Billy & Lisa in the Morning
Karen Read Trial Recap 7.1.24
Every day when you log in to Chumbecassino.com, the ultimate online social casino, you get a free daily bonus. Imagine if you got daily bonuses in other parts of your life. I chose french fries over loaded french fries. I asked Stewart from accounting about his weekend, even though I don't care. I updated my operating system without having to call tech support. Collect your free daily bonus at Chumbecassino.com now. And live the Chumba life, BdW Group, no purchase necessary if we were braided by law in terms of conditions in 18 plus. Good morning everybody, I'm going to miss Catherine after the verdict comes in, she's become part of my morning routine. Thanks for all that you do for us Catherine, and teaching us bye. And now Catherine is in studio. So Catherine, we had Steve Cooper on a couple of minutes ago, did you get a chance to listen? I didn't, I'm sorry I missed it. They were talking about how security is extremely beefed up now around the courthouse. I bet, and you know, it just, I think a lot of people are probably feeling that this has turned into something that it really shouldn't. We're forgetting that there's a victim here, there's a family here, there's so much chaos around the courthouse online everywhere. It's just, it's a little disappointing where the, where the case has gone. Yeah, it's a circus. Yeah, and it's, you know, that's not what it's supposed to be about. And I understand everybody has a right to feel the way they want about the case, people feel very strongly to Catherine Reed's innocent to her guilt. But I don't know that it quite has to devolve into the chaos that it has, and it's a little disappointing, I think. Were you surprised by the deadlock that early? I was not, I was not, I mean, I, I thought if they didn't come back quickly within, you know, the first sort of day of deliberating, that there was a good chance that they were going to be deadlocked. Because I do think that, you know, I've been thinking a lot about it over the weekend, and what are the jurors hung up on. And I think really the argument is there's probably going to be maybe a couple of jurors that don't believe that she couldn't have hit him. It's really comes down to you either believe she could have been hit by the vehicle or he wasn't hit by the vehicle. And if you believe he could have been hit by the vehicle, I think those people are probably pretty, you know, hardened in their decision to vote one way. Versus the other. And I don't know how you, right, I don't, I don't see them changing their viewpoint. And then this Tui Rodriguez rule, can you explain that? And it doesn't seem like it would be that impactful given what we just said. So I'm going to, I'm actually going to do a post on it today and read the instruction for everybody. So everybody can kind of understand what it is. So what happened last week is after they came back, a deadlock, and she said, go back. What we haven't quite gotten to the point, Tui Rodriguez, the case law says that's the absolute last resort. So the judge sent them back. I expect they'll probably, if they don't come back with a verdict today, they'll come back and say, we're in an impasse. What the Tui Rodriguez instructions basically says is, listen, you are the 12 jurors who have all the evidence. There's nobody at another trial, in another place, in another time, that's going to be in a better position. Go back there, listen to the other person's perspective. You know, looking at yourself, are you being unreasonable? Is the other person being unreasonable? Basically what the, what the instruction says is, hey, go back and think about what the other position is. And is there anywhere that you could change the things that you aren't evaluating? You need to reevaluate and really try your very best to come to a decision because you, you are the best people to do it. Is a mistrial sort of a win for the, for the defense in a way? We were talking about this often there. In a way, because in a way, the United was arguing that he wanted this Rodriguez thing read on Friday and Lally was saying, no, no, no, we need to wait. Right. So it, you know, it's, and it's interesting because I think the general consensus is that probably the holds up, hold out to probably for guilty. There's probably more from not you, but you don't know that, but you don't know. And that's what I always stress with a jury trial is you never know. It could be 10 guilty and two not guilty. We don't, we don't know that. A mistrial is, it's really never a win for the defense because you really, no matter what, even though it's a, it's not a guilty, you have to do the whole thing over again, which is stressful. It's, you know, takes a lot of time, takes a lot of effort, takes a lot of money. But it's kind of, it's really not a win for you to try because it's a loss that the Commonwealth doesn't get there when and it's a loss that the defense doesn't be argued to do it so fast. I think from his perspective, what he was arguing is that, so because they came back with one question and one question only, and that was very early on, that was about the CERT Team report. And so obviously that, I think that's the issue is that, you know, the, what was found in the snow on January 29th is obviously a dispute in the jury about, you know, you, you kind of have to believe either it's planted or it's not. And so if you don't believe it's planted, the jurors is probably saying, well, we added it come from and we as the explanation for that other than she hit him. And so what, you know, he was saying, I believe is that, then they have all the evidence, they're not asking any of the questions. This is probably the one issue that they are hung up on. They've been hung up on it for three days. So just give to me now and let's get it on with it. But, you know, the, you know, the case lots and the report is also the instructions do say you have to give them a little push before you give them the, actually read it to them. >> A couple of people suggested to me over the weekend that one or two of the jurors could be planted. Like how easy would it be for somebody to cheat their way through the jury selection questionnaire? >> I mean, pretty difficult. You have the defense team who I'm sure, both sides, you know, got the copies of their records. There was, you know, an extensive jury selection process. I mean, if I'm being totally honest, I have heard that and I think it's people going too far down the rabbit hole. I think that's an easy way to say, oh, there must be somebody planted on the jury as opposed to somebody just having a difference of opinion. >> Right. >> Do you think that, we don't know, but if they're hung up, say they tended to saying that she's guilty, not guilty, do you think it's on a lesser charge of manslaughter or do you think it would be on the murder to charge? >> No, I don't think it's on the murder, so I think it's on one of the lesser includeds. And who knows which one? Because they all really have the same sort of elements. I mean, there's a little bit more, obviously, the vehicle, manslaughter, while operating on the influence is the highest, and then we have OUI homicide and voluntary manslaughter. But they all attribute guilt to Karen. The second degree, I mean, again, you never know with a jury, but I don't see any world where they could find the intent necessary to prove second degree. >> Put yourself in Karen Reed's chair in the courthouse. When they came back deadlocked, what were her thoughts? Was she expecting that, not expecting that? >> I would say that they were expecting to knock guilty and they were expecting it quicker than possible. And I think that's not only because they did do a good job, they did an excellent job presenting their case in poking the holes and establishing what I think is a pretty good argument for reasonable doubt. But I also think that they are the favored side publicly in this. So sometimes you get in a little bit of a bubble and you expect like, if everything is you're here and you're innocent, you're innocent, you're innocent. The jury's going to come back, and then it doesn't happen. It's a little bit like bringing you back down to reality. >> So crushing disappointment, you think? >> I mean, I would think so. I mean, definitely disappoint in it, disappointment and certainly stress. >> Do you see them if it's a mistrial coming back and trying her again? >> I think it's likely. And I think that they would probably just proceed on the lesser charges, the manslaughter. I mean, again, who knows, they might not, but they'll probably talk with the family. And again, there's a victim here. It's not just about trying the case, not trying the case. If they really believe, and I do think the Commonwealth believes that she's responsible, I think they'll probably take another shot at it. >> So like you said, the family. So if John's family said we're done, I want this to be over with, please stop the madness, would they not retry? >> Well, they would take it into consideration. It's not ultimately going to be the only factor, but they'll definitely take it into consideration. By the way, FYI, the Karen Reed story, the lead story on Good Morning America this morning. I mean, the US on high terror alert, the presidential situation, all the things, the hurricane bearing down on the Caribbean, all of these major stories in the Karen Reed story is the lead story. So we've got Catherine Loftus, who has been and continues to be our legal expert on the Karen Reed cases. The jury said they were deadlocked on Friday. They were ordered back to deliberations, which begin at nine o'clock this morning. We'll see how that goes, but in the meantime, it's time for topic time. So, Justin, you have talkbacks in there? >> Yes. The questions are coming in. If you have a question, a comment for Catherine, you got to be listening on the iHeart app to kiss one away. Tap the red microphone. That is a talk back, essentially a message that I will then play on the radio. >> Catherine, I was wondering. >> I heard over the weekend that there was a retired Western police officer on the jury. Have you heard that? And if that's the case, that does not seem to be a fair jury. I can't imagine the defense would let that prove. >> Wow. >> I would have a hard time believing that the defense did not know that the police officer was retired. >> You know, if they go through it, it's very vetting process. >> It's vetting processes, very legitimate, okay? So, you have, you know, paramteries, you have all these challenges on the front end. You know, that now we're going into the jury. I think it's very dangerous for people to be really trying to find out who the jury's at, what their backgrounds are. Like, we want to be very careful. We want to be able to protect the jury process. That's what we have. That's the way our system is set up. And if we're, you know, trying to dive in, who's there? So, who's the holdout? And if there's somebody who's a police officer, you know, then they made it to the jury. That means they made it through the judge, they made it through the comm wealth, and they made it through the defense. So, I would say- >> Which is still a little strange to me. If they did, in fact, make it through, and they are, in fact, a retired police officer. Because there is a, I mean, a lot of the suggestion in this case has been the police and the handling of the case. >> Right. But you want people, the whole point of a jury is to have people from different backgrounds, different perspectives. You know, there's always the argument against it, obviously, as a defense attorney, you don't want a police officer on, but the comm wealth does, but it goes the same way the comm wealth probably doesn't want people who are a little bit less, you know, police-friendly. So, you want a mix of people. >> So, would they let the defense let someone like that in if they were saying, okay, you could have that guy, but I want that person to be in. >> Right. So, at the beginning, so you have challenges for cause, which means, you know, there's other reasons. And then there's peremptries. So, you know, if they decided not to use their peremptory on that, a juror, then the jurist gets in. >> You got another one, Justin. >> My question is this, why did the judge appoint the foreman before we even knew if he was going to pick out of the so-called raffle? That's very disturbing, I think. >> It's not disturbing. From my perspective, the judge has the discretion. You can either randomly pick. You can assign a full person. It's within the rules. And so, generally, I know we talked a little bit about this last week, but generally, judges when they pick a full person, they try to pick somebody who looks like they can manage the jury, you know, is going to be someone who's been paying attention, taking notes. You know. I mean, ultimately, the full person doesn't have any more, like, legitimate control. They're just the person who speaks to the judge, right? So, they don't have any more say than anybody else. >> If it's a mistrial, we were talking about this off the air, would it be the same judge that would hear the case again? >> So, she took the case, took the jurisdiction over the case last fall, so she would probably stay on it. It doesn't mean she has to, but I think likely she would keep it. >> All right. Let's go to the phones, and Kathy, you're up first. You have a comment or a question? Kathy? >> Hi. >> Yeah. >> Hi, sorry. >> What do you bring redo for a living, and who is financing all of her court, her stays in the seaport, like, who's paying for all of this? >> From my understanding, there was some money put up from her family, from her dad. You know, I don't know the specifics of that. There's been a pretty significant go-find-me in which people have donated, you know, I don't know about any deals with books, movies or anything like that, that might be contributed. But, I mean, it's pretty, there's got to be a pretty hefty bill, so I think it's a little bit of sourcing from different. >> Could it be in the millions? >> I think so. I think- >> Oh, I have a question since we're here, and I want to preface this for anything that I have been very loud over here for months saying that you cannot commit care and need of murdering John O'Keefe. But if you're going through this, and you have to spend a lot of money on Jackson and Nettie and everything through the court case, why when you own a home in Mansfield and your parents have a home here, why are you staying in a hotel every night? Nettie, he lives here, why is he not going home? I understand Jackson and Little are not from here, so they have to stay somewhere. But why are they all staying in the same hotel? I don't get that. >> I mean, I think the argument is that so they can prep, you know, what's going to go on the next day, you know, who they're all together, the three attorneys can read. It is a lot. It's unusual to, especially when you're, you know, where it's not like everybody is not from here, so they have to stay in a hotel. It is a little bit unusual to be basically like hunkered down for two and a half months together. >> Yeah. >> But it's a very public hotel. I mean, you know. >> Right. But I do understand, you know, they need the ability probably every night to go, you know, they're prepping every single night. So why not stay in Mansfield or her house or why not get an Airbnb? Why not rent an Airbnb in Dedham or Braintree or, like, why are you at the seaport omni? Again, you can go to eat, you can do all these things, but it's just way more expensive to go out and eat in the seaport than if you want to like the cheesecake factory, the Braintree mall. Like, you know what I mean? That's a good question. Maybe after this, somebody can ask her. >> You know, talk back, Justin. Go ahead. >> Hey, guys. Question for Katherine. >> If they come back and they say she's guilty of one or all or any of the charges, what happens immediately? She'll get put in cuffs and taken away or she should go home and then come back for sentencing. >> So normally a defendant would get taken right into custody. They can ask. I mean, I hate to say she's not the normal defendant, but she's not the normal defendant. She doesn't have a criminal record. You know, she's likely not to flee if they put over sentencing for two weeks. Sometimes the judge will allow you, you know, if you found guilty and you definitely get, you know, if she was found guilty on the mean sort of wall, that's a minimum mandatory of five years. So she'd be going in. The judge could say, okay, you have two weeks to kind of get everything in order. And on this date, you're going to surrender yourself and come back in. So it's really up to the discretion of the judge. >> We said a good question when we had Steve Cooper on earlier. We didn't get a chance to ask about the Netflix camera crew that's there. >> Well, I wanted to ask him because he's been standing outside with the Netflix crew to give us any sort of insight into when we could see this on Netflix. >> I would bet they would, my guess is going to rush it all because, you know, it seems to be the way they're doing it with documentaries these days, is that like we get the actual case and then, you know, look how quickly we got the Murdoch documentary like within a couple of months of it. So I do think we're going to have like this mad rush of documentaries from, you know, maybe one to whoever they come through, but I would bet it would be sooner than later. >> All right, talk back to you, Doug, Justin, who's next? >> So this is less about the jury being deadlocked, but I've been curious and wanted to ask as to what your opinion is as to what the relationship of John O'Kee and Karen Reed was compared with everyone in the house that night. I'm just curious because it seems like, you know, everyone's thought is that they're all sticking together, but I was just curious as to before were they all pretty close or were Karen and John not too much. >> So from what the testimony that came out is that they were, there was Jen McCabe and Matt McCabe knew John pretty well from, and Jen knew his niece when his sister was alive. So I mean, that was more of a longstanding friendship in that they sort of peripherally knew, you know, Brian Albert, Nicole Albert, mostly from, you know, having mutual friends through the McCabe. So it seems like there was, you know, it's more of acquaintances for most of the people in the house, aside from Jen and Matt, you know, and the relationship with Karen and John, I think is, listen, I think their relationship itself is not that strange to most people is that you present one thing on the outside, and it's very different on the inside, and everybody has issues and problems, and that can go both ways, that, you know, it leads you towards one path about, you know, that they were on the way to break it up or that they were, you know, just a normal relationship. >> Well, Jen and Karen were together that night, right? >> Yes, they were all at the waterfall together. >> And Jen testified against her? >> Yes, so Jen, so I mean, I wouldn't say against her if she testified for the Commonwealth, she's a witness because she was anybody who was there that night is considered a witness. You know, and it was interesting that most of the witness testimony that came out said, you know, we really liked Karen, we thought they had a good relationship, thought she was good for John, for the kids, but obviously they have a different perspective on what happened that night. >> Well, we're talking about Jen McCabe, and so for closing arguments, Jen McCabe, Colin Albert and Brian Albert, who were heavily disliked by anyone that's pro Karen Reid, and you can argue against how they're not the best witnesses. But they were there for the closing arguments, and then they disappeared. Was there some type of strategy there with the prosecution that, oh, John's feeling likes them? That's why they're here? Because then they all died on the hill, that Colin Albert was some neighborhood kid that would never be at a closing argument. You can say maybe Jen was a close friend or whatever, but there would be no reason for them to be there other than if there was some maybe a strategy behind it. >> I don't think it's from the calm wall, I think it was from the family. That's the gist of kind of what I'm getting. I think that, you know, and I think it's hard because there's two kind of perspectives is that, you know, why are these people here, they're the subject to all this. On the other hand, the O'Keeves believe they have nothing to do with it, and I think it was from their perspective, sort of a show of, hey, we don't believe what the defense is saying. >> Yeah. >> These people are with us, we know that they didn't do anything at that time. >> I still don't need some random 20-year-old kid in my box. >> You know, I mean, I think from the O'Keeves perspective, Colin Albert, his name wasn't even mentioned in the closing argument, and basically the kid's life has been ruined. So, you know, I think there's always two different sides to the story. >> I guess I'm a person, that's when it comes to that stuff. >> Let's go to the phones again, Steve, you're up next. >> Hello, Steve. >> Thank you. >> Hi there, I just had a quick question. How long will the judge go before she calls him this trial? >> I think probably if they come back today with, either they come back today with the verdict or they're still stuck, they'll get read to E Rodriguez, and then it'll probably be tomorrow, Wednesday morning at the latest. >> So, you think before July 4th, because I don't think she's, if they're stuck and they've been stuck since last week, she's not going to make them come back after the long weekend. >> Oh, my God. >> So, jury back at 9 this morning, and we'll see whether or not we get a verdict or we get a deadlock situation, but Catherine, as always, thanks for coming in. >> Thanks for having me. >> Oh, we, on a Monday morning, the first of July, and yeah, the Karen reached, did I mention top story on Good Morning America on ABC? >> Everybody's talking about it. >> I'm Victoria Cash, and I want to invite you to a place called Lucky Land, where you can play over 100 social casino style games for free for your chance to redeem some serious crisis. >> So, what are you waiting for? The best way to discover your luck is to spin, so go to luckylandslots.com, that's luckylandslots.com, and get lucky today at Lucky Land. >> No purchase necessary, VGW Group, boy prohibited by law, 18-plus terms and conditions