Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Dashy and the jam In Morning Show with d J.
Fourn and saw.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
Taking morning Blastin's number one for hip hop jam in
ninety four or five.
Speaker 3 (00:10):
Hi, everybody, good morning. So obviously the news came out yesterday.
It was the headline when everybody was talking about the
court weighing in on Karen Reid's case, refusing to drop
two of those charges after her attorneys were basically like
listen in the first trial.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
Unofficially, we know that a lot.
Speaker 3 (00:30):
Of these jurors argued to acquit her of murder and
leaving the scene of a fatal accident in the death
of John O'Keefe. Either way, there is a chance, and
I'm sure Nick will discuss that they might take this
even higher, the attorneys and you know, maybe take it
to like I think, a federal court. But at this
point all charges will be kept.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
It will stay in place.
Speaker 3 (00:50):
Second degree murder, leaving the scene of an accident, manslaughter
while driving drunk. We are about two months out from
what will be her second trial, which is set to
begin in April. Nick, I gotta believe how close you
are with Karen that yesterday was she probably felt defeated.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
I would think yesterday that had to be tough.
Speaker 1 (01:06):
I wouldn't say defeated. I think I think people were
expecting a denial just for the fact that the s
JAC is still in the same ballgame as the Commonwealth.
Not saying that that they had any influence on it.
But if you if you read the appeal denial, some
(01:28):
of the stuff that the SJC made in their argument.
For example, you know, none of the jurors showed any
disappointment or disagreement when the verdice was read. But the
thing is is, if you watch the trial, they didn't
even have time to show any disagreement, and you had
some of the jurors actually speak out yesterday to the
(01:48):
to the news saying that they don't think this was right.
They think that those charges should have been thrown out.
Speaker 3 (01:54):
Interesting and just so that way everybody can understand, because listen,
you know we've discussed and I think you do a
great job of kind of breaking it down for our
audience to understand. But essentially Karen's attorneys were saying, listen,
I know it was a hung jury. However, after the trial,
a lot of jurors came out and said, listen, we
(02:15):
were in agreement on certain things. Is that the best
way you could surmise kind of what they brought to
the court yesterday.
Speaker 1 (02:22):
Yeah, And the reason why is because the jury was
under the influence, under the impression that they couldn't come
out out with a partial verdict, and so the foreman
was like, Nope, we can't do that. We have to
say that where you know, hung on all of them,
and that's ultimately what they did. So they could have
came out with a partial verdict, not guilty on two
(02:44):
charges and hung on another one. But I think there
was a lot of confusion from the jury members, so
not a lot of them spoke out about how they felt.
Speaker 3 (02:52):
And doesn't that you know, I'm not trying to throw
shade or anything, but don't we can't we maybe put
a little bit of that on Judge Bev like shouldn't
they have been like if I'm just thinking, if you're
a juror in such a massive trial, you should understand
the rules before we start deliberating.
Speaker 1 (03:11):
Oh I, And just in her jury instructions alone, she
told them that they couldn't fill out the verdict forms
unless they were unanimous on all three charges. So that
rate there is basically telling the jury that no, you
can't come out with a partial verdict.
Speaker 2 (03:27):
That would make me mentally drive me insane.
Speaker 1 (03:31):
The whole thing seems like just unorganized.
Speaker 2 (03:33):
I know, And that's what we go back to a lot.
Speaker 3 (03:35):
It's just it was such I mean, watching it on
TV sometimes it almost felt like you were watching a
Hollywood movie because there are certain so many certain things
were botched and things didn't make sense. So what's next
two or two months out for trial to begin. Will
they take this somewhere higher?
Speaker 1 (03:55):
Yeah, they're going They're most likely going to go to
the Federal Supreme Court. Just yesterday alone, we helped to
raise twenty thousand dollars basically to file the appeal in
the in the federal court. And once it goes to
the federal court, that has nothing to do with the
state of Massachusetts anymore. So you know, they'll ultimately have
(04:15):
the final decision, and if this appeal does go through,
then the new trial cannot start until they have a
decision on the appeal. So let's just say, you know,
they don't make a decision until the middle of April.
The trial can't start on April first, because the appeal
has to do with what is she what she's being
charged with. So this could push the trial out. It
(04:37):
may not. You know, we don't know what's going to
ultimately happen with that. But yeah, that's where this is
heading now.
Speaker 2 (04:42):
And I was watching the news this morning, and I
think it's a question I have as.
Speaker 3 (04:45):
Well, how do you guys know that these jurors were
unanimous on those two charges, Because if we can't go
back to the jurors and we can't put them on
the stand to actually say like, I found her guilt here,
I found her not I felt him most charge is
I mean, we can't take hearsay to the to the
federal court.
Speaker 1 (05:05):
Well five, Well, the thing is is five of them
reached out to the defense team. It's saying the same thing.
And then once they once the defense team put this
out there that hey, these jerrors are saying they were
not guilty on charges one and three. The other jerors
that didn't speak out, they didn't say anything like wait,
that's not true, you know what I mean. They didn't
come out and oppose what the defense team was saying.
(05:26):
So you have, you know, five jurors that said they
were they were not guilty on those chargers and the
other jurors. They didn't say anything, So.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
I get that. I just don't know. I just don't
know if in a court of law.
Speaker 1 (05:38):
It's like on the record. Well, well, so basically what
they're trying to do is they're not. They're not. Then
they didn't ask the SCC that throw the chargers out.
What they're asking them to do is have Judge Beverly
Canoni take the jurors back in and pull them. That's
what that's what that's what they want because then if
you pull, if you bring the jury members back in
and you pull them, then it's like, hey, okay, what
(05:59):
we what did you guys agree on in that room?
Then they would say it right then and there it's
the judge. So they're not saying, hey, take out a
word on it and throw these charges out there. I
just want that.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
That's what I was wondering, okay.
Speaker 3 (06:10):
And then once they get the polling, if they if
they say, hey, yeah, we were unanimous on these two charges,
then we get into the conversation of double jeopardy because
if exactly got it.
Speaker 2 (06:19):
Okay, that makes it.
Speaker 3 (06:19):
That makes a lot more sense because I'm like, listen,
we can't I'd go right to a judge and be like, no,
I promise you I can get the BBO for free.
That's what they That's what they told me in Miami.
So now I understand. So okay, next next we'll go
to the federal court try and see if they can
work on that there.
Speaker 2 (06:36):
And I get exactly what you're saying.
Speaker 3 (06:37):
If you if you have an appeal, you kind of
have to wait until the appeal is figured out and
settled before trial can can begin. So we might not
have an April trial.
Speaker 2 (06:44):
It just kind of all depends, right, Absolutely, got it,
all right? Anything else you want to add in?
Speaker 1 (06:50):
Yes, Michael Procter. He had his second hearing the other
day on February tenth. That went all day as well.
So now they have another one on March thirteenth, and if
that goes all day, then the following Friday they they'll
have another hearing. So actually, an emotion that was filed
(07:16):
yesterday by the defense team. On July first, Michael Proctor
was sending text messages to Adam Lalley basically saying, Hey,
we're not watching the A hole Alan Jackson. We're not
watching that a holes closing argument. We're all a nervous wreck,
blah blah blah, and he was supposed to be. None
of those witnesses were allowed to watch the trial or
(07:36):
watch watch anything to do with it. So he ultimately
admitted that they were watching the trial, which should impeach
all their testimony because now you have them watching each
other and hearing what they're saying, which is gonna ultimately, uh,
you're gonna try to tailor your testimony around what other
people are saying.
Speaker 2 (07:53):
So yeah, and by the way, here's the thing on that.
Obviously they're gonna watch.
Speaker 3 (07:58):
But to put it in text message watch the ID channel.
Speaker 2 (08:06):
I'm confused.
Speaker 1 (08:07):
Not only that, I mean he knows his text messages.
The defense had his text messages, and so the trial ended.
I believe it was July third, So July first. He
probably thought he was in the clear because he already
he already testified, right, They already had text messages from
months ago, years ago, so they probably didn't think they
were going to get more text messages with his and
(08:27):
that's what they ended up doing. They got more.
Speaker 2 (08:30):
I hate using this as a reference, but Michael Proctor
is leaky.
Speaker 3 (08:35):
Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (08:36):
And then the last thing I would say is the
defense filed another motion where basically the defense team wants
all the metadata from the video footage from the Canton
Police Department because a retired Canton police officer downloaded all
of this video footage to his own personal iCloud, which
the Canton PD was was taken off the case. Basically
(08:59):
in the beginning of this this guy should have never
had any of this video footage, especially on his personal
eye cloud. So they want the metadata from uh when
it was all downloaded, and Hank Brennan's like, no, we're
not giving it to you. Fight. You can file a
motion in court and you can try to get it
that way. Now, the prosecution is supposed to be it's
supposed to be the ones that are finding the truth
and not holding anything back from the jury. There should
(09:22):
be no reason why. Hank Brennan said, Okay, here's the
metadata for when this video, when this video was downloaded
and captured. There's a reason why they're holding it back.
Most likely because it's going to eat the show that
it was downloaded within those thirty days, and then the
state has been holding this from the defense team, or
it's going to show that it was downloaded after the
thirty days, which means it didn't delete itself facts. Oh
(09:45):
either way, either way a win win for the defense team.
Speaker 3 (09:47):
Yeah, all right, well we will see where this goes.
As always, Nick, I appreciate you. I'm going to put
you on the spot right now because I did say
and I mentioned earlier in the show, I didn't give
all the details. So, but if some body on the
other side of this who believes Karen is guilty is
willing to come on the show, would you be comfortable
doing almost like a live court TV on our show.
Speaker 1 (10:14):
In the middle of our debate? Sure?
Speaker 2 (10:16):
Wait are you you cut out a little bit? Did
you say? Yeah?
Speaker 1 (10:20):
I said yeah, as long as she doesn't order coffee
to the drive.
Speaker 3 (10:24):
Never forget, never forget. The first woman that was set
to debate, Nick Rocco, comes on and goes give me
a second and order her coffee.
Speaker 2 (10:31):
I deal. I just I mean, you know, you're a guy.
I just wanted to make sure you were good on that.
Speaker 3 (10:35):
I don't know if it'll end up happening, but Nick,
as always, thank you for joining us.
Speaker 2 (10:39):
Hang on the line. I want to talk to you after,
but I mean, there it is. We'll see, we'll see
what ends ends. Up happening, you know.
Speaker 4 (10:45):
Still more weird stuff happening here, especially that video where
they're trying to get the video from the police department,
which is supposed to be deleted thirty days after, but
years later, bits and pieces of it are stiff coming out.
Where's it coming from?
Speaker 2 (10:58):
I know where's it coming from. Also, why are we
still sending text? Why are we still talking about overt
By the.
Speaker 3 (11:05):
Way, I'm not even gonna clown him for watching, Like,
of course they're all gonna watch, but the fact that.
Speaker 4 (11:11):
You have left a receipt of it is like you're detective,
go get a burner phone, you know what I mean?
Speaker 2 (11:18):
And they use that like, you know, all the tactics
to you are you know what, It's very clear, makes
no sense. They never watch the wire.
Speaker 3 (11:25):
They never watched the wire, and they'll never ever understand
Dashy and the jam In Morning Show with d J.
Fourn and saw.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
Taking morning Blastin's number one for hip hop jam in
ninety four or five.
Speaker 3 (00:10):
Hi, everybody, good morning. So obviously the news came out yesterday.
It was the headline when everybody was talking about the
court weighing in on Karen Reid's case, refusing to drop
two of those charges after her attorneys were basically like
listen in the first trial.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
Unofficially, we know that a lot.
Speaker 3 (00:30):
Of these jurors argued to acquit her of murder and
leaving the scene of a fatal accident in the death
of John O'Keefe. Either way, there is a chance, and
I'm sure Nick will discuss that they might take this
even higher, the attorneys and you know, maybe take it
to like I think, a federal court. But at this
point all charges will be kept.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
It will stay in place.
Speaker 3 (00:50):
Second degree murder, leaving the scene of an accident, manslaughter
while driving drunk. We are about two months out from
what will be her second trial, which is set to
begin in April. Nick, I gotta believe how close you
are with Karen that yesterday was she probably felt defeated.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
I would think yesterday that had to be tough.
Speaker 1 (01:06):
I wouldn't say defeated. I think I think people were
expecting a denial just for the fact that the s
JAC is still in the same ballgame as the Commonwealth.
Not saying that that they had any influence on it.
But if you if you read the appeal denial, some
(01:28):
of the stuff that the SJC made in their argument.
For example, you know, none of the jurors showed any
disappointment or disagreement when the verdice was read. But the
thing is is, if you watch the trial, they didn't
even have time to show any disagreement, and you had
some of the jurors actually speak out yesterday to the
(01:48):
to the news saying that they don't think this was right.
They think that those charges should have been thrown out.
Speaker 3 (01:54):
Interesting and just so that way everybody can understand, because listen,
you know we've discussed and I think you do a
great job of kind of breaking it down for our
audience to understand. But essentially Karen's attorneys were saying, listen,
I know it was a hung jury. However, after the trial,
a lot of jurors came out and said, listen, we
(02:15):
were in agreement on certain things. Is that the best
way you could surmise kind of what they brought to
the court yesterday.
Speaker 1 (02:22):
Yeah, And the reason why is because the jury was
under the influence, under the impression that they couldn't come
out out with a partial verdict, and so the foreman
was like, Nope, we can't do that. We have to
say that where you know, hung on all of them,
and that's ultimately what they did. So they could have
came out with a partial verdict, not guilty on two
(02:44):
charges and hung on another one. But I think there
was a lot of confusion from the jury members, so
not a lot of them spoke out about how they felt.
Speaker 3 (02:52):
And doesn't that you know, I'm not trying to throw
shade or anything, but don't we can't we maybe put
a little bit of that on Judge Bev like shouldn't
they have been like if I'm just thinking, if you're
a juror in such a massive trial, you should understand
the rules before we start deliberating.
Speaker 1 (03:11):
Oh I, And just in her jury instructions alone, she
told them that they couldn't fill out the verdict forms
unless they were unanimous on all three charges. So that
rate there is basically telling the jury that no, you
can't come out with a partial verdict.
Speaker 2 (03:27):
That would make me mentally drive me insane.
Speaker 1 (03:31):
The whole thing seems like just unorganized.
Speaker 2 (03:33):
I know, And that's what we go back to a lot.
Speaker 3 (03:35):
It's just it was such I mean, watching it on
TV sometimes it almost felt like you were watching a
Hollywood movie because there are certain so many certain things
were botched and things didn't make sense. So what's next
two or two months out for trial to begin. Will
they take this somewhere higher?
Speaker 1 (03:55):
Yeah, they're going They're most likely going to go to
the Federal Supreme Court. Just yesterday alone, we helped to
raise twenty thousand dollars basically to file the appeal in
the in the federal court. And once it goes to
the federal court, that has nothing to do with the
state of Massachusetts anymore. So you know, they'll ultimately have
(04:15):
the final decision, and if this appeal does go through,
then the new trial cannot start until they have a
decision on the appeal. So let's just say, you know,
they don't make a decision until the middle of April.
The trial can't start on April first, because the appeal
has to do with what is she what she's being
charged with. So this could push the trial out. It
(04:37):
may not. You know, we don't know what's going to
ultimately happen with that. But yeah, that's where this is
heading now.
Speaker 2 (04:42):
And I was watching the news this morning, and I
think it's a question I have as.
Speaker 3 (04:45):
Well, how do you guys know that these jurors were
unanimous on those two charges, Because if we can't go
back to the jurors and we can't put them on
the stand to actually say like, I found her guilt here,
I found her not I felt him most charge is
I mean, we can't take hearsay to the to the
federal court.
Speaker 1 (05:05):
Well five, Well, the thing is is five of them
reached out to the defense team. It's saying the same thing.
And then once they once the defense team put this
out there that hey, these jerrors are saying they were
not guilty on charges one and three. The other jerors
that didn't speak out, they didn't say anything like wait,
that's not true, you know what I mean. They didn't
come out and oppose what the defense team was saying.
(05:26):
So you have, you know, five jurors that said they
were they were not guilty on those chargers and the
other jurors. They didn't say anything, So.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
I get that. I just don't know. I just don't
know if in a court of law.
Speaker 1 (05:38):
It's like on the record. Well, well, so basically what
they're trying to do is they're not. They're not. Then
they didn't ask the SCC that throw the chargers out.
What they're asking them to do is have Judge Beverly
Canoni take the jurors back in and pull them. That's
what that's what that's what they want because then if
you pull, if you bring the jury members back in
and you pull them, then it's like, hey, okay, what
(05:59):
we what did you guys agree on in that room?
Then they would say it right then and there it's
the judge. So they're not saying, hey, take out a
word on it and throw these charges out there. I
just want that.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
That's what I was wondering, okay.
Speaker 3 (06:10):
And then once they get the polling, if they if
they say, hey, yeah, we were unanimous on these two charges,
then we get into the conversation of double jeopardy because
if exactly got it.
Speaker 2 (06:19):
Okay, that makes it.
Speaker 3 (06:19):
That makes a lot more sense because I'm like, listen,
we can't I'd go right to a judge and be like, no,
I promise you I can get the BBO for free.
That's what they That's what they told me in Miami.
So now I understand. So okay, next next we'll go
to the federal court try and see if they can
work on that there.
Speaker 2 (06:36):
And I get exactly what you're saying.
Speaker 3 (06:37):
If you if you have an appeal, you kind of
have to wait until the appeal is figured out and
settled before trial can can begin. So we might not
have an April trial.
Speaker 2 (06:44):
It just kind of all depends, right, Absolutely, got it,
all right? Anything else you want to add in?
Speaker 1 (06:50):
Yes, Michael Procter. He had his second hearing the other
day on February tenth. That went all day as well.
So now they have another one on March thirteenth, and if
that goes all day, then the following Friday they they'll
have another hearing. So actually, an emotion that was filed
(07:16):
yesterday by the defense team. On July first, Michael Proctor
was sending text messages to Adam Lalley basically saying, Hey,
we're not watching the A hole Alan Jackson. We're not
watching that a holes closing argument. We're all a nervous wreck,
blah blah blah, and he was supposed to be. None
of those witnesses were allowed to watch the trial or
(07:36):
watch watch anything to do with it. So he ultimately
admitted that they were watching the trial, which should impeach
all their testimony because now you have them watching each
other and hearing what they're saying, which is gonna ultimately, uh,
you're gonna try to tailor your testimony around what other
people are saying.
Speaker 2 (07:53):
So yeah, and by the way, here's the thing on that.
Obviously they're gonna watch.
Speaker 3 (07:58):
But to put it in text message watch the ID channel.
Speaker 2 (08:06):
I'm confused.
Speaker 1 (08:07):
Not only that, I mean he knows his text messages.
The defense had his text messages, and so the trial ended.
I believe it was July third, So July first. He
probably thought he was in the clear because he already
he already testified, right, They already had text messages from
months ago, years ago, so they probably didn't think they
were going to get more text messages with his and
(08:27):
that's what they ended up doing. They got more.
Speaker 2 (08:30):
I hate using this as a reference, but Michael Proctor
is leaky.
Speaker 3 (08:35):
Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (08:36):
And then the last thing I would say is the
defense filed another motion where basically the defense team wants
all the metadata from the video footage from the Canton
Police Department because a retired Canton police officer downloaded all
of this video footage to his own personal iCloud, which
the Canton PD was was taken off the case. Basically
(08:59):
in the beginning of this this guy should have never
had any of this video footage, especially on his personal
eye cloud. So they want the metadata from uh when
it was all downloaded, and Hank Brennan's like, no, we're
not giving it to you. Fight. You can file a
motion in court and you can try to get it
that way. Now, the prosecution is supposed to be it's
supposed to be the ones that are finding the truth
and not holding anything back from the jury. There should
(09:22):
be no reason why. Hank Brennan said, Okay, here's the
metadata for when this video, when this video was downloaded
and captured. There's a reason why they're holding it back.
Most likely because it's going to eat the show that
it was downloaded within those thirty days, and then the
state has been holding this from the defense team, or
it's going to show that it was downloaded after the
thirty days, which means it didn't delete itself facts. Oh
(09:45):
either way, either way a win win for the defense team.
Speaker 3 (09:47):
Yeah, all right, well we will see where this goes.
As always, Nick, I appreciate you. I'm going to put
you on the spot right now because I did say
and I mentioned earlier in the show, I didn't give
all the details. So, but if some body on the
other side of this who believes Karen is guilty is
willing to come on the show, would you be comfortable
doing almost like a live court TV on our show.
Speaker 1 (10:14):
In the middle of our debate? Sure?
Speaker 2 (10:16):
Wait are you you cut out a little bit? Did
you say? Yeah?
Speaker 1 (10:20):
I said yeah, as long as she doesn't order coffee
to the drive.
Speaker 3 (10:24):
Never forget, never forget. The first woman that was set
to debate, Nick Rocco, comes on and goes give me
a second and order her coffee.
Speaker 2 (10:31):
I deal. I just I mean, you know, you're a guy.
I just wanted to make sure you were good on that.
Speaker 3 (10:35):
I don't know if it'll end up happening, but Nick,
as always, thank you for joining us.
Speaker 2 (10:39):
Hang on the line. I want to talk to you after,
but I mean, there it is. We'll see, we'll see
what ends ends. Up happening, you know.
Speaker 4 (10:45):
Still more weird stuff happening here, especially that video where
they're trying to get the video from the police department,
which is supposed to be deleted thirty days after, but
years later, bits and pieces of it are stiff coming out.
Where's it coming from?
Speaker 2 (10:58):
I know where's it coming from. Also, why are we
still sending text? Why are we still talking about overt
By the.
Speaker 3 (11:05):
Way, I'm not even gonna clown him for watching, Like,
of course they're all gonna watch, but the fact that.
Speaker 4 (11:11):
You have left a receipt of it is like you're detective,
go get a burner phone, you know what I mean?
Speaker 2 (11:18):
And they use that like, you know, all the tactics
to you are you know what, It's very clear, makes
no sense. They never watch the wire.
Speaker 3 (11:25):
They never watched the wire, and they'll never ever understand
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
24/7 News: The Latest
Today’s Latest News In 4 Minutes. Updated Hourly.