Head to factormeals.com/edb50 and use EDB50 to get 50% off your first box plus 20% off your next box! Get 20% OFF @honeylove by going to www.honeylove.com/LAWNERD ! #honeylovepod #ad Get 15% off OneSkin with the code LAWNERD at www.oneskin.co/ #oneskinpod #ad
Why are removing the fact that he was an adult? Why is it her responsibility to make sure he makes it to the front door? Why is it her responsibility that he chose to go to the house to begin with?
My GUESS at the hang up is someone was arguing she knew/should have known John and Higgins were going to fight about the texts. In which case, she could have left him at the waterfall or taken him home. Personally, I agree with you but I could see how someone could argue she delivered him to the house for a beatdown.
she saw john walk up the driveway to the side door, then she waited for 10 mins. with her head down for John to text her. why didn't she drive away? did she know what was going down or was John supposed to pick something up and come back to the car? you have a crooked cop and ATF agent in there, the ATF agent texted John and asked if he was coming? was it for the beating or to pick up narcotics? Either way, an honorable man was killed that night. It is a great loss for his family and community. I hope the right justice is reached.
So if a taxi drops off their fare, and that person is subsequently murdered, is it the drivers fault for dropping them off to that place? We have dropped people off at some point in our lives, and been dropped off. Some of the questions on count 2 are ridiculous. smh.
I was going to say same thing ! JoK was an adult, why shouldn’t he have been dropped off and left ? Why is anyone else responsible for his actions ? If he was capable of standing, walking, and going to a party, why should he need a chaperone ? He was outside a ‘friends’ house, supposedly….
@mafortu9032 big difference. That would make the Albert's culpable bc it was their property. DoorDash comes to *your* property. He did not die on, nor was he found on Karen's property.
I’m very uncomfortable with the idea that one could be convicted of DUI manslaughter because they dropped someone off somewhere and that person ultimately died there. The language “an act, in a natural and continuous sequence, results in death” seems to leave that possibility open for a jury in cases where the cause of death is unclear… I could understand it if the person was very impaired/ stumbling or falling and you “abandon” them, but video leaving the Waterfall at least shows that John wasn’t at that point yet.
Yeah, it seems so weird to me. Did she break the law by potentially driving under the influence? Sure. But just because someone does something that isn’t “right” doesn’t mean they should be pinned for this bigger charge. Like wtf?
@@sonastysorude they voted guilty on oui manslaughter not dropping someone off. Count 1 requires proving intent, count 3 requires proving knowledge she hit him.
It's entirely possible they didn't believe that. It's actually more likely that they didn't, because -- per the jurors coming forward -- they never entertained the idea that it was intentional. I have a strong feeling that the fact they were both drinking stuck in the jurors' minds. They have life experiences and reason, as you say. It would make sense to them if something happened inside or around the vicinity of her vehicle -- because booze. There's a whole lot of drinking in evidence. From almost everyone!
I feel the judge instructed the jury at one point not to fill out the verdict form until they were decided on all counts. Could this have added to the confusion?
Quite true. Therefore, some jurors must have found other evidence persuasive enough to think that Karen recklessly or negligently put him in that situation. But even then, as the jury note said, they couldn't agree on the weight of that evidence. Clearly. They'd have rendered a verdict if they were all sure.
@@Caketime2 the natural result is referring to his death being caused by the vehicle hit him but not directly with the collision. Hypothermia after a collision caused damage to his head
DO cars have DOG teeth in MA?? and cops trashing their cell phones? The long trial gave plenty of time to intimidate jurors.....Governor needs to end this or get a RECALL
i am mortified that 9 out of 12 jurors said she was guilty after the experts clearly said that he wasnt hit by a car and the car didnt hit pedestrian. i hate it so much i cant even.
I feel like the committees creating jury instructions should include input from everyday people that aren’t attorneys or judges since those are the people who need to be able to understand them
@@tomatoberryand I think that instruction puts the burden on the judge to ask if there were any charges where they were able to reach a unanimous verdict.
I am still baffled as to how 9 jurors ended up at guilty somewhere in Offense #2. They ALL required her to have caused death with her car. There was no evidence that he was hit with a car, period, other than that awful "crime scene re constructionist with the pirouette theory that seemed to be based on nothing but "this seemed possible to me based on my own brain and no science". So baffling.
@lisettegarcia correct, but of for example the car played a part because John threw a glass at it in anger and the bounce back caused his head injury or caused him to hit the flag pole causing his head injury...the car would've played a part, but I personally would not hold KR responsible for JOKs actions.
Bev wanted to hurry everything except for the commonwealth's direct examinations, and in doing so, wasted a shitton of time. She may have saved an entire 2nd trial (and appeals process) by giving the sides another ~2hrs for closing arguments, and could've saved so much time if she spent 10 seconds asking, "Are you hung on all charges, or have your agreed on some verdicts."
A trial that lasted over two months... then an hour each for closing. Wow, the commonwealth not only has keystone kops, they have keystone judges and apparently a keystone legislature that doesn't mind how much resources were wasted on a two month trial. I literally cannot tell if the entire government of the cw is corrupt or incompetent beyond reason. Might be both.
So after this breakdown of count 2, are we really to believe that dropping someone off at a home they want to go to could lead to going to prison for murder if they somehow die after we did so?! So if she intended to drop him off there, and after doing so he died of hypothermia, she’s at fault? That’s freaking wild.
Can we charge all the people who walked past his body which was supposedly on the lawn as they left the house? They must be charged with negligent homicide for JOK’s hypothermia. The whole case is full of holes.
@@Dannielle.S if the hypothermia happened because of a collision with her car then yes. That’s what the charge is. Dropping someone off is obviously not a crime
One statement after declaring mistrial, “…any questions?”… would have given surprised jurors an opportunity to ask about when do we write down our verdict on counts 1 and 3.
How are you supposed to predict events on the "if i leave you at a place and yoh get injured suddenly i am liqble criminally" no kne has a crystal ball no one can predict the future the idea for count 2 is ludicrous
Next trial defense needs to motion that jury must be warned prior to opening that they will not be given a transcript for deliberations. I think this is ridiculous but honestly I fully believe if they had transcripts no one would have found her guilty. For as old as the state is, Massachusetts is really freaking behind on simple common sense updates to the trial process.
So true! They have to rely on notes taken weeks prior while under duress of weeks of irrelevant information from prosecution. There was no way to know what was important with no prosecuting theory offered and no evidence for weeks! No transcripts seems in itself to be criminal!
“Don’t tell…until it’s unanimous.” I dunno, I get why they could be confused but I still don’t blame anybody for not asking because it really sounded like they couldn’t agree if water was wet.
Jury instructions should not take a judge 20 minutes to read aloud. I would do better if I had a copy I could follow along with while the judge reads them, at least.
That statement right there 17:53 is what cause all the confusion. I have never a judge read it as such in other jurisdictions (see the Wisconsin V Miu Lake trial). Multiple counts are hard and if the voting sheet is also awkward and unclear the jury will be confused af.
The jury instructions flat out told them to not say anything until they had a unanimous verdict. Why in the world would they then ask if they could say partial agreement? It make total sense they wrote the note they did.
I think the implications of the jury being confused and the judge never questioning the jurors as to their verdict should have serious implications for the judge, the lawyers, the judicial system in the state - everyone BUT the defendant. Where is justice?
Neither side explaining the charges in closing is absolutely the court's fault. 1 hour for closing 10 weeks of trial was already pushing time, having to explain charges on top of that is ridiculous. It feels like she rushed this trial and the verdict and now we're here.
I’m baffled by the question “is it her fault for leaving him there in the cold?” He was a goddamn grown man!!!! It was HIS friends house!! How is that HER responsibility?!?
Yeah- baffling. Plus, it’s been insinuated that she didn’t want him to go there and the amount of times she called him to come home. How can she then be held responsible for him insisting on going to the house and the actions of the others at the house? Bizarre 😢
@@joygonsalves8840 yes! And his mother scolding her for leaving him there. I mean, I know she’d already lost her daughter and son-in-law but MA’AM - your son is a COP! Good lord!
@@BookishDarkI am from Massachusetts (Cape Cod) but now live in the UK (for 20+ years). I am astounded by the US judicial system. It is also getting pretty bad here too. But what I really want to know is this: how can they find her NG on counts 1&3 and be hung on count 2!?!? So, if I understand correctly, what EDB is saying that by her dropping him there (count 2) makes her in some way responsible for his death!?!? FFS. Doesn’t make any sense. (Ps- thank you for your response and comment❤)
@@joygonsalves8840#1 REQUIRED INTENT. #3 REQUIRED that she had KNOWINGLY hit him but didn't seek aid for him. #2 just REQUIRED that she had hit him, while she was under the influence, irrespective of whether she had realized what had happened.
One problem is that they were not provided an opportunity to fill out the form if they had not already done so at that point. Jury did not know that there would not be given a chance to wrap up after sending that last note.
I still say this is on judge Bev. It's not about how she read the jury instructions, it's the fact that she completely and utterly ignored the fact there were multiple charges. It should be on her to clarify the ambiguity of if it was all charges, some, or one. She just bum rushed them out of there in five seconds flat at the dismissal. She was done, and it affected her ability to think straight and do her actual job.
At this point the DA does not look like he is in it for justice and evidence based logic. Seems like his pride is hurt and wants to prove something and win at all cost. Very bad look for normal folks thinking the DA and police should represent fair trial, justice and protection of all citizens even the accused until proven guilty. Thank goodness I don’t live in MA.
I don't think it helped that the jury asked for a report or some additional information at one point and was told they had everything they needed or could be given and needed to make their decision based on the evidence presented. I worry it caused the jury to feel like they'd gotten their hand smacked for asking a question and felt like they couldn't ask anything else lest they be "scolded" again for asking a question.
~wait~ Fanning was the one texting gross things with Proctor about Karen Read and there are reports he was also the trooper overseeing the jury….? Is that even legal?
Almost all the police have been put on leave with or without pay. I honestly don’t see how they can convict on anything at this point unless Bev says the defense can’t bring that fact up.
I had heard that those considering "guilty" were doing so simply because she dropped him off, but I didn't think anyone could be that stupid. Guess I was wrong.
These charges are nebulous and can be twisted to many narratives . If she hadn’t left him there at the Albert’s, he wouldn’t have died ? easily yes BUT the car never hit him. Driving after drinking is negligence but linking these elements together is unfair as each item alone is a yes but connected does not constitute the result of him being hit by a car. Horrible!!! I can take eggs, milk and flour, mix them in varying amounts and get very different results.
@Ketzaleh it wasn't unequivocal, nor is accident reconstruction some rock solid science like DNA. My biggest issue is that these experts either didn't know about or didn't comment on any of the other circumstantial evidence.....like Karen's utterances, her call to Kerry, 0 witnesses putting John in the house vs 13 saying he never entered.
@@dukedematteo1995The CW's accident reconstructionist was a disaster. (While listening to him, I assumed that he was a troll, and that this case was an elaborate joke). The ME ruled the cause of death as "undetermined." Then the slow-plow driver said he hadn't seen a body where there was supposed to be one. The FBI expert said JOK's injuries were inconsistent with an auto accident. So I don't see how this case even ends in a conviction. There's too much reasonable doubt. Might be another hung jury.
Emily I am so grateful to you. You inspired me to go back to school and I start on Monday. After watching your channel the last few years I realized I love the law. Thank you for all you do ❤
My question is why is the prosecution going after her so hard, especially with all the evidence showing that this was probably an accident? It makes absolutely no sense to me.
If she's not guilty, then there's a couple of well-known families...which includes police officers, that would have to be looked at. I know discussing all the players in this hot mess is old hat, but I cannot stop thinking that Colin Albert is a main player here...
I have two questions. 1) Did everyone on the jury see and approve the note the foreman sent to the judge? 2) Does the jury instruction committee include civilians (non-lawyers and non-judges) to give a more accurate assessment of how confusing or not the jury instructions are?
@@joshn1678the experts? The ones who looked at 1/3 of evidence?? No professional can give a 100 % full evaluation after look at only 33% of facts. Math tells you that. Guilty
@joshn1678 they heard them and likely factored in the fact "accident reconstruction" isn't some settled science like DNA or fingerprints. Most importantly, the experts were unaware of (or didn't comment on) any of the important circumstantial evidence in the case....ie Karen's utterances, call to Kerry R, the fact zero witnesses say John entered the house, while 13 say he didn't, etc.
@@dukedematteo1995or that the basement was redone; the house was sold for under market value; the dog was rehomed, and the ATF agent dumped his phone on a military base. 🤣
I think a big part of the problem is that often the wording of laws is very poor... I am a linguist and I say that when lawyers and lawmakers sit down to write laws they need to have a linguist seated next to them to guide them...
Emily, the issue was they only had an hour for closing arguments which is senile too me. Yes the defense should have did what Creighton did in Murdaugh trial, go over form and jury instructions and how it should be filled out according to them. But only an hour, Jackson had to prioritize
I've been hearing in MA neither the prosecutor or defense can go over the jury instructions... Those are for the Judge to read to them and then answer questions if/as they come during deliberation.
If I'm understanding this correctly, jurors could convict her for dropping him off if injury was foreseeable? I understand if he was a child or disabled but I don't think this applies here
Nooo, that's an insane stretch and total cope. Those 9 guilty jurors definitely thought Karen hit him. When you aren't in the insular FKR online bubble, you tend to come to that conclusion.
This was really helpful. I watched the "Nanny Trial" here in MA back in the 90s. I knew the judge that threw out that "Guilty of 1st degree murder" verdict had guts to do so, but I don't think I realized just how much. What that didn't do however is deal with the convoluted law or jury instructions. Sigh...
Question: why wouldn’t the discovery about Colin have come in about John calling 911 on him several times for d*ug dealing in the neighborhood? The commonwealth submitted discovery to the defense with several 911 calls, emails, and a photo John sent to officer Kevin Albert of Colin’s “known d*ug activities” as the discovery states.
@@bonniemccrane6417he contacted Kevin Albert. And he probably assumed they were decent people. People who are decent tend to do that, and it takes learning the hard way over and over to recognize dangerous personalities and the red flags they display.
@@dukedematteo1995 this isn't a story, it's what happened. John had contacted Kevin Albert about Colin using cocaine. The FBI is investigating Colin Albert on drug charges.
It was proved by Crash Daddy that she did not hit JOK or kill him by hitting him with her car. The only thing I see that she did was drive under the influence but she wasn’t observed doing so that night and that would be a ticket. How would she have known that JOK would be beat up and savaged by the mysterious Chloe when she dropped him off and left to go home to sleep.
Judge read the charging instructions like it was only one charge...it didnt make it clear what happens with multiple counts....each count should stand alone... She made it sound like you cant come vack till unanimous on all counts. She also told them they could only decide using the exhibits entered (mostly from the CW) and basically implied to ignore the witness testimony and cross examination which proved most of the CW exhibits were factually incorrect
What about the affidavits? And didn't the judge tack on extra instructions, that were not part of the written, that she said superseded the written instructions? But that they couldn't take those with them to the jury room?
I watched this that day and I thought the jury could not tell the judge the count until they are unanimous in their vote. I would have been very confused not having a not guilty choice after each count. How ever J don’t think they proved how John O was killed so I would have decided Karen is not guilty . In my Karen was never pulled over drinking and driving. If she was going to be convicted of DUI then I would want everyone on camera drinking and driving from that bar that night to be accused of DUI as well.
I understand how the jury could be confused but I think the defense proved KR did not hit JO. If they thought she was guilty because she dropped him off, then I disagree. What proof do they have that he didn’t make it into the house. Again this case should have never been brought to trial! The right thing to do by the appellate judges is to find her not guilty on the charges the jury agreed to. This prosecution doesn’t care about justice just getting KR. This is coming from a retired LEO not a rehomed one!
IMO if you were dropping someone off and they were intoxicated, would you expect them not to make it inside? I can't, in my mind, come up with any time that I would think, hey, I shouldn't let this person off bc they may die. I don't think that is reasonable. And I do not think for a second that she hit him, much less intentionally!
OMG, thank you for sharing all of this. You’re absolutely right. I absolutely could see why the jurors didn’t think they could speak about what they had come to conclusions on. It said not to tell anybody not to even tell the judge and then further on it says only on a unanimous verdict, so I absolutely understand why they did what they did I don’t get why didn’t the judge or somebody ask have you come to any verdict on any of the charges is all split down so they knew this is not them. This is the way it’s all worded.
Good morning law nerds. Hoping I can stay awake. My elderly neighbor's house burned last night and she lost her beloved dog of 14 years in the fire. Thankful she is unharmed. Fire crew was back out at 3 am this morning having to put out a hotspot that caught her sons Corvette on fire. Rescue I work with is covering expense for Gracie's cremation. I took her sweet baby to the vets office this morning early
Oh, my. My home burned down 13 years ago and it is a very trying situation. I was amazed that there were so few resources available on what needs to be done after an event. It is such a day by day, even hour by hour time. I remember getting back to the hotel room after another trip to Target and absolutely bawling because I'd forgotten to get nail clippers AGAIN. I was in my 40s, and if she's elderly, she's likely going to need someone to tell her step by step what to do and how to prioritize tasks.
How does the CW go to trial with four troopers under investigation with one of them already being suspended - it’s absolutely ridiculous how Karen has been treated throughout this entire trial.
This whole situation is infuriating to me. I feel like the judge did a horrible actually intentionally horrible job at making sure the jury knew how to properly communicate their decision
To me the instructions read by the judge seem pretty clear: DO NOT tell the judge any vote counts until a unanimous verdict has been reached and if the judge explained "verdict" to mean anything other than a COMPLETE verdict ON ALL COUNTS then I have missed that. And without such an explanation my layperson's understanding of "verdict" would be a COMPLETE verdict ON ALL COUNTS. Because I understand the jury to render "a verdict", not "a bunch of verdicts". So I find it natural that the jury did not tell the judge that they had reached a unanimous decision regarding some charges. It sounded like they weren't allowed to do that. When the judge declared a mistrial the defense should have jumped up and said "Your Honor! We need to poll the jury!" I think that's what the appeals court is going to say if this goes to appeal. This was a mistake by the defense but that's life. People have to live with the consequences of the mistakes made by their lawyers.
The judge couldn't even read the jury instructions properly how was the jury supposed to fully understand them. She should have said "until you have reached a unanimous verdict on 1 or each count"
The jury instruction language does not mesh well with the ambiguity inherent in the notorious Rule 27(b). Bev's instruction (17:00) to "not say anything til you are unanimous..." would work in a trial with a single count, but with multiple counts, the jury could not possibly understand what they were supposed to do without further clarification. She should have added "...on all counts" or "...on any count." to show how she was exercising her discretion under 27(b). Even the argument that the jury "intended to come to verdicts" on some counts (10:14) would likely fail because 27(b) seems to say that Bev had discretion whether or not to allow verdicts on some charges. IANAL but I can see how Rule 27(b) could be ruled unconstitutional (Fifth Amendment) because it allows defendants to be tried multiple times for the same offense as long as a jury is hung on ONE of a list of offenses. If they had included a Count 4 of Littering (KR left broken taillight pieces on the lawn) and the jury was unanimous that she was not guilty of killing John at all but they couldn't decide if she littered, she could be retried multiple times for the homicide counts 1-3. I wonder if 27(b)'s constitutionality has been challenged before.
This whole prosecution is a huge distraction from finding out what really happened.Just as Proctor intended--nail it on someone and do not look elsewhere.
Head to factormeals.com/edb50 and use EDB50 to get 50% off your first box plus 20% off your next box!
Get 20% OFF @honeylove by going to www.honeylove.com/LAWNERD ! #honeylovepod #ad
Get 15% off OneSkin with the code LAWNERD at www.oneskin.co/ #oneskinpod #ad
EDB, You made me laugh when you said "August just gets swampy 😂😂"
Can you put a link to sponsors? Can’t remember the links!
Ms Emily have you ever prosecuted a case that you felt the defendant wasn’t guilty?
will you cover the Sarah Boones trial in October?
Why are removing the fact that he was an adult? Why is it her responsibility to make sure he makes it to the front door? Why is it her responsibility that he chose to go to the house to begin with?
My GUESS at the hang up is someone was arguing she knew/should have known John and Higgins were going to fight about the texts. In which case, she could have left him at the waterfall or taken him home.
Personally, I agree with you but I could see how someone could argue she delivered him to the house for a beatdown.
@amandamacabre from memory, there wasn't any testimony or evidence that indicated John knew anything of the texts.
Maybe she thought he was safe & sound dropped off at the party?
@@millville from the behavior of everyone while at the bar, I don't think she had reason to believe he wouldn't be safe at the party.
she saw john walk up the driveway to the side door, then she waited for 10 mins. with her head down for John to text her. why didn't she drive away? did she know what was going down or was John supposed to pick something up and come back to the car? you have a crooked cop and ATF agent in there, the ATF agent texted John and asked if he was coming? was it for the beating or to pick up narcotics? Either way, an honorable man was killed that night. It is a great loss for his family and community. I hope the right justice is reached.
So if a taxi drops off their fare, and that person is subsequently murdered, is it the drivers fault for dropping them off to that place? We have dropped people off at some point in our lives, and been dropped off. Some of the questions on count 2 are ridiculous. smh.
THIS !!! thats the only charges they have her guilty on !
Pretty much same if you order door dash and the person bringing food dies on way or they go on a rampage it’s your fault
I was going to say same thing ! JoK was an adult, why shouldn’t he have been dropped off and left ? Why is anyone else responsible for his actions ? If he was capable of standing, walking, and going to a party, why should he need a chaperone ? He was outside a ‘friends’ house, supposedly….
@mafortu9032 big difference. That would make the Albert's culpable bc it was their property. DoorDash comes to *your* property. He did not die on, nor was he found on Karen's property.
Terrifying isnt it?
I’m very uncomfortable with the idea that one could be convicted of DUI manslaughter because they dropped someone off somewhere and that person ultimately died there. The language “an act, in a natural and continuous sequence, results in death” seems to leave that possibility open for a jury in cases where the cause of death is unclear… I could understand it if the person was very impaired/ stumbling or falling and you “abandon” them, but video leaving the Waterfall at least shows that John wasn’t at that point yet.
Yeah, it seems so weird to me. Did she break the law by potentially driving under the influence? Sure. But just because someone does something that isn’t “right” doesn’t mean they should be pinned for this bigger charge. Like wtf?
@@sonastysorude they voted guilty on oui manslaughter not dropping someone off. Count 1 requires proving intent, count 3 requires proving knowledge she hit him.
I am astounded that 9 reasonable people believed she hit him at all!
💯I have lost faith in humanity
Me too… basically they believe Trooper Paul.
People want to believe police is trustworthy. The idea that police would conspire against a citizen is scary. People will reject that thought.
It's entirely possible they didn't believe that. It's actually more likely that they didn't, because -- per the jurors coming forward -- they never entertained the idea that it was intentional. I have a strong feeling that the fact they were both drinking stuck in the jurors' minds. They have life experiences and reason, as you say. It would make sense to them if something happened inside or around the vicinity of her vehicle -- because booze. There's a whole lot of drinking in evidence. From almost everyone!
Every instruction the judge gave to the jury is clear…..AS MUD!
I feel the judge instructed the jury at one point not to fill out the verdict form until they were decided on all counts. Could this have added to the confusion?
I think so
Yup
only if the defence objected to it at the time
Yes. And then she said if you are confused between the written instructions and the verbal, you MUST defer to what I said
Yes
How could leaving somebody at a friend's house if they'd been drinking count as manslaughter? It's not a natural result of doing so
Quite true. Therefore, some jurors must have found other evidence persuasive enough to think that Karen recklessly or negligently put him in that situation. But even then, as the jury note said, they couldn't agree on the weight of that evidence. Clearly. They'd have rendered a verdict if they were all sure.
@@Caketime2 the natural result is referring to his death being caused by the vehicle hit him but not directly with the collision. Hypothermia after a collision caused damage to his head
DO cars have DOG teeth in MA?? and cops trashing their cell phones? The long trial gave plenty of time to intimidate jurors.....Governor needs to end this or get a RECALL
i am mortified that 9 out of 12 jurors said she was guilty after the experts clearly said that he wasnt hit by a car and the car didnt hit pedestrian. i hate it so much i cant even.
Where did you hear that there were 9 guilty?
@@SLYDIT it was on X from one of the jurors speaking out
@@SLYDIT Emily read it in this video at least twice.
You only need to look at the evidence. Properly and not what is on TH-cam. It’s damning. Guilty
@@stevenprice6957What evidence? I’m seriously asking.
I feel like the committees creating jury instructions should include input from everyday people that aren’t attorneys or judges since those are the people who need to be able to understand them
Also wondering why they can just pick a charge? Why so many options? Why don’t they just charge what they think instead of so may complex options?
She also didn’t give off the vibes of “if you have a question please ask me”
She says ,”on the questions” and then “unanimous verdict”
I would have felt the same way about these instructions as these jurors did
But if they truly had verdicts, they should have at least filled out those 2 papers and only the 2nd one would be blank. But it is hella confusing
I would have been afraid to ask her anything. I'm still confused with those instructions even after you've explained it.
@@srshama One of the instructions the judge gave them was to only fill in the verdict forms once they had reached verdicts on all the counts.
@@tomatoberryand I think that instruction puts the burden on the judge to ask if there were any charges where they were able to reach a unanimous verdict.
I am still baffled as to how 9 jurors ended up at guilty somewhere in Offense #2. They ALL required her to have caused death with her car. There was no evidence that he was hit with a car, period, other than that awful "crime scene re constructionist with the pirouette theory that seemed to be based on nothing but "this seemed possible to me based on my own brain and no science". So baffling.
thats exactly where i am....ng on 1 and 3 (hit by car) and 2 says ultimately died by car
@@LilMomma_1 jurors are confused too! But… as Bev said, ‘This is how we do it in a Canton!’
I think KR is not guilty but Count 2 does not require being stricken by a car, contrary to the steady drumbeat of many lawtubers.
Totally agree, apparently science isn’t playing a part 🤷🏼♀️
@lisettegarcia correct, but of for example the car played a part because John threw a glass at it in anger and the bounce back caused his head injury or caused him to hit the flag pole causing his head injury...the car would've played a part, but I personally would not hold KR responsible for JOKs actions.
Maybe if Judge Bev hadn't limited closing arguments, jurors would have *known more* about the 2nd charge. *sighhhh*
Bev wanted to hurry everything except for the commonwealth's direct examinations, and in doing so, wasted a shitton of time. She may have saved an entire 2nd trial (and appeals process) by giving the sides another ~2hrs for closing arguments, and could've saved so much time if she spent 10 seconds asking, "Are you hung on all charges, or have your agreed on some verdicts."
A trial that lasted over two months... then an hour each for closing.
Wow, the commonwealth not only has keystone kops, they have keystone judges and apparently a keystone legislature that doesn't mind how much resources were wasted on a two month trial.
I literally cannot tell if the entire government of the cw is corrupt or incompetent beyond reason. Might be both.
@joshm60 totally agree with you Josh.
I clearly remember Judge Bev stating if what is written on the instructions was different than what she said then to go by what she said
Wow! Really?
@@SarahWinter-wr5jk She sure did! I just looked it up. It’s on EDB’s closing arguments stream from June 25th. She makes the statement at 3:18:30
I remember that as well,💯
Court tv has posted in their community page that Bukhenik and Tully are now under investigation along with Proctor.
"Put your hands together and welcome Count 2 and the Lesser Includeds to the stage!!" SUCH a good band name.
Bev created a hostile atmosphere. They were probably afraid to ask her.
Yes, nothing better than listening to EDB to increase the work productivity and fine tune the multitasking
Same 😂 I can’t do laundry or dishes in silence anymore
100%!!! I’m so glad there are so many neurodivergent people out in the world. :)
I'm in chronic pain. Listening to EDB while doing housework is so helpful!
So after this breakdown of count 2, are we really to believe that dropping someone off at a home they want to go to could lead to going to prison for murder if they somehow die after we did so?! So if she intended to drop him off there, and after doing so he died of hypothermia, she’s at fault? That’s freaking wild.
Can we charge all the people who walked past his body which was supposedly on the lawn as they left the house? They must be charged with negligent homicide for JOK’s hypothermia. The whole case is full of holes.
@@jmmmm4010 yeah I couldn't agree more.
Prison for murder? Murder was Count #1. Count #2 was involuntary man.
@@Dannielle.S if the hypothermia happened because of a collision with her car then yes. That’s what the charge is. Dropping someone off is obviously not a crime
One statement after declaring mistrial, “…any questions?”… would have given surprised jurors an opportunity to ask about when do we write down our verdict on counts 1 and 3.
It's hard to escape the impression the commonwealth government is full of bozos.
What a mess. I hate this for Karen.
I hate Karen. I don’t like killers
How are you supposed to predict events on the "if i leave you at a place and yoh get injured suddenly i am liqble criminally" no kne has a crystal ball no one can predict the future the idea for count 2 is ludicrous
Exactly… He’s a grown man who wanted to go into the house party. What is she supposed to go when she doesn’t want to “just in case” such a joke.
THIS! This is what I've been saying too!
In the car driving to a gallery. Private view tonight and my work is in the show! Emily will keep me company.
How exciting!!!
Wish you could give us some images of your work
Wishing you a successful evening
Good luck
Congratulations! It sounds so exciting! Have a wonderful evening.
Next trial defense needs to motion that jury must be warned prior to opening that they will not be given a transcript for deliberations. I think this is ridiculous but honestly I fully believe if they had transcripts no one would have found her guilty.
For as old as the state is, Massachusetts is really freaking behind on simple common sense updates to the trial process.
So true! They have to rely on notes taken weeks prior while under duress of weeks of irrelevant information from prosecution. There was no way to know what was important with no prosecuting theory offered and no evidence for weeks! No transcripts seems in itself to be criminal!
They'd be better off NOT mentioning it. That way, another denied transcript might cause a second mistrial. The CW might give up at that point.
“Don’t tell…until it’s unanimous.” I dunno, I get why they could be confused but I still don’t blame anybody for not asking because it really sounded like they couldn’t agree if water was wet.
I find it curious how they don't include laymen when crafting the jury instructions. The instructions are directed at LAYMEN. It's so stupid.
This confusion feels so avoidable if the court had done her job.
Maybe when crafting the jury instructions they should include lay people.
Jury instructions should not take a judge 20 minutes to read aloud. I would do better if I had a copy I could follow along with while the judge reads them, at least.
Lawyers only like to write sentences that they understand…it’s by design.
@@B_Bodziak A copy would have been helpful. But actually, it wasn't rocket science to figure out.
This jury thinks a guy with no car-related injuries was killed by a car … so, not surprised they were confused.
😂
Good point
Why did the Judge only allow 3 or 4 copies of the instructions? I wouldve wanted my own to digest it
That statement right there 17:53 is what cause all the confusion. I have never a judge read it as such in other jurisdictions (see the Wisconsin V Miu Lake trial). Multiple counts are hard and if the voting sheet is also awkward and unclear the jury will be confused af.
The jury instructions flat out told them to not say anything until they had a unanimous verdict. Why in the world would they then ask if they could say partial agreement? It make total sense they wrote the note they did.
I think the implications of the jury being confused and the judge never questioning the jurors as to their verdict should have serious implications for the judge, the lawyers, the judicial system in the state - everyone BUT the defendant. Where is justice?
Amen
I listened to this and still was confused until I listened again, I can't blame them. 😂
Neither side explaining the charges in closing is absolutely the court's fault. 1 hour for closing 10 weeks of trial was already pushing time, having to explain charges on top of that is ridiculous. It feels like she rushed this trial and the verdict and now we're here.
I’m baffled by the question “is it her fault for leaving him there in the cold?” He was a goddamn grown man!!!! It was HIS friends house!! How is that HER responsibility?!?
Yeah- baffling. Plus, it’s been insinuated that she didn’t want him to go there and the amount of times she called him to come home. How can she then be held responsible for him insisting on going to the house and the actions of the others at the house? Bizarre 😢
@@joygonsalves8840 yes! And his mother scolding her for leaving him there. I mean, I know she’d already lost her daughter and son-in-law but MA’AM - your son is a COP! Good lord!
@@BookishDarkI am from Massachusetts (Cape Cod) but now live in the UK (for 20+ years). I am astounded by the US judicial system. It is also getting pretty bad here too. But what I really want to know is this: how can they find her NG on counts 1&3 and be hung on count 2!?!? So, if I understand correctly, what EDB is saying that by her dropping him there (count 2) makes her in some way responsible for his death!?!? FFS. Doesn’t make any sense.
(Ps- thank you for your response and comment❤)
@@joygonsalves8840#1 REQUIRED INTENT. #3 REQUIRED that she had KNOWINGLY hit him but didn't seek aid for him. #2 just REQUIRED that she had hit him, while she was under the influence, irrespective of whether she had realized what had happened.
@@BookishDark every charge involves her vehicle hitting him. You people are insane to think otherwise
I would have been confused without not guilty checks on each count like defense wanted. It would have solved the problem
I thought the judge changed her mind and did add those?
@@B_Bodziak She did not add them.
@@B_Bodziak I think she just added verbal instructions.
One problem is that they were not provided an opportunity to fill out the form if they had not already done so at that point. Jury did not know that there would not be given a chance to wrap up after sending that last note.
5:35 SO GLAD that the "count" joke made it in!! 😂😂😂
that was so funny!! haha.. (or should I say.... ahh ahh ahh ahhhhhhh)
😁 Same! Made this 57 yr old giggle like a little girl!!
The jury dropped the ball so badly. The jury was adamant they were deadlocked and said they knew what they were doing….twice.
I still say this is on judge Bev. It's not about how she read the jury instructions, it's the fact that she completely and utterly ignored the fact there were multiple charges. It should be on her to clarify the ambiguity of if it was all charges, some, or one. She just bum rushed them out of there in five seconds flat at the dismissal. She was done, and it affected her ability to think straight and do her actual job.
At this point the DA does not look like he is in it for justice and evidence based logic. Seems like his pride is hurt and wants to prove something and win at all
cost. Very bad look for normal folks thinking the DA and police should represent fair trial, justice and protection of all citizens even the accused until proven guilty. Thank goodness I don’t live in MA.
I just don’t see how 9 found any charge guilty. The CW did not prove anything.
I don't think it helped that the jury asked for a report or some additional information at one point and was told they had everything they needed or could be given and needed to make their decision based on the evidence presented. I worry it caused the jury to feel like they'd gotten their hand smacked for asking a question and felt like they couldn't ask anything else lest they be "scolded" again for asking a question.
3 new troopers under investigation now.. Tully, Yuri and Fanning. 😬
~wait~ Fanning was the one texting gross things with Proctor about Karen Read and there are reports he was also the trooper overseeing the jury….? Is that even legal?
I whole heartedly understand how the jury could be confused BUT not one out of the twelve could ask a QUESTION. No excuse!!!
Almost all the police have been put on leave with or without pay. I honestly don’t see how they can convict on anything at this point unless Bev says the defense can’t bring that fact up.
I had heard that those considering "guilty" were doing so simply because she dropped him off, but I didn't think anyone could be that stupid. Guess I was wrong.
lol, my guess is they believed that, since she had dropped him off, she was the most likely person responsible for his death.
These charges are nebulous and can be twisted to many narratives . If she hadn’t left him there at the Albert’s, he wouldn’t have died ? easily yes BUT the car never hit him. Driving after drinking is negligence but linking these elements together is unfair as each item alone is a yes but connected does not constitute the result of him being hit by a car. Horrible!!!
I can take eggs, milk and flour, mix them in varying amounts and get very different results.
That was a perfect analogy.
Very perfect analogy
@@Schnickums every charge involves a collision between the defendant’s vehicle and the victim.
@@IJamesCordenLoveMyWife I agree but think the dui bit got them
I don’t know how anyone could say guilty of manslaughter when she didn’t hit him.
Well, those 9 jurors sure thought she hit him.
She did hit him. That’s a given.
@@stevenprice6957you personally may THINK she did, however the (FBI) experts on the stand said unequivocally she didn’t.
@Ketzaleh it wasn't unequivocal, nor is accident reconstruction some rock solid science like DNA.
My biggest issue is that these experts either didn't know about or didn't comment on any of the other circumstantial evidence.....like Karen's utterances, her call to Kerry, 0 witnesses putting John in the house vs 13 saying he never entered.
@@dukedematteo1995The CW's accident reconstructionist was a disaster. (While listening to him, I assumed that he was a troll, and that this case was an elaborate joke). The ME ruled the cause of death as "undetermined." Then the slow-plow driver said he hadn't seen a body where there was supposed to be one. The FBI expert said JOK's injuries were inconsistent with an auto accident. So I don't see how this case even ends in a conviction. There's too much reasonable doubt. Might be another hung jury.
Emily I am so grateful to you. You inspired me to go back to school and I start on Monday. After watching your channel the last few years I realized I love the law. Thank you for all you do ❤
My question is why is the prosecution going after her so hard, especially with all the evidence showing that this was probably an accident? It makes absolutely no sense to me.
They need her guilty because otherwise we all look at the people in the house...
It is a big cover up, it her guilty or many others... so obvious they tried everything to frame her!
If she's not guilty, then there's a couple of well-known families...which includes police officers, that would have to be looked at.
I know discussing all the players in this hot mess is old hat, but I cannot stop thinking that Colin Albert is a main player here...
2 other officers that "handled" this case are being investigated now too. Talk about a Dumpster Fire...🤦🏻♀️
Yannetti said NO, he had never seeing that form , as the judge asked him, that he knows that in Massachusetts is written in that form.... !!!
Good morning all! 🎉 Really need some cheer up today. So.. im here. Love and hugs yall. ❤❤❤
I don’t know you but I understand! I hope your day gets better starting right now! 💕
@@justanothersmith6012 Thank you so much! 💜
I'm sorry. I am sending love & hugs. Scrolling over one, I found the member's chat in the comment section.
Hugs and love back at you!!
Hope you’re okay. Sending love and positives ✨💕
I have two questions.
1) Did everyone on the jury see and approve the note the foreman sent to the judge?
2) Does the jury instruction committee include civilians (non-lawyers and non-judges) to give a more accurate assessment of how confusing or not the jury instructions are?
It’s 3am and I’m feeding my 4 week old. Thanks for keeping me company, Emily 💜
Aw, congratulations on your new baby! Those are the best days!❤
Congratulations🤍🤍🤍
Congratulations !🍼🧸
Thank you 😊 Loving this time x
Driving under influence only. No evidence of being hit by car
Does the jury get the jury instructions in writing so they can refer to them as needed?
The car had NOTHING to do with his death; the crash daddies proved that, so count 2 should be Not Guilty too yeah!
I don’t understand how somebody could be found responsible for someone’s death for dropping them off. He was an adult, that was his choice.
The 9 jurors who voted guilty on manslaughter definitely thought she hit him with the car..
@@dukedematteo1995 I honestly wonder if they just couldn't hear the experts, it's the only thing I can imagine.
@@joshn1678the experts? The ones who looked at 1/3 of evidence?? No professional can give a 100 % full evaluation after look at only 33% of facts. Math tells you that. Guilty
@joshn1678 they heard them and likely factored in the fact "accident reconstruction" isn't some settled science like DNA or fingerprints.
Most importantly, the experts were unaware of (or didn't comment on) any of the important circumstantial evidence in the case....ie Karen's utterances, call to Kerry R, the fact zero witnesses say John entered the house, while 13 say he didn't, etc.
@@dukedematteo1995or that the basement was redone; the house was sold for under market value; the dog was rehomed, and the ATF agent dumped his phone on a military base. 🤣
I think a big part of the problem is that often the wording of laws is very poor... I am a linguist and I say that when lawyers and lawmakers sit down to write laws they need to have a linguist seated next to them to guide them...
lol, wrong. It's intentionally confusing, so that each side could advance an argument.
But then anyone can be charged for anything they can't nessarily know or control
I feel like the 3 NG jurors must have been of the mind that there wasn’t convincing evidence she hit him.
Emily, the issue was they only had an hour for closing arguments which is senile too me. Yes the defense should have did what Creighton did in Murdaugh trial, go over form and jury instructions and how it should be filled out according to them. But only an hour, Jackson had to prioritize
Going over jury form would take the whole hour of closing 😂
I've been hearing in MA neither the prosecutor or defense can go over the jury instructions... Those are for the Judge to read to them and then answer questions if/as they come during deliberation.
Thanks for everything Emily. You are one of the few people I will pause Outlander for.
If I'm understanding this correctly, jurors could convict her for dropping him off if injury was foreseeable? I understand if he was a child or disabled but I don't think this applies here
Nooo, that's an insane stretch and total cope.
Those 9 guilty jurors definitely thought Karen hit him. When you aren't in the insular FKR online bubble, you tend to come to that conclusion.
That did clear it up. It's still a NG on all counts for me. Dawg
This was really helpful. I watched the "Nanny Trial" here in MA back in the 90s. I knew the judge that threw out that "Guilty of 1st degree murder" verdict had guts to do so, but I don't think I realized just how much. What that didn't do however is deal with the convoluted law or jury instructions. Sigh...
Question: why wouldn’t the discovery about Colin have come in about John calling 911 on him several times for d*ug dealing in the neighborhood? The commonwealth submitted discovery to the defense with several 911 calls, emails, and a photo John sent to officer Kevin Albert of Colin’s “known d*ug activities” as the discovery states.
Ohh... interesting
Why would JO contact Brian OKeefe, fellow Boston PD about Colin’s drug activities or better yet drug unit? Then go BA house, a death wish.
@@bonniemccrane6417he contacted Kevin Albert.
And he probably assumed they were decent people.
People who are decent tend to do that, and it takes learning the hard way over and over to recognize dangerous personalities and the red flags they display.
Where are you getting this whopper of a story?
@@dukedematteo1995 this isn't a story, it's what happened. John had contacted Kevin Albert about Colin using cocaine. The FBI is investigating Colin Albert on drug charges.
Wow. They threw everything but the kitchen sink at Karen. Sequence of events? She was not responsible for his actions, health or well-being.
It was proved by Crash Daddy that she did not hit JOK or kill him by hitting him with her car. The only thing I see that she did was drive under the influence but she wasn’t observed doing so that night and that would be a ticket. How would she have known that JOK would be beat up and savaged by the mysterious Chloe when she dropped him off and left to go home to sleep.
Mass is janky as hell!
Judge read the charging instructions like it was only one charge...it didnt make it clear what happens with multiple counts....each count should stand alone... She made it sound like you cant come vack till unanimous on all counts.
She also told them they could only decide using the exhibits entered (mostly from the CW) and basically implied to ignore the witness testimony and cross examination which proved most of the CW exhibits were factually incorrect
Thanks for breaking down the issue of jury confusion as related to counts and charges, especially since it helps me solidify my POV.
What about the affidavits?
And didn't the judge tack on extra instructions, that were not part of the written, that she said superseded the written instructions? But that they couldn't take those with them to the jury room?
I just love this channel and the community so much, so comforting and nice :)
I wonder why when Bev told the jury she would come in and speak to them why didn’t any of them say anything to her then?
I’m so frustrated with the judge! Why didn’t she pull the jury?! If it was just done in the first place we wouldn’t be discussing this.
Emily, thank you so much for explaining all of this. For the life of me, I could not figure out why they would find NG on counts 1&3 and be hung on 2.
I watched this that day and I thought the jury could not tell the judge the count until they are unanimous in their vote. I would have been very confused not having a not guilty choice after each count. How ever J don’t think they proved how John O was killed so I would have decided Karen is not guilty . In my Karen was never pulled over drinking and driving. If she was going to be convicted of DUI then I would want everyone on camera drinking and driving from that bar that night to be accused of DUI as well.
I understand how the jury could be confused but I think the defense proved KR did not hit JO. If they thought she was guilty because she dropped him off, then I disagree. What proof do they have that he didn’t make it into the house. Again this case should have never been brought to trial! The right thing to do by the appellate judges is to find her not guilty on the charges the jury agreed to. This prosecution doesn’t care about justice just getting KR. This is coming from a retired LEO not a rehomed one!
Who is to say it hasn't come up but the news isn't there on every case to know how common it might be
IMO if you were dropping someone off and they were intoxicated, would you expect them not to make it inside? I can't, in my mind, come up with any time that I would think, hey, I shouldn't let this person off bc they may die.
I don't think that is reasonable.
And I do not think for a second that she hit him, much less intentionally!
OMG, thank you for sharing all of this. You’re absolutely right. I absolutely could see why the jurors didn’t think they could speak about what they had come to conclusions on. It said not to tell anybody not to even tell the judge and then further on it says only on a unanimous verdict, so I absolutely understand why they did what they did I don’t get why didn’t the judge or somebody ask have you come to any verdict on any of the charges is all split down so they knew this is not them. This is the way it’s all worded.
Thank you for the breakdown on this, it does help
Good morning law nerds. Hoping I can stay awake. My elderly neighbor's house burned last night and she lost her beloved dog of 14 years in the fire. Thankful she is unharmed. Fire crew was back out at 3 am this morning having to put out a hotspot that caught her sons Corvette on fire. Rescue I work with is covering expense for Gracie's cremation. I took her sweet baby to the vets office this morning early
Oh, my. My home burned down 13 years ago and it is a very trying situation. I was amazed that there were so few resources available on what needs to be done after an event. It is such a day by day, even hour by hour time. I remember getting back to the hotel room after another trip to Target and absolutely bawling because I'd forgotten to get nail clippers AGAIN. I was in my 40s, and if she's elderly, she's likely going to need someone to tell her step by step what to do and how to prioritize tasks.
How sad😢.
Sending love to you, your neighbor, and her family. You’re a wonderful, kind neighbor; the kind that everyone wishes for! ♥️
How does the CW go to trial with four troopers under investigation with one of them already being suspended - it’s absolutely ridiculous how Karen has been treated throughout this entire trial.
Not only were they confused, they were (and still are) scared!
This whole situation is infuriating to me. I feel like the judge did a horrible actually intentionally horrible job at making sure the jury knew how to properly communicate their decision
To me the instructions read by the judge seem pretty clear: DO NOT tell the judge any vote counts until a unanimous verdict has been reached and if the judge explained "verdict" to mean anything other than a COMPLETE verdict ON ALL COUNTS then I have missed that. And without such an explanation my layperson's understanding of "verdict" would be a COMPLETE verdict ON ALL COUNTS. Because I understand the jury to render "a verdict", not "a bunch of verdicts". So I find it natural that the jury did not tell the judge that they had reached a unanimous decision regarding some charges. It sounded like they weren't allowed to do that.
When the judge declared a mistrial the defense should have jumped up and said "Your Honor! We need to poll the jury!"
I think that's what the appeals court is going to say if this goes to appeal. This was a mistake by the defense but that's life. People have to live with the consequences of the mistakes made by their lawyers.
The judge couldn't even read the jury instructions properly how was the jury supposed to fully understand them. She should have said "until you have reached a unanimous verdict on 1 or each count"
Taxpayers, if you don't stand up and fight this corrupt use of your hard earned money, I've lost all respect for you.
lol, that's a waste of time. If not wasted on X, the $$$ would be misspent on either Y or Z. It's a "never ending story."
Is it normal for judge to limit closing arguments to 1 hour?
She was too stubborn and bitchy and defensive for the jury to be comfortable asking her anything
The jury instruction language does not mesh well with the ambiguity inherent in the notorious Rule 27(b). Bev's instruction (17:00) to "not say anything til you are unanimous..." would work in a trial with a single count, but with multiple counts, the jury could not possibly understand what they were supposed to do without further clarification. She should have added "...on all counts" or "...on any count." to show how she was exercising her discretion under 27(b).
Even the argument that the jury "intended to come to verdicts" on some counts (10:14) would likely fail because 27(b) seems to say that Bev had discretion whether or not to allow verdicts on some charges.
IANAL but I can see how Rule 27(b) could be ruled unconstitutional (Fifth Amendment) because it allows defendants to be tried multiple times for the same offense as long as a jury is hung on ONE of a list of offenses. If they had included a Count 4 of Littering (KR left broken taillight pieces on the lawn) and the jury was unanimous that she was not guilty of killing John at all but they couldn't decide if she littered, she could be retried multiple times for the homicide counts 1-3. I wonder if 27(b)'s constitutionality has been challenged before.
I love EDB so much! If I drank, I’d take a drink for every answered rhetorical question 😂
This whole prosecution is a huge distraction from finding out what really happened.Just as Proctor intended--nail it on someone and do not look elsewhere.
From the Jump Read was overcharged....
There needs to be an extra jury instruction about partial verdicts when there are multiple independent counts.