Supreme Court Arguments - Boyfriend Cop Murder Trial - MA v. Karen Read
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 лют 2025
- Attorneys for Karen Read will ask Massachusetts’s highest court to have two charges dropped following a mistrial in July. The Massachusetts woman is accused of driving drunk, hitting her Boston cop boyfriend, John O’Keefe, with her SUV, and leaving him to die in the snow outside a Canton home in January 2022. Oral arguments are scheduled for Wednesday morning at the John Adams Courthouse in Boston. Read’s attorneys plan to ask for the second-degree murder charge against her to be dismissed after they claim jurors came forward and said they all agreed she was not guilty of that specific charge.
Subscribe to Law&Crime Network: bit.ly/LawAndC...
STAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:
Watch Law&Crime Network on UA-camTV: bit.ly/3td2e3y
Where To Watch Law&Crime Network: bit.ly/3akxLK5
Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: bit.ly/LawandC...
Read Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: bit.ly/3td2Iqo
Submit Tips to Law&Crime: tips@lawandcrime.com
For Advertising Inquiries, Please Contact: sales@lawandcrime.com
For Licensing Inquiries, Please Contact: licensing@lawandcrime.com
LAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:
Instagram: / lawandcrime
Twitter: / lawcrimenetwork
Facebook: / lawandcrime
Twitch: / lawandcrimenetwork
TikTok: / lawandcrime
LAW&CRIME NETWORK PODCASTS: lawandcrime.co...
SUBSCRIBE TO ALL OF LAW&CRIME NETWORK UA-cam CHANNELS:
Main Channel: / @lawandcrime
Law&Crime Shorts: / @lawandcrimeshorts
Channel B: / @lawandcrimetrials
Channel C: / @lawandcrimebodycam
How hard is it to ask the jury to answer if they were in agreement to any charges lol
The judge should’ve done this but didn’t
Because then you get into the issue of them giving no indication of that. But you could argue that asking that is illegally inquiring into the deliberative process
@@blakekaveny disagree- asking if they indeed reached a unanimous verdict on specific charges isn’t inquiring into their deliberative processes. It’s an inquiry regarding whether their deliberative processes yielded a verdict.
@ well that’s what the court is gonna have to decide.
@@miwi3095 they are not allowed pay attention
Love the defense lawyer voice and arguments
She's getting retried
If the judge had simply said “have you come to a conclusion on any of the three counts?“ Then a lot of this mess would not be happening right now. I don’t understand why they didn’t appeal on the basis of either the judge erred in the instructions, or the jury didn’t follow the instructions. The jury four person himself - said to not fill out the verdict form until they reach a conclusion on all three counts! That’s an issue. Also, if I was a lawyer, I would continue to say “this is a precedent setting issue because we don’t have caselaw that goes into any of the territory we are describing here.“ also, the judge said not to fill out the verdict form until they had come to a decision on all 3 counts. It sounds like that was a bigger part of the problem here.
I actually think-no matter what you believe on Karen Read’s guilt or innocence- that this could actually change some of the verbiage in the current statute and case laws here.
I believe they SHOULD change the language in the statute/case laws they’re citing here, to read “must”instead of “may.” Having the judge ask about the different counts when requesting the juries final decision.
Except that's not a requirement of the law. It was the responsibility of the defense or the state (should they choose) to have the jury polled....in this case neither side requested a polling of the jury.
The note the jury sent said that they were hopelessly deadlocked and that to come to a verdict would have made some of the jurors go against their beliefs.
@@Indiartworks i think they all thought they were deadlock in general. According to the own jurors, they thought they should have everything resolved and since they were deadlocked in 1 lesser included, they didn't know what to do, they didn't ask cause only the foreman can talk to the judge and the foreman said that it should be all 3, so the problem is that the Jury on their own was screaming and yelling about reaching a verdict in counts 1 and 3 to the Defense AND Prosecution cause they were confused.
This wouldn't have happened if the Judge said "You can't reach a decision in all counts?" "No" "Alright dismissed" If that was done, the defense wouldn't be doing this
Her lawyer did great here.
All this volleyball back and forth is interesting. In my analysis, I don't think the DA has ever had such an opponent.
Jury didn’t know they could disagree on one and agree on others
They thought all or nothing for NG!!
Ok but that’s not necessarily grounds for appeal though. Them misunderstanding the instructions isn’t grounds for appeal.
@@blakekaveny true but the problem is that those jurors reached a decision on count 1 and 3, that's an acquittal on fact but not law cause they did not said it, there are multiple jurors who have said they decided 1 and 3 but were stuck on the lesser included for count 2. Going by the own jurors mouths, if they really acquitted her on those counts, which has to come from the jurors own mouths under oath, it should be dismissed cause Its a Double Jeopardy issue.
@@marcelofrias1631 Yes but then you get into questioning the jurors deliberations process which the court is not allowed to do.
As no verdict was voiced by any jury members at the actual time of the deliberations, no guilty or not guilty verdict was officially announced. Its not double jeopardy, not legally anyway. You cant just have jury members calling up later claiming to have all voted one way or another because at that point jurors have been exposed to outside information about the case, jurors could be changing their minds, jurors could be lying....the options that could happen are unlimited.
Count one and three did not have a non-guilty box. She said Bev said if you don’t check guilty and that means it’s not guilty and Jackson argued that that’s when she asked if it was something was funny!!!!!!!!!!
If you actually read the Commonwealth of Massachusetts verdict form, which is widely available, and was used in this case the "not guilty" options were right at the top of the form. It wasn't too complicated...
“My brother?” Is this just a court term they use for appellate or ?
No, stupidly some attorneys refer to each other as "brother"/ "sister" as if they are in some sort of specialty faternaty.
Move on. Add more charges for waisted time. Also for that revolting voice of Karen’s.
Does she have new lawyers now?
I don't think so the first guy that talked is the same lawyer at her mistrial
No same lawyers this is their lawyer since they are now witnesses in this case
No she has the same only the prosecutor is different
He is her appellate lawyer… J + Y cannot represent her for supreme court hearing
No, this is just an appealate attorney.
Any mention of the conflict of interest by the dirty judge . The planted foreman by the dirty judge. Probably not
It's the judges job to ask the door is not going to stand up and say we came up with two instead of three and by the way the judge spoke to them afterwards
Anyone else wondering if there was a plant on the jury
Nope
Cant believe I missed this. So when is the court coming back to give a verdict? and whyyyy is no one bringing up the jury misconduct that tiktok and legal documents have been talking about?
And the jurors asked to let the judge know that counts one and three we’re not guilty and the floor person said no we have to vote unanimously on all counts. Well, of course they couldn’t vote anonymously on all counts, but they could on one and three … just not on count number two He was the only person who could talk to the judge and he shut the jurors down. who wanted to let the judge know?
Hmm and the judge choose theat person.... Its all corrupt
No, the jurors did not request that. The defense attorneys requested that and what was used was the standard jury form that has worked in thousands of other criminal cases in the state.
@Indiartworks The 'standard' jury form is outdated. To protect the innocent and in the interest of a fair and impartial trial all judges must be impartial and have integrity. She definitely didn't show that when she picked the 'selected' or preferred by her
Omg let her go. Karen is innocent.
Yeah ok 👌
@keithmalewicz3487 That's right. I'll say it again. Karen Read Is Innocent.
Karen at it again - always pointing the finger everywhere else but the mirror
You arent biased at all are you?
@@gigiis526, are you not?
Think they will side with her
The original instruction to the Jury was clear and precise. Its error by the Jury Foreman? It is not the task of the Foreman to do but the Judge.
The Judge had more than enough time to make the Jury understand. She chose not to do so. Was that a error? No. Because the Jury had ample time to ask for clarification if they required it. At the end of trial, the Defense had time to object to a mistrial. But let's not forget. This addition of time is beneficial to the Defense more than the Prosecution.
The judge still should have asked if it was all counts
It's not the jury's job to seek clarification when they don't even understand the judge was unclear. It's the judge's job to make sure everything is clear to the jury and choosing not to do so is not an option. A person's life and freedom hang in the balance.
This seems straightforward.
They heard the evidence, they deliberated, they reached a unanimous decision. If they attest to this in whatever form the Supreme Court dictates, then it would be double jeopardy.
Yes but theirs multiple issues. One they gave no indication that they were unanimous on anything. Their notes made it seem like they were deadlocked. Secondly the defense could’ve asked.
You would think it would be as easy as asking the Jury under oath real quick
@@johnb6055 It’s not that simple because you get into a bigger issue of why did they give no indication of that. But the court can’t ask them that.
@ after the word salad explanation and way she explained and dismissed it’s a different situation
Legally incorrect actually. By law they would have had to state that they had come to a verdict on any of the counts before being dismissed/leaving the courthouse. Otherwise any jury members could call up over the next few days and claim they came to a verdict, after being exposed to outside information about the case, when it may never have been the case at all.
Shes guilty
The argument that extending a purpose for a voir dire beyond the parameters of those previously experienced is moronic. Life throws new situations into the mix all the time. This is one of them.