Beyond The Horizon
The Commonwealth And Their Opposition To Karen Reads Post Trial Request To Dismiss (Part 2) (7/15/24)
Karen Read's defense team filed a motion to dismiss two of the three charges against her, including second-degree murder and leaving the scene of a crash causing death. They argued that the jury had unanimously agreed to acquit her of these charges before the judge declared a mistrial. The defense contends that retrying these charges would constitute double jeopardy. However, prosecutors have opposed the motion, stating that the jury did not reach formal verdicts and that any internal deliberations are legally irrelevant unless they result in official verdicts.
A post-trial motion to dismiss charges is a legal request made by the defense after a trial concludes, asking the court to drop specific charges against the defendant. This motion can be based on various grounds, such as claims of legal errors during the trial, lack of evidence, or issues like double jeopardy. The defense argues that, due to these reasons, the charges should not be retried. The prosecution typically responds with arguments as to why the charges should remain and be retried.
(commercial at 9:49)
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
7.12.24 Commonwealth opposition to defense motion-compressed.pdf - Google Drive
- Duration:
- 18m
- Broadcast on:
- 15 Jul 2024
- Audio Format:
- mp3
An official message from Medicare. A new law is helping me save more money on prescription drug costs. You may be able to save too. With Medicare's Extra Help Program, my premium is zero, and my out-of-pocket costs are low. Who should apply? Single people making less than $23,000 a year, or married couples who make less than $31,000 a year. Even if you don't think you qualify, it pays to find out. Go to ssa.gov/extrahelp, paid for by the US Department of Health and Human Services. Welcome to where the 5 to 9 more than makes up for the 9 to 5. Where you check your worries the moment you walk in. For every day feels lucky. Even at night, welcome to the chance to savor every moment. Every time you're here. To old friends, new experiences, and great times. Welcome to where life moves at the speed of you. This is your time. This is your place. Welcome to Boyd Casinos. Welcome to where you want to be. What's up everyone and welcome back to the program. In this episode we're getting right back to the Commonwealth and their motion to deny Karen Reed's request to have the charges against her dismissed. It must be recognized as a practical matter that Jerry votes on included offenses, maybe the result of a temporary compromise in an effort to reach a unanimous vote. A jury should not be precluded from reconsidering a previous vote on any issue, and the weight of final adjudication should not be given to any jury action that is not returned in a final verdict. A juvenile 392 mass at 56 citing people versus Griffin 66, Cal 2nd District 459 1967, Lawrence 11 pick at 502, oral affirmation of guilt or acquittal in open court is the only evidence the court can receive of the free and unanimous assent of the jury to the verdict. The jury's notes were unambiguous that the jurors were deeply divided by fundamental differences in our opinions in state of mind that resulted in a starkly divided jury as to the charges emphasis on plural. The jury consistently indicated that their in pass was not due to a lack of understanding of the law or the charges but a profound divergence in deeply held convictions ultimately leading to a point where consensus is unattainable. The jury's notes did not indicate agreement or acquittal on any of the charges rather it was evident that the jury was unable to agree on any charges due to their sincere adherence to their individual principles and moral convictions. Contrary to representations made in the defendant's motion and supporting affidavits, the defendant advocated for and consented to a mistrial as she had adequate opportunities to object and instead remain silent, which removes any doubt double jeopardy barred to retrial. See Commonwealth vs. Fatassiah, 40 Mass appeals court 293, 298, 1996. Consent to a mistrial may be inferred from silence where a defendant had the opportunity to object and failed to do so. Daniels vs. Commonwealth 441, Mass 1017 1018, 2004, where defense counsel told Judge he believed the jury was at an in pass in deliberations and had no objection to judge declaring mistrial. Such consent removed any double jeopardy barred to retrial. Pellegrini vs. Commonwealth 446, Mass 1004, 1005, 2006, despite having an adequate opportunity to object, defense counsel remained silent, proper to infer from counsel's conduct that defendant consented to the mistrial. See also Commonwealth vs. Curtis 53 Mass appeals court 636, 640, 2002. The manifest necessity test has no application in situations where is here, the defendant requested or effectively consented to the mistrial. During her full opportunity to be heard on June 28, 2024, and July 1, 2024, at no time did any of the defendant's three counsel's request inquiry as to what charge or charges the jury was deadlocked on, rather the defendant was quick to request a Tui Rodriguez instruction at first opportunity, indicating a belief based on the clear and obvious language of the jury's notes that is stated by attorney Yanetti, the jury was hopelessly deadlocked and exhausted all manner of compromise and was engaged in fundamental disagreements of what the evidence means, it's a matter of opinion, it's not a matter of understanding. See Ray vs. Commonwealth 463 Mass 14 2012, counsel's request for a Tui Rodriguez instruction permits the inference that both parties were provided an opportunity to be heard on possible alternatives to a mistrial. See also Commonwealth vs. Perea 72 Mass appeals court 308-316-2008. The timing of a Tui Rodriguez charge is committed to the discretion of the trial judge. G.L. 234A Section 68C. Once a Tui Rodriguez instruction is given, the jury could not be sent out again to continue deliberations without their consent. Furthermore, following the discharge of the jury, the court engaged the Commonwealth and defendant in discussions about choosing a status date for scheduling a retrial. At no time during that hearing did the defendant object or indicate displeasure with the mistrial. The mistrial was also supported by a manifest necessity, jury deadlock, see Commonwealth vs. Brian 476 Mass 351-357-2017. In considering whether to declare a mistrial over a defendant's objection, the court must be given counsel a full opportunity to be heard and careful consideration to alternatives to a mistrial. A frequent and traditional example of manifest necessity to declare a mistrial is where the jury were discharged because they were unable to come to an agreement on a verdict, Tames vs. Commonwealth 365 Mass 477-479-480-1974. Mistrial warranted where a jury reported an ability to reach decision after 4.5 hours of deliberation during which jury twice sent judge messages about impasse and judge inquired about jury's ability to reach agreement. Oregon vs. Kennedy 456 U.S. 667-672-1982. Describing hung jury as prototypical example of manifest necessity. See also Juvenile 392 Mass at 55. Mistrial warranted where jury reported deadlock on 4th day of deliberation after judge inquired about ability to reach verdict. The trial judge is best situated to determine whether the ends of substantial justice cannot be attained without discontinuing the trial. Commonwealth vs. Cassidy 410-174-177-1991. Citing gory vs. United States 367-US 364-1961. In declaring a mistrial premised upon the trial judge's belief that the jury is unable to reach a verdict, that decision is treated with great deference because otherwise there would be danger that the judge would employ coercive means to break the apparent deadlock. A Juvenile 392 Mass at 56. Fuentes vs. Commonwealth 448-1018 1018 1017 Commonwealth vs. Roth 437 Mass 777-791-2002. Deadlock juries are particularly susceptible to coercion. See also Cruz vs. Commonwealth 461 Mass 664-671-2012. The term manifest necessity is another way of saying that in a particular case, the right of the defendant must yield to that of the public. Rey 463 Mass at 2 and 7, trial judge interacts directly with jurors and is in best position to determine whether the jury is deadlocked. The court engaged in considerable efforts and sent the jury back to deliberate two times following notes that they were at an impasse and in addition to finding that the jury had engaged in due and thorough deliberations and providing the Tui Rodriguez instruction at the request of the defendant and to her satisfaction during deliberations, the court amended the verdict slips to depict clearly the lesser included offenses and provide the jury a supplemental instruction on how to consider the lesser included offenses. See Bluford 566-US 609, the United States Supreme Court has never required a trial court before declaring a mistrial because of a hung jury to consider any particular means of breaking the impasse, let alone consider giving the jury new options for a verdict. The defendants claim that the judge should have inquired of the jury holds no merit as nothing in our case law or in GLC 234, Section 34, require the judge to make either inquiry whether there was reasonable probability of any unanimous verdicts or if the jury would consent to further deliberations. As a matter of course and the circumstances before the judge did not necessitate either inquiry, the final note from the four person unequivocally stated that the jury were unable to come to a unanimous decision, in other words that the jury were deadlocked and that the note did not suggest, for example, that the jury were merely having trouble making a decision or needed further instructions from the judge. Actors for 48 mass at 1018 and 1019, given the four days of deliberations, the jury's indication that they had carefully reviewed all the evidence and that their divergent opinions were premised upon deeply held moral convictions, the court was left with no reasonable alternative other than to declare a mistrial. Further consultation with counsel would not have produced any fruitful alternatives nor was there a reasonable probability the jury would have consented to deliberate further, particularly when the jury wrote, to continue to deliberate would be futile and only served to force us to compromise these deeply held beliefs. Moreover, whether counsel initiates contact with a discharge juror by first sending notice to the opposing party with the substance of the proposed communication or if the juror initiates contact with counsel as alleged in defendant's motion, counsel may communicate with jurors only about permissible subjects, see mass are professional c 3.5 c permissible objects include counsel's performance during the trial, extraneous influence on the jury's deliberation, or a juror's bias towards the defendant, see Commonwealth v. McCowan 458 mass 461 494 2010, neither extraneous influence nor a claim of juror bias is alleged by the defendant to have been an issue, see Commonwealth v. McCallop 485 mass 790 799-800. You've heard of Pizza Hut $7 deal lovers menu, right? All these delicious items for only $7 each when you buy two or more, but something's off. I mean, pizzas, melts, boneless wings, bacon, cheddar cheese, sticks, oven, baked pastas, cinebon mini rolls, and that's not even the whole menu. I'll keep beating or digging. You should too. Check out the $7 deal lovers menu at your local Pizza Hut. Product availability prices and participation may vary, additional charges and exclusions may apply. Wings included or eight-count boneless. Every day we rise, challenging ourselves to work for what we believe in. At U.S. Border Patrol, protecting our borders is more than a job. It's a calling. Agents answer the call, working together to keep our country and communities safe. If you're ready for a new mission, join U.S. Border Patrol and go beyond. Learn more at cpp.gov/careers. 2020, even in circumstances where jury testimony is needed to ascertain whether there was racial or ethnic bias or extrajudicial influence, a judge may not inquire into the jury's subjective thought process, content of deliberations, or reasons for concluding guilt or acquittal. Rather, what the defendant's motion is entirely premised upon and what is expressly prohibited inquiry is that the jury's deliberative process and the substance of the jury's deliberations see Commonwealth v. Moore 474 Mass 541, 553, 2016. The secrecy of jury deliberations has served as a bedrock of our judicial system and inquiry into the jury's deliberative process would intrude improperly into the jury's function. The common law principle that is essential to the freedom and independence of jury deliberations, that their discussions in the jury room should be kept secret and invoilable, was not arguably could not be overruled by the 2015 adoption of Rule 3.5c, ID at 548 and 549. It's improper for counsel to inquire with jurors or through intermediaries the individual or collective thought process of the jury, the reasons for their decisions or the substance of their deliberations. ID at 548, Massachusetts continues to adhere the common law principles barring inquiry into the contents of jury deliberations and any impeachment of jury verdicts based on information gain from such inappropriate inquiry. Similarly, it would be improper for the court to inquire through affidavit's or an evidentiary hearing the substance of the jury's deliberations, ID at 552. If after communicating with the juror and attorney wishes to secure an affidavit from the juror, any such affidavit must focus on extraneous influences and not the substance of the jury's deliberation or the individual or collective thought process of the juror or the jury as a whole, Cassidy 410 mass at 179. Trial judge acted within discretion to declare mistrial where proposed inquiry of deliberating juror could not be made without inquiring into the deliberative process of the jury. The Supreme Judicial Court has instructed that whenever a judge asks individual jurors about the possibility of extraneous influences on jury deliberations, whether of jurors who are still sitting as such of jurors or those who have been discharged, the purpose of the individual questioning is not to delve into the jury's deliberations, there should not be an inquiry into a juror's individual or the jury's collective thought process. Commonwealth v. Blanchard 476, Mass 1026, 1027, 1028, 2017. Likewise pulling the jury on the various possible verdicts during their deliberations, or after their discharge, would constitute an unwarranted and unwised intrusion into the province of the jury, and the Supreme Judicial Court has cautioned strongly against the risk of coercion inherent in questioning jurors, particularly in individual colloquies. Ray 463, Mass at 6 and 8. Moreover, one cannot assume from the mere report of a deadlock that there is any final verdict lurking within the deadlock that may be extracted. In many instances, asking a deadlock jury about partial verdicts would constitute attempting to extract from the jury something that does not exist. Creating a jury to report where they stand on the offenses is charged invites a report that may be based on only preliminary tentative deliberation, if any, on that level of offense, or hasty resumption of deliberations concerning that level of offense in an effort to satisfy the judge's apparent desire for a decision. Such inquiries of the jury may succeed in extracting a partial verdict, but we could not have confidence that the partial verdict was a product of a thoughtful and thorough deliberation process. The risk of juror, coercion, or too high, and the reliability of any such partial verdict returned is too low. To warrant such an approach to salvaging some partial result from a deadlock jury, Commonwealth v. Roth, 437 Mass, 777, and 793 through 795. Similarly, even if the deadlock does pertain to some distinction between the various levels of an offense, a judge has no way of knowing whether the jury have in fact fully considered the offense is charged, ID at 794. A desire to extract information from a deadlock jury does not solve these significant problems in attempting to do so, ID at 790. A court's inquiry into possible verdicts improperly intrudes on the jury's function, and the ostensible benefits to be gained by such a procedure are outweighed by its risks. For the foregoing reasons, the defendant's motion should be denied as there was no verdict that acquits the defendant, no grounds for the court or counsel, to inquire into, the deliberative process of discharge jury, the defendant consented to the mistrial, and the court properly declared a mistrial due to a deadlock jury, who was at an impasse due to their starkly divided perspectives on the evidence and their sincere adherence to individual principles and moral convictions. As such, retrial is not barred by double jeopardy or constitutional principles, and the Commonwealth may retry the defendant on the three indictments and any appropriate lesser included offenses. Respectfully submitted for the Commonwealth, Michael W. Morrissey, District Attorney, and this was dated July 12th of 2024. Well, if you thought that the circus in Canton was coming to a close anytime soon, surprise, it's not. And it's only going to get worse, because you can guarantee that a part two of this is going to be a gigantic shit show, and as much as I don't want to pay attention to it, it's like a fiery car crash that you can't avoid. So we'll continue to follow along, and when we have some more information, we'll make sure we get it added to the catalog. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. And a new law is helping me save more money on prescription drug costs. Who should apply? Single people making less than $23,000 a year, or married couples who make less than $31,000 a year. Even if you don't think you qualify, it pays to find out. Go to ssa.gov/extrahelp. Paid for by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Judy was boring. Hello. Then, Judy discovered Jumbakasino.com. It's my little escape. Now Judy's the life of the party. Oh baby, mama's bringing home the bacon. Oh, take it easy, Judy. The Jumba life is for everybody, so go to jumbakasino.com and play over a hundred casino-style games. Join today and play for free for your chance to redeem some serious prices. Jumbakasino.com. No purchase necessary for you are prohibited by law, 18-plus terms and conditions apply, see website for details.