November 7, 2024 • 37 mins
Karen Read and her defense team appeared before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to get two criminal charges against Read, thrown out on the grounds of double jeopardy. Read’s second criminal trial is supposed to start in January of 2025. However, this week both the prosecution and defense teams filed a motion to delay the retrial until April 1, 2025. Dan Rea and criminal defense attorney Phil Tracy discussed the ongoing Karen Read case!
Ask Alexa to play WBZ NewsRadio on #iHeartRadio and listen to NightSide with Dan Rea Weeknights From 8PM-12AM!
Ask Alexa to play WBZ NewsRadio on #iHeartRadio and listen to NightSide with Dan Rea Weeknights From 8PM-12AM!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
It's nice side with Dan Ray on WBSY constance video.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Well, the Karen Reid murder case is back in the headlines.
I think anyone who has lived in Massachusetts and hasn't
lived under a rock for the last couple of years
is familiar with the Karen Reid case, in which she
is accused of backing her automobile into her boyfriend back
in January of twenty twenty two on a very snowy night,
(00:29):
causing his death. She was charged with not only a
murder in the second degree, which is the most serious charge,
but also manslaughter and leaving the scene of an accident,
and her trial concluded on July first, this past summer.
It was a long trial, very highly publicized trial. It
(00:49):
almost came to the level of an Oj Simpson trial nationally.
A lot of national coverage with it as well. The
boyfriend who died that night was a Boston police officer
named John O'Keefe, and there's a lot of side stories
on it. But we're going to focus tonight on what
was argued in front of the State Supreme Court yesterday,
(01:11):
and the lawyers for Karen Reid are basically claiming that
the jury had come to decisions on two of the counts,
the murder count and the leading the scene of an accident,
to acquit her. They agreed unanimously, although they could not
agree to a decision on the manslaugh of charge. And
(01:33):
so an issue has went up before the State Supreme
Court yesterday, which was whether or not the judge in
the case, the trial judge, should have inquired of the
jurors if they were hung on all three counts, or
if there were any counts that they may have actually
(01:56):
reached unanimity on, and those questions were never asked and
the jury never responded. A mistrial, hung jury was what
was declared by the judge, and she scheduled to go
back on trial on all three charges in April. And
he her lawyers say, look, jurors came to us and
to the prosecutors after the the mistrial was declared, and
(02:21):
apparently the jury is claiming or that many of the
jurors are claiming they had agreed to acquit her on
the charge of murder and on the leaving the scene
of an accident. That brings us to Phil Tracy, a
veteran criminal defense lawyer, this is a case an issue
that there's no precedent here in Massachusettsville. It's very interesting,
(02:46):
interesting situation that the judges are being asked to sort
of second guess the actions of the trial court. Judge,
I know that you're very familiar with the case. What's
what's your what's your sense of this case? I mean,
this is interesting issue.
Speaker 3 (03:03):
Prevent that you're correct in saying there is no precedent
for this type of inquiry. That didn't happen. Now from
here on out, all judges will be asking, in multiple charges,
have you reached a verdict on any one of the charges?
And that way a partial verdict Sometimes, as in the past,
(03:26):
has come down the Supreme Court may order that this
is part of the institutional part of trials that in
multiple count cases that you have to check with the
jury if they're hung on all of the cases. Now,
I will say this, the judge is a tremendous judge
(03:49):
and she's been you know, she's done a great job
in a lot of cases over the years. There's no
criticism of her. But the jurors never said, you know,
anything that would indicate other than the fact that they
were deadlocked and the defense they could have brought it
(04:10):
up they could have said, well, are they deadlocked on
all three charges? They didn't do that, So I think
the Supreme Court was very skeptical of bringing the jurors back.
But on the other hand, I think they'll set a
president a precedent that will say you've got to examine
(04:32):
those jurors before you declare a mistrial. And I don't
know if they can bring them back now. I think
it's an undue burden on the jurors. They'll be exposed
to some sort of publicity, I think, and that's something
that the courts try their very hardest to keep the
(04:53):
jurors anonymous throughout the process, especially in the case like this.
Speaker 2 (05:00):
Understanding is that some of the jurors have actually gone
to the defense lawyers into the prosecutors. So the court
has to balance here phil the the sanctity of deliberations. Uh,
And that you know, once a jury either announces a
verdict or chooses not to announce a verdict, and the
(05:22):
jury is dismissed, in theory, the jury now has been dissolved.
Speaker 4 (05:27):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (05:29):
Do you think that the court might order Judge Canoni
to bring the court knows who the jurors are, bring
the juris back and enclosed behind closed doors in cameras,
as we would say, uh, question those jurors. I mean,
if one juror says no, no, no, I was ready
to vote to to convict, then as long as that's
(05:49):
on the record, then then no harm, no foul.
Speaker 3 (05:53):
But but well.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
What are the interests of Karen Reid, you know, to
have It's the argument that Marty Weinberg, her appellate attorney's making,
is that she's now going to suffer double jeopardy, that
in effects, she's she's faced one trial with where verdict
was reached and and and you know she has an
(06:21):
interest here as well. It's a tough balance.
Speaker 3 (06:24):
I think, well, it's a tough balance. But the reality
is there was never a verdict. So it isn't double jeopardy.
What it is is whether or not, as so much
time has gone by, now, whether you bring jurors back
to question them. Now, let's say you question them and
you say they all say we were going to quit
(06:46):
her on two counts, but on account where she was
charged with manslaughter drinking, you know, drinking heavily and then
hitting him by accident, you know, I mean, they obviously
were didn't come to a verdict on that charge one
(07:06):
way or the other. They said, we're deadlocked. They told
the judge, we are deadlock. We cannot go any further,
we can't help. We've tried our best.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
But if the judge, if the judge had asked the
question of the jurors and had said, are you telling me?
Are you telling the court that you're deadlocked on each
of three these three counts, If that was just a
simple question the judge asked, and if the jurors are
telling the truth, she should have They would have then said, well, no,
(07:39):
we're deadlocked on count two, but we do have a
verdict on count one and three. And at that point
the judge would have simply said, well, please go back
to the to the to the jury room, fill out
the verdicts, slip on count one and count three, and
come back, and everything would have been done perfectly.
Speaker 5 (08:01):
That was the right move to make.
Speaker 3 (08:03):
But it is not a requirement of the judge to
do that. There's always the issue of the judge not
interfering with the jury delivery deliberations or coaxing them one
way or the other to find a verdict. Now, the
famous charge called the two were Rodriguez charge, in which
(08:26):
they the defense asked that that be brought to the
jurors attention and read to the jurors as a way
of breaking the deadlock. So I think that, you know,
in most cases a murder case like that, the defense,
when they have a hung jury, they consider that a
(08:47):
victory because their client has not been convicted, you know.
Speaker 2 (08:53):
So my question is this, I think earlier you said
that you thought that the court might come back with
an instruction. Then going forward, judges in the same set
of circumstances with a multi count indictment, they have to
get clarification from the jury if they are at an
(09:14):
impasse on all the counts or unjust some of the counts.
And if that is what I understood you to say,
and the Supreme Court, you know, gives this guidance or
requirement in future cases. In effect, Karen Reid's case, she's
been sort of the guinea pig here on the case.
(09:35):
And if they come down with that instruction going forward,
how do they not apply it to her case?
Speaker 3 (09:43):
Well, you know, it's such a difficult question from all
different sides, from the judicial side, the judges side, the
prosecution side, and the defense side, they're ramping up for
a trial on all all three counts, and they're seeking
new evidence. They have a new prosecutor, so they're going
(10:07):
full steam ahead and ignoring the claim of double jeopardy.
They don't the prosecution doesn't buy it. On the other hand,
the defense is saying, you know, we know that they
could have come into the courtroom and said she's not
guilty on one and three, and we can't make a
decision on two.
Speaker 2 (10:29):
Yeah. Yeah, I think I think it's gonna be a
fascinating decision.
Speaker 3 (10:35):
And well, you know, I mean, like anything else the
court system, it tries to move in a deliberate and
fast way, but this is this case is draggedon for
a long time. Now we're facing the situation where if
(10:55):
the Supreme Court makes a decision, how does that affect
the upcome trial. I think clearly both sides are looking
to postpone from January to April, so hopefully the Suprene
Court will have a concrete decision on this matter and
then they'll proceed from there.
Speaker 2 (11:16):
Well it's going to be interesting, Phil, that's that's for sure,
And we'll be following it and we'll have.
Speaker 3 (11:22):
You back when down on.
Speaker 2 (11:27):
My pleasure, Phil Tracy, thanks so much, is always my friend.
Will Okay, thanks Phil, right now, Thanks Bell. What I
want to do is, I would like to ask all
of you. I think Phil has basically put the issues
out there pretty clearly. My feeling, to be really honest
(11:48):
with you, and I am not nearly the experienced criminal
defense lawyer that Phil Tracy is. My feeling is that
the court should order the judge to bring the jury
back and talk with them and find out if indeed
the jury had reached a verdict and because of a misunderstanding,
(12:13):
they were under the impression that they had to return
a verdict on all three counts, and even though if
they were indeed in agreement that on two of the
counts they had come to a verdict, but on the
second count they were hung up. They were at an impasse.
(12:37):
All the judge had to do was to have simply inquired.
Now again, a long trial, very expensive, extraordinarily expensive. I
think that you got to look at this from the
perspective of the defendant. She still has a trial upcoming
on manslaughter no matter what. But I think that this
(13:02):
is an important issue. It's an important issue because it
could be you or me who are in the dock
and facing a second trial. Phil Tracy was absolutely correct
because there was no verdict, no verdict slip handed to
the clerk who hands it to the judge. Technically there's
no verdict. However, if they had agreed and because of
(13:25):
miscommunication that had not been communicated properly, how much of
a burden is upon the judge to make sure that
she got everything out of that jury possible, just in
terms of also just the economy of the case. I mean,
this case, if it is reduced to one charge, it
(13:48):
would go a lot more quickly than with three. So
I'm going to open it up and I'm going to
let all of my legal eagles here. Whether you're a
lawyer or not, you know the facts of the case.
How do you think how would you like to see
the State Supreme Court rule on this one? I'm fascinated
by it. It's not often that the court the judge
did nothing wrong here, but it was an oversight and
(14:11):
maybe eight out of ten judges would have handled it
the same way. But if they're going to issue a recommendation,
they're going forward on multiple count indictments that judges clearly
find out for the jury if when they come back
and say that they are at an impass, are they
(14:32):
at an impass on all the indictments or just some
of the indictments six one, seven, two, five, four, ten,
thirty six one seven, nine, three, one, ten thirty. We're
going to talk about this until at ten, and then
at ten we're going to switch to politics again. Joe Biden.
Did President Biden spoke today, and I spoke pretty eloquently.
I thought we'll get to all of that right after
(14:53):
the ten But for now, for the next thirty four minutes,
thirty five minutes, I'd love to hear from you on
this one. The conversation coming right back on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (15:03):
Now, back to Dan Ray live from the Window World
night Side Studios. I'm DUMBZ News Radio.
Speaker 2 (15:10):
I think the case is a fascinating case, and that's
why I want to talk about it again. We will
deal with this now until ten o'clock. I know that
there's a lot of emotions on it, but I think
if you cut to the core of this and you
look at it from a point of view of just,
you know, fairness, is it fair to this defendant that
(15:30):
you would face retrial on two charges, the murder charge
and the leaving the scene of an accident if the
jury had come to a conclusion. Now again, I think
that that in terms of fairness, there's a lot to
be said here. Let's go first off to Bill and
Charlton Massachusetts out there in central Massachusetts. Bill, you are
(15:53):
first as our nights. I appreciate you calling in your thoughts.
Speaker 5 (15:57):
Hi, Dan, first time caller, long time collar.
Speaker 2 (16:01):
Well all right, that's a class of our virtual studio audience.
Go right ahead.
Speaker 5 (16:06):
Not to hear what you have to listen to Larry
Click on my nine hole transit the radio back in
the sixties and early seventies.
Speaker 2 (16:15):
Well, well I did as well. I want you to
know I was listening to Larry back then too.
Speaker 5 (16:20):
Go ahead, my thoughts on the Karen Reid case. I'm
sure you can walk up. The days of verdict was
red or the days at the case with the clear
declared mins trial.
Speaker 2 (16:41):
Yeah, I think it was that day first, Yes, go.
Speaker 5 (16:44):
Ahead, Okay, what's coming up for a nice long weekend
for everybody?
Speaker 2 (16:53):
Fourth of July?
Speaker 5 (16:54):
Yeah, I guess it was the July and everybody just
wanted to get out of the courthouse.
Speaker 4 (16:59):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (17:00):
My theory well, they didn't consider everything.
Speaker 2 (17:05):
Well, it's tough to get into the mind of the
jury in many times when you approach a weekend like
the fourth of July, if it's eleven to one or
ten to two in the jury room, juries have been
known to all of a sudden see the wisdom of
reaching a verdict in advance of the holiday, which I
(17:26):
think is what you're saying, but.
Speaker 5 (17:29):
In effect, but it affected everybody in the courtroom moving
anxious begin a long weekend.
Speaker 4 (17:39):
Including a judge.
Speaker 5 (17:40):
Everybody has their families and want to get going With's
a weekend, great, great weekend.
Speaker 2 (17:47):
Yeah. The question here is she's still facing one charge,
so there's no doubt there'll be a second trial U
And the prosecution has brought in an experienced criminal defense lawyer,
a guy named Hank Brennan, who's really veryccomplished defense lawyer,
to be a special prosecutor in the case, which is
an interesting move by the district attorney down in Norfolk County.
(18:10):
My sense is that the court should provide some guidance.
At a minimum, there should be guidance to judges to say, look,
in these situations, you have to before you dismiss a
jury at least inquire briefly on a multi multi count case,
is there have you reached a conclusion on any of
(18:31):
the counts or are you hopelessly at an impasse on
all in this case, all three counts, And I think
that go ahead.
Speaker 5 (18:42):
I'm sorry, I do agree with you that I do
agree with you that this should be an example and
from here forward that should be the protocol.
Speaker 2 (18:57):
But by the way, the court a lot of these cases,
if you go back to the Miranda case, when Miranda
did not get the proper warnings and evidence of comments
that he had made was excluded, and police learned from
that case to be obligated to require warnings given to
(19:18):
prisoners once they're under arrest, that they have a right
to remain silent. Anything that they say can and will
be used against them. Do they want to contact a
lawyer once they get the warning? If the guy says, hey,
look I did it. I was really upset. I'm sorry,
but I did it, that then can be brought into evidence.
But they got to give them the warning first. Same
way here, do you instruct judges in future cases to
(19:42):
do it that way without providing some consideration to this
defendant and force her to face trial in all three charges.
That's where I think that the judgment by the court
gets really dicey at this point, because if they come
back and they say, no, we're going to deny the motion,
We're going to support what the judge did. I think
(20:03):
a lot of people are going to say, well, why
would they not at least issue an instruction going forward
that this should be part of the normal practice that
any judge would engage in, particularly in a trial like this.
This is not a quick two day trial where you know,
there's not a lot of expense involved, so we'll see. Hey, Bill,
I really appreciate the fact that you take a time
(20:24):
to call in. Always good. You're a veteran listener. Now
you're a veteran caller, so I look forward to your second.
Speaker 5 (20:28):
Call coming up terrific. I'm more compward to play singer
the well good job Dan, thank you, great job too.
Speaker 2 (20:36):
Takes It takes takes some coverage to pick that phone up,
folks for the first time, But believe me, I'm not
going to bite your hat off. I really enjoy talking
to different people and getting different perspectives and enlarging the
pool of callers as well as of course in enlarging
the pool of listeners. Now we will continue. There's only
one well, that line just filled up. The only lines
(20:58):
that are open right now, six one seven, two lines there,
six one seven. Let me know what you think, Okay,
I think it's I think it's a very close call.
Speaker 6 (21:09):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (21:10):
And we have what's considered to be a fairly forward
looking Supreme Court, you might call it a progressive Supreme
Court in the good sense, uh, and that this might
be an opportunity for them to uh make justice a
little swifter and a little fairer here in Massachusetts. We'll
be back on nightside right after the break. At the
bottom of the hour, here comes the news.
Speaker 1 (21:33):
It's night Side with Boston's news Radio.
Speaker 2 (21:40):
All right, let's get back to the calls. We are
going to go to I Marie in Bridgewater. In Marie
in Bridgewater, You're next on nightside in Marie.
Speaker 7 (21:50):
Hey, Dan, how are you?
Speaker 2 (21:52):
I'm doing just great? Right, go right ahead.
Speaker 7 (21:55):
I have first to comment. I guess I'm not one
hundred per convinced she had savvy lawyers that they didn't
know what they were doing when they chose not to
pull the jury. But setting that aside, I'm wondering what
you think under your scenario of you know, pulling the jury.
What if they had come up that they were guilty
on two counts, do you think she would have been
(22:16):
ready to deal with that or do you think she
would have wanted another bite at the apple on all
three charges?
Speaker 2 (22:22):
Well, I think I agree with you in a large part.
Let me tell you why I agree. First of all,
the lawyers are thinking to themselves, Okay, we got a
hung jury on all three counts, and we're not going
to stand up and complicate things here. And they didn't.
The defense lawyers didn't. That was the tactical decision they
had to make. Most defense lawyers would tell you in
(22:44):
a case like that, hey, we've gone through the prosecution
has taken the best shot they can at our client,
and we have defended her. And now we know what
they're coming at, what evidence they have, The defense will
have an advantage on a second turn. However, however, the
prosecution didn't say, your hona, could you inquire of the
(23:07):
jury chairperson? If this impasse is on all counts, all
three counts are on just one or more of the counts,
neither one of them ask for that and the judge
did not inquire. What would have happened if the judge
on her own said, are you telling me that you
have you're at an impasse on all three counts?
Speaker 5 (23:30):
Right?
Speaker 7 (23:30):
I think both parties would have had to have agreed
and then have to agree to accept whichever way it went.
So that's why I don't believe. I don't believe if
I would respect he was going to be guilty on
the first two, if she's going to be okay, I'll
accept that guilt, and then she's going to want another
bite at the apple and all three. You just can't
have it both ways.
Speaker 2 (23:51):
So no, that's fine. I'm just saying with you, either
the prosecution or the defense lawyers would have asked the
judge to make further inquiry, however.
Speaker 7 (24:05):
Right, and the tactically didn't. But you can't say you
think you heard something from somebody.
Speaker 4 (24:13):
Ye.
Speaker 2 (24:14):
Let me finish my point if I could. There's nothing
in the in the practice that would prevent a judge
from saying to the jury, four person, is it your position,
mister four person happened to be a guy here that
your your jury is deadlocked on all three counts? Or
(24:38):
have has the jury come to an agreement on one
or more of the counts. So that is what the
judge could have asked. That's and so the question is
that maybe the State Supreme Court will instruct superior court
judges going forward. I mean we're talking about, you know,
(25:01):
fairness to the defendant if you put yourself in her position. Uh,
she's not a lawyer, she's she obviously has defense lawyers
with her. It's a question of will the will the
Supreme Court say to judges look going forward on a
multi count indictment, if they come back and say they're hung,
you got to make sure they hung on all three
(25:23):
because a partial verdict is is very.
Speaker 7 (25:25):
Acceptable, right, So what if it's partially guilt. That's what
you'd have to have parties agree. They would have to
agree that we're going to accept it no matter what. Yep,
they have a no no no, no, no, no, no no,
because no.
Speaker 2 (25:40):
The question that the judge should ask is a is
what I would consider to be a threshold question. If
she asked and said, yes, we have no, your honor,
we are where we are stuck on one of the counts,
on two of the counts, we do have agreement. The
judge at that point is going to say, go back
to the jury room, fill out the jury the verdict
(26:01):
slipped on the counts upon which you agree, and come
back here and give us the verdicts the verdict slip.
She is not going to at that point say to
the lawyer, to the prosecutor and the defense lawyers, well,
as you can see, they have two verdicts here, what
do you want me to do? I mean, that's that's
It's not a game show where you're saying do you
want door number one or door knob?
Speaker 4 (26:21):
Oh.
Speaker 7 (26:21):
I understand that, but I don't think people would want
to go for that with the risk of it being
a guilt is a question.
Speaker 2 (26:29):
No, it would. They would never have the option. The
question would be they could have asked the judge, you're
on it. Could you ask the jury if they're if
they are guilt, if they are at an impass on offering.
They could have asked the judge to do it. The
judge then might have said I don't want to do it,
or she might have said, okay, I will ask. But
even though neither one of them asked the judge, the
(26:49):
judges runs the court room. She could have turned to
the to the jury for person and said what I
just said, have you reached the verdict on any of
the counts? Oh? Yes, on and we do have a
verdict on two outs. We've reached the agreement on twoke outs.
At that point she's going to say, well, please go
back to the jury room, fill out those verdict slips
and bring them back to me. There's also this was
(27:11):
a long trial.
Speaker 4 (27:12):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (27:12):
It tied up courtrooms for three for a courtroom for
three months. We'll see what the is.
Speaker 7 (27:19):
I just don't know how you get around if that
had been guilt now she's potentially.
Speaker 2 (27:23):
Doesn't matter if they reached it.
Speaker 7 (27:26):
Now you are on those two counts. I don't think
people are going to want to go for that.
Speaker 2 (27:31):
Fair enough, Okay, I've tried to you know, appreciate I
appreciate the opportunity to uh that you would call. Thank
you very much, Ann, Marie, thank you so much. Take
a break coming back here on Nightside. Thanks. If you'd
like to jump on board, feel free. I've tried to
explain my position as best I can. I hope, I
hope you understand it. We'll be back on Nightside after this.
Speaker 1 (27:53):
Now back to Dan Ray Mine from the Window World
Nightside Studios on WBZ News Radio.
Speaker 2 (28:01):
Okay, let's keep rolling. They're going to go to Paul
and Need and Paul, I'm going to sit back and
listen to what you have to say, because I think
I've made my position pretty clear.
Speaker 4 (28:09):
Go right ahead, Paul, Yes, good evening. Again. I've talked
to some police officers and some lawyers, and they tell
me that a lot of superior court judges do pull
the jury when there's multiple charges. So some of the
previous callers in conversation seems to think that this is
(28:33):
standard practice that they don't pull the jury, but a
lot of from what I'm told, a lot of well
what they do.
Speaker 2 (28:41):
Yeah, let me just let me clarify that they do
pull the jury sometimes when a verdict has been rendered,
particularly if it's a guilty verdict. You'll see that in
high profile guilty cases where the defense lawyers will that
the jury be pulled to make sure that all twelve
(29:03):
of the defense lawyers, all twelve of the jurors are asked,
is your is you're a number ten? Is your verdict
guilty or not guilty? Guilty? And they they want to
make sure that there's no doubt and there's no equivocation,
but they do not pull the jury. Uh when when
the jury is in a hung position, where they're at
(29:25):
an impasse, they would not do that. And she she assumed,
I guess this judge assumed that these these jurors were
at an impass on all three counts, not.
Speaker 4 (29:35):
Just it's a pretty bad assumption.
Speaker 2 (29:39):
Well, I think I can judge, in all due respect,
if if her decision not to inquire any further, what
harm would have been done if she said, so, mister
fourth person, you were telling me that, uh, there's you're
the jurors are hung, are hung on all three counts?
(30:00):
Is that what I'm to understand?
Speaker 5 (30:02):
And if he said up to me, simple question, that
sounds to me like it's the common sense thing to do.
Speaker 2 (30:10):
Well, And that is I think the strongest argument that
they have, and maybe the court will say this is
this has to be the practice. The court will set
the precedent. Phil Tracy said there's no such precedent, and
he's right, But there was no such precedent for the
miranda warning either. At some point. For a lot of times,
when when when courts, supreme courts and state supreme courts,
(30:30):
UH issue a ruling that that sets a new standard
of practice. So that's what we're talking about.
Speaker 6 (30:36):
Paul.
Speaker 4 (30:37):
Let me just say one other thing. I read where
her legal bills are in excess of five million dollars
miss reads outstanding. Yeah, five million dollars in outstanding legal bills.
Speaker 2 (30:51):
So yeah, but again that is going to be irrelevant
to what the Supreme Court decides here, and they're not
going to say, well, because she's got big legel bills,
as she hired high powered lawyers, were going to treat
her more favorably. This should be a standard of practice
I think that the judges should use to basically maximize
(31:14):
the time of the court. You have courtrooms, and you
have judges, and you have so many cases, and you
try generally on many cases to try to get to
a plea agreement, so you avoid tying up court rooms.
But this is going to this is going to be
another long trial, particularly if it's three counts. Thanks Paul,
appreciate the call. Thank you so much. All right, good night.
(31:35):
Let me go to Sue and Milford. Sue you went
next on night side. I want to get two more
in SUGA.
Speaker 8 (31:40):
Right ahead, I Dan, So I'm shocked in a pall
that we are where we are with this, Why was
the jury not given explicit instruction on how to deliver
deliberate Yeah, I just I don't understand it. Like this
(32:05):
is not the first case in the world that's had
multiple charges, I presume, and not the first case that
has had a hung jury. And I don't know. I'm
just I cannot wrap.
Speaker 2 (32:17):
I don't know if. I don't know if in the
charge of the jury in a situation like this. Frankly,
I've been in court rooms where there were multiple indictments, uh,
And I don't know that when the jury is charged
that the judge would say, now, look, if you agree
upon one or more of the indictments, feel free to
bring back a split verdict. I don't know that that's
(32:37):
ever addressed. And if it had been addressed in this case,
I suspect that that would have been brought up by
the prosecution as they as they attempt to defend themselves,
they would have said, this jury was given an explicit
instruction which they chose not to follow. So I think
that's right. But I wasn't in the court for the
instructions and right right if there were such an instructions
(33:00):
like that given before the jury started to deliberate, that
would be that would suggest that that that the judge
did her job perfectly. But if those instructions were not given,
or if they weren't given, and when the jury came
back and said we're hung, she didn't ask the simple question,
are you telling the court that you were at an
(33:23):
impasse on all three counts or have you reached some
partial verdict?
Speaker 1 (33:29):
Right?
Speaker 8 (33:29):
And also too, then why do we know that they
did reach a verdict on two of the country.
Speaker 2 (33:37):
Were members, there were members of the jury. There were
members of the jury who presented themselves.
Speaker 8 (33:41):
And it's rhetorical, it's almost rhetorical. And I know that
that happened. But normal, under normal circumstances, we wouldn't have
known that, right, I mean unless.
Speaker 2 (33:51):
The Yeah, it's a high profile case though, and obviously
there were some jurors. I guess there was a number
of number of five jurors who have gone to some
combination on the defense lawyer and the prosecutors got to
get two more in so I share your progress, perplexity.
Thank you, goodnight. Let me go to Betty on the boat. Betty,
did I see you on TV tonight being interviewed by
one of the local television stations.
Speaker 9 (34:13):
You did, and I'm just being escorted.
Speaker 2 (34:16):
You've had quite a cat, had quite a day, Betty.
What do you think the court should do here?
Speaker 8 (34:24):
Uh?
Speaker 9 (34:26):
I think that I'm not a fan of the judicial system.
I've seen too many inequities. I think I saw a
critter that I think that the jury should have been pulled.
Speaker 2 (34:49):
Well, they wouldn't be pulled if they only are polled
once a verdict is rendered, and then, as I explained
to one of the other callers, they pulled to recommit
the firm that they've all come to the unanimous decision.
The question is whether or not the judge should have
said to them when when when the fourth person came
back and said, we're hung on, we're at an impasse,
(35:12):
the judge king should have asked and said, are you
at an impass on all counts? And if the if
the four person said yes, we're in an impass on
all three counts, then then it's over. But if the
if the fourth person said, well, we're on and we
have got agreement on a couple of accounts, but we're
at an impass on one count, then she could have
taken she could have allowed for a partial verdict.
Speaker 9 (35:35):
Correct.
Speaker 2 (35:37):
One more. I want to sneak in here, Betty. You
sound like you're you're working on the boat here.
Speaker 9 (35:43):
No, you know, with the doc failure, I have to
get the cat. I have to get her to get
her out of here.
Speaker 2 (35:52):
Well, you go ahead and take care of the cat. Okay,
and we'll talk again.
Speaker 8 (35:56):
Thanks, Betty, Bye bye bye.
Speaker 2 (35:59):
Let me get filling boss to feel I can give
you about a minute here, go ahead.
Speaker 6 (36:05):
When in the jury, originally when the jury was to
put the panel or whatever take him back on the sheet,
there was no there was no not guilty on the sheet,
and they got the defense lawyer said when there's no
choice here for something not guilty, and and the judge
apparently said, no, that's all we do things in Massachusetts.
(36:29):
And then eventually it was flipped around whether the bell
was changed where it was guilty or not guilty. But
the point I'm going to confused situations, I'm guessing.
Speaker 2 (36:40):
We couldn't know there was there was that, there was
that element of confusion. I was not in court yesterday
whether or not that was disgust in front of the
inter State Supreme Court, Phil, you called in late, and
I'm running out of time, so I gotta let you go.
But you raised, you raised the point that was an
important one. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. We
came back on to talk about Joe Biden's statement at
the White House, which I thought was very respectful. And
(37:03):
maybe we are going to somehow pull this off and
have a smooth transition of power on January twentieth. Wouldn't
that be nice. We'll be back, we'll talk about it
in the ten o'clock hour.
It's nice side with Dan Ray on WBSY constance video.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Well, the Karen Reid murder case is back in the headlines.
I think anyone who has lived in Massachusetts and hasn't
lived under a rock for the last couple of years
is familiar with the Karen Reid case, in which she
is accused of backing her automobile into her boyfriend back
in January of twenty twenty two on a very snowy night,
(00:29):
causing his death. She was charged with not only a
murder in the second degree, which is the most serious charge,
but also manslaughter and leaving the scene of an accident,
and her trial concluded on July first, this past summer.
It was a long trial, very highly publicized trial. It
(00:49):
almost came to the level of an Oj Simpson trial nationally.
A lot of national coverage with it as well. The
boyfriend who died that night was a Boston police officer
named John O'Keefe, and there's a lot of side stories
on it. But we're going to focus tonight on what
was argued in front of the State Supreme Court yesterday,
(01:11):
and the lawyers for Karen Reid are basically claiming that
the jury had come to decisions on two of the counts,
the murder count and the leading the scene of an accident,
to acquit her. They agreed unanimously, although they could not
agree to a decision on the manslaugh of charge. And
(01:33):
so an issue has went up before the State Supreme
Court yesterday, which was whether or not the judge in
the case, the trial judge, should have inquired of the
jurors if they were hung on all three counts, or
if there were any counts that they may have actually
(01:56):
reached unanimity on, and those questions were never asked and
the jury never responded. A mistrial, hung jury was what
was declared by the judge, and she scheduled to go
back on trial on all three charges in April. And
he her lawyers say, look, jurors came to us and
to the prosecutors after the the mistrial was declared, and
(02:21):
apparently the jury is claiming or that many of the
jurors are claiming they had agreed to acquit her on
the charge of murder and on the leaving the scene
of an accident. That brings us to Phil Tracy, a
veteran criminal defense lawyer, this is a case an issue
that there's no precedent here in Massachusettsville. It's very interesting,
(02:46):
interesting situation that the judges are being asked to sort
of second guess the actions of the trial court. Judge,
I know that you're very familiar with the case. What's
what's your what's your sense of this case? I mean,
this is interesting issue.
Speaker 3 (03:03):
Prevent that you're correct in saying there is no precedent
for this type of inquiry. That didn't happen. Now from
here on out, all judges will be asking, in multiple charges,
have you reached a verdict on any one of the charges?
And that way a partial verdict Sometimes, as in the past,
(03:26):
has come down the Supreme Court may order that this
is part of the institutional part of trials that in
multiple count cases that you have to check with the
jury if they're hung on all of the cases. Now,
I will say this, the judge is a tremendous judge
(03:49):
and she's been you know, she's done a great job
in a lot of cases over the years. There's no
criticism of her. But the jurors never said, you know,
anything that would indicate other than the fact that they
were deadlocked and the defense they could have brought it
(04:10):
up they could have said, well, are they deadlocked on
all three charges? They didn't do that, So I think
the Supreme Court was very skeptical of bringing the jurors back.
But on the other hand, I think they'll set a
president a precedent that will say you've got to examine
(04:32):
those jurors before you declare a mistrial. And I don't
know if they can bring them back now. I think
it's an undue burden on the jurors. They'll be exposed
to some sort of publicity, I think, and that's something
that the courts try their very hardest to keep the
(04:53):
jurors anonymous throughout the process, especially in the case like this.
Speaker 2 (05:00):
Understanding is that some of the jurors have actually gone
to the defense lawyers into the prosecutors. So the court
has to balance here phil the the sanctity of deliberations. Uh,
And that you know, once a jury either announces a
verdict or chooses not to announce a verdict, and the
(05:22):
jury is dismissed, in theory, the jury now has been dissolved.
Speaker 4 (05:27):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (05:29):
Do you think that the court might order Judge Canoni
to bring the court knows who the jurors are, bring
the juris back and enclosed behind closed doors in cameras,
as we would say, uh, question those jurors. I mean,
if one juror says no, no, no, I was ready
to vote to to convict, then as long as that's
(05:49):
on the record, then then no harm, no foul.
Speaker 3 (05:53):
But but well.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
What are the interests of Karen Reid, you know, to
have It's the argument that Marty Weinberg, her appellate attorney's making,
is that she's now going to suffer double jeopardy, that
in effects, she's she's faced one trial with where verdict
was reached and and and you know she has an
(06:21):
interest here as well. It's a tough balance.
Speaker 3 (06:24):
I think, well, it's a tough balance. But the reality
is there was never a verdict. So it isn't double jeopardy.
What it is is whether or not, as so much
time has gone by, now, whether you bring jurors back
to question them. Now, let's say you question them and
you say they all say we were going to quit
(06:46):
her on two counts, but on account where she was
charged with manslaughter drinking, you know, drinking heavily and then
hitting him by accident, you know, I mean, they obviously
were didn't come to a verdict on that charge one
(07:06):
way or the other. They said, we're deadlocked. They told
the judge, we are deadlock. We cannot go any further,
we can't help. We've tried our best.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
But if the judge, if the judge had asked the
question of the jurors and had said, are you telling me?
Are you telling the court that you're deadlocked on each
of three these three counts, If that was just a
simple question the judge asked, and if the jurors are
telling the truth, she should have They would have then said, well, no,
(07:39):
we're deadlocked on count two, but we do have a
verdict on count one and three. And at that point
the judge would have simply said, well, please go back
to the to the to the jury room, fill out
the verdicts, slip on count one and count three, and
come back, and everything would have been done perfectly.
Speaker 5 (08:01):
That was the right move to make.
Speaker 3 (08:03):
But it is not a requirement of the judge to
do that. There's always the issue of the judge not
interfering with the jury delivery deliberations or coaxing them one
way or the other to find a verdict. Now, the
famous charge called the two were Rodriguez charge, in which
(08:26):
they the defense asked that that be brought to the
jurors attention and read to the jurors as a way
of breaking the deadlock. So I think that, you know,
in most cases a murder case like that, the defense,
when they have a hung jury, they consider that a
(08:47):
victory because their client has not been convicted, you know.
Speaker 2 (08:53):
So my question is this, I think earlier you said
that you thought that the court might come back with
an instruction. Then going forward, judges in the same set
of circumstances with a multi count indictment, they have to
get clarification from the jury if they are at an
(09:14):
impasse on all the counts or unjust some of the counts.
And if that is what I understood you to say,
and the Supreme Court, you know, gives this guidance or
requirement in future cases. In effect, Karen Reid's case, she's
been sort of the guinea pig here on the case.
(09:35):
And if they come down with that instruction going forward,
how do they not apply it to her case?
Speaker 3 (09:43):
Well, you know, it's such a difficult question from all
different sides, from the judicial side, the judges side, the
prosecution side, and the defense side, they're ramping up for
a trial on all all three counts, and they're seeking
new evidence. They have a new prosecutor, so they're going
(10:07):
full steam ahead and ignoring the claim of double jeopardy.
They don't the prosecution doesn't buy it. On the other hand,
the defense is saying, you know, we know that they
could have come into the courtroom and said she's not
guilty on one and three, and we can't make a
decision on two.
Speaker 2 (10:29):
Yeah. Yeah, I think I think it's gonna be a
fascinating decision.
Speaker 3 (10:35):
And well, you know, I mean, like anything else the
court system, it tries to move in a deliberate and
fast way, but this is this case is draggedon for
a long time. Now we're facing the situation where if
(10:55):
the Supreme Court makes a decision, how does that affect
the upcome trial. I think clearly both sides are looking
to postpone from January to April, so hopefully the Suprene
Court will have a concrete decision on this matter and
then they'll proceed from there.
Speaker 2 (11:16):
Well it's going to be interesting, Phil, that's that's for sure,
And we'll be following it and we'll have.
Speaker 3 (11:22):
You back when down on.
Speaker 2 (11:27):
My pleasure, Phil Tracy, thanks so much, is always my friend.
Will Okay, thanks Phil, right now, Thanks Bell. What I
want to do is, I would like to ask all
of you. I think Phil has basically put the issues
out there pretty clearly. My feeling, to be really honest
(11:48):
with you, and I am not nearly the experienced criminal
defense lawyer that Phil Tracy is. My feeling is that
the court should order the judge to bring the jury
back and talk with them and find out if indeed
the jury had reached a verdict and because of a misunderstanding,
(12:13):
they were under the impression that they had to return
a verdict on all three counts, and even though if
they were indeed in agreement that on two of the
counts they had come to a verdict, but on the
second count they were hung up. They were at an impasse.
(12:37):
All the judge had to do was to have simply inquired.
Now again, a long trial, very expensive, extraordinarily expensive. I
think that you got to look at this from the
perspective of the defendant. She still has a trial upcoming
on manslaughter no matter what. But I think that this
(13:02):
is an important issue. It's an important issue because it
could be you or me who are in the dock
and facing a second trial. Phil Tracy was absolutely correct
because there was no verdict, no verdict slip handed to
the clerk who hands it to the judge. Technically there's
no verdict. However, if they had agreed and because of
(13:25):
miscommunication that had not been communicated properly, how much of
a burden is upon the judge to make sure that
she got everything out of that jury possible, just in
terms of also just the economy of the case. I mean,
this case, if it is reduced to one charge, it
(13:48):
would go a lot more quickly than with three. So
I'm going to open it up and I'm going to
let all of my legal eagles here. Whether you're a
lawyer or not, you know the facts of the case.
How do you think how would you like to see
the State Supreme Court rule on this one? I'm fascinated
by it. It's not often that the court the judge
did nothing wrong here, but it was an oversight and
(14:11):
maybe eight out of ten judges would have handled it
the same way. But if they're going to issue a recommendation,
they're going forward on multiple count indictments that judges clearly
find out for the jury if when they come back
and say that they are at an impass, are they
(14:32):
at an impass on all the indictments or just some
of the indictments six one, seven, two, five, four, ten,
thirty six one seven, nine, three, one, ten thirty. We're
going to talk about this until at ten, and then
at ten we're going to switch to politics again. Joe Biden.
Did President Biden spoke today, and I spoke pretty eloquently.
I thought we'll get to all of that right after
(14:53):
the ten But for now, for the next thirty four minutes,
thirty five minutes, I'd love to hear from you on
this one. The conversation coming right back on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (15:03):
Now, back to Dan Ray live from the Window World
night Side Studios. I'm DUMBZ News Radio.
Speaker 2 (15:10):
I think the case is a fascinating case, and that's
why I want to talk about it again. We will
deal with this now until ten o'clock. I know that
there's a lot of emotions on it, but I think
if you cut to the core of this and you
look at it from a point of view of just,
you know, fairness, is it fair to this defendant that
(15:30):
you would face retrial on two charges, the murder charge
and the leaving the scene of an accident if the
jury had come to a conclusion. Now again, I think
that that in terms of fairness, there's a lot to
be said here. Let's go first off to Bill and
Charlton Massachusetts out there in central Massachusetts. Bill, you are
(15:53):
first as our nights. I appreciate you calling in your thoughts.
Speaker 5 (15:57):
Hi, Dan, first time caller, long time collar.
Speaker 2 (16:01):
Well all right, that's a class of our virtual studio audience.
Go right ahead.
Speaker 5 (16:06):
Not to hear what you have to listen to Larry
Click on my nine hole transit the radio back in
the sixties and early seventies.
Speaker 2 (16:15):
Well, well I did as well. I want you to
know I was listening to Larry back then too.
Speaker 5 (16:20):
Go ahead, my thoughts on the Karen Reid case. I'm
sure you can walk up. The days of verdict was
red or the days at the case with the clear
declared mins trial.
Speaker 2 (16:41):
Yeah, I think it was that day first, Yes, go.
Speaker 5 (16:44):
Ahead, Okay, what's coming up for a nice long weekend
for everybody?
Speaker 2 (16:53):
Fourth of July?
Speaker 5 (16:54):
Yeah, I guess it was the July and everybody just
wanted to get out of the courthouse.
Speaker 4 (16:59):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (17:00):
My theory well, they didn't consider everything.
Speaker 2 (17:05):
Well, it's tough to get into the mind of the
jury in many times when you approach a weekend like
the fourth of July, if it's eleven to one or
ten to two in the jury room, juries have been
known to all of a sudden see the wisdom of
reaching a verdict in advance of the holiday, which I
(17:26):
think is what you're saying, but.
Speaker 5 (17:29):
In effect, but it affected everybody in the courtroom moving
anxious begin a long weekend.
Speaker 4 (17:39):
Including a judge.
Speaker 5 (17:40):
Everybody has their families and want to get going With's
a weekend, great, great weekend.
Speaker 2 (17:47):
Yeah. The question here is she's still facing one charge,
so there's no doubt there'll be a second trial U
And the prosecution has brought in an experienced criminal defense lawyer,
a guy named Hank Brennan, who's really veryccomplished defense lawyer,
to be a special prosecutor in the case, which is
an interesting move by the district attorney down in Norfolk County.
(18:10):
My sense is that the court should provide some guidance.
At a minimum, there should be guidance to judges to say, look,
in these situations, you have to before you dismiss a
jury at least inquire briefly on a multi multi count case,
is there have you reached a conclusion on any of
(18:31):
the counts or are you hopelessly at an impasse on
all in this case, all three counts, And I think
that go ahead.
Speaker 5 (18:42):
I'm sorry, I do agree with you that I do
agree with you that this should be an example and
from here forward that should be the protocol.
Speaker 2 (18:57):
But by the way, the court a lot of these cases,
if you go back to the Miranda case, when Miranda
did not get the proper warnings and evidence of comments
that he had made was excluded, and police learned from
that case to be obligated to require warnings given to
(19:18):
prisoners once they're under arrest, that they have a right
to remain silent. Anything that they say can and will
be used against them. Do they want to contact a
lawyer once they get the warning? If the guy says, hey,
look I did it. I was really upset. I'm sorry,
but I did it, that then can be brought into evidence.
But they got to give them the warning first. Same
way here, do you instruct judges in future cases to
(19:42):
do it that way without providing some consideration to this
defendant and force her to face trial in all three charges.
That's where I think that the judgment by the court
gets really dicey at this point, because if they come
back and they say, no, we're going to deny the motion,
We're going to support what the judge did. I think
(20:03):
a lot of people are going to say, well, why
would they not at least issue an instruction going forward
that this should be part of the normal practice that
any judge would engage in, particularly in a trial like this.
This is not a quick two day trial where you know,
there's not a lot of expense involved, so we'll see. Hey, Bill,
I really appreciate the fact that you take a time
(20:24):
to call in. Always good. You're a veteran listener. Now
you're a veteran caller, so I look forward to your second.
Speaker 5 (20:28):
Call coming up terrific. I'm more compward to play singer
the well good job Dan, thank you, great job too.
Speaker 2 (20:36):
Takes It takes takes some coverage to pick that phone up,
folks for the first time, But believe me, I'm not
going to bite your hat off. I really enjoy talking
to different people and getting different perspectives and enlarging the
pool of callers as well as of course in enlarging
the pool of listeners. Now we will continue. There's only
one well, that line just filled up. The only lines
(20:58):
that are open right now, six one seven, two lines there,
six one seven. Let me know what you think, Okay,
I think it's I think it's a very close call.
Speaker 6 (21:09):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (21:10):
And we have what's considered to be a fairly forward
looking Supreme Court, you might call it a progressive Supreme
Court in the good sense, uh, and that this might
be an opportunity for them to uh make justice a
little swifter and a little fairer here in Massachusetts. We'll
be back on nightside right after the break. At the
bottom of the hour, here comes the news.
Speaker 1 (21:33):
It's night Side with Boston's news Radio.
Speaker 2 (21:40):
All right, let's get back to the calls. We are
going to go to I Marie in Bridgewater. In Marie
in Bridgewater, You're next on nightside in Marie.
Speaker 7 (21:50):
Hey, Dan, how are you?
Speaker 2 (21:52):
I'm doing just great? Right, go right ahead.
Speaker 7 (21:55):
I have first to comment. I guess I'm not one
hundred per convinced she had savvy lawyers that they didn't
know what they were doing when they chose not to
pull the jury. But setting that aside, I'm wondering what
you think under your scenario of you know, pulling the jury.
What if they had come up that they were guilty
on two counts, do you think she would have been
(22:16):
ready to deal with that or do you think she
would have wanted another bite at the apple on all
three charges?
Speaker 2 (22:22):
Well, I think I agree with you in a large part.
Let me tell you why I agree. First of all,
the lawyers are thinking to themselves, Okay, we got a
hung jury on all three counts, and we're not going
to stand up and complicate things here. And they didn't.
The defense lawyers didn't. That was the tactical decision they
had to make. Most defense lawyers would tell you in
(22:44):
a case like that, hey, we've gone through the prosecution
has taken the best shot they can at our client,
and we have defended her. And now we know what
they're coming at, what evidence they have, The defense will
have an advantage on a second turn. However, however, the
prosecution didn't say, your hona, could you inquire of the
(23:07):
jury chairperson? If this impasse is on all counts, all
three counts are on just one or more of the counts,
neither one of them ask for that and the judge
did not inquire. What would have happened if the judge
on her own said, are you telling me that you
have you're at an impasse on all three counts?
Speaker 5 (23:30):
Right?
Speaker 7 (23:30):
I think both parties would have had to have agreed
and then have to agree to accept whichever way it went.
So that's why I don't believe. I don't believe if
I would respect he was going to be guilty on
the first two, if she's going to be okay, I'll
accept that guilt, and then she's going to want another
bite at the apple and all three. You just can't
have it both ways.
Speaker 2 (23:51):
So no, that's fine. I'm just saying with you, either
the prosecution or the defense lawyers would have asked the
judge to make further inquiry, however.
Speaker 7 (24:05):
Right, and the tactically didn't. But you can't say you
think you heard something from somebody.
Speaker 4 (24:13):
Ye.
Speaker 2 (24:14):
Let me finish my point if I could. There's nothing
in the in the practice that would prevent a judge
from saying to the jury, four person, is it your position,
mister four person happened to be a guy here that
your your jury is deadlocked on all three counts? Or
(24:38):
have has the jury come to an agreement on one
or more of the counts. So that is what the
judge could have asked. That's and so the question is
that maybe the State Supreme Court will instruct superior court
judges going forward. I mean we're talking about, you know,
(25:01):
fairness to the defendant if you put yourself in her position. Uh,
she's not a lawyer, she's she obviously has defense lawyers
with her. It's a question of will the will the
Supreme Court say to judges look going forward on a
multi count indictment, if they come back and say they're hung,
you got to make sure they hung on all three
(25:23):
because a partial verdict is is very.
Speaker 7 (25:25):
Acceptable, right, So what if it's partially guilt. That's what
you'd have to have parties agree. They would have to
agree that we're going to accept it no matter what. Yep,
they have a no no no, no, no, no, no no,
because no.
Speaker 2 (25:40):
The question that the judge should ask is a is
what I would consider to be a threshold question. If
she asked and said, yes, we have no, your honor,
we are where we are stuck on one of the counts,
on two of the counts, we do have agreement. The
judge at that point is going to say, go back
to the jury room, fill out the jury the verdict
(26:01):
slipped on the counts upon which you agree, and come
back here and give us the verdicts the verdict slip.
She is not going to at that point say to
the lawyer, to the prosecutor and the defense lawyers, well,
as you can see, they have two verdicts here, what
do you want me to do? I mean, that's that's
It's not a game show where you're saying do you
want door number one or door knob?
Speaker 4 (26:21):
Oh.
Speaker 7 (26:21):
I understand that, but I don't think people would want
to go for that with the risk of it being
a guilt is a question.
Speaker 2 (26:29):
No, it would. They would never have the option. The
question would be they could have asked the judge, you're
on it. Could you ask the jury if they're if
they are guilt, if they are at an impass on offering.
They could have asked the judge to do it. The
judge then might have said I don't want to do it,
or she might have said, okay, I will ask. But
even though neither one of them asked the judge, the
(26:49):
judges runs the court room. She could have turned to
the to the jury for person and said what I
just said, have you reached the verdict on any of
the counts? Oh? Yes, on and we do have a
verdict on two outs. We've reached the agreement on twoke outs.
At that point she's going to say, well, please go
back to the jury room, fill out those verdict slips
and bring them back to me. There's also this was
(27:11):
a long trial.
Speaker 4 (27:12):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (27:12):
It tied up courtrooms for three for a courtroom for
three months. We'll see what the is.
Speaker 7 (27:19):
I just don't know how you get around if that
had been guilt now she's potentially.
Speaker 2 (27:23):
Doesn't matter if they reached it.
Speaker 7 (27:26):
Now you are on those two counts. I don't think
people are going to want to go for that.
Speaker 2 (27:31):
Fair enough, Okay, I've tried to you know, appreciate I
appreciate the opportunity to uh that you would call. Thank
you very much, Ann, Marie, thank you so much. Take
a break coming back here on Nightside. Thanks. If you'd
like to jump on board, feel free. I've tried to
explain my position as best I can. I hope, I
hope you understand it. We'll be back on Nightside after this.
Speaker 1 (27:53):
Now back to Dan Ray Mine from the Window World
Nightside Studios on WBZ News Radio.
Speaker 2 (28:01):
Okay, let's keep rolling. They're going to go to Paul
and Need and Paul, I'm going to sit back and
listen to what you have to say, because I think
I've made my position pretty clear.
Speaker 4 (28:09):
Go right ahead, Paul, Yes, good evening. Again. I've talked
to some police officers and some lawyers, and they tell
me that a lot of superior court judges do pull
the jury when there's multiple charges. So some of the
previous callers in conversation seems to think that this is
(28:33):
standard practice that they don't pull the jury, but a
lot of from what I'm told, a lot of well
what they do.
Speaker 2 (28:41):
Yeah, let me just let me clarify that they do
pull the jury sometimes when a verdict has been rendered,
particularly if it's a guilty verdict. You'll see that in
high profile guilty cases where the defense lawyers will that
the jury be pulled to make sure that all twelve
(29:03):
of the defense lawyers, all twelve of the jurors are asked,
is your is you're a number ten? Is your verdict
guilty or not guilty? Guilty? And they they want to
make sure that there's no doubt and there's no equivocation,
but they do not pull the jury. Uh when when
the jury is in a hung position, where they're at
(29:25):
an impasse, they would not do that. And she she assumed,
I guess this judge assumed that these these jurors were
at an impass on all three counts, not.
Speaker 4 (29:35):
Just it's a pretty bad assumption.
Speaker 2 (29:39):
Well, I think I can judge, in all due respect,
if if her decision not to inquire any further, what
harm would have been done if she said, so, mister
fourth person, you were telling me that, uh, there's you're
the jurors are hung, are hung on all three counts?
(30:00):
Is that what I'm to understand?
Speaker 5 (30:02):
And if he said up to me, simple question, that
sounds to me like it's the common sense thing to do.
Speaker 2 (30:10):
Well, And that is I think the strongest argument that
they have, and maybe the court will say this is
this has to be the practice. The court will set
the precedent. Phil Tracy said there's no such precedent, and
he's right, But there was no such precedent for the
miranda warning either. At some point. For a lot of times,
when when when courts, supreme courts and state supreme courts,
(30:30):
UH issue a ruling that that sets a new standard
of practice. So that's what we're talking about.
Speaker 6 (30:36):
Paul.
Speaker 4 (30:37):
Let me just say one other thing. I read where
her legal bills are in excess of five million dollars
miss reads outstanding. Yeah, five million dollars in outstanding legal bills.
Speaker 2 (30:51):
So yeah, but again that is going to be irrelevant
to what the Supreme Court decides here, and they're not
going to say, well, because she's got big legel bills,
as she hired high powered lawyers, were going to treat
her more favorably. This should be a standard of practice
I think that the judges should use to basically maximize
(31:14):
the time of the court. You have courtrooms, and you
have judges, and you have so many cases, and you
try generally on many cases to try to get to
a plea agreement, so you avoid tying up court rooms.
But this is going to this is going to be
another long trial, particularly if it's three counts. Thanks Paul,
appreciate the call. Thank you so much. All right, good night.
(31:35):
Let me go to Sue and Milford. Sue you went
next on night side. I want to get two more
in SUGA.
Speaker 8 (31:40):
Right ahead, I Dan, So I'm shocked in a pall
that we are where we are with this, Why was
the jury not given explicit instruction on how to deliver
deliberate Yeah, I just I don't understand it. Like this
(32:05):
is not the first case in the world that's had
multiple charges, I presume, and not the first case that
has had a hung jury. And I don't know. I'm
just I cannot wrap.
Speaker 2 (32:17):
I don't know if. I don't know if in the
charge of the jury in a situation like this. Frankly,
I've been in court rooms where there were multiple indictments, uh,
And I don't know that when the jury is charged
that the judge would say, now, look, if you agree
upon one or more of the indictments, feel free to
bring back a split verdict. I don't know that that's
(32:37):
ever addressed. And if it had been addressed in this case,
I suspect that that would have been brought up by
the prosecution as they as they attempt to defend themselves,
they would have said, this jury was given an explicit
instruction which they chose not to follow. So I think
that's right. But I wasn't in the court for the
instructions and right right if there were such an instructions
(33:00):
like that given before the jury started to deliberate, that
would be that would suggest that that that the judge
did her job perfectly. But if those instructions were not given,
or if they weren't given, and when the jury came
back and said we're hung, she didn't ask the simple question,
are you telling the court that you were at an
(33:23):
impasse on all three counts or have you reached some
partial verdict?
Speaker 1 (33:29):
Right?
Speaker 8 (33:29):
And also too, then why do we know that they
did reach a verdict on two of the country.
Speaker 2 (33:37):
Were members, there were members of the jury. There were
members of the jury who presented themselves.
Speaker 8 (33:41):
And it's rhetorical, it's almost rhetorical. And I know that
that happened. But normal, under normal circumstances, we wouldn't have
known that, right, I mean unless.
Speaker 2 (33:51):
The Yeah, it's a high profile case though, and obviously
there were some jurors. I guess there was a number
of number of five jurors who have gone to some
combination on the defense lawyer and the prosecutors got to
get two more in so I share your progress, perplexity.
Thank you, goodnight. Let me go to Betty on the boat. Betty,
did I see you on TV tonight being interviewed by
one of the local television stations.
Speaker 9 (34:13):
You did, and I'm just being escorted.
Speaker 2 (34:16):
You've had quite a cat, had quite a day, Betty.
What do you think the court should do here?
Speaker 8 (34:24):
Uh?
Speaker 9 (34:26):
I think that I'm not a fan of the judicial system.
I've seen too many inequities. I think I saw a
critter that I think that the jury should have been pulled.
Speaker 2 (34:49):
Well, they wouldn't be pulled if they only are polled
once a verdict is rendered, and then, as I explained
to one of the other callers, they pulled to recommit
the firm that they've all come to the unanimous decision.
The question is whether or not the judge should have
said to them when when when the fourth person came
back and said, we're hung on, we're at an impasse,
(35:12):
the judge king should have asked and said, are you
at an impass on all counts? And if the if
the four person said yes, we're in an impass on
all three counts, then then it's over. But if the
if the fourth person said, well, we're on and we
have got agreement on a couple of accounts, but we're
at an impass on one count, then she could have
taken she could have allowed for a partial verdict.
Speaker 9 (35:35):
Correct.
Speaker 2 (35:37):
One more. I want to sneak in here, Betty. You
sound like you're you're working on the boat here.
Speaker 9 (35:43):
No, you know, with the doc failure, I have to
get the cat. I have to get her to get
her out of here.
Speaker 2 (35:52):
Well, you go ahead and take care of the cat. Okay,
and we'll talk again.
Speaker 8 (35:56):
Thanks, Betty, Bye bye bye.
Speaker 2 (35:59):
Let me get filling boss to feel I can give
you about a minute here, go ahead.
Speaker 6 (36:05):
When in the jury, originally when the jury was to
put the panel or whatever take him back on the sheet,
there was no there was no not guilty on the sheet,
and they got the defense lawyer said when there's no
choice here for something not guilty, and and the judge
apparently said, no, that's all we do things in Massachusetts.
(36:29):
And then eventually it was flipped around whether the bell
was changed where it was guilty or not guilty. But
the point I'm going to confused situations, I'm guessing.
Speaker 2 (36:40):
We couldn't know there was there was that, there was
that element of confusion. I was not in court yesterday
whether or not that was disgust in front of the
inter State Supreme Court, Phil, you called in late, and
I'm running out of time, so I gotta let you go.
But you raised, you raised the point that was an
important one. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. We
came back on to talk about Joe Biden's statement at
the White House, which I thought was very respectful. And
(37:03):
maybe we are going to somehow pull this off and
have a smooth transition of power on January twentieth. Wouldn't
that be nice. We'll be back, we'll talk about it
in the ten o'clock hour.
Popular Podcasts
40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season
Daniel Jeremiah of Move the Sticks and Gregg Rosenthal of NFL Daily join forces to break down every team's needs this offseason.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.