MISTRIAL MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023 #17

[ch_13]

Her brother represented Chris Albert in the 90's on a charge of killing a student while driving drunk, took off, hid out, then later turned himself in. I believe he only got 6 months, 6 months. There is also the question of her involvement with the McCabe/cottage rental, one of them let the cat out of the bag of their association and hence: Auntie Bev. This is what is alerted the defense team in their ask.

In addition to what you mentioned, there were other concerns that the defense brought up in their motion to recuse, specifically a pattern of favoring the prosecution over the defense. And she was continuing to insert herself into the case after she was supposed to be rotated off.

Here's what I wrote at the time: MA - Professor Karen Read, 43, charged with murdering police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe by hitting him with car, Canton, 14 Apr 2023

There are four defense contentions:

1. A member of the family that Read claims killed O'Keefe bragged that his family has personal ties to the judge and he referred to her as "Auntie Bev." He also said that he would kill a blogger who has been reporting on the case and bury them in the judge's backyard. The family member has a property on Cape Cod not far from the judge's summer house.
2. The judge has been extremely late on ruling on several defense motions. One example is the request for O'Keefe's clothing in order to test it for dog DNA. The motion has been in front of the judge for 72 days so far with no ruling yet.
3. On the other hand, when the prosecution filed a motion to cancel an evidentiary hearing three days before it was supposed to occur, the court held an emergency hearing and granted the cancellation immediately, using a "legally incorrect theory". The judge also forced the defense to argue another motion without any notice or preparation time.
4. Despite the fact that she is no longer assigned to the case as part of the regular judge's rotation, she still wants to hear the upcoming motion on the gag order instead of the judge that should be assigned to it.

I know for #2, she would end up sitting on that motion for another few months before finally ruling. The dog DNA tests were not completed until shortly before the trial.

 

[OldCop]

some people will always believe the worst of you no matter what the evidence says

I guess this is how KR feels.

 

[OldCop]

I have a question. Post above says jury didn’t find her guilty on murder 2 or leaving the scene of the crime. Was she charged with murder 1?
I didn’t get to watch the trial. I am just wondering. And what charges did the jury hang on? Thank you.

The article below gives a decent explanation of the charges. The reports coming out state that she was found NG on counts 1 & 3 and hung on #2.

Karen Read verdict watch: A closer look at the charges jurors are considering

Jurors in the murder trial of Karen Read, accused of striking her Boston police officer boyfriend with her SUV, are currently deliberating her guilt or innocence on three separate charges. Prosecutors said Read struck John O’Keefe with her vehicle and then left the scene in January 2022, leaving...

www.nbcboston.com

 

[Seattle1]

On count 3, which elements were not proven?

Presumably none of the 6-- thus 100% agreement to acquit the defendant of this charge.

 

[OldCop]

I keep going back to the jury note:
"The deep division is not due to a lack of effort or diligence but rather a sincere adherence to our individual principles and moral convictions. To continue to deliberate would be futile and only serve to force us to compromise these deeply-held beliefs.”

What are they referring to? I am sure the jurors were sincere in their “feelings”, but do we now throw out facts and evidence?
This scares me.

 

[Universecalling]

I keep going back to the jury note:
"The deep division is not due to a lack of effort or diligence but rather a sincere adherence to our individual principles and moral convictions. To continue to deliberate would be futile and only serve to force us to compromise these deeply-held beliefs.”

What are they referring to? I am sure the jurors were sincere in their “feelings”, but do we now throw out facts and evidence?
This scares me.

Probably the biggest “jaw on the floor” moment for me, and this case was a cornucopia of them.

Deeply held beliefs, individual principles and moral convictions… imo, this is precisely the reason facts/science/logic in this case (with a truck load of reasonable doubt at every corner) did not prevail.

 

[OldCop]

Yes Seattle1. Wonderful post!

And it all circles back to this judge IMO. After watching much of this trial, courtroom treatment of counsel and the defendant, and the absence of clarity from the court on sustained or overruled objections to name only a few - I just sit here shaking my head.

Add in the IMO hurried odd behavior and pronouncements at the end by the judge to quickly excuse the jurors and clear the court. And there was the statement that the judge intended to speak with them briefly post trial. Just SMH at the time and effort expended to arrive at this point. Sure hope that the proper individuals and officials in MA are examining the rulings and court proceedings in this case. And if and where corrections or remedies are needed they are entered and enacted. MOO

Hey, 4th of July weekend was coming up. She needed to beat the traffic to the Cape and indulge in some chowdah and lobstah! What don’t you understand?

 

[LvsAMystry]

I keep going back to the jury note:
"The deep division is not due to a lack of effort or diligence but rather a sincere adherence to our individual principles and moral convictions. To continue to deliberate would be futile and only serve to force us to compromise these deeply-held beliefs.”

What are they referring to? I am sure the jurors were sincere in their “feelings”, but do we now throw out facts and evidence?
This scares me.

My opinion and it’s literally jmo so conjecture is that the principles and moral convictions have to do with driving while intoxicated. If so, you’re right it’s scary because you can’t choose guilty to a charge that doesn’t have sufficient evidence for all facets of the charge in question.

 

[keek]

I keep going back to the jury note:
"The deep division is not due to a lack of effort or diligence but rather a sincere adherence to our individual principles and moral convictions. To continue to deliberate would be futile and only serve to force us to compromise these deeply-held beliefs.”

What are they referring to? I am sure the jurors were sincere in their “feelings”, but do we now throw out facts and evidence?
This scares me.

It was so clear to me when that came out that the writer wanted it known that the problem was not due to facts and evidence, but no rational discussion was going to sway the holdouts due to their FEELINGS AND BELIEFS which are obviously personal to them. Yes, I was horrified. It seems that somehow they needed to be tossed out of the jury as not impartial to themselves and their deeply held beliefs. I try to think what could they be, LE are our friends (as taught as children) they would never do what the defense is saying. (must live under a rock as corruption is highly broadcasted throughout the country of the bad ones and their crimes for years horribly). People that drink and drive kill people, maybe. There seems to have been no detached and impartial thinking on the ones creating the verdict issue. Oh, plus the judge, Alberts, P.O'K and his family glaring/sad.

 

[jepop]

I keep going back to the jury note:
"The deep division is not due to a lack of effort or diligence but rather a sincere adherence to our individual principles and moral convictions. To continue to deliberate would be futile and only serve to force us to compromise these deeply-held beliefs.”

What are they referring to? I am sure the jurors were sincere in their “feelings”, but do we now throw out facts and evidence?
This scares me.

Yes. This is one of the many instances where I see the Judge as being inexcusably remiss. I mean she reads these juror notes which imply basically that some on the jury, at the very least, are deliberating not by applying reason to evidence but via their own personal convictions, and what...she doesn't give them an instruction to counter this? Before sending them back? By saying nothing she condones it? moo

Haven't had much time lately but have skimmed the thread the last week and agree with some that maybe defense would have done better if they had placed more emphasis on closing re concept of reasonable doubt as it applys in deliberations. And yet in many ways the judge is also remiss here in not giving attorneys sufficient time for closings after such a long and complicated trial. That was at her discretion. To me yet another instance of her disdain in action.jmo. And also why in heck should the defense have to do the judge's job for her?? They already pretty much did the job of the prosecution in this trial but in reverse; proving BARD that JO was not killed via vehicular impact. Moo

I sincerely hope this latest development raised by defense's motion does not blow over but that every single jury member declares their willingness to testify as to the verdicts they did reach in respect of the charges. And I would love to see consequences for the judge, but perhaps those will only be discernible to her behind closed doors. Jmo

 

[OldCop]

Yes. This is one of the many instances where I see the Judge as being inexcusably remiss. I mean she reads these juror notes which imply basically that some on the jury, at the very least, are deliberating not by applying reason to evidence but via their own personal convictions, and what...she doesn't give them an instruction to counter this? Before sending them back? By saying nothing she condones it? moo

Haven't had much time lately but have skimmed the thread the last week and agree with some that maybe defense would have done better if they had placed more emphasis on closing re concept of reasonable doubt as it applys in deliberations. And yet in many ways the judge is also remiss here in not giving attorneys sufficient time for closings after such a long and complicated trial. That was at her discretion. To me yet another instance of her disdain in action.jmo. And also why in heck should the defense have to do the judge's job for her?? They already pretty much did the job of the prosecution in this trial but in reverse; proving BARD that JO was not killed via vehicular impact. Moo

I sincerely hope this latest development raised by defense's motion does not blow over but that every single jury member declares their willingness to testify as to the verdicts they did reach in respect of the charges. And I would love to see consequences for the judge, but perhaps those will only be discernible to her behind closed doors. Jmo

Great post.

 

[thebedbug]

There’s so much about this case i do not understand. Having not been able to watch the trial some things make no sense. If 8 jurors wanted to convict her of vehicular manslaughter then why not convict her of leaving the scene?

the leaving the scene charge requires intent.

the jury did not believe the prosecution proved intent.

 

[OldCop]

It was so clear to me when that came out that the writer wanted it known that the problem was not due to facts and evidence, but no rational discussion was going to sway the holdouts due to their FEELINGS AND BELIEFS which are obviously personal to them. Yes, I was horrified. It seems that somehow they needed to be tossed out of the jury as not impartial to themselves and their deeply held beliefs. I try to think what could they be, LE are our friends (as taught as children) they would never do what the defense is saying. (must live under a rock as corruption is highly broadcasted throughout the country of the bad ones and their crimes for years horribly). People that drink and drive kill people, maybe. There seems to have been no detached and impartial thinking on the ones creating the verdict issue. Oh, plus the judge, Alberts, P.O'K and his family glaring/sad.

Did the defense team miss the mark during voir dire? We always hope that voir dire will rule out bias, prejudice, etc. How do they delve into beliefs and moral convictions to ensure an impartial jury?

 

[Derph]

Here's another couple of points for all those who are saying that a conspiracy involving so many people is impossible. It's not just Karen Read who is saying there is corruption and a conspiracy going on in that town. There are multiple people coming forward and claiming that there are shady things going on in Canton and other towns in the area. There are other people who are not related to Karen Read and have absolutely nothing to do with her case who have lodged complaints, filed lawsuits, and claimed harassment. It's not just 1 or 2 people or cases either. How many questionable murders investigations involving the same people does it take before something is done? How many complaints, cases, lawsuits etc need to be filed before it becomes obvious that there is a pattern of misbehavior going on there? How many suspensions? How many FBI investigations does it take to start raising red flags that something very wrong is going on there in Canton? How many Internal Affairs investigations need to be opened? How many contentious town hall meetings have to happen before someone, somewhere says enough is enough?

 

[keek]

Did the defense team miss the mark during voir dire? We always hope that voir dire will rule out bias, prejudice, etc. How do they delve into beliefs and moralI convictions to ensure an impartial jury?

I don't think they can, but the juror should know to check themselves and know to see and hear evidence and facts and detach from whatever they personally feel about people or situations in their OWN outside of jury box lives.

 

[keek]

I don't think they can, but the juror should know to check themselves and know to see and hear evidence and facts and detach from whatever they personally feel about people or situations in their OWN outside of jury box lives.

I bet most of us have done this in situations that are not our lifestyle or personal ways but still help in a situation if needed or understand and ACT on that.

 

[PamCake]

I keep going back to the jury note:
"The deep division is not due to a lack of effort or diligence but rather a sincere adherence to our individual principles and moral convictions. To continue to deliberate would be futile and only serve to force us to compromise these deeply-held beliefs.”

What are they referring to? I am sure the jurors were sincere in their “feelings”, but do we now throw out facts and evidence?
This scares me.

I agree. This kind of circles back to the 2nd charge, which included the DUI charge

I keep going back to the jury note:
"The deep division is not due to a lack of effort or diligence but rather a sincere adherence to our individual principles and moral convictions. To continue to deliberate would be futile and only serve to force us to compromise these deeply-held beliefs.”

What are they referring to? I am sure the jurors were sincere in their “feelings”, but do we now throw out facts and evidence?
This scares me.

I agree. I’m thinking this is because of personal, moral convictions related to the drunk driving charge in Count 2. Maybe they felt she should be “held responsible” for the DUI she did that night/early morning. Of course a jury should not bring personal convictions into deliberations over testimony, facts, and evidence.

 

[TIGER0822]

I keep going back to the jury note:
"The deep division is not due to a lack of effort or diligence but rather a sincere adherence to our individual principles and moral convictions. To continue to deliberate would be futile and only serve to force us to compromise these deeply-held beliefs.”

What are they referring to? I am sure the jurors were sincere in their “feelings”, but do we now throw out facts and evidence?
This scares me.

The judge said 'she never saw a note like it'. It would be Interesting to know who penned that note (the foreman?) and what their background (life experience, moral etc., ) is.

 

[OldCop]

My opinion and it’s literally jmo so conjecture is that the principles and moral convictions have to do with driving while intoxicated. If so, you’re right it’s scary because you can’t choose guilty to a charge that doesn’t have sufficient evidence for all facets of the charge in question.

You may be right. However, seems like half the town was driving while intoxicated that night. I guess their moral convictions are limited.

 

[keek]

The judge said 'she never saw a note like it'. It would be Interesting to know who penned that note (the foreman?) and what their background (life experience, moral etc., ) is.

It's written so nicely but the words should not of been from a jury I would think. The writer may of been the most eloquent juror and not the hold out, but wrote for all of them, much to the others dismay. When I first saw the letter that was written I pictured the writer gritting his or her teeth.