Beyond The Horizon
The Commonwealth And Their Opposition To Karen Reads Post Trial Request To Dismiss (Part 1) (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:
- 14m
- 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. Maybe you can 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 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Hey guys, it is Ryan. I'm not sure if you know this about me, but I'm a bit of a fun fanatic when I can. I like to work, but I like fun too. And now I can tell you about my favorite place to have fun. Chumba Casino. They have hundreds of social casino-style games to choose from. With new games released each week, you can play for free, and each day brings a new chance to collect daily bonuses. So join me and the fun. Sign up now at chumbaughassino.com. Sponsored by Chumba Casino, no purchase necessary. VGW Group. Forward we're prohibited by law. 18+ Terms and Conditions apply. What's up everyone, and welcome back to the program. So recently, the Karen Reid trial ended in a mistrial, and both sides are now jockeying to control the narrative. And you have the prosecution, who says that there is no way that they're not going to retry this case, and that they have enough evidence to convict Karen Reid. Well, her team obviously doesn't believe that, and they filed a motion to have the charges dismissed. Well, the Commonwealth has responded to that request, to that motion, and in this episode, we're going to take a look at that response. Commonwealth vs. Karen Reid. Commonwealth's opposition to defendants post-trial motion to dismiss. Now comes the Commonwealth in opposition to the defendants post-trial motion to dismiss her indictments, for a second degree murder, and leaving the scene after causing death, as the defendant's motion is premised upon hearsay, conjecture, and legally inappropriate reliance as to the substance of jury deliberations. Further, contrary to the defendant's claims, throughout jury deliberations, the defendant was given a full opportunity to be heard, the jury's communications to the court explicitly indicated an impasse on all charges, and the court carefully considered alternatives, before declaring a mistrial. The defendant's unsubstantiated, but sensational post-trial claim that the jury reached the unanimous decision to acquit, lax any merit, or legal foundation. On June 9, 2022, the defendant was indicted by a Norfolk grand jury for a second degree murder in violation of GLC 265, Section 1, manslaughter while operating under the influence in violation of GLC 265, Section 13 and a half, and leaving the scene of a personal injury, death, and violation of GLC 90, Section 24, 2, a and a half, and 2. On April 16, 2024, a 10-week jury trial commenced, Beverly Canoni J. The jury began their deliberations on June 25, 2024. In addition to the three indictments, the jury was instructed to consider two lesser included offenses to manslaughter while operating under the influence, one involuntary manslaughter and violation of GLC 265, Section 13, and two motor vehicle homicide, OUI, liquor and negligence, and violation of GLC 90, Section 24, G.A. The defendant's motion states that the court's decision to declare a mistrial was sudden, brief, and unexpected, neither preceded nor accompanied by discussion with counsel, yet the defendant's motion in supporting affidavits of counsel inexplicably emit the full opportunity that the defendant was given to be heard and the defendant's consent to the mistrial. Beginning on Friday, June 28, 2024, at approximately 12.15 pm, the jury sent a note stating "I am writing to inform you on behalf of the jury that despite our exhaustive review of the evidence and our diligent consideration of all disputed evidence, we have been unable to reach a unanimous verdict." At that time, the court requested argument from the Commonwealth and defendants as to whether the jury had engaged in due and thorough deliberations, CGL C-234A, Section 68C. The Commonwealth responded that the jury had not had sufficient time to deliberate and requested that the jury be instructed to continue their deliberations. On the contrary, attorney Anetti argued, "We believe that there has been sufficient time and advocated for the jury to be declared deadlocked and provided the two-irad Riga's instruction." Attorney Anetti stated, "The word 'exhaustive' is the word that I think is operative here." They're communicating to the court that they've exhausted all manner of compromise, all manner of persuasion, and they're at an impasse. You know, this is a case where the jury has illegal instructions. They've only really asked one question, which was to try to get a report they were not allowed to get, and I think the message has been received that the evidence is closed and they won't be getting anything more. They've been working essentially in on-stop over the last three, four days, were approaching a weekend. They didn't come back with this at 3 o'clock or 4 o'clock. They're at 12 o'clock and they have nowhere to turn. So our position is the jury should read the two-irad Riga's model instruction and go from there. See, Commonwealth vs. Rodriguez, 364, Mass 87, 101 through 103, 1973, Commonwealth vs. 2e, 8-Kush, 1, 2 and 3, 1851, instruction for situations where due deliberation, the jury has expressed that they are at an impasse. See, also, Ray vs. Commonwealth, 463, Mass 1 and 6, 2012. The two-irad Riga's instruction has a certain sting to it. Commonwealth vs. Rollins, 354, Mass, 630, 638, 1968. A two-irad Riga's instruction should not be employed prematurely or indiscriminately. The court ruled that given the length of the trial, number of exhibits and complex issues in the case, there had not been due and thorough deliberations and instructed the jury to continue deliberating. On Monday, July 1, 2024, at approximately 1045 AM, the jury sent another note to the court stating, "Judge Canoni, despite our commitment to the duty, entrusted in us, we find ourselves deeply divided by fundamental differences in our opinions and state of mind. The divergence in our views are not rooted in a lack of understanding or effort but deeply held convictions that each of us carry, ultimately leading to a point where consensus is unattainable. We recognize the weight of this admission and the implications it holds. Following receipt of that note, the court again inquired of the Commonwealth and defendants as to whether there had been due and thorough deliberations. GLC-234A, Section 68C. The Commonwealth argued that although the jury had been deliberating for approximately 22 hours, given the length of the trial and number of witnesses, the jury had yet to engage in thorough deliberations. Attorney Yanetti again sought a two-irad Riga's instruction, stating that the jury has come back twice, indicating essentially that they're hopelessly deadlocked. They said they've been overall the evidence. At this time, they say they have fundamental disagreements about what the evidence means. It's a matter of opinion, it's not a matter of lack of understanding. The court found that at this point, the jury had engaged in due and thorough deliberations, noting that this had been an extraordinary jury. The court indicated it had never seen a note like this reporting to be at an impasse. At approximately 11 a.m. on July 1, 2024, the jury was advised of the full duyirad Riga's instruction, including that it was the jury's duty to decide this case, if you can't do so consciously, and that there is no reason to believe another jury would be more competent to decide this case. You've heard of Pizza Hut's seven-dollar deal lovers menu, right? All these delicious items for only seven dollars 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 eating or digging. You should too. Check out the seven-dollar 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. Okay, round two. Name something that's not boring. Laundry? Oh, a book club. Computer solitaire, huh? Oh, sorry. We were looking for Chumba Casino. That's right. ChumbaCasino.com has over a hundred casino-style games. Join today and play for free for your chance to redeem some serious prizes. ChumbaCasino.com. Nobody says that we're going to do it by law. 80+ turns a division to apply. See what type of details? On July 1st, 2024, at approximately 2.30 pm, the jury sent a final note to the court stating, despite our rigorous efforts, we continue to find ourselves at an impasse. Our perspectives on the evidence are starkly divided. Some members of the jury firmly believe that the evidence surpasses the burden of proof, establishing the elements of the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Conversely, others find the evidence fails to meet this standard and does not sufficiently establish the necessary elements of the charges. The deep division is not due to a lack of effort or diligence, but rather a sincere adherence to our individual principles and moral convictions. To continue to deliberate would be futile and only serve to force us to compromise these deeply ill beliefs. Following receipt of that note, the court discharged the jury and declared a mistrial. The representations made in Council's affidavits have no legal bearing on the mistrial, as the jury did not reach any verdicts partial or otherwise. A juvenile versus commonwealth 392, mass 5256, 1984, mass r crime p 27a, verdicts must be reported in open court. The only verdict which can be received and regarded as a complete and valid verdict of a jury upon which a judgment can be rendered is an open and public verdict given in and assented to in open court as the unanimous act of the jury and affirmed and entered of record in the presence and under the sanctions of the court. Lawrence versus Stearns 11 pick 501 502 1831 see also commonwealth versus Tobin 125 mass 203 206 1878. The verdict which determines the rights of the parties and is admitted of record and upon which judgment is rendered is the verdict received from the lips of the foreman in open court. It's not enough to show that the jury may have agreed on some issues at some point. If that limited showing were to control, uncertainties would be invited. A juvenile 392 mass at 56 and 57, no error in the judge's refusal to accept the not guilty verdict slips found in jury deliberation room after the jury was discharged were those slips were in contradiction of the jury's report to the judge in open court that they were deadlocked. The hearsay comments and juris statements about what happened are legally irrelevant as the jury failed to reach any verdicts see Blueford versus Arkansas 566 US 599 2012 in Blueford. The jury sent a note to the court indicating they were hopelessly deadlocked and the court asked the four person to disclose the jury's votes on three charges first degree murder manslaughter and negligent homicide ID at 603 and 604. The four person reported the jury unanimously agreed the defendant was not guilty of murder but were deadlocked on manslaughter and had not voted on negligent homicide. The court gave the jury an Allen instruction akin to the two E Rodriguez instruction that emphasized the importance of reaching a verdict and instructed the jury to continue deliberations see Allen first United States 164 US 492 501 502 1896 after a half hour the jury reported that they had not reached the verdict and a mistrial was declared ID at 605 United States Supreme Court rebuffed the defendant's claim that the jury acquitted him of murder as the four persons report was not final verdict because the jury had continued to deliberate and more importantly gave no indication that they were still unanimous on the murder charge ID at 605 and 606 the United States Supreme Court emphasized that when jurors engage in discussions about circumstances of the crime it often causes one to rethink their stance on a greater offense and revisit a prior vote the very object of the jury system after all is to secure a unanimous vote by a comparison of views and by arguments among the jurors themselves a single jurors change of mind is all it takes to require the jury to reconsider a greater offense ID at 606 Commonwealth versus Carnes 457 mass 812 827 2010 a two e Rodriguez instruction is designed to urge the jury to reach a verdict by giving more serious consideration to opposing points of view all right we're going to wrap up this episode right here and in the next episode we're going to pick up with the next part and that's it must be recognized as a practical matter that jury votes on included offenses may be the result of a temporary compromise in an effort to reach a unanimous decision all of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box 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 0 and my out-of-pocket costs are low who should apply single people making less than $23,000 a year or a merry 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 hello it is Ryan and we could all use an extra bright spot in our day couldn't we just to make up for things like sitting in traffic doing the dishes counting your steps you know all the mundane stuff that is why i'm such a big fan of Chumba Casino Chumba Casino has all your favorite social casino style games that you can play for free anytime anywhere with daily bonuses so sign up now at chumba casino dot com that's chumba casino dot com sponsored by Chumba Casino no purchase necessary vgw group void where prohibited by law 18 plus terms and