Karen Read Case: 4th Juror Speaks Out | Kevin Albert Put On Admin Leave | The Dominos Are Falling
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 лип 2024
- Karen Read Case Update: 4th Juror Speaks Out | Kevin Albert Put On Administrative Leave | The Dominos Are Falling
Enjoy! Hit the like button, subscribe & hit that notification bell!
Please Consider Supporting my Channel
LinkTree: linktr.ee/LTLMedia
Buy Me a Coffee: www.buymeacoffee.com/ltlmedia
Ca$h App: cash.app/$ltlpodcast
Venmo: www.venmo.com/u/ltlpodcast
PayPal (Friends & Family): www.paypal.com/paypalme/TheOp...
Buy Merch
LTL Merch Store: www.ltltruecrime.com/
Find Me On Socials
Twitter: / letstalkliveytc
Facebook: / ltlmediainc
Rumble: rumble.com/user/LTLTrueCrime
Join my memberships:
/ @ltlmedia
Have a Question or Comment?
Email: letstalklivepodcast@gmail.com
Copyright Disclaimer
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational, or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
I do not authorize the use of any of my videos, images, prose, or related content without my express prior authorization. Please feel free to request my express prior authorization by emailing me at letstalklivepodcast@gmail.com.
★☆★ Thank you for watching my video! Hope you enjoyed it, make sure you like, comment, share and SUBSCRIBE to our channel and click the 🔔 icon for notifications when I go LIVE or post a new video. ★☆★ - Розваги
SMASH the LIKE button if you like the screw up with my Darth Vader voice... LOL
Enjoy! Hit the like button, subscribe & hit that notification bell!
Please Consider Supporting my Channel
LinkTree: linktr.ee/LTLMedia
Lol that was so funny and weird lolololol.
Hope you're okay
Omg, it was a Darth Vader voice?! I thought it was the world's longest burp and fast forwarded through it 😂
Very odd that you only have your comment in the comment section and not one other comment....🧐🧐 Yet you have over 1.5 k likes??
That was awesome 😂
AJ is a genius!
Thank you jurors Amen 🙏🏻
You are correct - it is embarrassing to live near Canton, and all the other little horror towns that exist in plain sight but we have not yet heard their stories.
It’s because for the most part they these kind of Corrupted police officers tend to victims the poor and one listens to them
Accept the corrupted officers and their corrupted Judges
And can imagine the consequences..
MA needs to update their judicial system. They're back in the Boston Tea Party days
AJ is a very smart man and i think he knew how Bev was handling was wrong and this is going to go down as the Karen Read Vs State case law.... and i believe if the jurors didn't come forward he would have defiantly brought it up on the 22nd .
You’ve been doing a great job!!!
Legally defense cannot make contact with jurors in a mistrial. The whole point to the affidavit from counsel is to say under penalty of perjury that they did not make contact the juror initiated contact.
A lot of these horrible people are going down for ONE family. Bev, Jen, Matt and you Mr proctor. Was it worth it? Are the alberts your besties now? Nice
Don’t forget Higgy! He’s going down too!
Lmao 🤣 🤣 I thought my phone speed was acting crazy. I was trying to fix it hahaha 😂
I have just started listening to your channel and I really like it! Thank so much for putting the info out there.
I bet crab walking auntie Bev has been spinning circles in the sand for the last few days😂😂😂
Let's hope Judge Bev does the right thing though I have zero faith in her
Btw.. Your channel rocks!! You do a great job!! Thanks for your hard work!! I appreciate you covering Karens case!! #FreeKarenRead
You work hard too!! We appreciate it ❤
Why didn't the jury indicate in their note to the judge that they had come to a verdict on 2 counts?? Certainty the judge should have checked.
Love 💗 the studio!!
Great video, Thank you 👍
I agree why are still disputing? We all know she Karen was framed obviously why is this still like a oh we going to court ?
Just want u to know, you are my favorite ! 🤩 And, I watch a lot of these shows... So glad I just ran across you. 😃
Thank you very amazing information and thought the same 💯
I agree with your thoughts on Jackson's decision
Sean thought (see 2 interviews on Howie Carr podcast) they thought “other hearing/agency was something paid for by defense throughout trial. Which brought suspicion to all connected to that part. Notice that Paul also thought this. So? Hmmm, maybe the thought this. So they dismissed that evidence.
That's odd because the defense asked the feds on the stand if they had ever met, spoken with either the defense or Lally & they said no on the stand. I don't understand how they came to that conclusion.
😂😂😂😂 I’m not laughing at you Brian I stg 🤣🤣🤣 but that was startling
This Jury worked hard and they deserve to be heard They did there job on2 out of 3 of the charges They were never asked and thought they had tk complete entire forms before telling what they have It was not said clearly and was definitely confusing At one posing when she read about the alcohol on number 2 it sounded like if she drank she was guility but nobody can prove she didn’t drink when she got home and stayed home for 5 hours mad after she dropped off John There was only 4 drinks on her receipt
Bev, Matt, Jen and you Mr proctor all went down for one family. Was it worth it? Are they your besties now? You’re going to lose everything! That is karma for trying to put an innocent person in jail. Turtle man might live in Bev cape cod home and not buried under it like threatened by an Albert.
I thought Bev made a statement that day before she announced the hung jury..did she not make the statement that she didn't have to poll the jurors and wasn't going to?so why would defense team even request to take a poll after she made this statement?I have to go back and watch to confirm...
😊dam this is very scary 😨 😳 😕 😬 I am so glad I don't live there so sad how they treet people
I guess my son, his dad, and his uncle still have the lowest voices in my life. You had them beat for a minute. Thanks for the laugh. :)
Yes, you move to a different venue. They’ve done it all over before for the same reason. 👍🏼 If it’s too high profile, either side can argue for a change of venue.
tha public eye (turtle eye;))
You are so right so glad I moved out of ma grew up there but its everywhere even New Hampshire I’m so hope Jen gets her can’t stand her so many don’t like her
I thought the darth was intentional 😂😅
ENDING "LEGAL FICTION!!"
Take your hands off me... that man is disgusting... she spoke for 20 seconds too long so should be man handled...
Isn’t it technically only 2 actual jurors
I’d be scared to go in that town and I after watching reruns of the entire rerun of the case trials was myself intimidated by Alberts stared in the court stirring
40:04 its a risk if they say convictions though
@LTLMedia in Bev’s instructions for the 2nd charge it said something like - if KR did something that set the wheels in motion that led to JO death! Then that’s guilty! I thought I heard it at the time & Melanie Little confirmed it yesterday! So if you drop someone at a party & they get the shit beaten out of them it’s your fault??? The jordy instructions as well as form were a joke!
Some on the jury may have still thought the Karen hit him just hard enough to cause him to trip. If they don't believe the taillight was planted, then somehow her taillight broke at the scene that can't be explained.
I think Jackson was limited off camera by the judge on what he could do. He is too smart to let anything slip by him. Plus we don’t know what was said in the sidebars.
They were hung up on count 2 bc of the drinking & driving IMO. BUT the DA never proved she was drunk at the time! All DA witnesses, including bartender, said she didnt appear to be, no receipts for these so called 9 drinks, shes 4'11" & 95 pds [I didnt see her drink 9 drinks in videos] - in fact Johns back hid video at 1st bar w/ drinks, at 2nd bar - John finishes his beer then picks up her drink takes a drink & walks out with it, & they "estimated" her BAC from a piece
of paper extrapalation-& dont know if she had a drink when she got home. Really? (But they knew Johns BAC was .28 - near death. He had to have been drinking her drinks too. He didnt get that way from his 2 or 3 beers. He did say in his texts she had to come & get him bc he couldnt drive. Maybe he was drinking b4 he even got there. But her? 9 shots at her size? She woulda been on the floor!)
With 2 jurors reaching out we need more to come forward and be comfortable and safe to do so. Will be strange to see the lawyers and judge as witnesses. Demon voice beginning huh. lol
Any thing is possible with this case 🤔
When is Mark up again?
50:15 Knowly dropping him off? Then look at the people who she "knowingly' dropped him off too and actually caused the problem. Or why not go to the people who invited them? How far does it go?
a) Return
The verdict shall be unanimous. It shall be a general verdict returned by the jury to the judge in open court. The jury shall file a verdict slip with the clerk upon the return of the verdict.
(b) Several offenses or defendants
If there are two or more offenses or defendants tried together, the jury may with the consent of the judge at any time during its deliberations return or be required by the judge to return a verdict or verdicts with respect to the defendants or charges as to which a verdict has been reached; and thereafter the jury may in the discretion of the judge resume deliberation. The judge may declare a mistrial as to any charges upon which the jury cannot agree upon a verdict; provided, however, that the judge may first require the jury to return verdicts on those charges upon which the jury can agree and direct that such verdicts be received and recorded.
(c) Special questions
The trial judge may submit special questions to the jury.
(d) Poll of jury
When a verdict is returned and before the verdict is recorded, the jury may be polled in the discretion of the judge. If after the poll there is not a unanimous concurrence, the jury may be directed to retire for further deliberations or may be discharged.
Subdivision (a)
This subdivision requires that the verdict be unanimous. This is consistent with Fed.R.Crim.P. 31(a).
Accord, Me.R.Crim.P. 31(a); Rules of Criminal Procedure (U.L.A.) Rule 535(b) (1974). But see ABA Standards Relating to Trial by Jury § 1.1(b) (Approved Draft, 1968), which allows for less than a unanimous verdict. The requirement that the jury return a verdict slip with the verdict is a change from existing practice. The verdict slip is a written recital of the verdict. This practice conforms to Rule 535(a) of the Uniform Rules of Criminal Procedure (U.L.A.) (1974). The use of a verdict slip will help reduce errors in the rendering and announcing of verdicts. See Commonwealth v. Brown , 367 Mass. 24, 27-29 (1975) (verdicts of not guilty returned, affirmed, and recorded and jury discharged; no error in permitting corrected verdicts to be entered since jury had remained undispersed, in custody, and had not been influenced), pet. for habeas corpus denied sub nom. Brown v. Gunter , 428 F.Supp. 889 (D.Mass.1977), aff'd, 562 F.2d 122 (1st Cir.1977).
Subdivision (b)
This subdivision permits a jury in multiple-defendant or multiple-offense cases, with the consent of the court, to return a verdict at any time during their deliberations with respect to charges or defendants as to which a verdict has been reached. This rule also permits the court to require the return of such verdicts before the jury has reached a verdict as to all the defendants or charges. In either case, if the court directs, the jury is to continue its deliberations after rendering the verdicts under this subdivision. To the extent that this rule permits the jury to return such verdicts without having reached a decision on all the charges or defendants, it is consistent with Fed.R.Crim.P. 31(b)-(c). Accord Rules of Criminal Procedure (U.L.A.) Rule 535(c)-(d) (1974).
This rule also provides that the court may declare a mistrial in cases where the jury is unable to reach a verdict. However, it must first receive and record the verdicts which the jury can agree upon. See ABA Standards Relating to Trial by Jury §§ 5.4-.5 (Approved Draft, 1968); Rules of Criminal Procedure (U.L.A.), supra, Rule 541.
Subdivision (b) does not prohibit retrial of those defendants as to whom the jury is unable to reach a verdict. This is consistent with Fed.R.Crim.P. 31(b), which provides that, in cases of multiple defendants, disagreement as to one or more defendants has no effect upon the verdict as to any other defendant, and such defendant may be retried without violating the protection of the double jeopardy clause. 8A J. MOORE, FEDERAL PRACTICE para. 31.02[2] (1978 rev.). It has long been settled that jeopardy does not attach where the jury is discharged after inability to reach a verdict. United States v. Perez , 22 U.S. 579, 9 Wheat. 579 (1824); Thames v. Commonwealth , 365 Mass. 477 (1974). It is within the discretion of the court to declare a mistrial where there is a “manifest necessity.” United States v. Perez, supra at 580. Unless such “manifest necessity” exists, a second prosecution will be barred by the double jeopardy clause. Since Perez, it has been held that where the jury has been unable to agree upon a verdict, the declaration of a mistrial is a “classic example” of manifest necessity. United States v. Castellanos , 478 F.2d 749, 751 (2d Cir.1973). Thus the defendant may be retried without twice being placed in jeopardy.
Subdivision (c)
One change in Massachusetts law is the elimination of the special verdict. General Laws c. 278, § 11 had authorized the jury to return a special verdict, although this procedure was seldom used. This subdivision does, however, recognize the practice of submitting special questions to the jury. See Commonwealth v. Beneficial Finance Co. , 360 Mass. 188, 299-300, (1971), cert. denied, 407 U.S. 910 (1972). Special questions should, however, be used sparingly as they can “ ‘catechize’ a reluctant juror away from an acquittal and towards a seemingly more ‘logical’ conviction.” Heald v. Mullaney , 505 F.2d 1241, 1245 (1st Cir.1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 955 (1975).
Subdivision (d)
This subdivision is based upon Fed.R.Crim.P. 31(d), but differs in that the polling of the jury is to be discretionary with the court rather than a right of the defendant so as to conform to existing Massachusetts practice. That this discretion is well-settled in the Commonwealth was recently reaffirmed in Commonwealth v. Stewart , 375 Mass. 380 (1978). See also Commonwealth v. Valliere , 366 Mass. 479, 497 (1974); Commonwealth v. Caine , 366 Mass. 366, 375 (1974); Commonwealth v. Fleming , 360 Mass. 404, 408 (1971) (jurors polled); Commonwealth v. Beneficial Finance Co., supra, at 300-301. Under Rule 31 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and under the ABA Standards Relating to Trial by Jury § 5.5 (Approved Draft, 1968), a jury is to be polled only at the request of a party or upon the court's own motion. In any case, where a jury has been polled and there is not a unanimous concurrence, compare Commonwealth v. Fleming, supra, or it appears that the verdict was a compromise or other serious doubts are raised as to its integrity, see Commonwealth v. Stewart, supra, the court may declare a mistrial, or alternatively, order further deliberations. Accord, Rules of Criminal Procedure (U.L.A.) Rule 535(e) (1974).
Downloads
Open PDF file, 2.49 MB, Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure (English, PDF 2.49 MB)
Contact
Trial Court Law Libraries
+
I wondered WTF was happening.. I was going back to my Ipad to the tv thinking Id somehow slowed the vid down for you to sound like Satan from SouthPark 😂
Sorry to hear youre dealing with stuff behind the scenes … break ups suck
Jennifer’s friends - please check in on her
Could AJ have gambled on staying quiet on the off chance that the jury had agreed to convict to something? Maybe he thought uncertainty would be better than a certain conviction? Obviously that's not what was going on but there's no way he could have known that. Juries can be incredibly unpredictable. NG on 1 and 3 and 8-4 G on count 2 doesn't make any logical sense but here we are. I hate to say it, but a lot of people are just not that good at logic. I know it's hard to conceive of as an intelligent person, but it's true.
#replayKarenRead
Canton Clown Town
1:00:24 i don't totally disagree but to my mind she was sort of expressing concern about the media literacy of the public and the widely variable journalistic integrity amongst creators. I dont think she has a problem with indepedent reporting generally just the incentive of some to "report" anything for clicks and that some people dont think about what is being presented to them
Jury foreman was a guilty retired police now physician assidtant
Exactly ARACA pooped Karen didn’t hit him
47:50 Manslaughter was only a 'negotiation' for maybe for a those for CM -I believe, Karen didn't hit John so why accept Manslaughter when car didn't kill him? Sadly, John went to the party on his own decision. If Karen gets a DUI or something like that, everyone else involved that night drunk should too, and the guys loosing their gun and badge. Maybe they all learned their lesson.. let Karen go and don't drink and drive.😮
People shouldn't confuse freeing Karen with Justice for John. John would want the truth.
I don't think the jury are hung on the involuntary manslaughter part of the charge. I honestly believe that they don't think she is guilty in anyway shape or form of hitting John with her suv in any circumstances!? That it's more rather that they feel shes guilty of a dui charge ONLY but either they haven't got an option for finding her guilty of that dui offence as a stand alone charge & verdict or that they're ONLY allowed to convict or a aquit her of the two offences as a combined but a single charge & single verdict being done deliberately by the cw too me ! Think some feel she's guilty of the dui but not the manslaughter part but aren't able to separate the 2 n that's where their divided morals come into it n some are not going to find her guilty of dui knowing that she'd have to go to prison for the other offence attached too it n it's now a moral or legal rights type thing with their own minds if they could do that to Karen or not.. Bevs instructions sounded too me as if they Didn't have an option of verdict for a verdict for dui on its own n had to be dui /involuntary manslaughter verdict only or none?
Slugs 🐌 🐌 Alberts bro’s
Ok I don’t know if my comment’s are like included in this Group
Yes they are 👍
😂😂😂
Want ton
I get really bored and pssed off when people keep stopping videos to talk whatever? Just play the whole thing and talk after ffs
The 'O' face in your thumbnail is unprofessional.