Beyond The Horizon
The Karen Read Trial: Jury Deliberations Reach Day Number 3 (6/27/24)
The Karen Read trial has reached the jury deliberation phase as of late June 2024. Read is accused of murdering her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe, by allegedly hitting him with her SUV and leaving him to die in the snow in January 2022. The trial has garnered attention due to allegations of a potential cover-up involving police misconduct.
Jury deliberations began after nearly two months of testimony and closing arguments from both the defense and prosecution. As of now, the jury is in their third day of deliberations without reaching a verdict​.
In this episode, we dive in!
(commercial at 13:26)
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
Husband of bride killed in alleged DUI crash on wedding night to receive nearly $1 million settlement (wcvb.com)
- Duration:
- 19m
- Broadcast on:
- 27 Jun 2024
- Audio Format:
- mp3
You slept through your alarm, missed the train, and your breakfast sandwich. Cool. Sounds like you could use some luck. I'm Victoria Cash, and Luckyland is where people go every day to get lucky. At Luckyland, you can play over a hundred casino-style games for free for your chance to redeem some serious prizes. Go to Luckylandslots.com and get lucky today. No purchase necessary, VGW Group, a void we're prohibited by law, 18+ terms and conditions apply. What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the program. We are now entering day number three of "Jure Deliberation" in the "Karen Reed" trial, and there is a lot of anticipation about the jury and the verdict that they're going to return. You have one side that thinks Karen Reed is a straight-up murderer. They say that Karen Reed hit John O'Keefe and then callously just left him there to die. While the other side says that Karen Reed is being set up as a Fall Guy, but somewhere in the middle of all of that is the truth. And unfortunately, I don't think we've gotten there yet in this trial, and I don't think that the Commonwealth has made their case beyond the standard of reasonable doubt. I think there is plenty of reasonable doubt here, and I think that when we get this verdict from the jury, we're going to see that. And I'm really interested in hearing what these jurors have to say after the trial. Usually, we get a whole load of information about the mindset of the jury at the time of deliberation and how it all broke down, so I'm always interested to hear from the jurors after the fact. And you always get some pretty interesting information, right? And I think that here, we're going to get a whole load of it. But remember, these jurors are up against it. They can't go home and research what went on. All they have is their little notepad and their memory. So for two months, they've been getting slammed with all of this information, all of this testimony, and to make heads or tails of it all, all they really have is that little notepad, so they have quite the job ahead of them. And I would not be shocked at all to see these deliberations stretch into next week, considering what we've seen already with this trial, and considering just how crazy everything's already been, would anybody out there be shocked? So in this episode, we're going to dive into an article from WCVB, that breaks down what the jurors have to consider during their deliberations. So let's dive into this article and let's get caught up. Headline? Caron Read Trial, explaining what jurors must consider in their deliberations. This article was authored by Phil Tensor. Judge Beverly Canoni agreed to adjust a verdict form Wednesday, while the jury of six men and six women continue to deliberate in the murder trial of Caron Read. The Massachusetts woman accused of hitting John O'Keefe, her boyfriend, with an SUV, and leaving him to die in a snowstorm in 2022. And there was a bunch of back and forth between Alan Jackson and the judge over this form. He didn't like the way it was formatted, he didn't like the way that it was set up, and he felt like it was detrimental to his client. So Judge Canoni, after some consideration, decided that she was going to make an amendment to the form. Read a former adjunct professor at Bentley College, pleaded not guilty, and her high-profile trial has lasted over two months. Testimony began on April 29th and concluded on Monday. After two hours of closing arguments on Tuesday, Judge Beverly Canoni spent about an hour explaining the rules, by which jurors should deliberate, and each of the charges that read faces. This is crazy how long this is taken. I mean, we had El Chapo tried and convicted in a more forthright manner than this. And what's really scary, folks, at least to me anyway, is the fact that if Karen Reed didn't have any money, and she couldn't hire a person like Alan Jackson or Mr. United, how do you think this would have ended up for? So how many people out there have been railroaded up in Canton? So that's something that needs to be looked at, in my opinion, and I really think that the people of Canton should demand sweeping changes and an investigation. Imagine you got caught up in some bullshit, and you got forced into a plea bargain, or there was some shoddy-ass investigation, and you ended up losing years of your life. I mean, we already see it with Trooper Proctor and Brian Walsh, the dude who's accused of murdering his wife, Anna Walsh. Yeah, he's already brought up, Mr. Proctor. So if you think this isn't going to rear its ugly head later on down the road, you're sadly mistaken. And if I was somebody who was living in Canton, I'd be demanding sweeping changes. While the jury was starting the second day of their deliberations on Wednesday morning, Reid's defense raised concerns about the format of the verdict sheet during a tense exchange with Kenone. The judge defended the form as standard for Massachusetts and rebuked Reid at the conclusion of the exchange. So Karen Reid was laughing about the whole entire situation with the form, etc., and the judge admonished her for that. So I think it's a bad look all the way around. Karen Reid laughing is obviously not the optic she wants to give. And Judge Kenone firing off from the bench like that, probably not good either. But I guess that's all just par for the course considering what an absolute circus this whole entire thing has been. Later in the morning, Kenone told the attorneys that she would agree to give the jury a supplemental instruction to clarify the form. And that was the right move. That was the right thing to do. Make it clear, make everything, line up, and make it easy for the jurors to get in there and render their decision. At that time, defense attorney Alan Jackson asked for a revision to the not guilty language on the original verdict slip. Kenone said that while the original form was proper, she would incorporate the proposed change while making other edits to the format of the paperwork. Well, it's a good thing she did that because that would be something that they'd be looking at during appeal for sure. And I don't know about you folks, but the last thing I want to hear is that we have to do this trial all over again. One time is plenty. Jur is adjourned for the day just after 3.30 p.m. on Wednesday. They're expected to resume deliberations on Thursday morning. The top charge facing read is second degree murder, which carries a maximum penalty of life in prison. In order to prove murder in the second degree, the commonwealth must prove the following elements. And now keep this in mind, okay? This is very important, folks. What we think and what we want to happen means nothing. The jury has to follow these instructions on their way to rendering a verdict. In order to prove murder in the second degree, the commonwealth must prove the following elements. First, the defendant caused the death of John O'Keefe. Now, have they proven that to you yet? Not to me. I haven't seen that evidence. Two, the defendant intended to kill John O'Keefe, or intended to cause grievous bodily harm to John O'Keefe. Or intended to do an act, which in the circumstances known to the defendant, a reasonable person would have known, created a plain and strong likelihood that death would result. Canoni said. Now, does anybody out there who's reasonable feel as if the commonwealth has made their case, has made their case beyond a reasonable doubt, to get a conviction for a murder to charge? Because I have to tell you, I haven't seen that evidence. And what sealed the deal for me were the two accident recreation specialists that came on last that were hired by the FBI. These two dudes seemed to be the most credible experts throughout the whole entire thing. I mean, compare them to the expert that the commonwealth brought out. Mr. Poller, whatever, talked about a guy that was thrown to the wolves. Bro had no idea what he was doing. She also faces a charge of vehicular manslaughter while under the influence of alcohol, which carries a penalty of five to 20 years in prison. This requires the jury to determine that the prosecution proved five elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Now, look, I think they overcharged Karen Reed from the very beginning. And if they would have went for something like this, I think they would have increased their chances of getting a conviction. Because I really don't think that Karen Reed was out here maliciously trying to kill John O'Keefe. If she did hit him, I believe it was an accident. First, that the defendant operated the motor vehicle. Okay, well, we know she did that. Second, that she operated the motor vehicle upon a public way, or in a place in which the public has the right of access. Check, we know she did that. Third, that while the defendant was operating the motor vehicle, she was under the influence of intoxicating liquor and/or the percent of alcohol in the defendant's blood was 0.8 or greater. Canoni said, now we have heard some conflicting reports here. We know that her BAC was high as a kite the next morning, but how do we know she wasn't drinking in between? Now, look, logically speaking, she was probably still drunk from the night before. But you've got to prove that. It's not what you know, it's what you can prove. And unless they can prove that beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury must find her innocent here. Fourth, that the defendant operated the vehicle wantonly, or recklessly, as to create a high degree of likelihood, that substantial harm will result to another. And fifth, that by such operation of the motor vehicle, the defendant caused the death of John O'Keefe. And that certainly hasn't been proven to me. Not in the least. So as a juror, if you're looking at discharge, three of the five elements are met. But that's not enough to break reasonable doubt, at least not in my opinion. And again, remember folks, we're only talking about reasonable doubt here. We're not talking about, do you think Karen reads innocent? That really means nothing. What matters is what the evidence tells us. And in my opinion, I don't think the evidence that was provided by the Commonwealth meets the standard. Jurors may also convict greed of two lesser charges, including offenses without finding her guilty of the greater vehicular manslaughter charge. The Commonwealth may prove the lesser included charge of involuntary manslaughter, even if it fails to prove the greater charge of manslaughter, while operating a motor vehicle under the influence of liquor. Canoni explained to the jury, and I take issue with that. I don't think that they should be able to charge her with both second degree and manslaughter. The state already has too much power as it is. So now we're going to let them just slapper with both charges. Here's an idea. Pick one and try and make your case. Don't just throw them both out there, and hope that if you don't make the case for the bigger charge, that you get this add on. I'm not a big fan of that. And I think that that's something that needs to be addressed in the system overall. However, it is what it is, and that's the way it's set up right now. So crying over it is not going to help. So Karen Reed can be found guilty of manslaughter here, the lesser of the charge without getting the greater charge tacked on. So keep that in mind as well. The third charge facing Reed is leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death, which has a maximum penalty of 10 years. To convict on this charge, Canoni told the jurors, they must find the prosecution proves six elements. First, that the defendant operated a motor vehicle. Second, that she operated on a public way, or in a place in which the public has a right of access. That's all good so far. Third, that the defendant knowingly collided with John O'Keefe. They didn't prove that to me. Fourth, that the collision caused injury to John O'Keefe, resulting in his death. Certainly haven't seen that evidence yet. And fifth, that causing such injury, the defendant felt the stop and provide a name, home address and registration number of the motor vehicle. The sixth, that the defendant, failed to do so for the purpose of avoiding prosecution or apprehension. Canoni explained, "And that all seems a bit far-fetched to me. Now look, we'll have to wait and see what the jury thinks, but I don't think any of that hits home. Do you? Do you think they've met their burden of proof?" Former Mass Attorney General Martha Kochley, an attorney for Foley Hogue, said she expects deliberations will not be quick. "I think after today's closings, you will have some jurors who think she's guilty and some who may not. And it will take a while to go through everything and see, in fact, if they can reach a verdict," she said. "And I think that's where they're at. I know that there's some jurors in there that probably believe the narrative that's been pitched, because there's a lot of people who just believe the prosecution and the state because the state would never, ever do something like that. Meanwhile, those of us who follow along all the time and who keep an eye on this sort of thing understand that there is a big risk of prosecutorial misconduct. That's why we have to keep on point and make sure that we have access to these cases, have access to these trials. And that's why I don't like these gag orders that we see dropped over them. When we have those gag orders and there's no transparency, that becomes a fertile ground for all kinds of bullshit conspiracies to pop up. During closing arguments, Defense Attorney Alan Jackson told the jury, "You've been lied to." He argued that evidence, including an inverted video of Reed's SUV in the Canton Police Department's garage, was intentionally manipulated by an investigation that sought to protect other members of the law enforcement community. Ladies and gentlemen, there was a cover up in this case, plain and simple, Jackson said. And again with Jackson, "I am nothing but impressed. By the way, he has conducted his business during this trial. People can get as fired up as they want, as mad as they want." Jackson was an absolute master during cross-examination. And if Karen Reed walks, the reason she's going to walk, besides the shitty investigation that we saw, is because of Alan Jackson and the way he conducted his business. And if I was a prosecutor and I found out that Jackson was standing across from me inside of the courtroom, I don't think I'd be too happy about it honestly, because bros the savage. And if you have any kind of misconduct, if you stepped out of line even just a little bit, he's gonna find it. It is Ryan here, and I have a question for you. What do you do when you win? Like are you a fist-pumper? A woohoo! A hand clap or a high-fiver? If you want to hone in on those winning moves, check out Chumba Casino. Choose from hundreds of social casino-style games, for your chance to redeem serious cash prizes. There are new game releases weekly, plus free daily bonuses, so don't wait. Start having the most fun ever at ChumbaCasino.com. Sponsored by Chumba Casino, no purchase necessary. VGW Group, ford where prohibited by law, 18+ terms and conditions apply. On the flip side, prosecutor Adam Lally offered jurors a timeline, paired with evidence numbers documenting their theory of the case. He also opened his presentation by quoting numerous first responders, who testified that they heard Reed say, "I hit him." Now look, that is some damning stuff, usually, right? Oh, I hit him, I killed him, blah, blah, blah. But we have to take into account that she was panicked, she was freaking out, she didn't know what happened, she might have been drunk, so that all comes into play, right? And when somebody's freaking out, when they're grieving, when they don't know what happened, their loved one has been injured or killed, people go off the deep end, so you have to take that into account. Was she just popping off at the lip, or was she confessing? And that's where the jurors are at. And for me, there's enough reasonable doubt here for me to say as a juror, if I was sitting in that jury room, I'm sorry, but I'm not sending someone to prison for the rest of their lives on the evidence that's been offered. But I could totally see on the flip side of that, how a different juror or a different person could have a different outlook. And that's why I say there is just too much reasonable doubt here, for this to be a slam-dunk conviction for the prosecution. Those were the words that came from the defendant's mouth, Lally said. He also pointed to a seething voicemail message, Reed left for O'Keefe, moments after data from her car shows, she reversed at approximately 24 mph and then drove away. Well, look, I've been mad before and I've put my car in reverse and peeled the fuck out. I didn't kill my buddy, doesn't make me a murderer. And I've also sent some text messages or voicemails I'm not proud of. Does that make me a murderer? Does that make me a killer? So for me, if we're sending somebody to prison for the rest of their life, you better have some kind of hard evidence. I want DNA, I want eyewitness testimony, don't give me a bunch of BS. And certainly don't give me an investigation that is shoddy at best. And unfortunately, folks, I think that's what we have here, a shoddy ass investigation. The defendant leaves that voicemail seething in rage as she's screaming, "John, I fucking hate you." The defense said witnesses who claimed to have heard her say she had O'Keefe had changed their story or couldn't have heard the comments due to the chaotic scene. Jackson said investigators focused on Reed because she was a convenient outsider who saved them from having to consider other suspects, including Albert and other law enforcement officers who were at the party. In particular, they highlighted connections between Albert and the state trooper leading the investigation. And look, if you're an investigator like Proctor is, you should recuse yourself if there's any sort of doubt. Do you think you're the only one that can handle the case? Do you think you're the only one capable of doing this? What does that say about your peers? So here's an idea, buddy, recuse yourself, take a step back, and let the chips fall where they may. And then, if you would have done that, and if Canton, the police department as a whole would have stepped in, or state troopers would have stepped in, we wouldn't be here today. But since you guys want to have a shitty ass employee like Mr. Proctor, well guess what? Now we have questions. Michael Proctor didn't draw a thin blue line, he erected a tall blue wall. Jackson said, "A wall that you can't scale, a wall that Karen Reed certainly couldn't get over, a wall between us and them, a place you folk are not invited." We protect our own. Although Reed said she was willing to testify, she never took the stand in our own defense, and I don't blame her. And I think that what Alan Jackson was trying to do, at the end there, when he had his closing statements, is to try and slam the point home. If they could do this to Karen Reed, they can do it to you. And in my opinion, that's terrifying, because I know a lot of people out there don't have the resources to fight this off and get a lawyer like Alan Jackson. So how many other people in Canton have been railroaded? And as far as the Karen Reed verdict goes, well, it's verdict watch time, folks. And we're going to keep an eye on things throughout the day, and the second they get that verdict in, we'll make sure to hop on and get it added to the catalog. As for this episode, well, that's going to do it. But all of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. Hey, it's Ryan Seacrest, life comes at you fast, which is why it's important to find some time to relax a little you time. Enter Chumba Casino with no download required. You can jump on any time anywhere for the chance to redeem some serious prizes. So treat yourself with Chumba Casino and play over a hundred online casino style games all for free. Go to Chumba Casino dot com to collect your free welcome bonus sponsored by Chumba Casino. No purchase necessary. VGW Group void where prohibited by law. 18 plus terms and conditions apply.