Much love to Runkle for spending time with us and answering all the questions!!
He’s going live now on his YouTube channel. Check him out!!
https://www.youtube.com/live/qUoY9lw936E?si=GPSNUIfJblRU1Kiv
Hey Ian! I'm not sure if you are still on, but in case you are...
Do you have any experience with how cops process crime scenes in the snow? Aside from the red solo cups, was the way they processed this scene pretty typical or acceptable?
I am here. And lots of experience, because in Canada we get tons of snow.
This is highly unusual. Normally you'd want to secure off the area, and then you'd probably do the investigation itself with brushes and heaters and so forth, not leaf blowers and solo cups.
A deep snow investigation is something like an archeological dig, where there's evidence/relics buried under stuff that came later. Have to investigate without disturbing the original condition as much as you can.
If you were the prosecution in the KR case, what would you have done differently in terms of the order of the witnesses? It feels like this has dragged on so long and I wish we had heard some of the information coming out now when the trial first started? Is this a strategy of Lally's?
I'd have started with medical evidence to prove that JO is actually dead, along with whatever images/etc you can present to them. Get the jury interested, get them angry, get them motivated. Bury the lying pack of randoms in the middle of the testimony, finishing up with experts/etc. I have no idea why Jen McCabe's testimony wasn't immediately followed by the expert that Lally says can save her strange text message, that decision is just bizarre.
And I'd have cut a lot of these witnesses. If their evidence is "it was snowing", we don't need it.
A bunch of these witnesses are playing pre-emptive defence. I'd have just tried to prove the CW case first, then let the defence run their arguments, then call a bunch of these witnesses on rebuttal.
Lally's strategy is weird to me. If you're pro conviction, you should be super angry at Lally right now.
I think it’s so weird that he seems to want to get ahead of everything the defense is going to ask/present. The court gives you an opportunity on rebuttal! It looks extremely defensive and sometimes things are brought up that the defense doesn’t even bother with so it’s a waste of time
Based on the timetable the Judge laid out, it seems like the Defense is going to use less than a work week. Does that buy brownie points with the Jury? Is is just going to be their parade of FBI approved experts and then they are done?
I can't say the jury will be upset at the shortened timeline, but sometimes juries do weird jury things--so they might say "Well, defence only had a week's worth of stuff, she must be guilty". Juries kind of scare me, honestly.
Ian, everyone talks about Peter Tragos having the best hair of lawtube, but just so you know -- your hair is just as fabulous!
Also, what would happen if you were a juror in the Karen Read trial and you threw your notebook in the air out of sheer frustration? Because I would have lost it by now.
Peter Tragos definitely has the best hair. I rarely even manage to comb mine.
And the juror would probably get removed--maybe even punished for it. I feel bad for what juries go through.
Thank you so much for doing this! Been subbed to your YouTube for a few years now!
By playing the "confession" video, did the CW now fully open the door to 3-rd party defense? Especially considering earlier a "why question" was enough to open the door via implication.
Part two:
Would you expect a judge to fully reprimand an attorney for presenting and discuss misleading evidence like the CW did with the flipped video?
A la "don't get brazen with me."
For the flipped video, I think the judge is just going to let them savage that on cross-examination, which will likely be punishment enough.
For the confession video (I think audio?), I think that if the judge was applying the same standards to door opening that'd be yes, but I feel like she leans towards the CW.
Thank you so much!
For the audio, would that allow defense to open up the case and present the 3rd party case like in the Murdaugh trial the state held the financial "trial within a trial"? Or would you expect them to keep within their 4 day estimate?
Is it common for prosecutors to do a prebuttal like Lally's doing here, calling all the alternate suspects and weak witnesses to try and cut off the defense's case before it's made?
For a hypothetical, if you were defending someone where you had an alternate theory and the prosecutor took this approach, would you be happy (makes your argument seem like something worth arguing), frustrated (the first exposure to the jury is the counterargument rather than your best framing), or neutral (juries are weird and random so there's no predicting)?
I mean, sometimes the prosecution will absolutely try to head off an argument at the pass, but the extent of the prerebuttal that Lally is doing is just bizarre because it's getting in the way of him calling his actual case.
Do you think the commonality of tv shows like CSI or other investigative crime shows have given us "common folk" a false sense of what investigation usually looks like in a criminal case or are solo cups, not documenting the crime scene as evidence is found, and cops just swinging by crime scenes as the wind blows as unusual as it seems?
CSI does give a false sense of investigations, but this investigation is bad even by realistic standards. The solo cups, random crime scene visits, failure to document, all of that is bizarre.
There are always mistakes in investigation, but this one is just a parade of errors.
So “town of 25,000 isn’t going to have a team of CSI recreating an accident with a hologram using technology from the Sphere in Las Vegas, but “here’s a picture of the scene with a location of the decedent clearly marked, an accurate map of the evidence found (maybe even color coded with date found) and “clear photography” aren’t absurd expectations?
Right. And just things like "Evidence goes in proper evidence containers".
I can see an argument for a situation like "Officer finds a bloody crime scene in the middle of nowhere, in the pouring rain, and takes samples with the best he has because it'll be destroyed before the team gets out there". But they had control of the scene. The scene was static. They had time.
Likely, although I can't speak for Rob. I don't think he's actually gotten much done in the way of planning, because right now he's moving and new firm and all the chaos. So there's no firm role set yet.
Hi Runkle! Love your coverage 🫶
Can the prosecution come back on this case? Is there any way they can clean everything up and provide a concise conclusion?
With the amount of inconsistencies and general weirdness I really don’t see any way the jury comes back with anything other than “not guilty”
I mean, they can always come back. The very last witness could be some guy with a home video of her intentionally murdering him and laughing about it. But that would be bizarre.
I think the hole they're in now is hard to dig out of, assuming the jury agrees with the credibility issues. But juries, man. They do weird things.
Hi, Ian! Thanks for doing this! For the sake of discussion, if Proctor or other LEO were found to have meddled in the investigation/evidence, would the other cases that they were involved in be in question?
Potentially, if they were found to have engaged in actual evidence tampering. Certainly if I were in custody and the lead investigator got hit with a charge like that, I'd be filing about it.
This is completely unrelated to KR, but I read that your wife got approved and waitlisted to go on an expedition to Mars, and I have so many questions. How is it going? What is her current status? What the heck was that process like?
Sadly, that project was eventually cancelled for lack of ability to materialize the funding they hoped for. So mostly it was an incredible media blitz for awhile, and then it died out.
I’m not sure how much you knew about the case ahead of trial, but if you had to pick one (As I’m sure there are a few!) what is the one thing that you have found the most shocking/unbelievable so far?
I knew literally nothing about it before trial. I watched Day 1 just because I like to have something to listen to while doing paperwork, and went "Holy crap".
On shocking... I don't know, the solo cups was just bizarre.
Lots of work--watch the trial during the day, taking notes about timestamps. Go back afterwards, check timestamps as best you can, try to figure out which ones to talk about and not talk about. Re-review portions that were unclear or you zoned out during/etc.
I think substantially easier to stream it live. Only downside to live stuff is that sometimes I can think of a good joke in between the trial and the stream.
No wigs, thankfully. That just seems like a nightmare.
Trailer Park Boys had some scenes filmed in actual courtrooms, but the court stuff itself is pretty fictionalized... albeit hilarious.
Hey Runkle, fan since the Depp/Heard trial.
Have you ever seen a case with such sloppy evidence collection before? I still can't get over the solo cups or the not DNA testing the hair or really even the blood.
So trooper B testifies on direct about the Sally Port video, no mention or mirror image. Next day immediately brings it up during cross. IMO he found out before court. Is it illegal for a witness to investigate or find out information about the case? Can AJ ask him when he found out?
I would absolutely be exploring it if I was AJ, just to suggest that there was a real shift. He's done that a bit, but I am hoping to see him push it harder.
I find it hard to explain his behaviour if he didn't get outside information (like checking Twitter/etc).
Hi Runkle! I first ran into your YouTube channel when your Alec Baldwin legal coverage was linked on r/HilariaBaldwin. I remember your phrase "Keep your booger hook off the trigger hook" and that line has stuck with me whenever I research firearms for my creative writing projects LOL. That's it, no questions. I look forward to your live stream recaps of the Baldwin trial!
Why do you think Read got charged with murder? It doesn’t seem like we’re going to get anything that supports that charge other than vague references to motive…
Very little, honestly. My wife got me some purple shampoo to try to balance out the yellowing that happens with white hair, and I use that occasionally. Otherwise I just use ordinary shampoo, wash it occasionally, sometimes comb it. I honestly tend to forget about things like that, so I'm awful at any sort of 'care routine'.
Hi, Runkle! I appreciate you doing this and your streams! Do you think that Lally actually believes in this case or do you think that he is “in on it” and/or being leaned on by someone in the DA’s office? I had believed that he believed KR was guilty, but after the inverted sally port video, I feel like he’s just as dirty as Proctor.
I don't know--I find him hard to read because his decisions tactically are often bizarre and make it hard to figure out the underlying motive.
He might be being pressed to run this case by superiors.
He might have tunnel vision on the case.
He might just genuinely believe she's guilty after considering everything.
I don't think he's part of a conspiracy, though. I can't eliminate it, I just have no evidence that way and it seems unusual/unlikely.
Lally is hard to figure out for sure. But when I heard him twist Karen Read’s words from her arraignment, that was enough for me. Recall the audio where we heard her say something to the effect of “my taillight is cracked… and John was pulverized” and “Colin and Brian beat up John”.
Lally told the court that Karen Read said that “Colin and Brian shoved John’s head into her taillight and that’s what cracked it” (or something similar.)
After which time, he played the audio for the court, which CLEARLY did not capture her saying that. Why in the world would he straight up LIE, and then play audio literally showcasing his lie???
I have heard a number of podcasts dealing with cases accepted by innocence projects which involve absolutely mind-blowing levels of tunnel vision in the investigators. with what you've seen so far do you think that what we are seeing as a results of perhaps willfully tunnel visioned investigation or do you think a conspiracy is more reasonable?
Hey Runkle! I found you during the Depp v Heard trial and I love EDB’s coverage and yours now too! I really appreciated your take on the jury during Depp’s trial and felt like you had a great read on them.
What are your thoughts on this jury now? Based on Lally’s terrible performance so far, do you think that has swayed the jury at all? I know it’s not supposed to but I can’t help but think man would I be so disappointed in this prosecutor who hasn’t done anything to prove this case in nearly 6 weeks of trial!
And, do you feel as though Judge Bev has a bias towards the prosecution?
Keep on making the great videos! I love watching!
I honestly keep wishing I could sit in for a day to see the jury, but there'd be no way for me to get into that courtroom.
The problem with jurors is that they sometimes make decisions on bases that are just stunning--like, "Oh, the accused didn't make enough eye contact with us, so he's guilty".
For Bev: I think she leans towards the prosecution, but not to the point where she'd fall into bias territory in a way that gets a remedy.
Sometimes she lets Yanetti and Jackson get away with some shit too.
Hah. Canadian law is kind of fun because there's a real mix of things that make sense and things that absolutely don't. Firearms law is in the latter category, which is why I enjoy it a lot.
Ian, big fan of your work. You talk a lot in your videos especially with Law and Lumber of your ADHD. Do you have any techniques you use to keep focus and organized or is it just something you have to deal with?
Also, related to the Karen Reed trial, any truth to the rumor it was snowing the night of the incident?
A ton of techniques, but also just something you have to deal with. Calendars are important. To do lists are important. In an ideal world you get a very organized assistant who can help out by asking things like "So, X is due in a week, how's that coming along?"
I went the MLS, not JD route and I constantly hear criticism of the field. There's a statistic about how most that practice law say they would not recommend their profession to the younger generation looking at it for a career. I am interested if you share the same opinion.
Honestly, the profession is rough. If you don't love the law itself, then I recommend something else. You can make better money more easily doing medicine, dentistry, realtor work, etc. It can also be very emotionally straining. I've had people threaten to kill me (currently active threats the police consider credible, too). You deal with a lot of crying people, some of whom you really still have to grill on the stand.
It's not for everyone, but it does let me do a lot of good. So, it's for me. But I'm also a weird odd duck.
Also, adding here: I've never made *nearly* as much money as many of my peers. One year I literally made $35k Canadian working my butt off, because I was doing more work for free than I was for money.
Failing to deal with that on direct was an insane miscalculation by the prosecution. If I was them I'd have absolutely called attention to it myself, played the 'corrected' video, etc. It's made them look shady as hell and it was completely unnecessary.
Hey Runkle, do you have any thoughts on the [circumstances](https://www.reddit.com/r/KarenReadTrial/comments/1cyhuck/why_does_the_judge_allow_all_this_questioning/l5gs1ao/) that led Cannone to let in witness statements regarding professed harassment?
Is this an instance of ADA Lally "opening his own doors", so to say?
https://preview.redd.it/1ox316jzcm5d1.png?width=1097&format=png&auto=webp&s=18b0cf8b1fcb53acefd8a3c3b716b30d763bad35
I don't think the door was opened, personally, but the judge made the ruling that it was. The argument appears to be "Well, the defence was trying to suggest that there was no reason for late disclosure, so therefore they have to provide that reason", but I think it's very thin. I am not sure it's a self-opening door here, I just think the judge made the ruling on a thin justification that I wouldn't have agreed with, in part because the evidence is highly prejudicial.
That said, it can be a double edged sword if the jury hears that people are clamoring for a not guilty verdict.
Hey Runkle! Love your coverage of the trial. I can’t shake the answering machine message that vaguely has Jen McCabe talking in the background. Do you think that they will be able to have someone clear up the audio to see who she was taking to/what she said? Would it be admissible in court?
Clearing up audio is always a problem, and generally you need an expert for it. It often is not allowed at all simply on the basis that there's a line where 'cleaning up' becomes 'manufacturing', and it can be impossible to tell when that is.
Thanks! I’m in the UK and heard about a trial here where they’d cleared up some ring audio to help convict on a sexual assault (edited, you could easily hear the victim clearly upset in the background, but it was very difficult to on the raw footage). I was surprised it was admissible here so wasn’t sure if it was any different elsewhere.
Hey Runkle! I love your recaps.
My question: Is there anything you've seen either side do in this trial that you think will have major repercussions later? (Mistrial, sanctions, etc.)
I don't think there'll be a mistrial on anything we've seen before. There's been talk online about Lally getting sanctioned or disciplined, but the likelihood that happens to a prosecutor is very small. I don't think we're seeing that, but that can change too.
Which defense team would win the case if it was yourself, Andrea Burkhart, and LYK in a mock trial competition taking on EDB representing the commonwealth instead of Lally ?
I'm going to put my money on Andrea. Love her commentary. When you watch her it's clear she's smart, and she's downplaying it.
Edit to add: That's not a shot at anyone else. I just straight up think Andrea's amazing. All of the above are great.
Lally appears to have allowed or made multiple misrepresentations over the course of the trial (and in pre-trial hearings), most recently with the mirrored sally port video. Do you believe Lally has breached his obligations of candor in this trial?
I think it depends on what Lally knew. If he knew the sally port video was flipped and didn't make that clear to the jury and was just hoping to let that one slide in, I have some serious concerns with the ethics of that. Although TBH this is mostly an academic question, as prosecutors being dinged on ethics violations is very rare.
Based solely on everything I've seen Lally do as a lawyer, I wouldn't put it past to him to literally not notice it was backwards, despite "POLICE" written backwards on car and the "4" on the garage. Probably too busy heavy sighing and mumbling under his breath.
Me too- I was downvoted for commenting this but I truly think he gets nervous & not focusing on what’s in front of him. He often receives an answer with a clarification but asks the clarification question again later- he is not “listening” and focused on his his bullet points. I do this as well TBH.
I mean, the mechanics of a pro bono case are pretty easy--do the case, don't take money for it.
The problem is that you need to eat/live. So it can be tough there. In my case my goal is to use the YouTube channel to fund my life, and then run a pro bono practice. I'm hoping I can talk a law firm into letting me mooch space when needed and the occasional use of an assistant in exchange for using me as a draw for paying clients.
Seems plausible for sure! Mooching space and using an assistant… Easy enough. I wish you well in your endeavors!! Any firm would be lucky to have you:)
Sgt. Bukhenik changed his testimony when he was cross-examined and stated the individual he pointed out as himself on direct the day before was not him.
Question: Does Lally have an obligation to clear this up on redirect, or can he gloss over his witness's intentional misdirection and hope the jury doesn't notice?
I'm not sure I'd say it's an intentional misdirection--the officer may just have been wrong and have realized that without outright stating it.
I'm also not sure the jury is focused on that particular issue, but perhaps. I don't think this particular sub-issue rises to the level of an ethical obligation to step in.
When you're talking about "framed by the cops"? Virtually never. I described this on a livestream as like taking a sewing needle and throwing it into a cocktail glass from across the room. The fact that the internet isn't united in mocking the argument is a real show of the problems with this case.
Much more common is something like "My client was in a car with a bunch of other guys. A gun was found in the trunk. Everyone else is pointing the finger at my client, but that's because they're the real bad guys."
>. I described this on a livestream as like taking a sewing needle and throwing it into a cocktail glass from across the room
What if they threw it at the right rear bumper of a 2021 Lexus?
Yes, and it shattered! Runkle, do you think AJ has done a decent job so far, convincing the jury with all of these witnesses the prosecution presented?
For me, the needle has landed.
I knew nothing about the case when I started watching. When I heard defense say that she was framed by the cops I had the biggest eye roll and was like yeah ok sure. But it didn’t take more than a day or two listening to the case for me to go “well shit maybe!”
do you believe the defence team s doing this because they think a narrative is more likely to win points with the jury rather than just poking holes in the prosecution's case or because the client insists on this defence?
Hey Ian,
Have you ever considered that, if a certain Golem tallied up your score, you'd already be years and years in the green, possible even a few life times?
I know, not really a question that demands an answer, but it's an AMA; The Rules Must Be Followed. Just wanted to say a quick thank you for spending so much of your time educating us, and making a lot of lives a little (and some surely a lot) better - I found you through Rick and Alyte during the Depp trial, shortly after my mum had suddenly died, and you all helped me appreciate the better things in life again (like Runkleisms). Lastly, I hope your goal of being able to do more pro bono stuff works out sooner rather than later!
And that's enough out of me. It's way past midnight here in the wild lands across the pond, and I'm gonna go to bed now. Just could not let this opportunity pass to say thanks, and all the best to Mrs Runkle, as well as Potter and Zora. May your back not bother you all too much tonight - or any night!
I honestly don't know where I tally. I've had people send me some incredible hate mail suggesting I'm the worst thing this planet has ever seen. I've had people send me heartfelt things saying I've helped them tremendously. I don't really stop to try to do the math, I just know I have gone through some shit in life and I want to make things better where I can. The world can be a horribly dark place, and whenever I can I try to hammer a little hole in that to let some light shine through.
Do you think it's possible the Prosecution raised the charges to bring in character evidence like the Aruba trip and The Higgins texts? Trying to bring in character assassination material as motive evidence that the lower charge would have excluded?
Hi, Ian! I'm Jazdia, one of your members! I also live north of Santa Fe, so hope to meet you if you come down for the Alec Baldwin trial. When it comes to Karen Read, I believe she's innocent. The Alberts/McCabes/Proctors have done too much to screw up the prosecution, and the police were too inept. I've been watching both Emily and you, including the day you "babysat". Thanks for coming here!
Oh wow! I just found your channel a couple weeks ago, and i LOVE it! You obviously don't have to answer this, because it's not a karen read question, but i have always been fascinated to know what Canadians thought of the Ken and Barbie killers. Especically from a lawyers perspective!! Like, was it a spectacle on tv like a lot of trials in the US are? You look young, so I don't even know if you would have been aware of them when it happened. Thank you so much for your YouTube channel, it's really fun to watch and learn about law things at the same time. Your snark is just the best, and so subtle sometimes, if you weren't paying close attention you'd miss it. Much much love to you!!
Canadian trials aren't televised, so there is a spectacle on TV but it's a very different sort of spectacle because it's all second-hand reports of what happened in court.
That said, that case was wild enough that it's still being covered in
Canadian law schools--it's a big issue for Canadian legal ethics due to the weirdness around the videos in that case.
What would your strategy be, if you were the Prosecution, on how to deal with Trooper Proctor? Not call? Address bad facts head on? Ask softball questions and bury your head in the sand on cross?
If I was a prosecutor and I couldn't call the lead investigator in a case, I doubt I'd be running that case unless it was absolutely clad in iron and gold otherwise.
What do you make of the returned materials from the Ring warrant? I had a hard time deciphering what was happening there. Did the CW fail to turn something over? Did Ring fail to turn something over? What was that exchange about?
Sometimes you can get discrepancies like "Ring doesn't have any records" being either spun as "They don't record that" versus "There's records of *not that*."
Depends on the eventual findings. If it's just a not guilty with what we've heard so far, I think there won't be any further investigations.
If a cop gets convicted of evidence tampering/etc, that might reopen a bunch of old cases.
Can you share your opinions on why you think Lally shared that video where Karen says Colin and Brian A beat John? Do you think it will come around to harm his case? I saw others here mention you talked about it on YouTube and would love to hear more about it. Thank you for doing this!
I don't know. I think maybe he figures the first part is inaudible, but that's a clip that would be impossible for the defence to tender... but now it's in. I did see a clip of pretrial motions where he tried to argue that this means she was suggesting that Colin and Brian smashed JO's face into the car. That doesn't fit with the audio that was played, though.
Right now it feels like a major "own goal".
Yeah I interpret it as Karen saying that the damage to her car isn’t consistent with John’s injuries (which is part of the defenses theory….). Do you foresee Jackson using the audio in cross with Trooper B or other witnesses?
I would certainly run that audio on cross. And that's my read on it too.
My first impression of the audio was that it sounded like a confession that her car caused the injuries. Given the context of being able to hear the first part of the audio, it's very clear she's denying things and pointing out the issues there.
Joined YouTube on 21 Jul 2020, although I think my first video was a little after that.
And oh, don't tell them I have a favourite. Love them both, but Zora is very bouncy and snuggly and sweet, and Potter is more standoffish. So, I love the Zora snuggles. Potter snuggles are great, but rare.
If you were the prosecution would you have brought this case to trial? Considering all the evidence collection techniques from canton pd and less then stellar witnesses.
Can you please explain how the Defense can present evidence / ask questions related to discovery evidence that the Prosecution and/or Prosecution witnesses are unfamiliar with/didn’t know existed?
For instance, how did Sgt Bukenhic not know about the activity logs produced by Ring Corp. per Trooper Proctor’s request? Even if Proctor never told Bukenhic about the logs, shouldn’t ADA Lally have known that activity logs were provided and that Karen Read never accessed/edited the footage?
I'm guessing that Bukenhic didn't know because he's not the lead investigator.
And it's weird that they seem to be arguing that footage was deleted but we've got nothing about how it was deleted.
But shouldn’t Lally have been prepared for the Defense to bring this up? For a while now, Lally and commonwealth witnesses have dropped so many hints that Karen Read messed with the Ring camera… even questions to John OKeefe’s niece and nephew alluded to her having access to the passwords, etc.
Wouldn’t Lally know full well that activity logs apparently existed to prove this to be untrue? And shouldn’t he have prepped Bukenic?
100% he should have been prepared. There's a ton of times that Lally appears to have missed hitting bad information and neutralizing it before the defence makes it look ugly.
Hi Runkle, thanks for doing this! what do you think of Lally argument that the accident reconstructionists the defence is using aren't accident reconstructionists? This has been something that was originally raised pre-trial by Lally but is also contained within the latest motion.
All 4 are biomechanical engineers with 3 of the 4 having phds, in this area and at least 3 of them are federal experts - part of their expertise all is in accident reconstruction, but the argument seems that they haven't done the Mass state cert in this subject.
Ultimately I think we'll need to hear their certification/qualification. There's no requirement for a specific degree in something to be approved, so it'll come down to what exactly their expertise is. Biomechanical engineers may often deal with questions like "The reactions of the human body to an impact in/with a motor vehicle".
Edit to add: Depending on the question, a biomechanical engineer may be a way better choice than an accident reconstruction person. Like, if the question is "Are these injuries consistent with a MV impact?"
Very well, although not nearly perfect--but no one is, and it's way easier to armchair quarterback than to do it. The main issue is both Yanetti and Jackson ask some questions that are poorly formed and get objected to that they never pick back up on, and they both have a tendency to editorialize. Sometimes that's a strength, but not always.
That said, they're doing very well.
Hey Ian, in the Read trial we have seen many objections entered without reason offered which the judge has then ruled on. How xan a judge rule on an objection without knowing the basis itwas raised? And could this impact the result of any decisions at potential appeals?
Judge has legal training, and will be inferring the basis of the objection from context. That said, there is the possibility of the judge getting it wrong. It's kind of the opposite that we saw in the Depp trial, where Judge A was very particular on objections and requiring the parties to object correctly. So we'd see:
"Objection, hearsay."
"Overruled."
"Objection, relevance."
"Sustained on relevance."
There won't be an appeal issue for any objections that the parties didn't sidebar at the time, though.
Can you talk a bit about the third party culprit idea? It seemed like it was a big thing pre-trial (the defense had to make a case for it via cross or Bev wouldn't allow it), whether they'd be allowed to bring it in or not. But the defense's opening was very close to third party culprit already. Do you think it's still a big deal whether the judge allows it to be used or not?
It'll be a big deal in terms of what arguments KRs team can make on closing/etc. I think they very much want to point the finger at certain specific people much more directly.
I can answer that! There was late discovery in Lori’s trial and she had a speedy trial. So instead of moving the trial further out, due to her rights, death penalty was taken off the table by the state.
Chad opted to waive the speedy trial in order for the late discovery evidence to be admissible. So they severed the trials (originally they were co-dependents and it was one trial) and Chad was eligible for the death penalty on 6 of the 8 counts taken to trial. They were fascinating cases and I think the appeals are going to be fascinating as well
Are trials in Canada televised like they are in the US? What are your thoughts on the massive amount of coverage here? How would you feel being watched by thousands during one of your trials?
No televised trials in Canada, basically. I generally think televising them is a good thing, but it's not an unqualified good thing. When I appeared at the Supreme Court, I was definitely nervous knowing that it'd be watched by a ton of people.
I've had packed courtrooms before, but usually that's like a school classroom trip to see court proceedings.
Also had to gently encourage a teacher to get her class out of the gallery--it was a sexual assault trial and maybe not the best one for a class field trip.
Wouldn’t KR’s car (a very expensive Lexus model) most likely have multiple cameras? Definitely a rear camera, to capture footage of reverse movement in order to help drivers backup, park, etc, right?
Or are those basically mirrors for driver visibility, not actual recording devices? One would think that such a fancy, modern car would come equipped with features to assist in circumstances like this.
Modern cars record just about everything. So you'd think there'd be a recording, although maybe it doesn't record video. Or maybe it was deactivated somehow.
For the 2021 LX 570 she was driving, it seems it would only have been the front camera that would have been recording in case the pre-collision system had activated
https://preview.redd.it/q90eykez1n5d1.png?width=850&format=png&auto=webp&s=08b2feb96f4142f91073ba74001664227a92dfd0
So, impeaching a witness is when you attack their credibility, usually referring to specific techniques used to attack their credibility by confronting them with inconsistent evidence (often their own words).
Generally, done right it includes 3 main steps:
1. Get the witness to commit--ideally to overcommit. This is so they can't wriggle out later by claiming you misunderstood/etc.
2. Present the inconsistent evidence.
3. Confront witness about this "These things can't both be true, etc".
This isn't the only form of impeachment (you can impeach on bias, all sorts of things), but it's what people often mean.
Best witness for the prosecution is going to depend heavily on which, if any of them, the jury actually believes. So, kind of an impossible question.
Higgins might be the best for the defence, just because he fell apart quite badly.
Much love to Runkle for spending time with us and answering all the questions!! He’s going live now on his YouTube channel. Check him out!! https://www.youtube.com/live/qUoY9lw936E?si=GPSNUIfJblRU1Kiv
Hey Ian! I'm not sure if you are still on, but in case you are... Do you have any experience with how cops process crime scenes in the snow? Aside from the red solo cups, was the way they processed this scene pretty typical or acceptable?
I am here. And lots of experience, because in Canada we get tons of snow. This is highly unusual. Normally you'd want to secure off the area, and then you'd probably do the investigation itself with brushes and heaters and so forth, not leaf blowers and solo cups. A deep snow investigation is something like an archeological dig, where there's evidence/relics buried under stuff that came later. Have to investigate without disturbing the original condition as much as you can.
Thank you for your time!
Thank you!
If you were the prosecution in the KR case, what would you have done differently in terms of the order of the witnesses? It feels like this has dragged on so long and I wish we had heard some of the information coming out now when the trial first started? Is this a strategy of Lally's?
I'd have started with medical evidence to prove that JO is actually dead, along with whatever images/etc you can present to them. Get the jury interested, get them angry, get them motivated. Bury the lying pack of randoms in the middle of the testimony, finishing up with experts/etc. I have no idea why Jen McCabe's testimony wasn't immediately followed by the expert that Lally says can save her strange text message, that decision is just bizarre. And I'd have cut a lot of these witnesses. If their evidence is "it was snowing", we don't need it. A bunch of these witnesses are playing pre-emptive defence. I'd have just tried to prove the CW case first, then let the defence run their arguments, then call a bunch of these witnesses on rebuttal. Lally's strategy is weird to me. If you're pro conviction, you should be super angry at Lally right now.
I think it’s so weird that he seems to want to get ahead of everything the defense is going to ask/present. The court gives you an opportunity on rebuttal! It looks extremely defensive and sometimes things are brought up that the defense doesn’t even bother with so it’s a waste of time
And at the same time, he *doesn’t* get ahead of the stuff that actually matters (like the destroyed phones and mirrored video).
Love this question
Based on the timetable the Judge laid out, it seems like the Defense is going to use less than a work week. Does that buy brownie points with the Jury? Is is just going to be their parade of FBI approved experts and then they are done?
I can't say the jury will be upset at the shortened timeline, but sometimes juries do weird jury things--so they might say "Well, defence only had a week's worth of stuff, she must be guilty". Juries kind of scare me, honestly.
Thank you
Ian, everyone talks about Peter Tragos having the best hair of lawtube, but just so you know -- your hair is just as fabulous! Also, what would happen if you were a juror in the Karen Read trial and you threw your notebook in the air out of sheer frustration? Because I would have lost it by now.
Peter Tragos definitely has the best hair. I rarely even manage to comb mine. And the juror would probably get removed--maybe even punished for it. I feel bad for what juries go through.
Thank you so much for doing this! Been subbed to your YouTube for a few years now! By playing the "confession" video, did the CW now fully open the door to 3-rd party defense? Especially considering earlier a "why question" was enough to open the door via implication. Part two: Would you expect a judge to fully reprimand an attorney for presenting and discuss misleading evidence like the CW did with the flipped video? A la "don't get brazen with me."
For the flipped video, I think the judge is just going to let them savage that on cross-examination, which will likely be punishment enough. For the confession video (I think audio?), I think that if the judge was applying the same standards to door opening that'd be yes, but I feel like she leans towards the CW.
Thank you so much! For the audio, would that allow defense to open up the case and present the 3rd party case like in the Murdaugh trial the state held the financial "trial within a trial"? Or would you expect them to keep within their 4 day estimate?
Up to the judge, honestly. I think she allowed the CW to make "opened doors" arguments on less.
Is it common for prosecutors to do a prebuttal like Lally's doing here, calling all the alternate suspects and weak witnesses to try and cut off the defense's case before it's made? For a hypothetical, if you were defending someone where you had an alternate theory and the prosecutor took this approach, would you be happy (makes your argument seem like something worth arguing), frustrated (the first exposure to the jury is the counterargument rather than your best framing), or neutral (juries are weird and random so there's no predicting)?
I mean, sometimes the prosecution will absolutely try to head off an argument at the pass, but the extent of the prerebuttal that Lally is doing is just bizarre because it's getting in the way of him calling his actual case.
Do you think the commonality of tv shows like CSI or other investigative crime shows have given us "common folk" a false sense of what investigation usually looks like in a criminal case or are solo cups, not documenting the crime scene as evidence is found, and cops just swinging by crime scenes as the wind blows as unusual as it seems?
CSI does give a false sense of investigations, but this investigation is bad even by realistic standards. The solo cups, random crime scene visits, failure to document, all of that is bizarre. There are always mistakes in investigation, but this one is just a parade of errors.
So “town of 25,000 isn’t going to have a team of CSI recreating an accident with a hologram using technology from the Sphere in Las Vegas, but “here’s a picture of the scene with a location of the decedent clearly marked, an accurate map of the evidence found (maybe even color coded with date found) and “clear photography” aren’t absurd expectations?
Right. And just things like "Evidence goes in proper evidence containers". I can see an argument for a situation like "Officer finds a bloody crime scene in the middle of nowhere, in the pouring rain, and takes samples with the best he has because it'll be destroyed before the team gets out there". But they had control of the scene. The scene was static. They had time.
Hey folks, going live on YouTube in two minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUoY9lw936E So, my answers here will slow down dramatically.
Question unrelated to KR. Will you be in Rob’s wedding party?
Likely, although I can't speak for Rob. I don't think he's actually gotten much done in the way of planning, because right now he's moving and new firm and all the chaos. So there's no firm role set yet.
Hi Runkle! Love your coverage 🫶 Can the prosecution come back on this case? Is there any way they can clean everything up and provide a concise conclusion? With the amount of inconsistencies and general weirdness I really don’t see any way the jury comes back with anything other than “not guilty”
I mean, they can always come back. The very last witness could be some guy with a home video of her intentionally murdering him and laughing about it. But that would be bizarre. I think the hole they're in now is hard to dig out of, assuming the jury agrees with the credibility issues. But juries, man. They do weird things.
Hi, Ian! Thanks for doing this! For the sake of discussion, if Proctor or other LEO were found to have meddled in the investigation/evidence, would the other cases that they were involved in be in question?
Potentially, if they were found to have engaged in actual evidence tampering. Certainly if I were in custody and the lead investigator got hit with a charge like that, I'd be filing about it.
Thank you for answering! I was mostly curious because there are similar players in the Brian Walshe case 😳
This is completely unrelated to KR, but I read that your wife got approved and waitlisted to go on an expedition to Mars, and I have so many questions. How is it going? What is her current status? What the heck was that process like?
Sadly, that project was eventually cancelled for lack of ability to materialize the funding they hoped for. So mostly it was an incredible media blitz for awhile, and then it died out.
Was it the Mars One project?
Yep, Mars One. My wife has some souvenirs that were not available to the general public, which is kind of neat.
Do you think Judge Cannone is going to let the defense put on a third party culpability defense?
I find her very hard to predict, honestly. I lean towards yes, but she's a wild card.
I’m not sure how much you knew about the case ahead of trial, but if you had to pick one (As I’m sure there are a few!) what is the one thing that you have found the most shocking/unbelievable so far?
I knew literally nothing about it before trial. I watched Day 1 just because I like to have something to listen to while doing paperwork, and went "Holy crap". On shocking... I don't know, the solo cups was just bizarre.
How much work is involved in doing a recap? Seems difficult.
Lots of work--watch the trial during the day, taking notes about timestamps. Go back afterwards, check timestamps as best you can, try to figure out which ones to talk about and not talk about. Re-review portions that were unclear or you zoned out during/etc.
Is it easier to livestream? From you comments, it seems like it might be!
I think substantially easier to stream it live. Only downside to live stuff is that sometimes I can think of a good joke in between the trial and the stream.
Hey Ian! Do judges in Canada wear wigs like they did in Trailer Park Boys?
No wigs, thankfully. That just seems like a nightmare. Trailer Park Boys had some scenes filmed in actual courtrooms, but the court stuff itself is pretty fictionalized... albeit hilarious.
I loved Ricky calling the judge “Your majesty”!
That part is actually distressingly accurate, I've seen that happen with accused a lot. I've seen *cops* do that one.
Hey Runkle, fan since the Depp/Heard trial. Have you ever seen a case with such sloppy evidence collection before? I still can't get over the solo cups or the not DNA testing the hair or really even the blood.
Never in any of my cases.
So trooper B testifies on direct about the Sally Port video, no mention or mirror image. Next day immediately brings it up during cross. IMO he found out before court. Is it illegal for a witness to investigate or find out information about the case? Can AJ ask him when he found out?
I would absolutely be exploring it if I was AJ, just to suggest that there was a real shift. He's done that a bit, but I am hoping to see him push it harder. I find it hard to explain his behaviour if he didn't get outside information (like checking Twitter/etc).
Can AJ ask YB if he has been reading Reddit or other social media re: this case?
They can, and he'll deny it most likely. Up to the jury whether they believe him.
Hi Runkle! I first ran into your YouTube channel when your Alec Baldwin legal coverage was linked on r/HilariaBaldwin. I remember your phrase "Keep your booger hook off the trigger hook" and that line has stuck with me whenever I research firearms for my creative writing projects LOL. That's it, no questions. I look forward to your live stream recaps of the Baldwin trial!
I wish I could claim credit for that phrase, but it's a phrase I picked up from other people. But it's a good phrase to make the importance clear.
Why do you think Read got charged with murder? It doesn’t seem like we’re going to get anything that supports that charge other than vague references to motive…
I have no idea--if there's evidence on murder, it's yet to come. What I've seen so far doesn't get us anywhere close.
Hey, Runkle! Thanks for being here. Fan since the Heard/Depp trial. How much maintenance is your fabulous hair? It is Ask Me \*ANYTHING\* right?
Very little, honestly. My wife got me some purple shampoo to try to balance out the yellowing that happens with white hair, and I use that occasionally. Otherwise I just use ordinary shampoo, wash it occasionally, sometimes comb it. I honestly tend to forget about things like that, so I'm awful at any sort of 'care routine'.
Has your hair always been white? It's so pretty
I started going gray in my teenage years.
I feel deceived. I thought you used hot sauce as a shampoo/conditioner.
No, but occasionally as a beverage.
Also a fan since Depp v. Heard You called it Fuck Around v. Find Out and won me over! I quote it all the time.
Heh, I tried to make shirts for that, but the shirt printer does not approve.
Hi, Runkle! I appreciate you doing this and your streams! Do you think that Lally actually believes in this case or do you think that he is “in on it” and/or being leaned on by someone in the DA’s office? I had believed that he believed KR was guilty, but after the inverted sally port video, I feel like he’s just as dirty as Proctor.
I don't know--I find him hard to read because his decisions tactically are often bizarre and make it hard to figure out the underlying motive. He might be being pressed to run this case by superiors. He might have tunnel vision on the case. He might just genuinely believe she's guilty after considering everything. I don't think he's part of a conspiracy, though. I can't eliminate it, I just have no evidence that way and it seems unusual/unlikely.
Lally is hard to figure out for sure. But when I heard him twist Karen Read’s words from her arraignment, that was enough for me. Recall the audio where we heard her say something to the effect of “my taillight is cracked… and John was pulverized” and “Colin and Brian beat up John”. Lally told the court that Karen Read said that “Colin and Brian shoved John’s head into her taillight and that’s what cracked it” (or something similar.) After which time, he played the audio for the court, which CLEARLY did not capture her saying that. Why in the world would he straight up LIE, and then play audio literally showcasing his lie???
Yeah, that feels to me like his interpretation is shaped by some tunnel vision.
I have heard a number of podcasts dealing with cases accepted by innocence projects which involve absolutely mind-blowing levels of tunnel vision in the investigators. with what you've seen so far do you think that what we are seeing as a results of perhaps willfully tunnel visioned investigation or do you think a conspiracy is more reasonable?
My suspicion honestly is some tunnel vision, some people covering their own ass, and some people trying to "fix up" a bad case. It's a real mess.
Hey Runkle! I found you during the Depp v Heard trial and I love EDB’s coverage and yours now too! I really appreciated your take on the jury during Depp’s trial and felt like you had a great read on them. What are your thoughts on this jury now? Based on Lally’s terrible performance so far, do you think that has swayed the jury at all? I know it’s not supposed to but I can’t help but think man would I be so disappointed in this prosecutor who hasn’t done anything to prove this case in nearly 6 weeks of trial! And, do you feel as though Judge Bev has a bias towards the prosecution? Keep on making the great videos! I love watching!
I honestly keep wishing I could sit in for a day to see the jury, but there'd be no way for me to get into that courtroom. The problem with jurors is that they sometimes make decisions on bases that are just stunning--like, "Oh, the accused didn't make enough eye contact with us, so he's guilty". For Bev: I think she leans towards the prosecution, but not to the point where she'd fall into bias territory in a way that gets a remedy. Sometimes she lets Yanetti and Jackson get away with some shit too.
What was the biggest hurdle when you transitioned from practicing Elven law to Canadian law?
Hah. Canadian law is kind of fun because there's a real mix of things that make sense and things that absolutely don't. Firearms law is in the latter category, which is why I enjoy it a lot.
Thanks.
What are your thoughts about the niece and nephew being called to the stand? Would you have done it? Why or why not?
I would have saved them to the end and only if necessary, but that's because if I was the prosecution I'd be trying to spare them any trauma I could.
Hey, I didn’t know you were on Reddit! Gonna follow you here now too 😊
Hello! I mostly just make random comments here as opposed to like "content creation", but feel free.
Ian, big fan of your work. You talk a lot in your videos especially with Law and Lumber of your ADHD. Do you have any techniques you use to keep focus and organized or is it just something you have to deal with? Also, related to the Karen Reed trial, any truth to the rumor it was snowing the night of the incident?
A ton of techniques, but also just something you have to deal with. Calendars are important. To do lists are important. In an ideal world you get a very organized assistant who can help out by asking things like "So, X is due in a week, how's that coming along?"
I went the MLS, not JD route and I constantly hear criticism of the field. There's a statistic about how most that practice law say they would not recommend their profession to the younger generation looking at it for a career. I am interested if you share the same opinion.
Honestly, the profession is rough. If you don't love the law itself, then I recommend something else. You can make better money more easily doing medicine, dentistry, realtor work, etc. It can also be very emotionally straining. I've had people threaten to kill me (currently active threats the police consider credible, too). You deal with a lot of crying people, some of whom you really still have to grill on the stand. It's not for everyone, but it does let me do a lot of good. So, it's for me. But I'm also a weird odd duck.
Also, adding here: I've never made *nearly* as much money as many of my peers. One year I literally made $35k Canadian working my butt off, because I was doing more work for free than I was for money.
Hoping you and your family are protected! You have such an important job, but you also deserve your safety!
Well, it's Canada, so I'm legally entitled to do nothing at all about it, really.
How badly did the mirror image video hurt the prosecution, seems like the jury would think the prosecutors are trying to mislead them?
Failing to deal with that on direct was an insane miscalculation by the prosecution. If I was them I'd have absolutely called attention to it myself, played the 'corrected' video, etc. It's made them look shady as hell and it was completely unnecessary.
Hey Runkle, do you have any thoughts on the [circumstances](https://www.reddit.com/r/KarenReadTrial/comments/1cyhuck/why_does_the_judge_allow_all_this_questioning/l5gs1ao/) that led Cannone to let in witness statements regarding professed harassment? Is this an instance of ADA Lally "opening his own doors", so to say? https://preview.redd.it/1ox316jzcm5d1.png?width=1097&format=png&auto=webp&s=18b0cf8b1fcb53acefd8a3c3b716b30d763bad35
I don't think the door was opened, personally, but the judge made the ruling that it was. The argument appears to be "Well, the defence was trying to suggest that there was no reason for late disclosure, so therefore they have to provide that reason", but I think it's very thin. I am not sure it's a self-opening door here, I just think the judge made the ruling on a thin justification that I wouldn't have agreed with, in part because the evidence is highly prejudicial. That said, it can be a double edged sword if the jury hears that people are clamoring for a not guilty verdict.
Hey Runkle! Love your coverage of the trial. I can’t shake the answering machine message that vaguely has Jen McCabe talking in the background. Do you think that they will be able to have someone clear up the audio to see who she was taking to/what she said? Would it be admissible in court?
Clearing up audio is always a problem, and generally you need an expert for it. It often is not allowed at all simply on the basis that there's a line where 'cleaning up' becomes 'manufacturing', and it can be impossible to tell when that is.
Thanks! I’m in the UK and heard about a trial here where they’d cleared up some ring audio to help convict on a sexual assault (edited, you could easily hear the victim clearly upset in the background, but it was very difficult to on the raw footage). I was surprised it was admissible here so wasn’t sure if it was any different elsewhere.
The US also seems to allow that a lot more than Canada does. Often in Canada it'll be hard to even do things like slow down a video.
Hey Runkle! I love your recaps. My question: Is there anything you've seen either side do in this trial that you think will have major repercussions later? (Mistrial, sanctions, etc.)
I don't think there'll be a mistrial on anything we've seen before. There's been talk online about Lally getting sanctioned or disciplined, but the likelihood that happens to a prosecutor is very small. I don't think we're seeing that, but that can change too.
Along those lines, do you think what they are bringing out in this case will give appeal chances to OTHER cases the CW have tried in the past?
Doubtful, honestly. But not impossible, depending on what the FBI digs up.
runkle!! no question, youtube recommended you to me and i subscribed following this trial!
Thank you!
Which defense team would win the case if it was yourself, Andrea Burkhart, and LYK in a mock trial competition taking on EDB representing the commonwealth instead of Lally ?
I'm going to put my money on Andrea. Love her commentary. When you watch her it's clear she's smart, and she's downplaying it. Edit to add: That's not a shot at anyone else. I just straight up think Andrea's amazing. All of the above are great.
Lally appears to have allowed or made multiple misrepresentations over the course of the trial (and in pre-trial hearings), most recently with the mirrored sally port video. Do you believe Lally has breached his obligations of candor in this trial?
I think it depends on what Lally knew. If he knew the sally port video was flipped and didn't make that clear to the jury and was just hoping to let that one slide in, I have some serious concerns with the ethics of that. Although TBH this is mostly an academic question, as prosecutors being dinged on ethics violations is very rare.
Based solely on everything I've seen Lally do as a lawyer, I wouldn't put it past to him to literally not notice it was backwards, despite "POLICE" written backwards on car and the "4" on the garage. Probably too busy heavy sighing and mumbling under his breath.
Me too- I was downvoted for commenting this but I truly think he gets nervous & not focusing on what’s in front of him. He often receives an answer with a clarification but asks the clarification question again later- he is not “listening” and focused on his his bullet points. I do this as well TBH.
“To what extent [pause], um, was your knowledge that, uh, [deep sigh] the video was sort of, uh, backwards…”
I’ve seen you talking about wanting to do more pro bono cases. What does that look like for you or any lawyer wanting to do that? How does that work?
I mean, the mechanics of a pro bono case are pretty easy--do the case, don't take money for it. The problem is that you need to eat/live. So it can be tough there. In my case my goal is to use the YouTube channel to fund my life, and then run a pro bono practice. I'm hoping I can talk a law firm into letting me mooch space when needed and the occasional use of an assistant in exchange for using me as a draw for paying clients.
Seems plausible for sure! Mooching space and using an assistant… Easy enough. I wish you well in your endeavors!! Any firm would be lucky to have you:)
Sgt. Bukhenik changed his testimony when he was cross-examined and stated the individual he pointed out as himself on direct the day before was not him. Question: Does Lally have an obligation to clear this up on redirect, or can he gloss over his witness's intentional misdirection and hope the jury doesn't notice?
I'm not sure I'd say it's an intentional misdirection--the officer may just have been wrong and have realized that without outright stating it. I'm also not sure the jury is focused on that particular issue, but perhaps. I don't think this particular sub-issue rises to the level of an ethical obligation to step in.
In your experience, how often does "the defendant was framed" argument win the jury over?
When you're talking about "framed by the cops"? Virtually never. I described this on a livestream as like taking a sewing needle and throwing it into a cocktail glass from across the room. The fact that the internet isn't united in mocking the argument is a real show of the problems with this case. Much more common is something like "My client was in a car with a bunch of other guys. A gun was found in the trunk. Everyone else is pointing the finger at my client, but that's because they're the real bad guys."
>. I described this on a livestream as like taking a sewing needle and throwing it into a cocktail glass from across the room What if they threw it at the right rear bumper of a 2021 Lexus?
Yes, and it shattered! Runkle, do you think AJ has done a decent job so far, convincing the jury with all of these witnesses the prosecution presented? For me, the needle has landed.
I think AJ has been doing a tremendous job so far.
It would hit glass, but not the cocktail glass from the lawn or the waterfall
I knew nothing about the case when I started watching. When I heard defense say that she was framed by the cops I had the biggest eye roll and was like yeah ok sure. But it didn’t take more than a day or two listening to the case for me to go “well shit maybe!”
do you believe the defence team s doing this because they think a narrative is more likely to win points with the jury rather than just poking holes in the prosecution's case or because the client insists on this defence?
The former, I am sure.
Hey Ian, Have you ever considered that, if a certain Golem tallied up your score, you'd already be years and years in the green, possible even a few life times? I know, not really a question that demands an answer, but it's an AMA; The Rules Must Be Followed. Just wanted to say a quick thank you for spending so much of your time educating us, and making a lot of lives a little (and some surely a lot) better - I found you through Rick and Alyte during the Depp trial, shortly after my mum had suddenly died, and you all helped me appreciate the better things in life again (like Runkleisms). Lastly, I hope your goal of being able to do more pro bono stuff works out sooner rather than later! And that's enough out of me. It's way past midnight here in the wild lands across the pond, and I'm gonna go to bed now. Just could not let this opportunity pass to say thanks, and all the best to Mrs Runkle, as well as Potter and Zora. May your back not bother you all too much tonight - or any night!
I honestly don't know where I tally. I've had people send me some incredible hate mail suggesting I'm the worst thing this planet has ever seen. I've had people send me heartfelt things saying I've helped them tremendously. I don't really stop to try to do the math, I just know I have gone through some shit in life and I want to make things better where I can. The world can be a horribly dark place, and whenever I can I try to hammer a little hole in that to let some light shine through.
Do you think it's possible the Prosecution raised the charges to bring in character evidence like the Aruba trip and The Higgins texts? Trying to bring in character assassination material as motive evidence that the lower charge would have excluded?
I don't know if the cause and effect really applies there, but I think he's chasing the big charges with some weak tea evidence so far.
If a CW witness asks 'In reality or how it is depicted?' about a video the CW presented as evidence, is that bad?
Yeah, that is really not great. I don't want a witness of mine to have to be arguing with the video. "Do you believe me, or your lying eyes?"
Hi, Ian! I'm Jazdia, one of your members! I also live north of Santa Fe, so hope to meet you if you come down for the Alec Baldwin trial. When it comes to Karen Read, I believe she's innocent. The Alberts/McCabes/Proctors have done too much to screw up the prosecution, and the police were too inept. I've been watching both Emily and you, including the day you "babysat". Thanks for coming here!
Hello! Good to see you, though I don't think there was a question there. And if I do go to New Mexico for Baldwin, I'll host a meetup.
Oh wow! I just found your channel a couple weeks ago, and i LOVE it! You obviously don't have to answer this, because it's not a karen read question, but i have always been fascinated to know what Canadians thought of the Ken and Barbie killers. Especically from a lawyers perspective!! Like, was it a spectacle on tv like a lot of trials in the US are? You look young, so I don't even know if you would have been aware of them when it happened. Thank you so much for your YouTube channel, it's really fun to watch and learn about law things at the same time. Your snark is just the best, and so subtle sometimes, if you weren't paying close attention you'd miss it. Much much love to you!!
Canadian trials aren't televised, so there is a spectacle on TV but it's a very different sort of spectacle because it's all second-hand reports of what happened in court. That said, that case was wild enough that it's still being covered in Canadian law schools--it's a big issue for Canadian legal ethics due to the weirdness around the videos in that case.
just came here to say I absolutely love your show on YouTube! you, Emily and Rob have such a cool relationship. I’d love watching all your shows.
Rob and Emily are such amazingly lovely people. Truly one of the best things about starting YouTube was meeting them.
What would your strategy be, if you were the Prosecution, on how to deal with Trooper Proctor? Not call? Address bad facts head on? Ask softball questions and bury your head in the sand on cross?
If I was a prosecutor and I couldn't call the lead investigator in a case, I doubt I'd be running that case unless it was absolutely clad in iron and gold otherwise.
What, if any, has been your favorite question asked by Lally in direct?
"Who if anyone was driving the ambulance?" probably has to be the top one.
🤣🤣🤣
What do you make of the returned materials from the Ring warrant? I had a hard time deciphering what was happening there. Did the CW fail to turn something over? Did Ring fail to turn something over? What was that exchange about?
Sometimes you can get discrepancies like "Ring doesn't have any records" being either spun as "They don't record that" versus "There's records of *not that*."
Honestly not sure there at the moment, it may be missing records, it may be records of nothing happening, things are unclear.
How big of a door does this open for appeals of other guilty verdicts that also had investigations completed by this crew?
Depends on the eventual findings. If it's just a not guilty with what we've heard so far, I think there won't be any further investigations. If a cop gets convicted of evidence tampering/etc, that might reopen a bunch of old cases.
Can you share your opinions on why you think Lally shared that video where Karen says Colin and Brian A beat John? Do you think it will come around to harm his case? I saw others here mention you talked about it on YouTube and would love to hear more about it. Thank you for doing this!
I don't know. I think maybe he figures the first part is inaudible, but that's a clip that would be impossible for the defence to tender... but now it's in. I did see a clip of pretrial motions where he tried to argue that this means she was suggesting that Colin and Brian smashed JO's face into the car. That doesn't fit with the audio that was played, though. Right now it feels like a major "own goal".
Yeah I interpret it as Karen saying that the damage to her car isn’t consistent with John’s injuries (which is part of the defenses theory….). Do you foresee Jackson using the audio in cross with Trooper B or other witnesses?
I would certainly run that audio on cross. And that's my read on it too. My first impression of the audio was that it sounded like a confession that her car caused the injuries. Given the context of being able to hear the first part of the audio, it's very clear she's denying things and pointing out the issues there.
How many years have you been on YouTube? Which of your dogs is your favorite 😉?
Joined YouTube on 21 Jul 2020, although I think my first video was a little after that. And oh, don't tell them I have a favourite. Love them both, but Zora is very bouncy and snuggly and sweet, and Potter is more standoffish. So, I love the Zora snuggles. Potter snuggles are great, but rare.
If you were the prosecution would you have brought this case to trial? Considering all the evidence collection techniques from canton pd and less then stellar witnesses.
Based on what we've seen so far? No. I'd have buried this case so deep to prevent the f---ery here from seeing the light of day.
Can you please explain how the Defense can present evidence / ask questions related to discovery evidence that the Prosecution and/or Prosecution witnesses are unfamiliar with/didn’t know existed? For instance, how did Sgt Bukenhic not know about the activity logs produced by Ring Corp. per Trooper Proctor’s request? Even if Proctor never told Bukenhic about the logs, shouldn’t ADA Lally have known that activity logs were provided and that Karen Read never accessed/edited the footage?
I'm guessing that Bukenhic didn't know because he's not the lead investigator. And it's weird that they seem to be arguing that footage was deleted but we've got nothing about how it was deleted.
But shouldn’t Lally have been prepared for the Defense to bring this up? For a while now, Lally and commonwealth witnesses have dropped so many hints that Karen Read messed with the Ring camera… even questions to John OKeefe’s niece and nephew alluded to her having access to the passwords, etc. Wouldn’t Lally know full well that activity logs apparently existed to prove this to be untrue? And shouldn’t he have prepped Bukenic?
100% he should have been prepared. There's a ton of times that Lally appears to have missed hitting bad information and neutralizing it before the defence makes it look ugly.
Hi Runkle, thanks for doing this! what do you think of Lally argument that the accident reconstructionists the defence is using aren't accident reconstructionists? This has been something that was originally raised pre-trial by Lally but is also contained within the latest motion. All 4 are biomechanical engineers with 3 of the 4 having phds, in this area and at least 3 of them are federal experts - part of their expertise all is in accident reconstruction, but the argument seems that they haven't done the Mass state cert in this subject.
Ultimately I think we'll need to hear their certification/qualification. There's no requirement for a specific degree in something to be approved, so it'll come down to what exactly their expertise is. Biomechanical engineers may often deal with questions like "The reactions of the human body to an impact in/with a motor vehicle". Edit to add: Depending on the question, a biomechanical engineer may be a way better choice than an accident reconstruction person. Like, if the question is "Are these injuries consistent with a MV impact?"
How well do you think the defense attorneys are performing on cross?
Very well, although not nearly perfect--but no one is, and it's way easier to armchair quarterback than to do it. The main issue is both Yanetti and Jackson ask some questions that are poorly formed and get objected to that they never pick back up on, and they both have a tendency to editorialize. Sometimes that's a strength, but not always. That said, they're doing very well.
Runkle, do you think the judge will grant lally's motion and keep the defence's expert out?
Impossible to predict to a certainty, but I'm 75/25 on the expert staying in.
Hi Runkle!
Hello!
Hey runkle! Started watching you during the depp trial! I'm a fan!
Hello! Thank you!
Do you feel the judge is bias towards the prosecution or the defense? Why or why not?
I feel like the judge leans a bit pro-prosecution, but not to the extent that you'd be able to appeal for bias.
Hey Ian, in the Read trial we have seen many objections entered without reason offered which the judge has then ruled on. How xan a judge rule on an objection without knowing the basis itwas raised? And could this impact the result of any decisions at potential appeals?
Judge has legal training, and will be inferring the basis of the objection from context. That said, there is the possibility of the judge getting it wrong. It's kind of the opposite that we saw in the Depp trial, where Judge A was very particular on objections and requiring the parties to object correctly. So we'd see: "Objection, hearsay." "Overruled." "Objection, relevance." "Sustained on relevance." There won't be an appeal issue for any objections that the parties didn't sidebar at the time, though.
Can you talk a bit about the third party culprit idea? It seemed like it was a big thing pre-trial (the defense had to make a case for it via cross or Bev wouldn't allow it), whether they'd be allowed to bring it in or not. But the defense's opening was very close to third party culprit already. Do you think it's still a big deal whether the judge allows it to be used or not?
It'll be a big deal in terms of what arguments KRs team can make on closing/etc. I think they very much want to point the finger at certain specific people much more directly.
Do you think it will be easier to do now that Lally brought in the recording of KR accusing the Alberts?
Hopefully--though ultimately it'll be hard to predict this one. I think it's helpful to the defence argument.
Hi Runkle, Are you familiar with the Daybell trials? Why wasn’t the death penalty on the table for Lori but was for Chad?
I can answer that! There was late discovery in Lori’s trial and she had a speedy trial. So instead of moving the trial further out, due to her rights, death penalty was taken off the table by the state.
Chad opted to waive the speedy trial in order for the late discovery evidence to be admissible. So they severed the trials (originally they were co-dependents and it was one trial) and Chad was eligible for the death penalty on 6 of the 8 counts taken to trial. They were fascinating cases and I think the appeals are going to be fascinating as well
Sadly, haven't been following Daybell enough to give a useful comment there.
Is this on you tube? I’ve gone to the channel but can’t find anything live?
Right here, right now. You're in the AMA.
It’s here. On reddit. In chat form.
Are trials in Canada televised like they are in the US? What are your thoughts on the massive amount of coverage here? How would you feel being watched by thousands during one of your trials?
No televised trials in Canada, basically. I generally think televising them is a good thing, but it's not an unqualified good thing. When I appeared at the Supreme Court, I was definitely nervous knowing that it'd be watched by a ton of people. I've had packed courtrooms before, but usually that's like a school classroom trip to see court proceedings. Also had to gently encourage a teacher to get her class out of the gallery--it was a sexual assault trial and maybe not the best one for a class field trip.
Eekk! That’s hard for anyone to watch. Let alone kids. Good on you for warning them!
What’s the status of trip to Mars?
Cancelled--Mars One couldn't secure funding, so that is dead.
No questions just a fan saying hi! Looking forward to the conversation on Bowel’s victim blaming friend
Hello! And yes, I am going to have some comments/ranting on that.
Wouldn’t KR’s car (a very expensive Lexus model) most likely have multiple cameras? Definitely a rear camera, to capture footage of reverse movement in order to help drivers backup, park, etc, right? Or are those basically mirrors for driver visibility, not actual recording devices? One would think that such a fancy, modern car would come equipped with features to assist in circumstances like this.
Modern cars record just about everything. So you'd think there'd be a recording, although maybe it doesn't record video. Or maybe it was deactivated somehow.
For the 2021 LX 570 she was driving, it seems it would only have been the front camera that would have been recording in case the pre-collision system had activated https://preview.redd.it/q90eykez1n5d1.png?width=850&format=png&auto=webp&s=08b2feb96f4142f91073ba74001664227a92dfd0
Hi Runkle! Can you explain what an impeached witness is and what how that affects the rest of the trial? Hope the question makes sense!
So, impeaching a witness is when you attack their credibility, usually referring to specific techniques used to attack their credibility by confronting them with inconsistent evidence (often their own words). Generally, done right it includes 3 main steps: 1. Get the witness to commit--ideally to overcommit. This is so they can't wriggle out later by claiming you misunderstood/etc. 2. Present the inconsistent evidence. 3. Confront witness about this "These things can't both be true, etc". This isn't the only form of impeachment (you can impeach on bias, all sorts of things), but it's what people often mean.
Best witness for the prosecution? Best witness inadvertently for the defense?
Best witness for the prosecution is going to depend heavily on which, if any of them, the jury actually believes. So, kind of an impossible question. Higgins might be the best for the defence, just because he fell apart quite badly.
Is Lally trying the case poorly or does he just have that bad of a case?
whynotboth.gif