LIVE | Defense Files Motion to Dismiss after Hung Jury. Did The Karen Read Jury Reach Verdicts?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 лип 2024
- THE DOCKET
0:00 Welcome
10:20 Road So Far
15:00 Mistrial Verdict
25:40 Motion to Dismiss
1:19:40 Jackson's Affidavit
1:24:33 Yannetti's Affidavit
1:40:03 Verdict Slips
1:43:50 Mistrial Verdict
2:00:00 Summary
2:06:25 Proctor Update
2:15:00 Q&A
Get Our FREE App: www.lawnerdapp.com
Don’t miss our Email Alerts: www.LawNerdAlert.com
WHAT I USE TO STREAM - STREAMYARD: streamyard.com/emily
Proud Streamyard Partner!
Mailing Address: Emily D. Baker 2000 Mallory Ln. St. 130-185, Franklin Tn 37067
Business Inquiries: emilydbaker@cesddigital.com
LAW NERD MERCH!
www.LawNerdShop.com
Help with the shop: help@emilydbaker.com
LONG-FORM CONTENT / @theemilydbaker
The Emily Show Podcast on UA-cam: emilydbaker.com/TheEmilyShowP...
Apple Podcasts: emilydbaker.com/AppleTheEmily...
Spotify Podcasts: emilydbaker.com/SpofityTheEmi...
On your favorite podcast player, Wednesdays
QUICK CONTENT?
Quick Bits Podcast: emilydbaker.com/quickbitsplay...
Apple Podcasts: emilydbaker.com/AppleQuickBits
Spotify Podcasts: emilydbaker.com/SpotifyQuickBits
Quick Bits Channel: / @emilydbakerquickbits
EMILY ON SOCIAL
Instagram: / theemilydbaker
Twitter: / theemilydbaker
Facebook: / theemilydbaker
This video is not legal advice; it is commentary for educational and entertainment purposes. Some links shared are affiliate links; all sponsorships are stated in the video. Videos are based on publicly available information unless otherwise noted. Sharing a resource is not an endorsement; it is a resource. Copyright 2020-2024 Baker Media, LLC - Розваги
I was a foreperson on a jury a couple years ago. Three counts, unanimous on two, hung on one. I communicated that to the judge and when the clerk read the verdicts, she read out all the forms for each count. It boggles my mind how this happened. So curious as to what Judge Bev said to the jury afterward and if anyone tried to make that clarification when she spoke to them. Poor Karen. I know Action Jackson is HOT right now.
I've a feeling she didn't give them that option, just went in said well done and Thank you and walked out again. She knows how to skate the law
But if however they did discuss this, then I believe Judge Bev will be in trouble. .
At least if it goes to the appellate court, the justices have to view it in the light most favorable to the defendant since there was no official verdict.
becasue its Mass and apparently they do everything different there
@@moded_corroded8132 she told them during jury instructions that vedict sheet had to be completed with unanimous decision so they weren’t told they could agree on each separate count
Someone ran the video of the judge’s verbal instructions back and clipped the relevant part on twitter. She specifically told them “after the final vote of the jury, the foreperson should check the appropriate boxes as to each charge” which they seem to have taken to mean don’t fill them out until they had reached unanimous votes on ALL of the charges
Thank you!
Right, she was probably too confused to clarify ,she constantly forgets what she says even the lawyers asked her to reword things way too many times. She forgot she said things to have from AJ that evening then said she never said that.
Well- that's totally how I would've understood it as well. I didn't think I could be any more annoyed by this Judge. I was wrong.
And/or she was too “tired”
@@kerrymedeiros509she was “tired” 🙄
I think this should be seen in the light of what the judge said before: " This is how it's done in Massachusetts " and then doing what she wants to do despite serious protestations. This has been going on since pretrial motions. Go look back how dismissive she has been to especially Mr. Jackson. I have thought many times that if this is how the judge treats outside lawyers, I can now understand how Karen was treated as an outsider.
The judge edited the form and presented it the following morning. Jackson had no issue with the new form and thanked the judge for her work.
This judge has a nasty, unprofessional attitude. Massachusetts, you can do much better. This lady is a disaster and has been very rude on national television.
@enigma_-_79 -- Interesting because that was never shown on any of the court coverage. In fact, the ONLY time Jackson thanked the judge for making updates was the day that he objected to the way the forms were presented, the judge had an emotional breakdown and had to take a timeout before coming back to the stand and agreeing to add language (which only made the forms more confusing). If you're going to try to come off as intelligent and trustworthy, maybe start with the TRUTH. 🙄
@@stellaallbright4750
You just wrote a whole comment admitting that the Judge edited the forms and she was thanked by Jackson. What’s wrong with you?
Jackson lost any reputation he had when he defended Harvey Weinstein and asked a female what she was wearing when she had an appointment with him. There was also the time that Jackson defended Kevin Spacey who admitted that he groped a young man who was waiting tables.
Jackson will say anything if money changes hands.
1:39:14 ok so I know this sounds like a simple fix moving forward, at least to me, but maybe verdict forms should say "Guilty, Not Guilty, or We can't flipping decide (or add the expletives we all want to insert). Or maybe we should have a basic form that needs to be completed when jury is locked that has each charge with the above. This would close any chance of loopholes.
I thought it was incredibly strange that when she brought the jury back in after they were deadlocked again she just flippantly told them that their service was concluded and declared a mistrial. She completely ignored the standard operating procedure of asking the parties if they would like to be heard before she declares the mistrial. She completely ignored the standard operating procedure of determining if they were deadlocked on all counts or if they had been able to reach a verdict on some of the counts. She just took a very vague note from the jury saying further deliberations would be pointless and instantly declared a mistrial and dismissed the jury.
She should be removed from the bench and disbarred if there is any truth to what's been alleged in this disclosures from jurors. There is no excuse for the level of incompetence that would allow that to slip through the cracks because you can't be bothered to do your job. Particularly when it's YOU that did such a bang up job making the jury instructions and the verdict forms as confusing as humanly possible.
I think the Jury propably felt too indimidated by this Judge to feel as though could ask questions.
I get the impression that this judge skates a very thin line on the laws, using it to manipulate and take advantage. I agreed with Jackson that the form looked geared towards a guilty verdict. I just don't trust her and that can't be good that I'm not the only one.
@@McQuizzical Yes but should we open the door to multiple 3-5 person phone/email/zoom/screenshot/text chain being "evidence" of jurors saying something? Why don't prosecutors just say that "Actually, all the jurors found her guilty but didn't want to get the backlash from the public so deadlocked instead."
Call them in and question them, the problem with them just not doing that and trying this is there's at least one juror who wrote down they were deadlocked and couldn't agree on charges (plural) which means she wasn't found not guilty on two charges as she's only charged with three so she literally can't be found not guilty on two charges when two or more charges were deadlocked...
And we also shouldn't be allowing a single judge to be a 13th juror, because they could get the opposite facts like i said above and suddenly you're going to prison instead of a new trial.
Only solution is to call them in and question them, and chances are it's not going to go well for the defense which is why they want to skip doing that and go straight to double jeopardy. If even ONE juror says they voted guilty, the defense loses this investigation.
@@McQuizzical I could not agree more! It felt that she kept complete control of everything to the point where it felt secretive on several occasions. That left the doors open for potential corruption and confusion for the parties she’s overseeing. Not a good look!
@@Susie-C-J I agree, and that fact many of use felt uneasy with this Judge speaks for itself. And here we are, looking at what's going on now.
@@Xershade I think we're seeing things differently. I believe the defense are asking for a hearing as to some type of pole on the verdict and why there was confusion?
This investigation and court case was the worst I have ever experienced as a trial watcher for decades. The DA, the DA witnesses, the investigators, the judge, the verdict forms and the jury instructions. All dismal subpar examples of failures.
The court was as sloppy as the police investigation. Is being imprecise and sloppy a Massachusetts' thing?
When South Carolina gave us the Murdaugh case for fuckery, Massachussets reacted with "hold my White Claw" 😂
I still don’t understand why the Read judge didn’t request those jurors to complete the verdict slips hence to show proof of their decisions, for the sake of the record?
Well if they were actually deadlocked on all three charges there would be nothing to fill out on the verdict form because the only options are guilty or not guilty. But what absolutely should have happened is that she should have gone through each count and asked the jury foreman if they were deadlocked on each count. That HAS to happen. You can't just take a vague note from the jury and assume that means they are deadlocked on every count.
I think they didn't know that had to fill it out when they were telling the judge they were deadlocked about some. Bev should have asked if they had 'reached an agreement on any charges' and then instructed to fill out the forms for those charges. There may have been a miscommunication here but I think it was the judges responsibility to make sure there wasn't one at the time.
Absolutely. What’s going to be WILD is if they somehow DID fill it out, but it just wasn’t checked or looked at? Bev wasn’t holding it when she declared the mistrial, she was only holding the juror note. Could you imagine if they went back and scooped up the jury notes and stuff after declaring the mistrial that day and came across the verdict forms with two of them filled out?! I could see those going swiftly in the trash…
This is why the defense had asked for the “not guilty” option to be repeated for each count. Because in that case, the jurors would have been able to mark their unanimous decision for the counts they agreed on and leave blank those where they were deadlocked
I'm confused too because I thought she did. Or at the very least I thought it was obvious that's what she wanted them to do when she edited the jury slip.
Like in the Murdock case, bring the jurors back for an official hearing (excluding the McCabes) and poll them individually on each count. Seems like that would clear this up quickly.
Murdock?
Doesn't seem like you pay very close attention of you can't get the name right. It's literally the easiest part if a case
@@zm5668 um… there’s honestly no need for that kind of nastiness to a fellow law nerd dude. Do you feel better about yourself now, after tearing someone down for the tiniest of “infractions”? A really simple explanation is that she generally listens to EDB in the background and never really sees it written out. It does sound exactly like Murdock lol.
@@zm5668Did you watch that case? The name is spelled Murdaugh, but we've heard a few pronunciations. He responds to both Murdaugh and Murdock, doesn't mind which.
I don't think it's unreasonable to use an alternate spelling, (or possibly have an autocorrect moment).
@@zm5668 I guess you didn't pay attention to the Murdock case because what the OP is stating is accurate.
@@PrincessPoohsdo you approve of the ridicule and name calling elaine received throughout the depp trial on this channel or the dismissive attitude towards lally during the read trial, i say this because what is the difference between that and the response to you replied to, all could be deemed fine, slightly over the line ot way over it depending on your vantage point. Not coming at you hostile for the record but there can be double standards within the law nerds
IF the Attorneys hadnt been limited to ONE HOUR for Closing, they could have more thoroughly addressed & explained many more issues; including explanations about the Jury slips & instructions.
The Judge SO QUICKLY excused the Jury & said she would come "speak with them privately" 🤔 WHY ?
Although the attorneys could have at least asked to be heard on extending that time if they felt the need, but as far as I remember they didn't. Or am I wrong on that?
@@kimberleewelker2729 It's quite common that the judge talk to the jury when the trial is over. The judge can thank the jury in a more informal setting, let them know what may/will happen after the trial and what requirements/rights they have, and hear if the jurors have any feedback or questions. They do NOT discuss the deliberation.
And we'd have had to listen to more of Lally - there was time to hit all the points each needed to hit on.
I’m happy we didn’t get more than an hour of Lally dragging on! 😳😂
They knew they only had an hour well in advance and should’ve planned for that. They both could’ve mentioned the jury instructions as well as their evidence as both sides dragged on about some unnecessary points
To me this sits squarely on the judges shoulders as the conductor of the trial and make the trial and law as easy for the jurors as can be given the content. Bev was so sweet to witnesses and jurors but to nearly no one else could she hide her frustration and contempt. Bev screwed up.
From jury instructions: ''After the final vote of the jury the foreperson should check the appropriate boxes as to each charge then sign and date the slips...'' So they were instructed to reach the unanimous verdict on all charges and THEN check the boxes. They didn't know they can reach the verdict on each charge seperately. That is how I would understand this instruction.
I agree, they could not have understood the instructions.
So EXACTLY the issue the defense brought fwd to the court
None of that even begins to imply they need to reach any verdicts before filling out the forms.
It's literally vote, then do the paperwork.
I agree. Judge verdict form instruction to jury not clear.
Yes. I would have assumed that all counts had to be unanimous for the form to be filled out.
Here’s what I think. The jury sent a note out, said they were an impasse that they were deeply divided. The jury doesn’t know what’s going to come next. They send the note out to the judge, thinking they’re going to receive further instructions, further believing after said instructions, they’ll complete the form on the charges that they HAVE made a decision on. However, the judge calls them directly out. They didn’t have time to complete any form. Judge calls the jury Reads their note and at that very moment without even asking about all charges or each charged specifically she at that moment declares a mistrial. I believe this judge has been corrupt from the start anyway and as many years as she supposedly been on the bench, how would you not know to ask if they were hung on all three charges ? I don’t believe the jury understood that when they walked in the courtroom at that moment, they would not be given the time to complete the form on charges one and 3. I don’t work in law in any form so I may be totally wrong.
I think you might be spot on.
i think you're exactly right... this is the most likely situation
Wow this is quite a good point… 😮
It's fascinating to me that it took an honest juror to reach out to the defense. They would've gotten away with this, and Im floored by the corruption in this court and county.
The only thing I can think of is that they didn't want to fill the forms in until the very end. Not realising that when they went back into the courtroom they'd be instantly dismissed.
That's if it wasn't just a simple case of them thinking they needed to fill in all or none of the forms. Not realising that it's charge by charge
Thank you for being the hardest working law badass, UA-camr, Dave Matthew’s Stan, mom, wife to Dr. B, and for doing SO MUCH for us law nerds, even when you’re traveling or covering multiple cases at once. You are AMAZING, EDB, and we all appreciate and love you!! ☕️ 💜🤬👩🏻⚖️👑🐈🐈
To me.. its still wild that they sat there through everything and still concluded that a car hit him.
Well. DUI was honestly proven. And I would also be unwilling to just let her go with nothing.
@@SollinareActually not even the DUI was proven. The blood test on the next day isn't state of the art and it's all speculation here as well.
You're unwilling to just let her go with nothing even though all three charges are related to hitting John with a motor vehicle and there was zero evidence he was hit with a motor vehicle.
Who proved dui?
@@Sollinarethere was no single DUI charge. They all were tied into her hitting him with her car. And saying you're unwilling to let her go "with nothing" is what's wrong with this country. That's not justice because you feel like she should be punished. Unbelievable
@@Laura-om8nl I guess I missed no DUI in itself.
Emily “there is no chill, the world has no chill”… so facts.
😂 yep
The world also had no understanding of those jury instructions, either!
Your ability to summarize hours into minutes so succinctly and off the top of your head always blows my mind.
The original argument from Jackson was they needed a "not guilty" option for each of the 3 charges. If I remember correctly, the judge never agreed to that. She said that the "not guilty" option at the top of the form would note an inclusion of all the charges. That means there was nothing for the defense to object to because the one "not guilty" option at the top of the form was all-encompassing and there was NO "not guilty" option for each of the 3 charges... BUT since jurors came forward saying the form was confusing and there was NO "not guilty" option for each of the 3 charges, they had no option to select "not guilty" for counts 1 & 3. The very thing Jackson objected to came to pass. I can't see how they can refuse an appeal when the jury themselves said they were confused. Jackson did object earlier and he told Bev it would immediately be appealable.
You are missing a step, not here to defend the judge- imo, she was awful. But, she did return after thought and added the not guilty before it went to jury.
I would suggest looking up Massachusetts criminal procedure rule 27. Part D say.
When a verdict is returned before the verdict is recorded the jury may be polled in the discretion of the judge .
Operative is at the “ discreof the judge!!!”
Discretion
Which is WHY the judge purposely rushed the record reflecting mistrial.
When was a verdict returned? I suggest re reading your own comment and actually understanding what it means
And also may does not mean shall.
The judge may or may not
Its almost like it was deliberately set up to be difficult to unwind. This whole trial smells really bad for Canton and USA legal integrity in my opinion. 🤔👵🏻
Replay crew here! How are they ever going to reach a verdict on Alec Baldwin if you’re not travelling?! 😂
It’s been 5 days did you watch Baldwin? Apparently if EDB doesn’t travel we get very short trials ending in fireworks
Massachusetts rule of criminal procedure rule 27 part B says. The judge may declare a mistrial as to any charges upon which the jury can not agree upon a verdict provided however that the judge may first require them to return verdicts on those charges open which the jury does agree.
They apparently did return "not guilty" on charges 1 and 3, and Bev declined to read that and just gave a general mistrial on all of them.
@@AliceBowieI think they actually left it blank!
@@Mojo_0203how do you know they left it blank? I missed that part.
@@Pray4USA Emily said it but I can’t remember where she got it from!
I don't think there was a not guilt box on the forms
I can imagine the cast of Hamilton adding scenes to include "Nothing Else Matters" and "Can't Touch This". I'm watching them perform it right now in my head.
this judge knew exactly what she was doing , she went out of her way to make it complicated and out of her way to ensure a hung jury on all counts if they couldnt agree guilty on a charge
Yeah except your theory goes the other way as well. Even if they found her guilty on two if they hung on the third then they'd still be hung on all charges. So impugning the judge's character to claim she wanted to get a guilty verdict doesn't work under your theory.
@@Xershade From what I can see, the charges are seperate. Ie. if they found her guilty on charge 1 and 2 but hung on 3 they would still sentence her for charge 1 and 2. The only hung charge would be charge 3 and the Crown would then have the opportunity to retrial on charge 3. This is exactly why it is so important that we figure out if there was an unanimous jury vote for not guilty on charge 1 and 3. As if true, prosecution wouldn't be able to retrial for charge 1 and 3, only charge 2.
@@applezhang360 there can't be a unanimous verdict on two charges, at least one juror said in the note that caused the mistrial that they are deadlocked on charges, plural.
Three charges, two or more deadlocked, not guilty on two. Doesn't add up.
@@Xershadeit was the foreperson that went to the defense after the trial. He would have known if it was a 12-0 vote on two charges. Perhaps the jury was not in agreement with all parts of the third charge. We shall see! What a ride.
Judge Bev will say motion denied. As usual.
It's so strange that the same judge that made the mistakes, is to decide anything.
@@lilg2300 This will end up in the appellate court
@@lilg2300they have all the power. Nothing going to happen to her
@@jborrego2406she should step down or at least recuse herself from this case
It should be denied. Ridiculous.
I’ve felt this since Depp…with as much responsibility that’s on the jury, they seem regularly ill informed by the court as to the decision(s) they have to make after hearing all the evidence. Jury instructions always seem rushed. It sounds like these jurors were not completely informed of their options. What a waste.
Exactly why all hearings should be TRANSPARENT and publicly available.
Ron told Hermione that Seamus told Dean, who was told by Pavarti that the Jurors found Karen not guilty.
Only the foreperson fills out the jury forms right? So it’s not an everyone submits a slip situation… Easier to not check the boxes if only one person is in charge of checking.
Bev is not going to do a dang thing about this other than huff and puff and sign and talk about how tired she is. She will listen to arguments and then she will simply deny the motion. Corrupt AF.
I’m inclined to agree - but the world is watching… maybe, just maybe this Judge will reflect before she acts…
..and threaten to turn off a/c .... wow
Bev was tired and needed a vacation! She couldn’t be bothered
She should simply retire from being a judge
Why, she just sits there an sides with the prosecutor. An reads directions. An sits in her chair swinging left an right an sighing. Don't seem like a hard job
Thank you for clarifying the continued fuckery in this case Emily 💜💜
It seems like the easiest thing would be to add a third option on the jury slip/form: "Unable to come to a decision"
If none of the three alternatives are marked the judge sends the documents back to the jury with the instruction to fill them in properly.
@@RenataKleinRK Good point!
Yes that would be a better option to reduce confusion in future. It should be idiotproof.
I was once part of a survey where one question was mistakenly left out. Messed up the entire project and was very costly and embarrassing!😢
Very good point!
The COURT should have asked!!! The court should have made curtain what the jury meant and felt. It’s people where talking about, in a high pressure situation. You can’t just rely on that everyone has understood, knows what to do, have the knowledge needed… this is 💩 Big, huge 💩
Thank you for this stream..watching on replay!! So mad about this whole thing!!! Karen Read has had the worst luck, I hope she gets these charges dismissed….
Karen Read has great luck. Supportive family and legal team.
Im sorry Emily that there is no chill but we sure do thank you! You keep us law nerds with adhd and ASD feel less loopy cos listening to you is relaxing. Irish replay crew here. 🇮🇪💜
The problem here is exactly what Alan Jackson argued on the verdict form. The jury could not mark her, not guilty on one or two charges without making her not guilty on all three charges. So what Alan Jackson argued is exactly what happened.
That’s false. There was no separate boxes on count two.
@@davidreece5867not false. Jackson was right, you r mistaken. Is this Jen Mcabe? Lol
I loved Judge Newman in the Murdaugh case….he was so fair, calm and kind…
I miss judge Penny, too! Judge Newman and Penny ran very good courtrooms.
@@paulaeppley3569. Judge Jennifer Dorow also. The need to get rid of judges like Glanville and Cannone.
He allowed the trial to become about financial crimes. You people are too gullible.
@@SecretSquaffplease don’t insult other lawnerds for having a different opinion -
And Judge Judge in Maya trial
“Judge Bev instructed the jury to only fill out the verdict form after they have come to unanimous verdicts on all the charges.”
Is this why the jury didn’t fill it out??
They didn’t fill it out? I missed that!
@@Pray4USAHow could you miss it when it's THE argument?
@lilg2300 No-one know whether they filled anything out or not. Have you seen the forms the jury had?
Idk man. Based on everything we have seen, this jury seems very competent and intelligent. I find it hard to believe they just forgot to check the boxes or didn’t know the verdicts could be split. The court should poll the jurors (they should’ve right away, but here we are), but this kinda sounds like a whole lotta gossip.
I’d like to think that too but half of them seem to think she was hit by a car still. Education doesn’t always mean smart or common sense.
@@Mojo_0203yeah...sadly a lot of recently educated members of the professional managerial class are remarkably dull.
I disregard the conversations from jurors B and C but juror A contacting Jackson is what makes this motion relevant to me.
My hypothesis is that the already convoluted jury instructions got a hell of a lot more confusing count 2’s form was corrected. Bev also never clarified that this was only replacing the second verdict form. To me that’s the kill shot for confusing the ever loving hell out of a jury.
This also doesn’t preclude an attorney being on the jury either! Civil litigators far enough away from law school likely have completely forgotten everything they’ve learned about criminal law.
@@transient_man I think the attorney ended up being an alternate! Don’t quote me but someone said that at some point…
The judge instructed them not to fill the verdict form in until they had reached unanimous decisions on all charges. They hung on one, so they didn't fill in the form. Go back and watch her jury instructions.
Why charge so many counts ? Wanted to see what would stick "if anything "
12:40 the attorneys didn’t ask for it, but she didn’t give them a chance to ask either
This is important. They could’ve yelled out OBJECTION, I guess, but she didn’t specifically say “I’ll hear from you”, or even pause at all before immediately bringing in the jury
I felt that way too, but as LYK pointed out today- the Defense attys showed us that they had no problem making themselves heard all throughout the trial. Hard to believe they would've had an objection, sat quietly, and then immediately celebrated when court was dismissed.
@@jaebee9308 absolutely agree with you and LYK there. It was definitely a whirlwind moment-maybe they were caught up in it? It’s going to be an uphill battle now.😅
@@jaebee9308loved LYKs take (and his dad’s) on this today!
But there is a big difference between not asking for the attorneys input and not allowing any input. Since the attorneys didn't indicate that they would like to be heard we have no idea if she would have allowed it. But I think she would have.
So the jury had been sent back each time, they did not know that this would be their final chance to enter any of the verdict forms. She declared the hung jury and dismissed them so fast they may not have felt they had the opportunity to say anything. If I was a juror I would not expect to complete the forms until we were done. So it makes sense to me they hadn't entered anything at that point. She should have asked them if it was hung on all counts.
Jurors,
Please come out and confirm this! This is a human being’s life. If this was YOU, wouldn’t you pray the jurors who believed you were not guilty would come out and say that? ❤
I miss Judge A! Her jury instructions were very clear. I think the jury thought if they hung on one they hung on all.
They were clear they were hung on at least two, which means someone is lying if they were unanimous on two. Two plus two (or three) is more than the three crimes they were deliberating on.
@@XershadeIt depends if they counted the multiple included charges in count 2 as multiple charges...
I was on a DUI trial in LA with two charges. I think one was the DUI and the second was a traffic infraction. It took a while to explain to some people that we were not supposed to decide if they DUI charge would ruin the man’s business or life, but if he had actually driven under the influence. Once I got that resolved, 12-0, we started discussing the traffic infraction. In the middle of that we were called back to court and told there was a plea bargain made and we were no longer needed. On the way out I told the prosecutor that we’d decided on one but not the second and he said, “Why didn’t you tell us that?” And I said, “No one gave us instructions that we could give you half an answer.” I think this might be an issue the courts might want to address in cases with multiple charges. If you resolve one, let us know right away!
If you go back and look at Bev reading off the instructions she CLEARLY states that they are not to fill out the form until they’ve made a decision on ALL counts!!
The instructions were so confusing. Look how confused we all were when watching it, thankfully we had EDB to pause & explain them to us. Imagine what the jurors were thinking 😳😳
But that’s why there was no jury slip to hand in 😮
First, If this is true, I feel better that they acquitted on counts 1 and 3 - and I understand the split on count 2. I think part of the issue is the random choosing of the the foreperson Let the jury decide who the want to be the foreperson They have been together and have a feel for who would fill the roll the best based on their getting to know each other over the trail. If I were on the jury I would have asked for clarification on what to if we are decided on one or more counts, but split on the others.
I assumed when the judge said that she would be back to talk to the jury in private that the polling would happen then. Perhaps, the attorneys thought so too.
I was on a hung jury in Michigan. We decided to acquit him of four of the six charges. The other two we were hung on. The judge never polled the jury. She never told us that we had to give our response, but did say that we could tell the lawyers what had happened. Now I am thinking that it is weird that the judge didn't poll us.
Its clear to me that no check mark means not guilty. Thats what the judge said multiple times.
So not guilty on all counts
She did say her verbal instructions are more important then the written lol
I wish someone would do a clip on each time she said “no check mark means not guilty.”
I have never seen the jury not polled by any judge, but how many times have we heard “That's not how we do it here in the Common Wealth”
Citing 2024 case law and the Federalist papers in the same paragraph was not a mistake. Tying founding principles to current case case law is an attempt to solidify the defenses position as well grounded and unassailable.
Yes, and know their audience. John Adams was quoted by the CW early in the trial. This is Massachusetts so this will appeal to appellate court, judge Bev, etc. to me it seems “old” lol 😆
2:15:11 Proctor getting more due process than he tried to give KR.
"Game of telephone - it's a mess" that's true, but the chain of custody is absolutely clear - which is more than you can say for ACTUAL evidence allowed in the case. So does it really matter levels of heresay?! In the interest of actual justice?!
Not really. I could very easily make up a telephone game of "evidence" for all twelve jurors saying something along the lines of "We thought she was guilty, but didn't want to face the backlash from the public so deadlocked instead." and spoof that to the prosecutors, defense, and court.
We have hearsay rules for a reason, get the jurors back in there, and if even one of them says the defense is lying out their butts (IE: They think she's guilty.) this matter becomes a waste of time. Probably why the defense wants to bypass doing an investigation into this and go straight to "Double Jeopardy, Cope and Seethe" prosecution.
@@Xershade I agree with you and that was my point. The one had a screenshot from the juror. Is it real or not, well, bring the juror in and ask! But ultimately, the point is that the heresay evidence they have is what is strong enough to do exactly that: bring the whole jury back! They’ll then confirm or contradict.
But it is absolutely not a waste of time as either it will come out that the defense is full of sh!t and can’t be trusted - or the jury really did acquit her on those two charges.
While the defense does ask for the judge to dismiss, they also ask that if she won’t dismiss based on evidence they’ve provided in the motion (and I would say she shouldn’t dismiss based only on that), that the court allows for an investigation to confirm their claim. So they are wanting an investigation, which (imo) absolutely should be done. And is as simple as we’ve both said: bring the jury back, put them under oath, and ask them.
Replay crew: we ride at dusk 🐎
I'm speculating, the jury felt intimidated by the Alberts (they said Higgins) being there. Had someone on the jury been sort of threatened by someone during the trial and therefore not dared to speak up? I have questions 👀 How many of you if anyone else thinks the same?
Paul was staring at them for weeks.....small room was to intimidate them
Absolutely I agree.
Brian Albert is a big guy and newly retired police officer ... I would have felt intimidated by him too! And my dad was a 40 yr police officer lol
I've said this since that day!!! 😡 BS......They all but burnt a hole through the jury staring at the jury!!!
The Defense team was never shown this letter. After this case, I would want to examine everything, including the bingo balls. lol
If I had been on this jury, I don't think I could have left that courtroom on that last day until 1) filling out the damn verdict forms, and 2) I made sure that both the judge and the lawyers knew that we had come to a verdict on counts 1 & 3. I don't understand how this jury was able to leave without doing 2), at the least - and especially with [apparently] a lawyer being one of the jurors.
👍
Emily, how is it that after hundreds of years of being a state and having charges Mass. never decided it would be a good idea to see how a hung jury was split on a multiple charged case??? there's no procedure for this??
Don't forget B and C could be afraid because they live near by and that's why they didn't speak out themselfs....From Holland 🇳🇱
Replay crew. I have family in town, so I can't spend all day listening to the f'ups and the truth today, unfortunately. I am glad to listen back to it, at least. Thank you Emily.
You have to go back and listen to the verdict instructions. She doesn’t say that they can split. She said to complete it with unanimous decision.
The issue is that was wrong. They were separate charges.
Those verdict instructions were long and confusing. No wonder the jurors misunderstood.
@@meln4214 and count 2 consistent of “charges” with OUI and manslaughter
59:40 id like to know who’s (of the jury) scared of the Albert’s-n-friends
When judge told the jury she would speak to them individually after letting them out, I assumed that would be when she polled them… but I guess not? So weird, wouldn’t everyone want to know what the ratio of guilty to not guilty was on each charge, so weird that she didn’t ask them…
I was out cold after a 20-hour shift covering for someone with a family emergency. I watched a small overview of this with runkle. Thanks for covering this.
The good news is that these jurors know who not to trust when it comes to secrets, at least.
Maybe the jury didn't realize that the judge would call a mistrial; leaving them with no opportunity to fill out the forms?
Emily, your breakdowns are always spot on! This case is such a wild ride, and I love how you keep us all in the loop.
It does not sound reasonable that the foreperson who was so careful in writing the notes wouldn't say we agreed on 2 of the 4 charges.
He may have “unanimous in all charges” in his mind, and he stated that.
The judge she is Corrupted
She doesn’t want her family and friends to go jail
But she wishes Karen Read to go to jail….it’s pure Corruption
It might not be even him writing but just sign it for submission. Somone else might help or everyone collaborated with the note.
@@spacecadet76and everyone was under the impression from the judge's statement that they needed to be unanimous on all three counts. The judge should have asked them
@@B_Bodziak that was what I heard too on tv. And judge did say to base instruction on her words and not what the form say. So her words of the instructions needs to be examine further.
Whooo hooo app notification arrived timely and I got to watch live. A law nerd call to ride must be headed! Just came back for replay to see what I missed when I had to take my dog out to potty. Thanks for the SOS stream.
So if they didn’t put it on the form but they can try a case on “I hit him I hit him” that wasn’t on any form or said in any grand jury testimony is allowed with the prosecution??
Judge Bev IMO exhibited laziness. She seemed to take the easiest path possible. She sighed through the whole trial. She probably so annoyed now. I hope during investigation to come evidence such as juror forms don’t go missing.
In Emily's Day 31 video, around 4:12:00 the Judge intructs the jury about the form.
I have thoughts. Recommend everyone review it and come to their own conclusions
These jurors found out every friend group has a Jen...
Am I the only one worried that they don’t bring the jury in to question FAST! The longer they wait, the more chance there is for them to deny it, change their minds or have someone pressure them.
We needed this lengthy update with you so thanks for coming on. Court isnt the same without you!
“Why didn’t they just check the box?” Does it matter why not? There’s just as many reasons that make as much sense for why as why not - neither of which is wrong. Remedy: bring the jury back and ask. And then ask if indeed on that date, it was unanimous not guilty on the two charges. If ALL 12 say yes. Then that’s your answer. If one says no or I don’t know or it wasn’t set in stone - than deny the motion. But don’t allow double jeopardy because a box wasn’t checked. Does the jury’s decision hold as the decision, or is it the checked box that dictates the decision?
@@ironutes Okay and when the jurors have done who knows what since the mistrial and changed their minds or been influenced. For all we know the defense asked them to say this. For all we know the jury is pissed at the media speculating their votes. The box wasn't checked, no one said anything, the jurors told the judge they couldn't agree on CHARGES (plural) before the mistrial, do it again.
@@Xershade This is explained at 43:11
Since charge 2 has multiple lesser crimes, there are technically "charges" that the jurors couldn't agree on. I don't think that was the gotcha it was meant to be.
According to, IIRC, Supreme Court precedent, the verdict is the vote, not the paperwork memorializing it.
So, if all the jurors come back in and say, we had not guilty verdicts on 1 and 3, we were only hung on 2, that *should* be sufficient for an acquittal on 1 and 3. If I understand correctly, and in my opinion.
I'm still not convinced that the Jury didn't tick the Not Guilty boxes but the Judge didn't pull the individual decisions but dismissed the whole case as if they didn't decide anything.
There are so many coincidences with this case, I can entirely understand how the defence can look at it all with a suspicious eye and get to a conspiracy
Yeah my problem with it, the math literally doesn't add up. They claim she was found unanimously not guilty on two charges (which also happen to be the worst ones she faces) while at least one juror wrote detailed fluent notes to the judge saying they couldn't reach a verdict on charges, plural. So unless I failed math how is she not guilty on two charges, while two or more are deadlocked while she's only charged with three crimes?!
@@XershadeThey weren't the two worst ones. The allegation is that they agreed on the worst one and the least worst one.
Well now I'm on the replay crew since it started late. Glad to see it now💜💜
Would they be able to ask questions doesn't seem like that kind of enviroment and foreman is in charge picked by the judge. If I'm in Massachusetts I'd be mad they are going to retry her just drop the charges, END THE MADNESS.
"When do we ride?" 🤣🤣🤣🤣
If I heard the judges instructions I would of left them all empty too as we didn’t come back with an unanimous vote for all. So confusing!!
Hearing "Bring the Jury" again makes me miss Judge Newman Sooo much! 😟
Whilst I understand it's a stickier situation, my thoughts go to it's like polling them after the fact. Which I think it's crazier that they weren't polled than it would be to double check now.
Someone in this courthouse is certainly in trouble. Don’t they know the FBI is looming? Lol.
In a case full of "what the state/commonwealth should have done" in regards to competence, is it truly shocking that even with a verdict there are still no clear answers/record because the Judge didn't ask some basic questions?
We definitely need a playlist for each trial!!
At this point emily is the only person i trust on the internet.
Check out Lawyer You Know. You won’t be disappointed.
I did but I'm an Emily Stan always 😊 if she's on I'm here
Me: I'll listen to EDB to fall asleep...
Also me: 34:04 after this, I need to watch Hamilton... it is only 10pm
@davisce2 lol 1am here in MA and here I am.
I’m watching this now, the live went down late night/early morning my local time and I had to sleep…
But, do we actually know that the jury didn’t fill in the verdict slip. There where several versions. If they didn’t fill it in. Did they think the Not guilty should only be checked if not guilty on all accounts. Did they know they could find her not guilty on some charges but be hand on some.
Where they confused?! Hell yes!! The verdict slip and the jury instructions was SO confusing!! I’m not surprised that the jury was hung on the 2 verdict the lesser crimes that was extremely confusing…
And, we don’t know what was said or not said. When it comes to this case especially it doesn’t feel like we can trust anything.. there need to be a inquiry! And potentially Bev will be called to witness. And that might lead to her having to recuse herself from a potential new trial
Was just awaiting time to hear YOUR thoughts! Thx very much 💟☮️
It is the never-ending “tales of the CW, KR trial of all times”. Everything is blowing up
I think this jury was more worried about how they crafted lawyer(ly) notes to the judge and less worried about doing their actual job. Wild. I served on a trial before where some counts were guilty and some hung. We handed the judge the filled out form and indicated where we were at on each charge. It's a no brainer.
That's kind of the point. The jury didn't check any of the boxes, which means hung verdict on all counts. The crafted lawyer(ly) notes to the judge are what makes this seem like a reach from the defense, and possibly three jurors who didn't get her off. They claim she's not guilty on two charges unanimously. The crafted lawyer(ly) notes to the judge indicate multiple times they're deadlocked on charges (plural, meaning at least two.) She can't possibly be not guilty on two charges if the jurors said in crafted lawyer(ly) notes to the judge they couldn't reach a verdict on charges (plural, meaning at least two.)
2 (Not Guilty) + (2 or 3, Hung) = (4 or 5, Total) which is greater than three charges...
So yeah, they kinda did do their job "wasting time crafting lawyer(ly) notes to the judge" because those notes detail things that disprove what the defense said happened in their motion, or the jurors are lying in which case new trial either way because you can't trust them if you call them back in to ask what the verdict votes were.
here was a long list of lesser Charges on count 2 manslaughter, so your assumption is a reach.
Yeah, she seemed blown away by the jury notes .😂
I love that you did this, Emily. Your willingness to give in to our demands is very much appreciated.
When I listen to the judges instructions again, she makes it seem they need to mark all of the verdict forms once they decide on all three and not like they can hang on one and mark the others. I also still think it’s ridiculous they couldn’t say not guilty on each option on charge 2… because maybe they were unanimous on one of those lesser charges too… but couldn’t even say that if they wanted to unless they were not guilty on all of them.
Does the defense support of the court giving the jury the Rodriguez charge in the first two notes mean that they were or weren’t wanting a poll? EDB insinuates that their silence in the first two notes creates a problem - but that makes no sense to me as they are completely separate and distinctly different things. Reality is that the judge sped through that last bit and didn’t give the defense an opportunity to ask after the final note.
Could Bev have told the lawyers before hand that she would not hear arguments about polling the jury?
Yup! That's what I think.
I think the jurors felt intimidated in numerous ways, including by the judge that had an almost condescending /parent tone when they asked a question about a report and the forms, the forms! It was like they would be scolded by her. Talk about unhealthy vibes. What a shame the way it went down.
Super informative and well done. Thank you ❤❤❤