No they did not. The number of boxes did not change. Not guilty was ALWAYS listed as the first option for all three counts.

My my ... you are precious, Sunshine

I thought that AJ asked for the not guilty box to be added because Bev said if they didn't check guilty box, it automatically meant not guilty

@@stormdancer859 nope

@@UncivilLaw I thought that was a joke. Like, "They fixed one more thing; they fixed that you are just wrong for no reason, because we want to think you're wrong". That's funny, making fun of those who refuse to be corrected by evidence. Apparently it's a troll. If not, then this person's absolute rejection of intellectual sincerity is worthy of our pity. Being a troll is fairly pitiable too. Tube on good streamer.

I agree, what would have been the harm in adjourning to allow defense and prosecution to deliberate for an hour or so and read over the Jury notes and form? She treated mistrial as some minor inconvenience; didn't treat it with the seriousness and reverence it deserved.

She didn’t try to hide her bias and opposition to Karen Read

Because neither side knew at that time what they might say. If I’m the defense and this jury is SO STUPID that they can’t acquit this absolute dumpster fire of a case despite wasting 27 hours, then I’m cutting and running with the mistrial.

@@The_10th_Man I think there are two issues at play with the Jury. One is that they are geared and brought up to believe what the Police say. Culturally they are told to distrust defense attorneys. But the other side of it; which I think is the case here, is that they over think it and come to the wrong conclusion. They probably kept circling back to the tail light pieces and Karen saying "Did I hit him?" and couldn't get passed it. Obviously if you consider the totality of the evidence, it isn't anywhere near compelling enough to remove reasonable doubt. It really needed to be dumbed down. Jackson did a great job at that, but you can't help jurors who are desperate to over think it until they get to the prosecution's understanding.

@@susieannei5641FACT

@margaretsmyth1564 that's what I'm hearing the lawyers debate. Most just think Bev didn't ask & the jury were ready to go. The 1 said they became very combative after the Rodriguez charge was read. Maybe we'll find out. A hearing needs to be held. I don't know but they may wait till the 22nd. They shouldn't but...?

Reading comprehension is a superpower, but thanks for playing! 🦸‍♂️📚

Depends how you read it. Was it 8 not guilty, 4 guilty it wasn't clear.

More shocking than pineapple on pizza, but hey, maybe the defense should've hired a juggler instead. 🎪⚖️

@@UncivilLaw now i feel like pizza 🙂

@@caroline-brisbane8577 I read it as 8 Guilty.

The prosecution provided enough doubt on their own.

@@supernova743 😂😂🤣🤣 Absolute truth

I don't know how people can say she's guilty when the experts said her car didn't hit him

I mean at this point I could almost vote half the local justice system guilty

All of this is excuse the Judge was mean to KR for Smiling While in Court That could be the her reason for not disclosing what did Jurors answer was not Guilty

That's a huge assumption. Huge in the sense that if that is true, the consequences are huge. So I'm very hesitant to accept that until there is more than gut feeling. I certainly think there is fckery afoot. But it might go beyond Bev being as inept and biased as all the other judicial entities in Boston. Which I'm still more inclined to believe than direct corruption; beyond Higgins and Proctor.. those two I don't trust one bit

Apparently the one juror that was ACCIDENTALLY brought on camera and therefore had to be dismissed was the woman who had the most visible reaction to Troopah Proctah’s texts.

​​​@@YourLongLostDad286 I believe that juror was reported for making derogatory comments about KR. It was the juror who was made an alternate prior to deliberating who was one of several jurors who had visibly shocked reactions to Protors texts.

Absolutely and the “MacAberts” all sat directly in front of jury, all staring down the jury during closing arguments.

@@Shangori when the state trooper pick the alternates the defense asked to see the number that he picked and he refused..

Sounds like someone needs to explain the concept of "checking your work" to dear Bev - maybe with crayons and a napkin for clarity 🖍️😜.

@@angelaversnik4570 U R correct! That is what Bev instructed.

Sounds like a stellar "Simon says" game, only with legal ramifications and zero fun-thank goodness our forepersons are up for the challenge! 📝⚖️

@@UncivilLaw Does human refer to only men, and huwoman only woman? so lets use Huperson, to refer to all hu-man-woman

No. If there was a clerk I am quite certain they are not allowed to answer any legal question like that.

@@ibelf2465 The jury didn’t fill out the verdict form (as best we know). The most likely reason why they didn’t fill out the form is because the judge specifically instructed them to NOT fill out the form until they came to a conclusion on ALL charges.

☝🏻☝🏻☝🏻☝🏻

That's an interesting strategy; if only legal minds played chess as well as they played checkers. 🎯📜

@@UncivilLawhumility is a superpower. 😂

My thought is there has to be at least 1 person in there that knew this, problem is that person may have been a guilty and so would have played dumb.

Judges like her really make one appreciate the profound wisdom found in fruit flies; here's hoping democracy and self-governance don't let you down! 🍀🔨

I'm really beginning to believe she was awful on purpose. I don't trust her. Most times she made the water muddy or caused an interference it seemed to favor the prosecution

Glad to provide the reality check you didn't order but clearly needed. 😂⚖️

Interesting take-though if the founders had meant for us to do things “both ways,” they’d probably have made the Constitution a choose-your-own-adventure novel. 😉📚⚖️

I might be misremembering, but I think the leaving the scene charge requires Karen to know that John was hit. So if she accidentally hit John without knowing that she did, she could be guilty of manslaughter, but not fleeing the scene.

If this is all true, my guess would be those 6 didn't think she *knew* she hit him, and therefore acquitted on leaving the scene of an accident

@@Deadmanstrolln My understanding...two things...the split was 8 guilty and 4 not guilty on charge 2. And that charge was manslaughter while intoxicated or something like that. So it sounds like 8 were thinking she was too drunk to realize she hit someone.

Ah, the intricate dance of legal reasoning where decisions make sense only if you tilt your head just right and squint 👀-welcome to the wonderful world of jury verdicts! 🤷‍♂️⚖️

Yes, I'm aware-it's almost like we're witnessing a magical legal revelation together, isn't it? 🤔✨

@@UncivilLaw I admit something. It is in the cadence that Alan Jackson speaks, that it sounds like he is saying, the one thing that he'd like to see is "not guilty" at the top. He stops in his sentence at a weird place. I don't know if Aunt Bev interrupted or what. It was just strange. And that is why there were so many people in your live saying it happened differently, then you'd seen and heard it. I am from Texas, just like you, so maybe you will take a little advice. Sometimes, you have to put yourself in another person's shoes, just to figure out why, or how they could come to their conclusion. I mean there were 20 different people in the live saying the exact same thing. I could understand if it was one or two, but damn...when a pretty good-sized group is saying the same thing. And Aunt Bev did say that if they did not mark guilty, it would be obvious that she was not guilty. Thanks for the response! Do you have cattle, or just like to wear a cowboy hat?

He likes the hat. He talks about his hat a bit​@@montemask

Well that’s not what the document said and the jury is signing the document. That’s trumps whatever mumbojumbo this “””judge””” said.

@@goodolearkygal5746 That is OK. I talk about my hat as well. I like having a great place to hang my hat also.

PS. I don't believe any of the jurors believe she hit him with the car, I believe they were hung on the OUI part. They believed the part about her being drunk, even though there were no credible witnesses who testified how much she actually drank or how much tonic water she consumed. She didn't slur her words, and exhibited no behavior you would expect of an intoxicated person.

Might be time to invest in a Judges for Dummies book for Bev-assuming she can follow those instructions, of course. 📚🙄

I wonder if they are related, so they call her Auntie Bev. You are correct. The voices sound the same, not just the accent-or-pronunciation of words.

If confusion were currency, we'd have the Federal Reserve of logical missteps here-FYI, checking 'Not Guilty' doesn't require a decoder ring. 🕵️‍♂️📜

Yeah that’s what it was. I watched it live and that’s what everyone understood it to be at the time. Even the lawyer streaming seemed to think that too, but I could be wrong about what she understood at the time.

The gd form didn’t even say select only 1 (one)! Inconsistent capitalization, that form was a joke but no less than what I would expect from govt idiots.

@@The_10th_Man Select only 1 isn’t hard to put in there, neither is capitalization. Not a lot of words there to edit, but each one is extremely important.

That being said... I think you're at your best when you don't engage with the difficult people in the chat. You are almost always right... but even engaging stalls hearing your intelligent presentation and seeing you frustrated is just giving space in your head to someone else rent-free. I love your channel... keep being you, because you rock!

It seems your taste in humor is as impeccable as your grasp on legal satire-don’t worry, I’ll keep the sarcasm calibrated just for you! 😏⚖️

They’re not allowed to poll the jury in a mistrial in Massachusetts.

Because nothing says justice like a 12-part interview series with jury members spilling courtroom tea ☕⚖️.

Are you talking about the foreman that was hand picked by aunty Bev? This whole thing stinks so bad.

Filling in a form must have been a Herculean task for the foreman-right up there with getting coffee orders straight ☕📋.

Sounds like Auntie Bev might need a crash course in civics; next we'll be adding a box for "I'm confused" 📦🧐.

​@UncivilLaw 😂 That would have probably simplified it for the jurors. But it is definitely not realistic because there would never be a decision. Thanks for the laugh.

In a world where jury instructions double as riddles, it's always good to aim for clarity, even if it feels like deciphering ancient hieroglyphs. 😏📜⚖️

Given that level of confusion, I wonder if next time they'll need diagrams and a snack break just to fill out the forms correctly. 🤔📉

Apparently, "chain of evidence" in Massachusetts is more like "suggestion of evidence"-good to see the jury taking creative liberties! 😉📚

That’s exactly what happened.

Navigating a verdict form must be the legal equivalent of assembling IKEA furniture: confusing and riddled with missing pieces ⚖️🔨📝.

I agree wholeheartedly. If the jurors came back and said whoa, "SOMETHING is NOT right here. We found her guilty of Count 2." I would want that to be fixed. I am 100% NOT okay with someone who is innocent being sent to prison, but I am also NOT okay with someone who is guilty walking free. I think the "judge" had a big bias against KR. I think the jury was a bit afraid of asking too much because of the judge's demeanor. They were definitely unclear on the forms, Bev lied about the forms and said they have been used for 200+ years and Lally disagreed and THAT PISSED AUNT BEV OFF. She told the jury, with an "attitude" they had all they would get and go back to deliberate after the 1st question. She looked and was annoyed with the first "We've exhausted..." by the second one she was super pissed and EVERYONE could see it. Bev did NOT tell the lawyers before bringing in the jury that she was going to declare a mistrial and I think both sides were caught off guard when she said it and banged her gavel. I don't think they marked the NG boxes because they wanted to make sure they did it correctly to not make an issue of it later on. Bev should've polled the jurors and the lawyers SHOULD HAVE SEEN THE FORMS (filled out or not). Also, someone should have gone into the jury room after just so whatever she said was on the record. She knew the forms weren't checked off because she was the ONLY ONE WHO SAW THEM and that would help the prosecution She did that purposely, imo.

@@RMBRN11 Excellant point on why they didn't mark the boxes. They could have simply asked the judge for clarification but yes, if they were intimidated your theory makes sense.

Sure, let's go with the Schrödinger's Verdict theory; until we see that form, it's both guilty and not guilty simultaneously. 🧐⚖️

@@UncivilLaw so I was rewatching the jury instructions and the judge tells them to only fill out the verdict form after they have unanimous verdicts on all charges. I posted the clip on X, I’ll tag you or send it to you on there.

Perhaps Judge Cannone should consider a career in comedy because that courtroom lesson sure was a joke! 🎭📚

Imagine dealing with those chat ding dongs AND knowing the law to boot-now that's insanity with style! 😏📜

​@@RenataKleinRK But he Is smarter than everyone else... 😂

One might say Judge Bev's sense of justice is as punctual as her vacation plans-priorities, right? 🏖️✈️⚖️

I bet she made a beeline to the Quarterdeck Lounge in Hyannis to meet up with the Albert’s and McCabe’s and the Proctors.

Nothing like a "get off my lawn" twist to keep the courtroom exciting-you’re welcome! 😂🚀

One can only hope it's not the bouquet of legal brilliance wafting through the air. 💼🧐

Yep

So, basically, they wanted to have their DUI cake and eat it too? 🍰🚗💥

seems like a weird thing to throw the whole case out over. Imagine being like I have strong conviction over her getting a DUI when every single person including cops and an ATF agent were all also duiing all over the place.

Jesus, and to think this entire last acrimonious 2 and a half years was all about a DUI???

Your post doesn't make sense. First you say that not guilty boxes had to be added to the forms (which is incorrect), but then you conclude with "Kurt is correct!!!" (when he is explicitly stating multiple times that not guilty options were always present on the forms and only some wording was changed). At 24:30, he showed you the original verdict slips for all three charges. There is a "Not Guilty" option at the top of each and every one of them. On the second charge, THE ONLY THING that was changed on the revised version of the verdict slips is that beside the "Not Guilty" option (that had always been there, they also added additional words there so that it said "Not guilty of the offense charged or any lesser included offense." At 40:35, he also showed you the video where Jackson asked for those exact words to be added in that exact manner. So if you find one guilty of the main charge, you check that guilty option. If you find one guilty of the first lesser included offense, you check that guilty option. If you find one guilty of the second lesser included offense, you check that guilty option. If you find one is not guilty of any of the charges on that page, you check the not guilty option at the top of the page which states "Not guilty of the offense charged or any lesser included offense." The words "not guilty" were not added to any of the forms because they were already there to begin with. If you were under the impression that the second charge had a not guilty blank for the the main charge AND ALSO a not guilty added to the first lesser included offense PLUS a not guilty ALSO added for the second lesser included offense...well then you are just wrong. There was always one (and only one) "Not Guilty" option at the top of the form. The only thing that was changed about that option is that the exact words requested by the defense were added in exactly the way they wanted it.

You are wrong. There was always a not guilty option listed first for all three counts separately.

​, ??????? WHO is wrong, Phoebe or Sarah??????

@@RMBRN11 Since my comment got a heart from Kurt, I would assume he was stating that Phoebe is wrong. I would back that assumption up with the fact that the content of my comment reflects exactly what Kurt explained in his discussion during the stream. I gave the timestamps to back up my assertions. You can go see for yourself.

Why address legal issues with precision when you can add a sprinkle of drama, conspiracy theories, and misplaced emphases? 🎭📜

Given that the legal system often feels like an elaborate game of 4D chess played in a hall of funhouse mirrors, your appreciation is both wise and deeply concerning. 😉

Who knew verbal sparring in the comment section could be so therapeutic? 🎯💼

Impartial guardian of justice? 🤣 More like an overpaid referee in a game where nobody knows the rules. ⚖️

Memory gaps are totally forgivable-you trying to challenge legal precision with caps lock shouting, priceless. 🚀📚😏

@@UncivilLaw I HAVE WRIST PROBLEMS, NOT SHOUTING...

Sounds like the prosecution thought quantity would substitute for competence-massive RICO, massive fail. 😂👩‍⚖️

@@RenataKleinRK - WE meaning those of us in the comments who stated " not guilty was not on there" I watched the proceeding but did not see the forms.

"Sounds like Judge Canone's version of 'choose your own adventure' forgot the 'not guilty' chapter-legal plotting at its finest! 📜🧐"

Ever the bastion of infallibility, even a broken clock aspires to my level of consistency-thanks for the devotion! 😉🕰️

Nice to know the prosecution did their mental gymnastics just to land flat on the mat-definitely a gold medal performance 🥇.

Sounds like Judge Jump-the-Gun traded her robe for a blindfold and a bottle of dummy juice-where's the mistrial mistrial when you need one? 🤦‍♂️📜

Indignant Kurt is my favorite too; nothing says "fun" like a healthy dose of righteous sarcasm! 🤦‍♂️💼

Have you seen this DA? He’ll prosecute until he’s dead or until he tortures us all with his redundant regurgitations of each of the 100 witnesses testimonies until our heads explode.

Appreciate the love! If only the DA's decisions were driven by public sentiment as much as their aversion to losing more cases-imagine the free time they'd have on weekends. 😏✨

I may be wrong, but I do believe they were allowed to submit Verdict sheets of Not Guilty on Counts 1 & 3 while remaining hung on the last count. I think the confusion prevented this from happening.

This is exactly what I think too.

I was also a bit confused. I was just remembering the jury form for the only the second count. I thought it was one form for all three counts with the awkward instructions. Counts 1 and 3 had very clear forms, and while I don’t know what they submitted I wouldn’t be surprised if they didn’t understand the charges were independent from each other in terms of unanimity. If that’s the case I don’t think the defense will be successful in getting the judge to enter that into the record, but it might be persuasive to the DA to not bring a retrial.

Apparently, if comprehension was currency, you’d need a bailout - but hey, I’m here for you, no judgment. 😏📚

No, that was the original form I reviewed. The revised form had altered language for the not guilty checkbox for count 2.

Are we suggesting Massachusetts should take jury polls as frequently as we check social media notifications? 😂📊

Performing secret magic tricks with the jury backstage isn't standard judicial practice, but nice try! 🪄💼😊

According to the juror who contacted Alan Jackson, they were unanimous that they were Not Guilty on counts 1 & 3, but because they were hung on the last charge they left everything blank. That was the mistake. They thought it was a conviction of one of the counts or an acquittal of everything. That impression was incorrect.

EXACTLY and they wanted to get it right so there would not be an issue, like it is. They said NG on Count 1 and 3 forms, but not in Count 2 because they were NOT unanimous therefore, hung on Count 2. If Bev wasn't so crooked, she would have polled them in the courtroom and if the jury felt uncomfortable with that, the room could have been cleared, and the Prosecution and Defense could have gotten answers. I think the jurors KNOW they were being watched and in a small town, shit flies fast.

Funny how the laws of the universe seem to work harder against KR than a fireman in a fireworks factory 🚒✨

Your lawn, my rules-I'll leave the common sense somewhere it stands a chance of survival. 😏📜

Patience is just something you develop when dealing with a legal system as clear as mud - enjoy your pristine Colorado water! 😉🚰

She is the absolute best, no theatrics and idiotic babbling like these other jokers on lawtube. I’ve been trying to watch differing opinions but i just can’t with most of these people, especially the one who talks about her nails and her hair half the time. Would you ever want these people representing you? lol

Sounds like someone needs a lesson in what "double jeopardy" actually means, but hey, let's not let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory. 🤔🔥

@@UncivilLaw Clearly you are ignorant of the law, that is why you are vague and obtuse with your response to my legally accurate comment about Double Jeopardy. Your comment is proven disingenuous by your deliberate failure to actually cite the facts that you said "get in the way". ...Also, in your (this) video, many times you said: "they" failed to check the not guilty box. There is no "they", it was ONLY the Jury Foreman that failed to check the not guilty box. The fact that you willfully refuse to correct your misrepresentation, is evidence of your dishonesty. It was the Judges faulty Jury Instructions that resulted in the Foreman not checking the Not Guilty boxes.

@@UncivilLaw Clearly you are ignorant of the law, that is why you are vague and obtuse with your response to my legally accurate comment about Double Jeopardy. Your comment is proven disingenuous by your deliberate failure to actually cite the facts that you said and claim "get in the way". ...Also, in your (this) video, many times you said: "they" failed to check the not guilty box. There is no "they", it was ONLY the Jury Foreman that failed to check the not guilty box. The fact that you willfully refuse to correct your misrepresentation, is evidence of your dishonesty. In the Judge's, Jury Instructions to the jury, she said, and I quote: "Don't tell anyone including me how the jury stands numerically or otherwise on the questions before such time as you have reached a unanimous verdict". ... The Jury Foreman could have thought that he was following the Judges Instructions to "don't tell anyone including me how the jury stands numerically or other wise on the questions before such time as you have reached a unanimous verdict", because the Jury did not reach a unanimous verdict on all the charges. The Judge did not instruct the jury on how to fill out the verdict form when the jury was unanimous on two of the charges and not unanimous on the second charge. Unanimous on two of the charges and not unanimous on the second charge means the jury was not UNANIMOUS overall and that the Foreman should not fill out the verdict form, according to the Judges Instructions. ...This is clearly a kangaroo court.

So the Schrödinger’s cat of legal hypotheticals strikes again - guess we’re all out of boxes now 🐱📦.

It was only 1 juror who directly contacted defense. The other two were informants friends of friends of jurors. It will all come out now that other jurors see this case.

Let's just say that even jurors enjoy a good plot twist as much as the rest of us 📜⚖️.

Yes you're right look at Bosto Globe they have the form on display

Fascinating strategy-nothing says "airtight case" like a parade of admirers, right? 🚔✨

Sounds like the jury might need a remedial course in checkbox literacy; let’s hope Judge Bev's next syllabus includes "Getting It Right the First Time" 📚⚖️😊.

Actually 1 juror . Others were friends of friends of the juror. It will be interesting to see what other jurors say now that this case has been filed.

@@jcs137actually 2 jurors since they have screenshots of juror B’s texts, even if juror B did not reach out to the defense directly.

Three's a crowd, but apparently not a consensus-welcome to the intricate world of legal mathematics. 🧮⚖️

Because it's always fun when the foreman gets a chance to do some creative time-traveling with paper 🕰️📜✨.

I am right.

For a judge, it's quite impressive they manage to use the toddler's rulebook effectively. 🙄⚖️

Wow, two whole days? Guess my legal crystal ball needs a firmware update 😏📉

@@UncivilLaw Pretty intelligent retort

Jury's impressive grasp of advanced obfuscation techniques never fails to amaze us mere mortals 😉⚖️.

Better to listen twice and understand once than listen once and come to the wrong conclusion…😅📚⚖️

Because expecting logical consistency in questioning from that court is like looking for a unicorn in a coffee shop 🦄☕.

Of course, they probably used invisible ink just to keep us all entertained with more legal drama 😉📜.

The courts have routinely held qualified immunity for state and federal officers for doing their jobs.

@@supernova743exactly… kinda like Aunt Bev has judicial immunity.

Sounds like someone’s shattered their irony meter while decoding constitutional nuances. 🧐📜

Of course, because nothing says "efficient legal process" like the mysterious disappearing option box 🧙‍♂️📦.