 (25:42):
That nobody sees.
Speaker 5 (25:43):
Nobody saw the altered version that was never seen. So
they were very So there was a lot of talk,
I guess the jurors that have come forward and said,
there's been a lot of talk about that, and the
fact that the language and some of the like the
manslaughter one, this language in there about causing a chain
of events that ultimately to the death. So the fact
(26:04):
that she just simply dropped him off at this party
and he ultimately died is what they were hung on.
And so so it just seemed like there was a
lot of confusing language that caused them to they like
overthought it, so to speak.
Speaker 8 (26:19):
And I think Danielle has followed this case very closely,
very perfectly. Me get a quick comment from either Bill
or Danielle. I'm up on my break here, but I
want to get a quick comment from uh Bill, kick
him on, Bob George on anything that you happen to say.
Speaker 11 (26:36):
Gentlemen, Bob pretty much nailed it, you know.
Speaker 12 (26:41):
The funny thing, And the funny thing is is that
a lot of people know a lot more about what
went on in this case than us. And the fact
is this is the reason when you listen to Danielle
on the phone, this is the reason of what here
or a hearing with these jurors could be a Handora's
box of flying bats coming out of that court room
(27:06):
if they ever reopened, you know, an inquiry into what
happened in that jury room. When you have these kinds
of hearings, you're supposed to limit it to the to
you know, the vote, what was the vote on count one?
What was the vote on bound.
Speaker 8 (27:21):
Bob? If the twelve jurors are sitting there and uh,
and she asked them either in camera in her chambers
or in open court. Maybe she does it first in camera,
then she does it in open court. Did you she
could say did you reach a unanimous verdict on any
of the charges.
Speaker 12 (27:39):
I'm not saying that she can't say that.
Speaker 8 (27:41):
No, I'm just saying that would keep the pidora's box
a little close.
Speaker 12 (27:46):
No, let me tell you right now, the reason that
judges don't stick their noses into the jury room is
for the very reason, uh, that that that could come
true here, which is that all of these different things
like how did the jury form and treat other people?
What was it? You know, was he trying to direct
the verdict one way or the other? Was he trying
(28:08):
to you know more?
Speaker 8 (28:10):
Judge could control that. She just doesn't bring that up
as an issue or as a question.
Speaker 11 (28:14):
Right, absolutely, absolutely.
Speaker 8 (28:19):
Daniel, Thank you for the call. That was a great
call ahead.
Speaker 5 (28:22):
Thank you so much for having me. I appreciate it that.
Thank you so much.
Speaker 8 (28:25):
Have a good night, gentlemen, you can, you could if
you're willing to stay, that would be great. If, on
the other hand, either of you have an out of
town commitment or an intown commitment. Uh and and you'd
like to be off the jury of this moment? What
what is? What is your choice? Do you guys want
to stay or or get onto other things on a Friday.
Speaker 12 (28:48):
Night, Jesus say a little longer. If Bill wants to stay,
that's fine.
Speaker 8 (28:54):
Okay, So, uh my my panel of experts, Attorney, Bill,
Kick Journey, Bob George will stay. I gotta stay. But
I enjoy this. I am enjoying this. I don't get
a chance to talk to Bob or Bill as often
as I would like. When I was a TV reporter
out working in the courtrooms, we had lots of opportunities
(29:15):
to interact. And here on nightside, this for me is
a special conversation. It's one that I'm I'm just curious.
This is one that has really I had no interest
in the Karen Reid case. I had no interest in
a lot of the early stuff in the Karen Reid case.
This issue as a lawyer interests me. We'll be back
on nightside if you'd like to join the conversation, Ask
a question, express a view points six one, seven, two, five, four,
(29:37):
ten thirty or six one seven, nine three one ten
thirty back right after.
Speaker 14 (29:40):
This night side with Dan Ray on' WBZY, Boston's news radio.
Speaker 18 (29:47):
Hi, this is Steve Anders. When was last time you
serviced your some pump called the some pump Geeks at
one eight four four four three three five two two
five some pump Geeks dot Com.
Speaker 19 (29:57):
Hi, this is Kevin Keeler from Brady Built on Room.
We have been on the radio now for eighteen years
and in business for forty two years. It's hard to believe.
People ask me all the time. Why are your sunrooms
and additions so popular? Is it the fact that every
sunroom is custom made to fit the customer's house? Is
it that they're built with beautiful solid wood beams on
the inside. Perhaps it's our unlimited customization capabilities, or maybe
(30:19):
it's the fact that every sunroom or addition we make
is specifically designed for year round use. But I just
smile and say it is all of those things. Why
don't you just ask one of our thousands of happy customers.
Speaker 4 (30:29):
Hi, this is David from Buzzet's Bay.
Speaker 11 (30:31):
Many of the things I like about the sunroom that
Brady has built for us is I enjoy the feeling
of listening to a rain, watching at snow, or just
watching the sunshine.
Speaker 19 (30:41):
Don't bother look anywhere else.
Speaker 11 (30:42):
Bradybuilt to give you what you need. The best product
on the market from what I could find.
Speaker 17 (30:48):
This is Linda, Senior Sunroom Designer at Bradybilt. I'd love
to help you design your dream sunroom.
Speaker 13 (30:54):
Please call us.
Speaker 17 (30:54):
At five O eight seven nine eight twenty six hundred.
Speaker 4 (30:58):
You know about courage learned from my adoptive mom. She said,
sometimes you just got to hold on and no, we'll
get through this.
Speaker 6 (31:05):
Mom, we are so high up.
Speaker 8 (31:08):
Hold my hand, No, you.
Speaker 11 (31:10):
Hold my hand.
Speaker 8 (31:12):
Here we go.
Speaker 7 (31:16):
Learn about adopting a team from foster care. You can't
imagine the reward. Visit adopt us Kids dot org to
find out more. This message is brought to you by
adopt Us Kids, the US Department of Health and Human Services,
and the ad Council Cats.
Speaker 14 (31:33):
Hi, I'm Mike and I'm Mark.
Speaker 3 (31:34):
The owners are reliable fests doing a leading fencing company.
Speaker 6 (31:38):
Don't miss our annual back to school sale.
Speaker 14 (31:40):
We will save twenty percent of all fencing materials now
through October twenty first.
Speaker 10 (31:44):
If you've been thinking about getting a new fence, take
advantage of our awesome back to School sale and save
twenty percent.
Speaker 14 (31:51):
Just go to Reliable fencing dot com cats.
Speaker 9 (31:57):
As.
Speaker 20 (31:58):
The free iHeartRadio app has over one one hundred commercial
free stations like one Hit Wonders.
Speaker 14 (32:02):
This is the story Avenue.
Speaker 20 (32:08):
Just search one Hit Wonders and listen now on your
free iHeart Radio app, Free Never Sound It's So Good.
Speaker 14 (32:15):
BZ ten thirty one or seven point nine eighth two
available everywhere with the iHeartRadio App now number one for
podcasting and on hundreds of devices like Alexa, Google Home, Xbox,
and Sonos. W BZ Boston's news radio and iHeartRadio station.
Speaker 10 (32:34):
I'm Al Griffith with this quick check on the story's
trending right now on WBZ news Radio ten thirty. Several
members of the Tufts University of Mensmith Ross team remained
hospitalized after a work out of the school earlier in
the week led by a school a lum and Navy
sales trainee. School officials say they were being treated for
a potentially life threatening condition called ABDO and Boston Public
(32:57):
school students enjoying a duet between a world renowned piano
and their mayor.
Speaker 16 (33:01):
The mayor cop to being nervous playing next to an
international star, but she looked right at home at the
Steinway on the stage of the Boston Arts Academy. She
and long Long played for a rapt audience in Boston
public school kids.
Speaker 8 (33:11):
And so for me, this is such a special moment
to be able to be with someone who inspires people
all around the world.
Speaker 16 (33:17):
The Long Long Foundation's Keys of Inspiration program means to
grow music programs in public schools and currently finds itself
in two hundred schools worldwide. It's first the Orchard Gardens
K through eighth in Boston.
Speaker 6 (33:27):
That's wbz's Kendall Buele reporting.
Speaker 10 (33:29):
I'm Al Griffith's Night.
Speaker 14 (33:33):
Side with Dan on WBZ Boston's News Radio.
Speaker 8 (33:38):
Thank you, Al Griffith. With me, Attorney Bill Kickham of Westwood,
Attorney Bob George, both very experienced attorneys here in Massachusetts.
We're talking about the the latest appeal from the Karen
Read case, which will be heard by the State Supreme
Court in November. Very quick before we go right back
to Carls, gentlemen, and that is is the whole double
(34:02):
jeopardy due process argument as an underpinning to this affirmative
obligation concept that that we've talked about. Is the is
the SJAC going to worry about double jeopardy or due
process for Karen reid h in the context of this argument,
or will they just focus simply on the fact that
(34:24):
there is no affirmative obligation for the judge in this case.
Speaker 11 (34:28):
Well, exit the one presently. But I think that they
the constitutional issues a double jepathy, not.
Speaker 12 (34:36):
That they will be around.
Speaker 8 (34:38):
Okay, go ahead, Bob again, Rob, can you clean up?
I don't know what sort of a phone bill is
on here. We got to get them a better phone.
Go ahead, Bob.
Speaker 12 (34:46):
Well, you know, the double jeopardy argument is an attractive
argument because it would prevent the prosecution from ever trying
or again on those two counts. That's why they did
they make that argument. To process is something they're saying,
you know, is important to them in evaluating whether or
not the judge should have asked. So, you know, those
(35:07):
are constitutional arguments that also set the table uh for
for them to go further into the federal Court or
into or if it ever got to that point to
take a writ all the way up to the US
Supreme Court on these issues, if they wanted to go
that far with it, and if they need.
Speaker 8 (35:24):
A rig would they have to have a conviction to
to apply for.
Speaker 12 (35:27):
A writ, Well, they'd have to. They'd have to look for,
you know, a writ only if there's a conviction. But
if you're making federal if you're making these constitutional arguments,
you're setting yourself up for that type of appeal you
know later. I mean, these are attractive arguments to constitutional
lawyers and to appellate lawyers. So the bottom line is
(35:50):
they're just they're just doing what they have to do
to set this thing up for a further appeal later.
If that's what they need to do.
Speaker 8 (35:58):
Sure. Let me go to Chris down of the Cape.
Chris on a rainy Cape Cod Chris, welcome. You're on
with Bill Kickham and Bob George are both great attorneys.
Speaker 13 (36:09):
I do know that I think from the outer Cape
an attorney involved in the Christa Worthington trial, Bob, that
you tried, you know, very very artfully.
Speaker 12 (36:23):
Chris, Snow, how are you, Chris?
Speaker 15 (36:25):
How are you?
Speaker 13 (36:26):
Thanks? Crowding me.
Speaker 8 (36:29):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, small world, good.
Speaker 13 (36:33):
Yeah, but you wouldn't want to paint it. Uh that
that said, one of the questions I have very casually,
you know, followed this, but it is a riveting, uh
fact pattern. What are your thoughts as highly respected defense
(36:53):
attorneys and you have to look at the fact Dan
that hello, Dan, these aren't defense attorneys as am I.
One of the questions I had casually following this is
that was there an obligation on the defense to pull
(37:14):
the jury when they came back with a declaration of
a mistrial? And was the defense a little elated that
the fact that they at least got a mistrial as
opposed to a guilty.
Speaker 8 (37:28):
My answer to the second part of that question is yes,
I don't. I don't think they have a right to
hold the jury where they were they're saying, they're hung gentlemen.
Speaker 11 (37:36):
They were elated when they got when that when the
mistrial came through, they were quite fully stuf.
Speaker 12 (37:43):
Like like Chris just said they were.
Speaker 11 (37:46):
They were they.
Speaker 12 (37:47):
Were out on the front steps of the courthouse, you know,
already having their press conference after you know, after the
mistrial and declaring victory, which of course it is a victory.
Speaker 8 (37:58):
But Christ first, Chris's first question was could they pull
the jury. I think they can pull the jury after
the conviction comes in, particularly if you're if you're the
defense and it's guilty. But can they pull the jury
who said they're hung?
Speaker 12 (38:12):
So the trouble is, Chris, is if they if they
pull that jury, you're pulling. You're pulling them on the
hum You're not pulling them on each count. But but
on every case I've ever had, uhh, that I've lost
that you know, you you always ask to pull the
(38:32):
jury so you could see the hesitance. If you see
a hesitance in a juror when they're announcing guilty, you know,
where did you vote guilty? You're guilty, You're you're you're
looking at them to see where your weak spots are.
On the other hand, even if there is a weak spot,
you still cannot reach out for those jurors. You cannot
(38:54):
reach out for them because you'll end up at the
border bar overseers. Yeah, you know, answering to the panel
up there. And believe me, I'm an expert on that.
So the bottom line, the bottom line here is even
if you know and see someone's weak maybe later, maybe later,
if they're calling you like we see. The trouble with
(39:16):
this case is the calls are not necessarily coming in
from the jurors like they came into me after them
accounting Casey, I was getting calls directly from the jurors.
In this case, the calls are coming in third and
fourth hand hearsay in a totem bold fashion through friends
of jurors or people who took screenshots of conversations between jurors.
(39:41):
The jurors themselves, with the exception of maybe one did
not directly contact anyone. So if you do have this
hearing that Marty Weinberg is looking for, in the alternative,
the jurors have to come in and say it. They
have to say what we're hearing that they may say.
(40:02):
And that's where the SJAC is going to have to
look at it and decide, Oh my word, I mean,
I don't even have the jurors saying it directly to anyone,
you know, by Appa David or under oath in the courtroom.
And now I'm going to tip this thing upside down
and start shaking it around to find out what happened
(40:23):
in that jury room. And I'm telling you whether they
do it or not, and I hope they do. But
whether they do it or not, they don't want to
do it. I could tell you they don't want to
do it.
Speaker 11 (40:33):
The motivation's not there.
Speaker 12 (40:36):
Well, who wants to say, really one? I mean, there
was an option here to clean it up.
Speaker 13 (40:39):
I hear, Bob.
Speaker 8 (40:42):
According to Travis Anderson's piece into Vay's Globe, he writes,
lawyers for Reid have said, now again I realized the
hearsay component of this, but lawyers are also lawyers, they're
officers at the point. Lawyers for Reid have said that
after her first trial ended with Hunduri in July, multiple
jurors contacted them to say they unanimously voted to a
(41:03):
quit read on those two charges. Will most jurors voted
to convict her on a manslaught of charge. Travis anders
is a pretty good reporter from my recollection, and we.
Speaker 12 (41:16):
See Travis Dan Dan. Travis is a great reporter. But
he's telling you know, news reporting isn't the same as
filing an affict David in the open court. It's not
the same as getting in the winnesstand. So I'm telling
you that my memory, my memory of what I've seen
and I've read, you know, I've read some of some
of it, if not all of it, and I and
I'm more closely involved in it in different ways since
(41:38):
it happened, because I like reading this stuff. But I
can tell you that I believe. I believe that the
jurors themselves have not reduced anything to writing, have not
identified themselves, have not, you know, uh, directly contacted the court.
(41:58):
And that is going to be issue for a hearing.
But if the judge orders them in or the SJAC
orders them in, you have their names. The judge is
just going to bring them in one by one and
then they're going to have to say it on the
witness stand. How did you vote on one? How did
you vote on two? How did your vote on three?
The trouble is you don't have that yet, and do
(42:21):
you have enough now based on what you know? What
Travis Anderson's reporting isn't enough. I'm telling you what does
the court know? Conone knows. Conone knows because she's already
reviewed it all and making her decision, And the SJC
knows because it's part of the record appendix that's going
to be in front of them at this hearing in October.
(42:41):
Then then they'll decide whether it's enough for them. I'm
telling you, you know, I'm telling you what I think
might happen for them to remant it down there for
a full blown hearing like we had Chris in the
McCowan case in two thousand and seven, when every single
juror had to come in and then Judge Nickerson denied
the motion anyway. So the issue is do you deny
(43:04):
it now, do you deny it after a hearing, or
does just canon't hear it and then allow it. That's
those are the kinds of things that perhaps the s
JC might want to see.
Speaker 8 (43:14):
The other album knew. This is a case that has
had tremendous not only local interest, but also national interest.
This is this is really almost risen, not quite to
the level of an O. J. Simpson case in terms
of national comportimity, not far from it. Yeah, absolutely, Chris,
thank you very much for your call.
Speaker 13 (43:33):
Yeah, so my point with Barb.
Speaker 8 (43:37):
Chris finished, finish up. I didn't mean to cut you off.
Speaker 13 (43:39):
Go ahead, christ right, Yeah, Yeah, My point is that
I think it would you were on the precipice, if
you were a defense attorney and elated by the fact that,
oh good, we've got a mistrial, so they'll they'll drop
this because all of the witnesses are on the prosecution
are so compromised. However, I think that the expeditious way
(44:05):
to have handled this by Judge Canone is to simply say,
all right, we'll have a in camera review of this,
we'll have a hearing on this, and it would have
avoided going up. But it's a very interesting I think
in part I'm precedented in my experience that there are
(44:27):
all a whole four or five jurors coming in on
affidavits saying that.
Speaker 8 (44:32):
Well, Bob George says he doesn't know of any affidavits.
Speaker 13 (44:35):
But oh well, I guess I'm wrong on that.
Speaker 8 (44:39):
Yeah, Okay, well so far we're all shooting in the
dark a little bit because we're not experts on it.
For me, it's just an interesting question, and for me,
from my perspective is why would she not have said
to the to the jury foreman, just as a matter
of practice, are you telling the court you're hung on
all three counts?
Speaker 11 (45:00):
Right? That's my That's the point that I've been trying
to and that's the question as to whether the s
jac will move to establish an affirmative obligation on the
pod of trial judges to do that.
Speaker 8 (45:12):
Sure, well, sure it may not. It's the way. It's
the way the court works, whether it's the Miranda decision
back in the nineteen sixties, at some point the US
Supreme Court said, yeah, you know, you have to give
the guy the rights. You can't talk to him until
you've you've mirandurized him. Gentlemen, I got to take a
quick break. We got one more call, Chris, thank you
(45:32):
so much for calling. Great to hear your boys.
Speaker 13 (45:34):
Thank you so much. A great family.
Speaker 8 (45:37):
You have the best, the best.
Speaker 13 (45:39):
Uh.
Speaker 8 (45:40):
We'll take a break, and Bob, I'm going to hold
you and build for another six or seven minutes, and
I'll promise I'll let you go at noontime rather at
eleven o'clock. Quick, Rob, can you take the line six
down please? My mouse here is not working properly. We'll
be back right after this quick break on night Side.
Speaker 14 (46:02):
Now back to Dan Ray live from the Window World,
Nice Sin Studios.
Speaker 6 (46:07):
I'MBZ the news radio all right.
Speaker 8 (46:09):
Time for one quick call and a quick wrap from
both of my guests, who I very much appreciate that
Bill Kickhim a journey, Bill kick him and at Journey
Bob Georgia spent an hour of their Friday night with
us Jason and Norwood. Jason, Well, oh great, we just
lost Jason. I got there's something wrong with my board here, Rob.
If he calls back, let me know him. We'll put
(46:30):
Jason right back up because I went to click him
on and now and he's gone. Jason, call back if
you want to try to get you on. Let me
get gentlemen, as we wrap this up here, the most
likely result from this hearing before that, as a threshold question,
do either of you take any guidance from the fact
(46:53):
that the gatekeeper allowed this to go forward to the
full court?
Speaker 11 (46:58):
I do, Yeah, I do think it reflects the gravity
of what's going on here, not just in this.
Speaker 13 (47:04):
Particular case, but procedure procedure.
Speaker 8 (47:07):
In George, do you agree with that? I don't know.
Speaker 11 (47:10):
Yeah.
Speaker 12 (47:11):
Judge Joor, who kicked the case up to the full benches,
I believe she's new to the court and has you know.
I think she took Judge Judge, she just got to
point it to the bench within the last year, I believe.
And the fact is it's a good move. It's a
good move at the whole bench way, and because they
have a right to appeal it from her anyway, Sure.
Speaker 8 (47:32):
We have we have Jason back. Rob, you bring Jason up.
I don't trust my mouse right now, go ahead, Jason,
welcome to nightside.
Speaker 21 (47:39):
I will be quick, and I think I'll try and
leave time for the attorneys to respond, not the case,
which might be another motivate.
Speaker 8 (47:55):
I have no idea. What's wrong with your line? Jason?
Speaker 11 (47:59):
Uh?
Speaker 8 (48:00):
Uh? I? Rob, give it, give it a ten second?
Uh fix? And and let's give it a shot. Let's
give it a shot. If he's there, okay, Rob? Is
he Is he there or not? If not, we're going
to leave it. We lost him, okay. Well, maybe maybe
he hung up in the first place. Maybe it wasn't
my mouse, gentlemen, I think Bob George thinks it's going
(48:24):
to be remanded back to canone conone. I'm not sure
the pronunciation of her name. Uh is that true? Bob?
Speaker 12 (48:33):
I believe that Dad is a good possibility, and it's
something that can very well happen fair enough.
Speaker 8 (48:42):
A bit of a prediction from you, Bill, kick him?
Speaker 11 (48:44):
Yeah, I think it's a distinct distinct possibility. It's it's
not a certainty it is going to happen, and it's
not a certainty that it's not. But I think, I think,
I think it's a good chance it may happen.
Speaker 12 (48:54):
All Right, you got yourself out, and not to undermine
what you think, Dan, I just don't think they're going
to make new law in this case. I don't think so.
Speaker 8 (49:02):
Hey, guess that's why. That's why I'm not practicing law
full time like you guys, that I'm running a shark show. Gentlemen,
thank you both very much for your uh, your generosity
of time to know.
Speaker 11 (49:14):
Okay, I really do, Okay, glad to be here.
Speaker 8 (49:17):
You can find him in Westwood and Bob George easily available.
I know you would. You're you're out of town tonight,
and you gave us a good chuck of time, Bob,
so I'm particularly intended too. Yeah, wherever, wherever.
Speaker 11 (49:33):
Thanks Bob, Thank you, Dan, Okay, all right.
Speaker 8 (49:36):
Absolutely, thanks Bill. That's the beauty of being able to
work remotely when we come back. One of my favorite
hours we're only doing about every four months or so.
Brushes with celebrity. Everyone has met a celebrity. How did
they treat you the good, the bad, or the ugly.
This is your opportunity to tell us who was nice
and maybe who wasn't. My name's Dan Ray. This is nightside.
(49:57):
We wrapped the week on the other side of the
eleven o'clock nurse
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!
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