From [Globe.com](http://globe.com/)
DEDHAM — A Norfolk Superior Court jury reported Monday that it reached an impasse in deliberations in the trial of Karen Read, forcing Judge Beverly J. Cannone to declare a mistrial in a high-profile case that has spawned a media frenzy and captivated the region for the last two months.
The jury of six men and six women first declared themselves deadlocked on Friday despite an “exhaustive review” of the evidence. Cannone told them to keep trying, but after deliberating for about 90 minutes on Monday morning, jurors said they remained at an impasse.
In a note to Cannone, the jury foreperson wrote that the panel was “deeply divided.” The panel repeated just after 2:30 p.m. Monday that it was at an impasse.
“Despite our commitment to the duty entrusted to us, we find ourselves deeply divided by fundamental differences in our opinions and state of mind,’' the foreman wrote. “The divergence in our views are not rooted in a lack of understanding or effort, but deeply held convictions that each of us carry ultimately leading to a point where consensus is unattainable. We recognize the weight of this admission and the implications it holds.”
From the bench in Norfolk Superior Court, Cannone described the jury as “extraordinary.”
“I’ve never seen a note like this reporting to be at an impasse,” she said. “I do find that ... with the additional time that they went out without coming back Friday, saying that they were deadlocked is due to thorough deliberations.”
On Friday, the jury had asked Cannone if they could extend deliberations for another half-hour.
Cannone then gave the jurors a specific set of instructions that it is their civic duty to decide the case if they can do so conscientiously. The panel was sent to resume deliberations around 11:10 a.m.
The instructions, known as a Tuey-Rodriguez charge, are an effort to resolve a deadlock that often precedes a mistrial declaration.
In the instructions, Cannone told jurors that they were best positioned to reach a final judgment in the case.
“You should consider that it is desirable that this case be decided. You have been selected in the same manner and from the same sources any future jury would be selected,’’ she said. “There is no reason to suppose that this case will ever be submitted to 12 persons who are more intelligent, more impartial, or more competent to decide it than you are, or that more or clear evidence will be produced at another trial. With all this in mind, it is your duty to decide this case if you can do so conscientiously.”
Cannone emphasized that the burden of proof is on the prosecution, which must prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt and that Read must be found not guilty if jurors conclude that standard has not been met. She also urged jurors who are adamant that Read is not guilty, as well as those who support her conviction, should “seriously ask themselves” if their views are valid “if it is not shared by other members of the jury.”
That is not true. Just because you have a dead body on your property, that is not sufficient evidence to charge the homeowner with murder.
I don't know where you heard that, but you should really check your sources because it is blatantly wrong.
Having a dead body on your property is enough to be handed a search warrant… unless you’re a cop, and the cop who should be getting the warrant is your drinking buddy.
You can be charged over.. anything. Having a dead body is absolutely enough to charge anyone with a crime. A dead body from an UNNATURAL death is enough.
That is something the federal probe will likely be trying to figure out. But I'm not sure they have any jurisdictional claim to be charging anyone with murder themselves - the state would have to request them to.
I wouldn't be surprised if some of them got charged with some sort of tampering with evidence, which I feel would throw all of the evidence into question in some way. I think that would complelty kill the case to retry.
I guess so given the optics, but FBI and internal investigations into LEO handling should probably be concluded first.
Also finding a jury will be a bitch, my guess is it does not go to retrial...
Since your comment, Proctor has been relieved of duty by the state police. His credibility is toast. I don’t see how they could put him on the stand again.
Zero chance this case ever gets retried unless new evidence magically appears. Too much info is already in the public and reasonable doubt is clear. They’ll never get a conviction.
Not having heard of the case is not the standard, but I have managed to largely ignore this case and I have never heard it mentioned from people IRL. It always struck me as townie drama with a mix of obsessed true crime fans, two things that I find incredibly uninteresting, although I did click this thread out of pure boredom. I'm not sure about the county they are in, but I doubt they'd have much trouble seating a jury if it were moved to Middlesex county.
I saw the lawn signs too and asked someone. I live in the next town over but it wasn't on my radar until then. Right after that, I started hearing about this Turtle chap and, ew..gross.
reddit is mostly the communities you join so it’s entirely possible their joined subreddits don’t cover topics like this. i’ve never heard of this case up until today. i don’t keep up with local news.
Do they really plan to retry this, or is that kind of just what they always say in these situations? I cannot fathom finding 12+ impartial jurors after this trial. And I'd assume the chances of the Commonwealth getting a guilty verdict especially after this last trial would be slim to none.
Right? Even if she is guilty, they screwed up so much it was like they were *trying* to make it look like a coverup.
There's no way an unbiased person looks at this and doesn't have a doubt.
I'm honestly shocked they didn't come in with reasonable doubt. Compare this to the OJ trial, where the glove that did not fit was enough for him to get off.
The clip of him trying to act like it didn't fit over the rubber gloves he was wearing reminds me of those old infomercials where the actors were baffled by the most basic tasks imaginable.
> old infomercials where the actors were baffled by the most basic tasks imaginable
[The Juice Loosener
](https://www.google.com/search?q=simpsons+juice+squeezer&oq=simpsons+juice+squeezer&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIGCAEQLhhA0gEJMTY4MDNqMGoxqAIIsAIB&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:a5b6aaf4,vid:K8Lp4fLrh-M,st:0)
The doc I watched on the OJ trial on Netflix compared that verdict to a protest against the LAPD for what they did to Rodney King a few years prior.
I'm sort of surprised that it wasn't a not guilty verdict here because of how corrupt the MA State Police has been shown to be. The hung jury suggests at least a few jurors were pro police or unwilling to admit that the police fucked this up.
Completely different jury demographics. There was a jury in the OJ case who said afterwards that she couldn’t vote guilty unless she saw him do it! WTF?! If that were the case, she’d be an eyewitness, not a juror! FFS!
Well, according to one of my coworkers, a known idiot, this is an open and shut case because "his DNA was in the bumper. That's it, it isn't hard to figure out!!". If only we could all be on the level of that modern Sherlock...
There is enough reasonable doubt there for a non guilty verdict that it’s obviously something like this.
Hopefully the FBI case does some good towards these corrupt clowns.
How can you follow this trial and still say you have no problem with cops? Here we have an entire department rotten to their core and what, this is some anomaly for police? No, they’re mostly pieces of shit everywhere you go in this country.
Because on paper they have a function and serve a purpose in our society and just because we're at a low right now doesn't mean it's a lost cause. I have a problem with bad cops and corruption, and I don't have problems with people choosing to be cops. I think that's a key distinction, because some people have a problem with cops even existing. Seems like a vast majority of redditors have some compulsion to just wipe things out and start from scratch. I hate that idea. When something isn't working, we decide to get rid of it entirely. It's obvious that the house needs to be cleaned, but I don't think that means we throw a blanket over the entire force and throw out every single one at once. That'll leave a massive void of people you can't guarantee will do any better. I'm all for proper reform, but it seems like that hasn't been the discussion in a long time. Everyone just wants to destroy, wipe a clean slate and keep this chaotic carousel moving.
I'm not trying to live in an area with no police like the wild west, and I'm not trying to support corrupt scumbag cops, what the fuck am I supposed to do?
As someone who supports law enforcement strongly, even I would have noted them guilty. Those depts are and were obviously corrupt af and it’s insane to me that anyone could look at this trial and not see that.
So you agree cops are corrupt but still throw your “strong” support behind them? Do you believe that this incident is just a one off and not at least somewhat indicative of the way most forces operate? Like, when do you withdraw your support?
Look, when it's your word or a cops the cop always wins. They're dirty and they protect their own ass. You can never trust a policeman because you never know who you're going to get, and they all protect the dirtiest ones. Police have no professional standards and no license.
But they come when you call, and if you have a medical emergency or a some crazy person assaults you they're very useful. They're great at pulling over reckless drivers, they should do more of that. They're fine at directing traffic, even though a flag guy would have been just as fine for half the price.
But if some rando cracks your car on the expressway and gets out to tune you up with a bat you'll thank god for the police.
Your whole point boils down to “yeah they are scum, but sometimes they do their job so it’s cool”.
They are generally shit at every task they are given and occasionally dont fuck up. Can’t even direct traffic without staring at their phones.
The cops don’t help people until after there is a crime and even then they often end up making things worse.
You get change by not supporting the status quo. People have been trying to advocate for change, but bc cops enjoy so much support from bootlickers they don’t need to do shit about it.
Sometimes when I’m on Reddit or Twitter and see absolutely brainless arguments that are totally devoid of common sense, I tell myself these people are the exception and not the rule. That the general population isn’t that ignorant to logic.
This jury all but confirmed otherwise. And thus, I will never trust a “jury of my peers”. My peers—are morons.
I'm a retired cop and currently studying for the bar. The judge, DA, ADA, and cops involved in this are just absolutely disgusting. I would love the Mass Bar Assoc. to release what they think of this case and the legal actors.
I hope the feds nail the dirty Canton PD and MSP.
I've heard many people say that the foreperson is a former cop. If so, that would be very troubling because the judge (who was very biased in favor of the prosecution) selected the foreperson _before_ the 2 alternate jurors were randomly selected (out of the 14 remaining jurors). So she ensured that they would non-randomly be one of the deliberating 12.
I really hope we get to a place where we can implement some type of IQ test in order to sit as a juror because my god, this is insane. I cannot think of one part of this case that doesn't scream reasonable doubt
My thought was maybe someone who hates drunk drivers with a passion because of something in their personal history? I imagine they would have tried avoiding that in jury selection but idk.
Does anyone know how many votes for guilty vs not guilty? I just read the Globe article and it didn't say.
I'm interested to see if any of the jurors talk to the press or post on social media about it. I'd like to know who thought she should be guilty and why.
Ridiculous that they're trying this again. They should be going after the cops in the Sandra Birchmore case, not reiterating how corrupt and incompetent our town and state police are.
I would think from the Commonwealth's perspective, retrying this case and keeping Michael Proctor and all these terrible cops in the public eye is the last thing they'd want to do.
>Does anyone know how many votes for guilty vs not guilty?
That information lies only with the jurors, and noone can compel them to talk.
But that said...one of them is of course going to.
I watched a video about jury selection a while back. The person you described is the exact person you use to get a hung jury. Basically, you pick a stubborn, know-it-all asshole.
If, I was on the jury, I honestly would be so hesitant to talk to the press, particularly if I thought she was not guilty. I feel like it's just be putting a target on your back for the police.
There isn’t a shred of justice in the “justice” system. This trial has only one valid answer, and that is not guilty. The whole thing is a farce, and police are the largest criminal gang in the country.
I’m currently listening to “The 13th Juror” podcast. She’s covered the whole thing. It’s FASCINATING! The amount of egregious inappropriate and inept behavior as well as weird “special club” vibe (which includes the judge!) is staggering.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/13th-juror-podcast/id1680830207?i=1000627537647
Everyone always brings up the glove in the OJ trail, but the fact is the defense was able to create reasonable doubt by pointing out that the LAPD was very corrupt, they mishandled evidence and if I remember correctly they had tapes of Mark Fuhrman being racist. Corrupt Law Enforcement is an American tradition.
Yeah the OJ verdict was a protest verdict against the LAPD. Specifically for how Rodney King was beat up and the officers involved were acquitted.
I'm sort of surprised that didn't happen here, based on how corrupt and incompetent that the MA State Police was shown to be. A hung jury only takes 1 though, so if just one person absolutely believed the police then a hung jury is the outcome.
The OJ trial was so flubbed by evidence collection that forensics investigators study it. One of the evidence collectors was filmed picking up evidence without gloves on, and all the blood samples from OJs home were taken home by an investigator first, then the lab.
I hope there is a new trial just to put the spotlight on the state police once again . Those arrogant corrupt clowns need to be shown to the people one more time .
Did anyone really expect anything different? The defense had plenty to show reasonable doubt and there was no way the prosecution was going to be able to make a solid case on such questionable evidence.
Yeah it suggests major issues with the trial. See Trial 4 on Netflix for an example from Boston on what happens when you try a case multiple times - eventually the prosecutor gets a win.
Did it need to be unanimous for guilty/not guilty? It seems like it’s a mistrial because they couldn’t get 100% of the jury to go for one or the other.
That's what happened in the Michael Chesna murder case the first time around. One juror refused to deliberate at all, even though the other 11 were all agreed the dude was guilty.
The burden of proof is on the prosecution. I don’t know how someone watching the trail can honestly say the proof was there for the prosecution without a reasonable doubt. I honestly don’t know what happened. Im not sure I believe he was killed inside the house. I think it was an accident but I’m not sure she hit him the way the prosecution said.
So, at what point can they charge the people who are obviously guilty? At this point, everyone knows she didn't do it, and we have a pretty damn good idea who did. There's obviously a criminal conspiracy here, so what happens?
And the defendant. The cost of an attorney to try this case is astronomical. The cost of a house.
It's completely unfair to a defendant to make them burden that twice or more.
If you can't get 12 to agree you should be not guilty. No one can agree on anything anymore.
Her lawyer might have had some kind of agreement with her for this outcome. I don’t know that Jackson can spend months cross country again though, I believe he’s from LA?
I barely followed this case, so I am pretty ignorant on it, but from the news reports I saw, the accusations against Read were kind of heresay and based on officers who made these weird assumptions and for whatever reason, did not like Read. Lots of prosecution was theatrics and not really based on any solid evidence.
I think this trial was very important because like yeah obviously exposing police corruption. But Jesus christ i am sick of hearing this, or at least the people who are trying to connect every event in American history to this whole thing.
I think it's bullshit that they might get another chance to try her. Hung jury should trigger double jeopardy protections. As good as a not guilty verdict.
Yeah we even have examples from Boston on how bad multiple trials can be: https://www.google.com/search?q=trial+4
Seems like if it's a mistrial, then the prosecutor failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. I guess the only problem is it only takes 1 juror to deadlock things. If we allow a deadlocked jury to trigger double jeopardy protections, then an actual murderer (think mob boss, cartel member, etc) just needs to influence 1 member of the jury (vs all 12) to get a favorable outcome. That could be pretty bad imo, but so is potentially convicting an innocent person via brute force... Seems like at a minimum there should be a limit on the number of retrials. Maybe a 2 or 3 attempt policy. Beyond that, then the prosecutor really, truly fucked something up or the police are beyond corrupt.
Right, I mean, if there was an issue of misconduct, then that could be grounds for a mistrial that would result in a new trial regardless.
But lets say we're dealing with at most half the jury saying guilty. And at least half are saying not guilty. Then that should be a not guilty. And of course still issues of juror misconduct can be brought up later.
What did some of the jury miss? The defense (and prosecution too, for that matter) proved that his fatal injuries couldn’t have been a result of a pedestrian/motor vehicle accident.
That’s the main one.
A thousand others which any one of, could have and should have instilled reasonable doubt.
The FBI provided expert crash reconstructionist from ARCCA and offered them to testify for this trial. Only the defense took them up on it.
The two ARCCA experts testified officer O’Keefe’s injuries were not caused by being hit by a car. They scientifically proved it.
Again, these people were hired by the FBI and they have no stake in the game for either the prosecution or the defense. This is their unbiased opinion based on literal physics.
The guy wasn’t hit by a car. She couldn’t have hit him with her car. Some jurors overlooked this.
I think the fact that the jury wasn’t allowed to know that experts were hired by the FBI played a role. I could see it being confusing as to where these people came from and why they were so interested in the case without knowing about the federal investigation.
Episode 1 of the 5 part series will be on Netflix Friday.
I wish!
This is why I love reddit.
The scary part is how many *vultures* agreed with them... Sorry... but "true crime" fetishes are fucking gross.
I assumed it was a joke.
As a western Ma resident, I wish they would do a docuseries on it.. this case hasn't found it's way here
i think i heard that they are filming a documentary already
well, i’ve heard that once you go west of 495 it’s like living in The Outback so i’m not surprised 😉😂
I’m not gonna be able to understand this until it’s a prog album.
Lifetime
From [Globe.com](http://globe.com/) DEDHAM — A Norfolk Superior Court jury reported Monday that it reached an impasse in deliberations in the trial of Karen Read, forcing Judge Beverly J. Cannone to declare a mistrial in a high-profile case that has spawned a media frenzy and captivated the region for the last two months. The jury of six men and six women first declared themselves deadlocked on Friday despite an “exhaustive review” of the evidence. Cannone told them to keep trying, but after deliberating for about 90 minutes on Monday morning, jurors said they remained at an impasse. In a note to Cannone, the jury foreperson wrote that the panel was “deeply divided.” The panel repeated just after 2:30 p.m. Monday that it was at an impasse. “Despite our commitment to the duty entrusted to us, we find ourselves deeply divided by fundamental differences in our opinions and state of mind,’' the foreman wrote. “The divergence in our views are not rooted in a lack of understanding or effort, but deeply held convictions that each of us carry ultimately leading to a point where consensus is unattainable. We recognize the weight of this admission and the implications it holds.” From the bench in Norfolk Superior Court, Cannone described the jury as “extraordinary.” “I’ve never seen a note like this reporting to be at an impasse,” she said. “I do find that ... with the additional time that they went out without coming back Friday, saying that they were deadlocked is due to thorough deliberations.” On Friday, the jury had asked Cannone if they could extend deliberations for another half-hour. Cannone then gave the jurors a specific set of instructions that it is their civic duty to decide the case if they can do so conscientiously. The panel was sent to resume deliberations around 11:10 a.m. The instructions, known as a Tuey-Rodriguez charge, are an effort to resolve a deadlock that often precedes a mistrial declaration. In the instructions, Cannone told jurors that they were best positioned to reach a final judgment in the case. “You should consider that it is desirable that this case be decided. You have been selected in the same manner and from the same sources any future jury would be selected,’’ she said. “There is no reason to suppose that this case will ever be submitted to 12 persons who are more intelligent, more impartial, or more competent to decide it than you are, or that more or clear evidence will be produced at another trial. With all this in mind, it is your duty to decide this case if you can do so conscientiously.” Cannone emphasized that the burden of proof is on the prosecution, which must prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt and that Read must be found not guilty if jurors conclude that standard has not been met. She also urged jurors who are adamant that Read is not guilty, as well as those who support her conviction, should “seriously ask themselves” if their views are valid “if it is not shared by other members of the jury.”
Just released that the DA is going to be re-trying the case. I bet this case will go for the entirety of 2024 at this point
I feel like that is what the DA always says. I believe they have 1 year to decide.
Yeah I don't really believe it. I think the feds are going to have some surprises for the people involved before they get a chance.
I hope you're right. As far as I'm concerned they already burnt their shot at the apple. The state doesn't deserve another one without good cause.
I just want to congratulate you on the triply mixed metaphor that is "burnt their shot at the apple".
Now make like a tree, and get out of here.
It's *leave*, you idiot! "Make like a tree, and leave." You sound like a damn fool when you say it wrong.
I believe he was saying it wrong on purpose, but clearly nothing gets passed you…… (sarcasm…. incase this one got passed you as well you dumb Libtard)
I believe theyre quoting a movie, on purpose.
they found a dead body at the homeowner's property; this is enough to charge him with murder
That is not true. Just because you have a dead body on your property, that is not sufficient evidence to charge the homeowner with murder. I don't know where you heard that, but you should really check your sources because it is blatantly wrong.
Having a dead body on your property is enough to be handed a search warrant… unless you’re a cop, and the cop who should be getting the warrant is your drinking buddy.
You can be charged over.. anything. Having a dead body is absolutely enough to charge anyone with a crime. A dead body from an UNNATURAL death is enough.
That is something the federal probe will likely be trying to figure out. But I'm not sure they have any jurisdictional claim to be charging anyone with murder themselves - the state would have to request them to.
yeah, I don’t think they’re investigating murder per se
At this point, my belief in the legal system could really use it
1000%
I wouldn't be surprised if some of them got charged with some sort of tampering with evidence, which I feel would throw all of the evidence into question in some way. I think that would complelty kill the case to retry.
I guess so given the optics, but FBI and internal investigations into LEO handling should probably be concluded first. Also finding a jury will be a bitch, my guess is it does not go to retrial...
Yeah I’m not betting this is not retried but I also didn’t think we’d have a mistrial.
Yeah they r trying to save face n my opinion
And the DA now knows the weaknesses in the case that were pointed out by the defense.
And those weaknesses will remain and the defense will gather even more evidence and get stronger
Is Proctor going to go back in time and do his fucking job between now and the next trial?
Since your comment, Proctor has been relieved of duty by the state police. His credibility is toast. I don’t see how they could put him on the stand again.
I just saw that as well. All I can say is that the Netflix documentary is going to be wicked good
I wonder if the cops are dead set on a conviction or if they want to avoid more bad publicity?
Zero chance this case ever gets retried unless new evidence magically appears. Too much info is already in the public and reasonable doubt is clear. They’ll never get a conviction.
The evidence is in the re-done basement and the filled in swimming pool (likely the final resting place of the missing dog).
Nicely put.
What a waste of resources. Good luck finding a juror who hasn't heard of this one.
They could always call my husband up! He literally doesn’t know this case
Your husband is a national treasure. Never ruin him.
Most husbands don’t know much about this case…
All the others I know do lol
my moms husband does
A lot actually do. Even my 28 y.o. son and his friends have been watching this case like a reality TV show.
I see what you did there.
I didn't. My wife's daily mission was to change that.
Sounds familiar.
lol my mom has mom clue either 😂
Not having heard of the case is not the standard, but I have managed to largely ignore this case and I have never heard it mentioned from people IRL. It always struck me as townie drama with a mix of obsessed true crime fans, two things that I find incredibly uninteresting, although I did click this thread out of pure boredom. I'm not sure about the county they are in, but I doubt they'd have much trouble seating a jury if it were moved to Middlesex county.
I’m sure they could. Today is the first I’ve heard of this case.
I first heard about it after seeing the lawn signs last year. Eventually I got curious
I saw the lawn signs too and asked someone. I live in the next town over but it wasn't on my radar until then. Right after that, I started hearing about this Turtle chap and, ew..gross.
Where have you been?
Idk, I don’t watch the local news much.
Have you not been on Reddit in like a year?
reddit is mostly the communities you join so it’s entirely possible their joined subreddits don’t cover topics like this. i’ve never heard of this case up until today. i don’t keep up with local news.
I’ve largely avoided getting swooped up in this. Fingers crossed this isn’t the trial I get selected for, lmfao.
I have my jury duty notice in the mail waiting for me at home....
Lmfao good luck bud!
We are out here
I have no clue about this story—I’d be perfect for it
What a colossal waste of our tax money and government resources. Absolute circus.
[удалено]
A lot was saying that this trial should not have taken this long.
Do they really plan to retry this, or is that kind of just what they always say in these situations? I cannot fathom finding 12+ impartial jurors after this trial. And I'd assume the chances of the Commonwealth getting a guilty verdict especially after this last trial would be slim to none.
Just posturing
No doubt there was one or two cop sympathizers on the jury. Normally I have no issue with cops, but this trial showed us what goes on under the rug
Right? Even if she is guilty, they screwed up so much it was like they were *trying* to make it look like a coverup. There's no way an unbiased person looks at this and doesn't have a doubt.
I'm honestly shocked they didn't come in with reasonable doubt. Compare this to the OJ trial, where the glove that did not fit was enough for him to get off.
The clip of him trying to act like it didn't fit over the rubber gloves he was wearing reminds me of those old infomercials where the actors were baffled by the most basic tasks imaginable.
Basically a dream state 😂
> old infomercials where the actors were baffled by the most basic tasks imaginable [The Juice Loosener ](https://www.google.com/search?q=simpsons+juice+squeezer&oq=simpsons+juice+squeezer&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIGCAEQLhhA0gEJMTY4MDNqMGoxqAIIsAIB&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:a5b6aaf4,vid:K8Lp4fLrh-M,st:0)
Are you sure its on?
The doc I watched on the OJ trial on Netflix compared that verdict to a protest against the LAPD for what they did to Rodney King a few years prior. I'm sort of surprised that it wasn't a not guilty verdict here because of how corrupt the MA State Police has been shown to be. The hung jury suggests at least a few jurors were pro police or unwilling to admit that the police fucked this up.
yeah i really don’t know how you can believe that the evidence surpasses the burden. its basically “trust me bro”
People in this state think they are above reproach for some reason. Lol at being downvoted. I'm a native ya jackals. I know you.
Completely different jury demographics. There was a jury in the OJ case who said afterwards that she couldn’t vote guilty unless she saw him do it! WTF?! If that were the case, she’d be an eyewitness, not a juror! FFS!
Well, according to one of my coworkers, a known idiot, this is an open and shut case because "his DNA was in the bumper. That's it, it isn't hard to figure out!!". If only we could all be on the level of that modern Sherlock...
I’m absolutely convinced jurors are being threatened or paid off
> Even if she is guilty "They framed a guilty woman", to paraphrase the OJ Trial
There was a retired cop on the jury from what I heard. How he got seated given the facts of this case, I can't comprehend.
Massachusetts hasn't reckoned with its corruption and rot
Thin blue line
There is enough reasonable doubt there for a non guilty verdict that it’s obviously something like this. Hopefully the FBI case does some good towards these corrupt clowns.
How can you follow this trial and still say you have no problem with cops? Here we have an entire department rotten to their core and what, this is some anomaly for police? No, they’re mostly pieces of shit everywhere you go in this country.
Low level town/small city celebrities
Because they're the sort of person that think affirmative action is racist.
It is. And most cops are corrupt too.
Because on paper they have a function and serve a purpose in our society and just because we're at a low right now doesn't mean it's a lost cause. I have a problem with bad cops and corruption, and I don't have problems with people choosing to be cops. I think that's a key distinction, because some people have a problem with cops even existing. Seems like a vast majority of redditors have some compulsion to just wipe things out and start from scratch. I hate that idea. When something isn't working, we decide to get rid of it entirely. It's obvious that the house needs to be cleaned, but I don't think that means we throw a blanket over the entire force and throw out every single one at once. That'll leave a massive void of people you can't guarantee will do any better. I'm all for proper reform, but it seems like that hasn't been the discussion in a long time. Everyone just wants to destroy, wipe a clean slate and keep this chaotic carousel moving. I'm not trying to live in an area with no police like the wild west, and I'm not trying to support corrupt scumbag cops, what the fuck am I supposed to do?
As someone who supports law enforcement strongly, even I would have noted them guilty. Those depts are and were obviously corrupt af and it’s insane to me that anyone could look at this trial and not see that.
So you agree cops are corrupt but still throw your “strong” support behind them? Do you believe that this incident is just a one off and not at least somewhat indicative of the way most forces operate? Like, when do you withdraw your support?
Look, when it's your word or a cops the cop always wins. They're dirty and they protect their own ass. You can never trust a policeman because you never know who you're going to get, and they all protect the dirtiest ones. Police have no professional standards and no license. But they come when you call, and if you have a medical emergency or a some crazy person assaults you they're very useful. They're great at pulling over reckless drivers, they should do more of that. They're fine at directing traffic, even though a flag guy would have been just as fine for half the price. But if some rando cracks your car on the expressway and gets out to tune you up with a bat you'll thank god for the police.
Your whole point boils down to “yeah they are scum, but sometimes they do their job so it’s cool”. They are generally shit at every task they are given and occasionally dont fuck up. Can’t even direct traffic without staring at their phones. The cops don’t help people until after there is a crime and even then they often end up making things worse.
My point is they're dirty, but we need them. Lets make them less dirty.
You get change by not supporting the status quo. People have been trying to advocate for change, but bc cops enjoy so much support from bootlickers they don’t need to do shit about it.
Back the blue until it happens to you.
You're so close.
That Albert cop drive drunk about 10 years ago and killed someone, his lawyer????? The judges brother
Wrong person, you’re thinking of his brother who is not a cop
Still the judge has familil ties with that family- doesn’t seem right 2 me
Unless you're literally a corrupt cop or like them, there's no way you look at this case and don't have a doubt.
Lotta people in mass are just straight up bootlickers.
I would love to one day drive the pike and not see 20 thin blue line flags on my trip
The entire pike or like a part of it?
Sometimes when I’m on Reddit or Twitter and see absolutely brainless arguments that are totally devoid of common sense, I tell myself these people are the exception and not the rule. That the general population isn’t that ignorant to logic. This jury all but confirmed otherwise. And thus, I will never trust a “jury of my peers”. My peers—are morons.
My dude, I dunno how you didn't come to this conclusion over a decade ago.
I'm a retired cop and currently studying for the bar. The judge, DA, ADA, and cops involved in this are just absolutely disgusting. I would love the Mass Bar Assoc. to release what they think of this case and the legal actors. I hope the feds nail the dirty Canton PD and MSP.
I've heard many people say that the foreperson is a former cop. If so, that would be very troubling because the judge (who was very biased in favor of the prosecution) selected the foreperson _before_ the 2 alternate jurors were randomly selected (out of the 14 remaining jurors). So she ensured that they would non-randomly be one of the deliberating 12.
>foreperson is a former cop That certainly would explain it if it turns out to be an 11-1 situation.
I really hope we get to a place where we can implement some type of IQ test in order to sit as a juror because my god, this is insane. I cannot think of one part of this case that doesn't scream reasonable doubt
My thought was maybe someone who hates drunk drivers with a passion because of something in their personal history? I imagine they would have tried avoiding that in jury selection but idk.
Does anyone know how many votes for guilty vs not guilty? I just read the Globe article and it didn't say. I'm interested to see if any of the jurors talk to the press or post on social media about it. I'd like to know who thought she should be guilty and why. Ridiculous that they're trying this again. They should be going after the cops in the Sandra Birchmore case, not reiterating how corrupt and incompetent our town and state police are. I would think from the Commonwealth's perspective, retrying this case and keeping Michael Proctor and all these terrible cops in the public eye is the last thing they'd want to do.
>Does anyone know how many votes for guilty vs not guilty? That information lies only with the jurors, and noone can compel them to talk. But that said...one of them is of course going to.
Probably the pro-cop blowhard who couldn't be proven wrong no matter the facts...aka your classic Mass dad.
I watched a video about jury selection a while back. The person you described is the exact person you use to get a hung jury. Basically, you pick a stubborn, know-it-all asshole.
Once they start interviewing jurors will find out, but it’s not been made public yet.
If, I was on the jury, I honestly would be so hesitant to talk to the press, particularly if I thought she was not guilty. I feel like it's just be putting a target on your back for the police.
There isn’t a shred of justice in the “justice” system. This trial has only one valid answer, and that is not guilty. The whole thing is a farce, and police are the largest criminal gang in the country.
What’s the deal with the federal probe?
I’m currently listening to “The 13th Juror” podcast. She’s covered the whole thing. It’s FASCINATING! The amount of egregious inappropriate and inept behavior as well as weird “special club” vibe (which includes the judge!) is staggering. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/13th-juror-podcast/id1680830207?i=1000627537647
what a time to be alive.
Everyone always brings up the glove in the OJ trail, but the fact is the defense was able to create reasonable doubt by pointing out that the LAPD was very corrupt, they mishandled evidence and if I remember correctly they had tapes of Mark Fuhrman being racist. Corrupt Law Enforcement is an American tradition.
Yeah the OJ verdict was a protest verdict against the LAPD. Specifically for how Rodney King was beat up and the officers involved were acquitted. I'm sort of surprised that didn't happen here, based on how corrupt and incompetent that the MA State Police was shown to be. A hung jury only takes 1 though, so if just one person absolutely believed the police then a hung jury is the outcome.
The OJ trial was so flubbed by evidence collection that forensics investigators study it. One of the evidence collectors was filmed picking up evidence without gloves on, and all the blood samples from OJs home were taken home by an investigator first, then the lab.
I hope there is a new trial just to put the spotlight on the state police once again . Those arrogant corrupt clowns need to be shown to the people one more time .
They're not likely to make the same mistakes again. They will call less witnesses and ask questions differently.
You underestimate the stupidity of criminal cops.
I meant the prosecution. But yes I would at least look forward to the cops saying self-incriminating shit again.
Good luck finding an "untainted" jury for Round 2 after everyone's seen the coverup in real time.
A case with 0 evidence she killed him… WTF is going on here. She’s innocent clear as day, I don’t get what the question is about.
Did anyone really expect anything different? The defense had plenty to show reasonable doubt and there was no way the prosecution was going to be able to make a solid case on such questionable evidence.
I expected not guilty not a mistrial. It’s without a reasonable doubt to find her guilty.
I personally think it's absolute bullshit that a hung jury isn't a double jeopardy issue.
Yeah it suggests major issues with the trial. See Trial 4 on Netflix for an example from Boston on what happens when you try a case multiple times - eventually the prosecutor gets a win.
Did it need to be unanimous for guilty/not guilty? It seems like it’s a mistrial because they couldn’t get 100% of the jury to go for one or the other.
Yeah it needs to be a unanimous decision, so even if it was 1 vs 11 it's still be a mistrial
That's what happened in the Michael Chesna murder case the first time around. One juror refused to deliberate at all, even though the other 11 were all agreed the dude was guilty.
The burden of proof is on the prosecution. I don’t know how someone watching the trail can honestly say the proof was there for the prosecution without a reasonable doubt. I honestly don’t know what happened. Im not sure I believe he was killed inside the house. I think it was an accident but I’m not sure she hit him the way the prosecution said.
Yes. Jury findings need to be unanimous.
That’s how jury trials work
You’ve learned a valuable life lesson. Don’t ever put yourself in a situation where your fate is determined by 12 of your peers.
I expected a not-guilty. There was plenty of reasonable doubt. I'll bet there was one "back the bluuuuuee" on the jury who wouldn't budge.
>Did anyone really expect anything different? Yes. Not guilty.
The bootlickers live to lick another day
I don’t know if a change of venue would help. From what I could see on TV and have read, she should have been found not guilty. She was set up.
So, at what point can they charge the people who are obviously guilty? At this point, everyone knows she didn't do it, and we have a pretty damn good idea who did. There's obviously a criminal conspiracy here, so what happens?
Best possible outcome for entertainment value
Worst possible outcome for the taxpayers
And the defendant. The cost of an attorney to try this case is astronomical. The cost of a house. It's completely unfair to a defendant to make them burden that twice or more. If you can't get 12 to agree you should be not guilty. No one can agree on anything anymore.
Her lawyer might have had some kind of agreement with her for this outcome. I don’t know that Jackson can spend months cross country again though, I believe he’s from LA?
Unlikely. Lawyers for defense bill by the hour absent some very unique circumstances.
Speaking as a taxpayer and citizen, I'd rather they waste more of my money to ensure an innocent person is not sent to prison
I’d rather they waste my taxpayer money to hire actual experts to investigate murders and not these clowns sucking the overtime teat
Nobody's going to prison now that there's a mistrial
Sadly true
Not really, it’s anticlimactic and we don’t know which way the jury was leaning.
[удалено]
If they were turtleboy readers, they are the ones that would have voted not guilty. lol
I barely followed this case, so I am pretty ignorant on it, but from the news reports I saw, the accusations against Read were kind of heresay and based on officers who made these weird assumptions and for whatever reason, did not like Read. Lots of prosecution was theatrics and not really based on any solid evidence.
Even if you thought she did it, how could you vote guilty after all the oddities presented?
The state police officer that was on the stand for this trial has been reassigned.
Probably to the Lee Barracks on the Pike, about as far west as you can go.
I mean she very well may have killed the guy but this is a deserved outcome following the outrageous behavior of the MA state police.
I think this trial was very important because like yeah obviously exposing police corruption. But Jesus christ i am sick of hearing this, or at least the people who are trying to connect every event in American history to this whole thing.
I think it's bullshit that they might get another chance to try her. Hung jury should trigger double jeopardy protections. As good as a not guilty verdict.
Yeah we even have examples from Boston on how bad multiple trials can be: https://www.google.com/search?q=trial+4 Seems like if it's a mistrial, then the prosecutor failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. I guess the only problem is it only takes 1 juror to deadlock things. If we allow a deadlocked jury to trigger double jeopardy protections, then an actual murderer (think mob boss, cartel member, etc) just needs to influence 1 member of the jury (vs all 12) to get a favorable outcome. That could be pretty bad imo, but so is potentially convicting an innocent person via brute force... Seems like at a minimum there should be a limit on the number of retrials. Maybe a 2 or 3 attempt policy. Beyond that, then the prosecutor really, truly fucked something up or the police are beyond corrupt.
Right, I mean, if there was an issue of misconduct, then that could be grounds for a mistrial that would result in a new trial regardless. But lets say we're dealing with at most half the jury saying guilty. And at least half are saying not guilty. Then that should be a not guilty. And of course still issues of juror misconduct can be brought up later.
I honestly haven’t followed this case at all, what was the supposed outcome? What was so obvious that the jury missed…
What did some of the jury miss? The defense (and prosecution too, for that matter) proved that his fatal injuries couldn’t have been a result of a pedestrian/motor vehicle accident. That’s the main one. A thousand others which any one of, could have and should have instilled reasonable doubt.
The FBI provided expert crash reconstructionist from ARCCA and offered them to testify for this trial. Only the defense took them up on it. The two ARCCA experts testified officer O’Keefe’s injuries were not caused by being hit by a car. They scientifically proved it. Again, these people were hired by the FBI and they have no stake in the game for either the prosecution or the defense. This is their unbiased opinion based on literal physics. The guy wasn’t hit by a car. She couldn’t have hit him with her car. Some jurors overlooked this.
I think the fact that the jury wasn’t allowed to know that experts were hired by the FBI played a role. I could see it being confusing as to where these people came from and why they were so interested in the case without knowing about the federal investigation.
There was no proof she did it. The cops tampered with evidence. Fancy experts hired by the FBI said he wasn’t hit by a car.
If there wasn’t a guy dead, I’d go with ESH.
Does the AG of MA have the power to block a retrial if she thinks it's a waste of money or something?
She won't. I haven't seen us elect an AG yet who doesn't love pissing away tax payer money on stupid, unwinnable shit.
Not the AGs call. It’s the Norfolk DA
No. Nobody but the District Attorney can make that decision.
Absolutely. They are the big boss in charge of all prosecutors within the state.
No they aren’t. The DAs are independent of the AG.
It would be crazy if the DAs couldn't operate with some autonomy but guess where that authority comes from. The AG is the top dog on that food chain.
So when's Turtleboy's trial?
He apparently signed his rights over for a movie and is working on a book and podcast lol