Didn't the jury instructions literally say not to tell the judge what was happening until they had reached a verdict on all counts? Judge BEV's opinion is she is an advocate for whatever the commonwealth says. And she refuses to be wrong. I'm not sure snark is warranted from this judge. If I lived in MA I'd be writing the governor to complain about her behavior during trial and in this decision.
Came here to say that because it seems the Judge is relying on everyone forgetting what she said. Her conclusions are ridiculous and I hope the appellate court considers her verbal instructions which she also stated supersede the written instructions. That was sooooo highly suspect. I think she knew exactly what she was doing.
The jury could have asked, they had no trouble writing fairly strongly worded notes informing her that more deliberating wouldn't help. If you're not sure how a thing works, you have to open your mouth and ask questions. On the other side the judge could have asked them, though I can understand why she didn't. I got the impression from those notes that they were hopelessly deadlocked and could find no agreement, nothing about them said anything like we're stuck on only one charge. Its a lack of communication on both sides.
@@Blackened30 It is a lack of communication, but the jurors' affidavits have explained why they were confused, so the fact remains that they had reached a unanimous decision on the 2 charges. Now Bev's citing the same (off-point) cases that the prosecution cited, and IMO it's completely disingenuous. If Bev hadn't told the jurors not to come back until reaching a consensus on all counts, this wouldn't have happened. Sure, the jurors *could* have said they had reached a consensus on 2 of them, but they thought that Bev had literally told them not to do that, so what else were they supposed to do? They couldn't ask a question about it because the question itself would hint at their deliberations, and they were probably trying to avoid that since Bev specifically told them not to reveal anything. And I think the whole issue is that the courts try to avoid mistrials at all costs, so their instructions never say anything about how this sort of situation is supposed to be handled, because they don't want the jurors to know that this is a possible situation that can occur. They specifically avoid saying anything about "if you reached a consensus on X but not Z, you can do blah blah blah." While it's true that the attorneys and Bev were completely justified in how they interpreted the jury's notes, the fact remains that the jurors have now said that they weren't actually deadlocked on *all* of the charges, only on one of them. The jury didn't know that they were supposed to handle it differently, because they thought they had been explicitly told not to reveal anything. They probably purposely just used the phrase "the charges" because they didn't want to reveal that they had reached consensus on 2 of them, so they worded it in the most ambiguous way possible, not realizing that nobody would ever ask them about their conclusions.
55:55 but they were instructed not to communicate with judge or anyone outside of jury about it! And were also instructed to not fill the verdict form unless they reached unanimous verdict on ALL charges! it is clearly misleading and confusing and it is judges fault.
“It’s not a lack of understanding “- I agree. The jury THOUGHT they understood when Bev said not to fill in the form until they had a reached a verdict on all counts. The problem is Bev isn’t/wont take that into consideration.
@@enigma_-_79 I don't understand why you're laughing? The whole case has been a massive injustice on so many levels. Guilt or no guilt the whole case was a massive injustice to the victim, defendants rights, and the system. You're right there was no way, doesn't mean it doesn't feel like another layer of injustice. Imagine you find out you need to go back to trial knowing you were more than likely found not guilty on two counts in the first place? You wouldn't find this at all funny.
Karen never had a chance with this judge regardless of a jury. She had control of what was heard, who got to be on the jury and in the end what the verdict would be. The judges view is that she wants to keep her friends safe and pin this thing on a pawn. She is a coward who can't think for herself or challenge anything but what the defense brings forth. She made up her mind in the beginning. Many have vocalized this. I'm not alone and no one will challenge her as far as i can see. So disappointing. She might be able to hide behind law but she can't hide from karma. Yes I understand some of what I wrote doesn't fully jive or maybe that's where my brain is. I'm just so frustrated with this whole thing. It doesn't feel like she has been able to separate herself from friends and the law.
I just love how you explain the law, Emily! I don’t like these results, but it’s the law. When we don’t like the laws, we have to take action to change the laws.
In every trial I have watched, the Judge asks if the defence if they want the jury pulled, not the defense asking the judge to pull the jury. She seems to make up her own rules as she goes along. She told the jury Not to fill out the form Unless they agreed to all charges. Why is this not being addressed? She messed up and she knows it. She had her mind up before she even considered the arguments of the defence.
@debbysalmon2498 Why Judge Bev didn’t talk to the jury foreperson and ask “Are you deadlocked on all charges?” Have you reached a unanimous verdict on count 1? And Poll the jury on each charge. I saw another judge do exactly that and had Judge Bev not been in such a rush to get this over with, we wouldn’t be in this ridiculous mess. Polling the jury is NOT inquiring into their deliberations, it is merely inquiring if they reached any verdicts on any charges. Judge Bev was a disaster, the prosecution was a disaster, their witnesses were the worst I’ve ever seen. This stupidity could have been avoided if 5 minutes had been taken before she declared a mistrial.
@@gryffent absolutely. I had never seen a jury verdict concluded like that. Then again, this might be the first murder resulting in deadlock re: multiple counts I've paid close attention to. While Karen could be a "Karen", that's a far cry from being a murderer; I feel so bad for her that she has to go through all this again, esp since there was such f**kery in collecting evidence & recalling events. Imo, they were arguing in front of the house in the car. She probably didn't want to go to the party b/c of drama w/his friends, so he got out (still somehow holding a glass from the bar), she "sped" off (Boston suburb roads are notoriously narrow & it was probably snowing by then). She probably said some last remark that pissed him off, so he threw the glass at the taillight. At the same time the dog gets let out, & unbeknownst to the owner, the dog sees John in the front of house and starts barking & going after him (the dog wasn't good w/strangers), scratching his arm as he fights the dog off. He slurs, "eff you dog", spins around trying to get away from the dog, loses his balance and slips on ice on the sidewalk, getting a concussion & passing out. If the owner of dog called it in from the garage door instead of the front, there's a chance they didn't see John in front. If there was music playing in the party, they may not have heard the dog barking. Who the eff rehomes a dog 7 years after it's been in the family? How many butt calls & disposed of cell phones? The family is covering up for the dog.
the verdict form should have been filled out regardless. she should have made them fill it out to protect the record. she doesnt 'have to poll' the jury but she should have, however the verdict form!!! if she had told them okay im declaring the deadlock but we need to fill out the form for the record.
I think all 12 jurors could show up in Lally's office tell him they had verdicts on 1 and 3 and HE absolutely would still try it again because there's NO WAY, unfortunately that this gets fixed now
Every time EDB says the phrase, "Count Two & the Lesser Includeds" sounds more & more like it should be my favourite cover band of 1960's hits originally performed by the likes of The Count Five or Question Mark & the Mysterians. Ladles & Germs, Count Two & the Lesser Includeds performing Ninety-Six Tears!
Call now to purchase Count Two & The Lesser Includeds' album featuring such hits as "Blizzard Night," "At the High Tops," "What If Any," "Gotta Rehome," and "Buttdialin' You"!
Defense made a strategic move. As soon as they realised there's someone in that jury who thinks KR should be in prison, they wanted out. Much easier to do winning laps when you don't say majority of them thinks KR should be in prison for manslaughter...
I feel the jury notes to the judge were very clear about their deadlock only because the jury instructions were UNclear and confusing in stating that their verdict must be unanimous, which could be misconstrued as an ALL or nothing decision on the total of the charges. The jury instructions need to be rewritten (IMO) to avoid a situation like this in the future. Karen deserved better. What was the judge's hot hurry that she lit out of court like her ass was on fire?
I absolutely love that her reason for denying the motion is because she didn’t do her job right. She’s just happily sitting at her lake house with the Albert’s, no worries.
I understand what your saying Emily, but this is a massive injustice. Our system has been fucked up & broken probably since the beginning, & it's so unbelievably embarrassing that it still has so, so many problems. This case is just one example
@@darlingdeb7010 It isn't, but there's a lot of ignorance in how it works. And people tend to confuse the way they think things should work with how it does work.
Didn’t you listen? There was no way this motion was going to be accepted. There was no verdict on any of the counts A broken system would be appropriate if the Judge had allowed herself to be bullied by middle aged women wearing pink. That’s when a problem would have arisen.
I don't get why they're blaming the Defense so much when the whole point is that nobody realized that the jurors simply "misspoke" in their letters and didn't know that they were supposed to verbally indicate that they had reached a consensus on 2 of the charges, and surely Bev's aware of what was said in the affidavits - that they were confused specifically because of Bev's strange instruction about not coming back until they've reached a verdict on all charges - since they couldn't reach a consensus on the one charge, they thought that the other charges don't matter, and it'll be considered a mistrial regardless. That's not how it works, but nobody explained it to them at any point, because the courts try to avoid mistrials, so they purposely don't say how to handle this situation in their instructions. It's fuckin ridiculous. The blame should be like 80% on Bev, and maybe about 20% on the jurors themselves for taking Bev's words a little too literally. Bev seems like she's too full of herself to acknowledge her role in this snafu. And I'm not a big fan of a lot of the wording she used - it was eerily similar to the prosecution's wording. I can't believe she's honestly siding with them when it comes to the jury's mention of "the charges" - I think that's pretty disingenuous, and I think she *has* to believe that it was the actual jurors who made these claims afterward, and she's just pretending like she doesn't believe it, for some reason. I'm starting to think she's involved in the coverup now - obviously there were various signs of that already, but I had been giving her the benefit of the doubt. Now though? Not sure. Especially knowing that Bev's brother previously defended one of the Alberts (was it Brian?). I figured it could be possible that Albert found a random lawyer who just *happened* to be Bev's brother, but now I'm starting to think there's a closer relationship here (not to mention the fact that Bev's lakehouse is just a couple houses down from the McCabes' lakehouse, I believe - wouldn't be surprised if they're super friendly. and possibly even colluding). And after finding out that Brian had previously kicked the shit out of 4 other Boston cops, I'm starting to think the entire MA justice system is afraid of him or something, and will do anything to protect him. I really, really hope the FBI announces something soon - something along the lines of "we believe Karen Read played no part in the death - we believe others were involved, and here's all the evidence" (maybe even including a few smoking guns that the public doesn't even know about). Force the prosecution's hand so they have to simply drop the case. I don't think the FBI will be filing any charges against anyone (besides maybe some of the investigators for possible corruption/negligence), but I'm sure they can at least make some recommendations, and make their stance *very* clear. Or who knows? Maybe they can actually file federal charges against someone like Higgins for the crap he pulled afterward. Hopefully there's a few more things that could technically count as federal crimes. Hopefully some of the appellate court judges are already aware of this situation (and aren't corrupt), and that might make them lean toward allowing an inquiry with the jurors, at the very least.
If I was one of these jurors I would be anxious. The idea that the jury found her not guilty on two counts and that she has to stand trial again and that it's possible the next jury could find her guilty and she could go to prison when the first jury did not find her guilty... It's very upsetting. The only positive I see is that, at the next trial the jury hopefully will hear about the disposition of the state patrolmen involved in the case.
As a person who knows nothing about American law I will just say that I think this judge seems irritated by this whole process and just wants for Karen to go away…
She could have easily done that by dismissing the charges. Instead she's backing up her best buddy Lally and letting him start yet another 10 week case on a case he can't win. So many other prosecutors have already stated that they would have thrown out these charges, and we have one jury already stating that they acquitted her on murder. No, she wants to see Karen in jail to protect her friends, the Alberts. She's biased.
Why were the CW allowed to prosecute initially without proper evidence? Lead investigator sacked and shamed, department suspended, forensics declining to agree with the injuries suggested by the story and huge question over the timing of key evidence suggesting tampering. Isn’t this the basics to go to trial? Have proof? Is that the job of the DA to decide it’s good enough?
I like your assessment of the ruling and absolutely agree with it. What the jurors should do, at this point, if they want their voices heard is to go publicly, making sure that they can ensure their anonymity. It may help the CW to do the right thing and if they dont, we in Norfolk county can take action
I want to ask the jurors what the verdict slip looked like after that hit mic moment where Bev said “we never corrected the slip” or however it was phrased. I hope KR’s team takes this to a higher court bc this is insane. Yes, she could have interviewed the jury, period. Considering the original slip had NO “not guilty” choice to check, leaving it blank would be a not guilty verdict slip
Strange how the judge completely ignores her own error of NOT polling the jury, nor allowing either side opportunity to ASK! There were three charges, not one, and she completely ignored that fact. She rushed everyone in and out of that court so fast without disclosing the final note before the jurors were in open court. Fault: Judge Cannone. She just dug herself further.
Reading the note from the jury, they gave zero indication that they had reached verdicts on any counts. Such a mystery. Looking forward to watching this play out.
I’m already pissed that they are retrying this case. DA was just recently elected. What I want to know is what, if anything, can we do about this? (Yes, that was intentional). Everyone in this state is very unhappy with the trial taking place even a first time with the exception of a small group of people all who are very shady and are openly involved in many other criminal cases. I can’t believe how we parade around like we are the best state ever, with the best hospitals, best schools, etc. and the entirety of our state is as expensive to live as NY and San Fransisco (seriously we had to move down here from central mass because it’s about 2500 for a tiny old ass one bedroom) and THIS is what our taxes is going to? All of this is so petty on the states end. This is the judge taking her moment to say ha ha to Jackson and exert her power. Extremely unjust.
Find out what it takes to recall an elected official at that level of government, and start filing the paperwork and getting ducks in a row to make it happen. If you have to collect signatures for a recall, see if you can publicize where/when signature collections will be done. Get the rules about what can be worn during this process, etc.
We’re only a couple years apart but I want to be EDB when I grow up. I have so much education and experience to catch up on but you always make me feel like I could if I tried and had the right support.
I feel like the verdict form should always be filled out to avoid this. I know you had said before they don't want to put the hung/deadlock option on the form but once you get the final note and you know you are going to a mistrial, tell the jury you are accepting their note and they should complete the form and come back in. They ca write in hung or something. Not having confusing on the facts of the case and not having confusing on steps for a mistrial are two different things.
I'm at 1:14, has the judge acknowledged that she messed up? That her instructions were very clear that they had to make verdicts on all counts and not to tell her which ones they made decisions on and which ones they couldnt come to a decision on? Because of that the jury didnt say that they came to a decision on some. Making it seem like they couldnt come to a verdict on all three. Did the judge acknowledge any of this?
As a layperson, it feels like Massachusetts has archaic laws and clings to them, as I'm sure other states do. Even if the law supports the judge's decision here in some aspects, I don't think the law should be as ambiguous and confusing as it is for regular people to interpret. Those jury instructions are so needlessly confusing. This case is so deeply irritating and interesting, and I live here now. 😅
At the 13:52 mark I totally agree. I have heard people say wild things about jury members on other cases. So I fully understand them not coming forward publicly.
If you follow The Young Jurks, they publish the Canton Town Hall Meetings- anyone pro Karen Read has been targeted, harassed and attacked physically- lawns destroyed with toxic chemicals, etc. It’s horrible!
I can not understand why the financial people are allowing the state to retry this. Look what happened the first time. It will be a massive waste of taxpayer dollars
In the note they literally handed to her before she declared the mistrial. In any of the other notes before that. This wasn't just a spontaneous thing that happened. The jury failed to communicate, and that's on them. New trial or plea, unless the appellate court(s) open the doors for nightmare post-trial rewriting of hung verdicts.
@@Xershade You missed where the Judge said to not say what their verdict was to anyone including her. She also said that they weren't to fill in the form until they were all unanimous. Where in that were they to think that they should say to her unprompted that they had decided on some of them but not all of them.
I hope the appellate court can correct the judicial mistake that happened when the judge failed to explain to the jurors when and how to announce they reached a verdict. This is on Bev and her telling the jury that they were not to fill out the forms until they had a verdict on everything.
I'm on replay but I'm so frustrated as the judge emphasised at the time of reading the instructions that they could not fill out ANY forms until they had agreed on ALL charges ... I thought at the time, well, that's gonna be an issue.. and I was right 🤦🏼♀️
Shouldn't Lally and the court want to know if the jury reached on counts 1 and 3? Even if it is somehow not double jeopardy, that still indicates Lally's case didn't convince the jury. And a retrial will be worse with Proctor tainted. It's hard not to have disdain for what's going on there and I feel bad what the people of the Commonwealth are saddled with. I literally am skeptical there's a competent police force there at all. Proctor's testimony was disturbing, but not even so much the leaky balloon knot or the c word. It's how easily he transitioned from going through that to going into his police "overwhelming evidence" comments. It just feels like police cop training in the cw is basically acting lessons for when you're in court.
Wait a minute, so the judges basically saying they did in fact have to come back on all charges because her thing stays? If they came back not guilty on one and three, they would have been sent back to decide on 2? So that means in her core or Massachusetts, not sure which. They need to come back with a verdict on all charges or no charges that I'm pretty sure is against federal regulations. That is insane to me. She may have just screwed herself fine hearing that correctly.
Replay crew here! Hooooo boy, so halfway thru I was still thinking the court would HAVE to accept the jury's verdicts on 1 & 3, or at least poll the jury - but 2/3 of the way through, it seemed like what the court said about the defense was kinda making sense.😞And after listening to everything Emily had to say, for me it's all boiling down to the fact that the defense didn't speak up when Bev rapid-fire declared the mistrial and fled in a puff of smoke. And because her lawyers didn't speak up, Karen Read is losing those not guilty verdicts. That is just horrific, IMHO, and it doesn't seem like justice. If I were Karen, I'd be completely despondent. EDB is right, this whole thing is a hot mess - and I do put a LOT of the blame on Bev, her lousy jury instructions, the confusion over the verdict forms, and her "we don't do things that way in Massachusetts" crap.
Watch the video of Bev reading the note, folding it, declaring a mistrial and immediately standing up and booking it out of there. It was shocking and the defense had no opportunity to say anything. Seriously watch it again
I’m going to say the thing no one seems to be saying. The jury. Not one person had the question “should we ask if they want to know we have clarity on two counts?” Not one? 12 people just blew it.
The jury saying that they understand doesn’t mean a lot to me. They understood the evidence, they understood the charges, they understood that they had come to a verdict on 1 and 3 while disagreeing on count 2. They understood that the judge told them not to write anything until they had come to a unanimous decision. It doesn’t mean they didn’t come to a verdict(s).
The judge quoting Yannetti seems, to me, to directly point to how important having the transcripts are for good jurisprudence. Sure would have been nice for the jurors to have had the same privilege when making their best decision
Laughing at EDB saying people get feisty about DA elections. Husband is LEO and I used to work for the DA. She’s so awful I’m literally registered as the opposite party so I could vote against her in the primary 😅
I feel like the DA and judges we elect (or retain for judicial retention) have the ability to directly impact our lives more than any legislative or administrative branch
So what happened to the jury sheets. They were disposed of or ??? I would think it is the courts responsibility that they get those back and if not filled out, then request it be done. Do I understand that there is no written record of the jury verdict?
Wait a minute, so the judges basically saying they did in fact have to come back on all charges because her thing stays? If they came back not guilty on one and three, they would have been sent back to decide on 2? So that means in her core or Massachusetts, not sure which. They need to come back with a verdict on all charges or no charges that I'm pretty sure is against federal regulations. That is insane to me. She may have just screwed herself fine hearing that correctly. Plus, if she seems to think that way, that would really explain why the jury was so confused that they couldn't come back on the split verdict. Because her wording in this filing basically says the same thing. They can't come back on a split verdict. Which. Explains why the jury behaved the way they did and why they're so upset. That's not OK.
How do you propose we do that, call in the jurors who've already said in affidavits that they've been influenced by the public backlash and want to remain anonymous for their safety? Here's how that goes if it happened "Your honor, the jurors have been influenced by things and people outside of the case." Go ahead and allow that though, just makes it easier for the state to threaten jurors into "admitting" it was actually guilty verdicts when they hang. I personally don't want any Kari Morrisey's coming back after a hung verdict going "Well your honor, they didn't really mean they were hung they were just confused and were actually unanimous on guilt." No thanks I'd rather go to trial until I die then get thrown in a prison cell for most/all of my life to a prosecutor like that. Let's not give the corrupt prosecutors more tools to destroy innocent people with please and thank you.
Hmm... what, if any, connections does the judge have to the officers in that house? Judge needs to be removed from this case, because the bias is obvious.
I was understanding where the judge was coming from until she said they can't question the jury. Lally is going to retry Karen even though he probably knows that the entire reason he has a second shot is because of a misunderstanding of the jury instructions. Sure the jury's notes were very clear, but that was based off of bad instructions.
If the jury was polled as to their verdict and not about their deliberations, and if it was done anonymously in court under oath and they all said they agreed on innocent for counts 1 and 3, why wouldn't double jeopardy automatically apply?
It feels gross to me that the judge put a link to a video as a dig at the defense in her ruling. Is that normal? I guess I just have always been naive thinking judges are completely impartial and above playing games. I can’t picture Judge Newman doing something like that.
Bev basically just took the commonwealth's motion and copy and pasted it, including the snarky reference to the defense not being shy. Apparently she doesn't respect the intelligence of the jury anymore
I really, really hope the judge didn't pull something underhanded by not asking and polling the jury before releasing them. I really hope it's an honest mistake.
Imo, the fact that Yanetti argued for the instruction to be read twice signals to me that he was unsure of the courts decision as under Massachusetts law it should’ve been red the first time he asked. Therefore, the court caused confusion. And that explains why he didn’t object, and he should lean in on that
So, I guess now it's official. The Wicked Witch landed and settled in Massachussets. I wonder if she's ever met Kari Morrissey - they could be sisters.
