I’m angry for Karen Read. The court should have been more forthcoming. As a layperson who has served on a jury, I wouldn’t know to ask or think to-especially with how off-handed Bev was. Also, her instructions were over an hour long. I would not have been able to follow that personally. The court seemed to bend over backwards for the protection of the case-without protecting Karen Read’s constitutional rights or her right to “innocent until proven guilty”
@evanescentliliАй бұрын
Thankfully, after watching EDB, I now know when to ask and what to ask if I get chosen for Jury duty next month. (I received a summons last week, so I may have my own case to be jury on in August!)
@patriciagrillo1843Ай бұрын
Jackson asked the judge at some point to change the jury slips to make them clear. Nothing happened. 😮
@bethpatriots7290Ай бұрын
You are brainwashed. Why do you ignore all evidence ?
@garywatts1Ай бұрын
This is well put - ever word of it- if this mess is not sorted out and Karen is tried again - this is not justice in my eyes and I suggest in the eyes of most of the people following this side show!
@Missbehavin_NekaBАй бұрын
@@patriciagrillo1843actually the judge did change it.
@NancyD2Ай бұрын
Everyone is presuming these ordinary citizens understood the nuances of trial procedure and law. They THOUGHT they would be sent back because they EXPECTED the judge to make the inquiry as to where they were. To penalize the defendant because the ordinary citizen didn’t understand the unwritten rules (unwritten for them) is a travesty.
@williamp6800Ай бұрын
Blame the judge, not the jury. She should have asked about each charge.
@WhiteRose360-ji8wcАй бұрын
@@NancyD2 I hope on Monday both parties can be satisfied with the new decisions that will benefit both sides ✌️
@shanedaley6236Ай бұрын
@@williamp6800just to be clear in court she should have done something but I don't fully blame them for not being clear in their note I think even if I had no idea of how court worked I would want to be clear but I blame the judge more then the jury it sucks that Karen might actually suffer because of this
@david-bo2moАй бұрын
So lemme get this right...the commonwealth is saying that the defense waived their right by not asking for the jury to be asked about the split/polling the jury BUT ALSO states that doing that exact thing is coercion and isn't allowed...
@TinaDanielssonАй бұрын
Makes total sense. It's simple boolean math: _allowed to ask_ XOR _not allowed to ask_ = TRUE 😅
@lawnerddownunder3461Ай бұрын
Sssshhh... you're not supposed to notice!
@shazstar13Ай бұрын
And I wonder if the judge’s verbal instruction that they should consider Karen guilty if her actions LEAD to John’s death, so the jury MIGHT consider her guilty because she dropped him off. Which is ridiculous.
@TealandVioletАй бұрын
I have also wondered this.
@silikon2Ай бұрын
Yikes.
@aloevera533Ай бұрын
Yes! I wondered this too. Because charge 2 didn’t leave any room for not guilty anywhere. At least it didn’t seem so.
@PlaytechyАй бұрын
I agree with this; it was reckless for the judge to leave out a line about "It is not enough to say her actions led to a scenario where John died, you have to believe that she knew or ought to have known her actions would have led to the death of John or was likely to end in such a result" or something to that effect.
@karlabravo6657Ай бұрын
I also thought thought that! Which is ridiculous as John was an adult!
@Raymail-tj4cfАй бұрын
I’m not a lawyer but as a “ jury person “ I thought Judge Bev said don’t fill out the jury slip until they finish all. This is a Judge issue not a jury issue. In my opinion.
@J-ellOАй бұрын
I the same thing! 100% agree❤
@angelachristian87Ай бұрын
I listened to her instructions more than a few times. And she implied that they had to answer all the counts. I don’t know why the defense didn’t state this. I mean did they not because they don’t want to offend her?
@Missbehavin_NekaBАй бұрын
@@angelachristian87throughout this trial these defense attorneys didn’t appear to fear offending this judge.
@Rae777Ай бұрын
@@angelachristian87I’m not sure they caught the implication. They know how it works so they may not have considered how that could’ve come across to the jury.
@cailinanneАй бұрын
@@angelachristian87honestly… I think they fucked up and I think they know it.
@shazstar13Ай бұрын
I honestly think if the CW doesn’t dismiss the charges, and if the judge doesn’t hold a hearing, the jurors will go to the media - likely as a cohesive unit. I know I would.
@unpiiiАй бұрын
Let’s hope so!!!
@izmac9146Ай бұрын
Exactly this!!
@archangel807Ай бұрын
documentary is there and watching and so is CNN
@lsehАй бұрын
Juries don't know how things work so the court should be more responsible with holding their hands and be proactive in asking these questions to ensure everyone is on the same page.
@hoofgirl31Ай бұрын
totally, I'm wondering how the judge didn't just ASK where are you on each count?!
@Kodiak42Ай бұрын
@@hoofgirl31I know it’s cliche at this point, but I’m forced to wonder if this is just the result of Bev’s impropriety
@evilqueenyiayiaАй бұрын
I'm having the same question. 🤔
@Lulu_bearАй бұрын
This is exactly what I was thinking. If I was in the jury I wouldn’t know what the correct procedure was to do things. If it said don’t fill out the jury forms until you came to a decision, that says they didn’t fill anything out and had thought they were going to have time to go back and fill things out. It’s all very confusing, glad we have EDB to break it down for us.
@maureenc1284Ай бұрын
Agreed. I was on a jury where the judge gave two forms to the foreman. You were supposed to fill out one. He filled them both out. There should be ONE format for all juries in the US.
@musicst0ry618Ай бұрын
Honestly... as clear as their last note was, it's not the jury's job to know the procedure and it's also not their job to make sure everything was done in order. The fact that the judge did not even ask if they were divided on *all* charges is baffling to me, and was during the trial too... I just don't know how they are going to rectify this... But it is infuriating. This is not justice served...
@mostlyvoid.partiallystarsАй бұрын
Yes. 100%
@truecrimesnoopy6834Ай бұрын
And ... Her instructions were confusing IMO she was shameless about being tired and in a hurry
@origamikiddo2625Ай бұрын
What's soo frustrating is that I think in many cases the charges would be dismissed (or not even brought to trial) by the prosecution but we all know Lally and Morrissey won't do that, which is the real problem if the people of Canton or Mass want it dismissed cuz she was acquitted on those charges. A lot of smoke for Bev I see when I really see the issues with law here and we all should be upset pros isn't dismissing those charges but will waste tax payer time and money again, just as long, repeating this trial even with his head investigator suspended without pay and Kevin Albert suspended and FBI investigating.
@musicst0ry618Ай бұрын
@@origamikiddo2625 Yeah, that too. I really do not understand how Lally thinks that this is the best way justice is reached for the people. I feel sorry for JOKs family and KR because they will never know what actually happened.
@TricommStrategiesАй бұрын
It should not be up to the jury to know how things work in the courtroom. It was up to the judge to ask, not for the jury to know, to ask or to say in their notes. The stakes were too high and Bev was in too big of a hurry.
@Missbehavin_NekaBАй бұрын
IMO the defense attorneys were also in a hurry. At the time they seemed to want to wrap it up instead of risking a guilty verdict.
@truecrimesnoopy6834Ай бұрын
Tricomm or was she shamelessly careless
@silikon2Ай бұрын
Lally's response was revolting. The state's job isn't to get "the girl", it's fundamentally to uphold the constitution of the United States. Lally blows this off on technicalities. Mr Lally should be earnestly trying to determine if what defense states is correct. I can't express just how much disdain I have for the commonwealth as this goes on. Well, the government at least. People there are literally taking to the streets. And oh boy watch some Canton town halls.
@lawnerddownunder3461Ай бұрын
Bev zoom-zoomed through that declaration of mistrial. She barely took a breath from when she entered the courtroom
@JamieDoe472Ай бұрын
What I don't understand is while arguing, the judge said if there's anything that differs on that paperwork from what I've said just go by what I've said. She definitely made a point to make it known that she did not want them talking to anybody about their decision until they reached a unanimous decision. Those two things in my opinion are confusing
@LilTex0825Ай бұрын
That’s standard.
@J-ellOАй бұрын
@@LilTex0825NO it is not standard to say if a JUDGE DIFFERS IN VERBAL INSTRUCTIONS THAN THOSE WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS,Go with what the Judge says!
@LilTex0825Ай бұрын
@@J-ellO it is standard for the Judge to advise them not to speak with anyone till a verdict is reached i.e. Bailiff
@erin4885Ай бұрын
But bev TOLD them not to give anyone OR even her her ANY information about count until they were unanimous. She did not say unanimous on all or some but they were following those instructions.
@deniseYanivАй бұрын
Bev should have asked if they had reached a verdict on any of the counts like any other judge would do.
@lsehАй бұрын
They should make it mandatory to fill out all the forms even with deadlocks. They should have a deadlocked box.
@mostlyvoid.partiallystarsАй бұрын
The courts don’t like jurors believing deadlock is an option
@williamp6800Ай бұрын
@@mostlyvoid.partiallystars How about: “Guilty” “Not Guilty” “Not Unanimous”
@Kayla-ed2rpАй бұрын
Or maybe after they come back as deadlocked a form is then given before a mistrial is declared.
@mostlyvoid.partiallystarsАй бұрын
@@williamp6800I would agree but again - they really really don’t want to “signal” that disagreement is an acceptable outcome.
@AnthonyPi1999Ай бұрын
@@williamp6800That’s elegant! I like that!
@sarcasticcatlady2036Ай бұрын
What baffles me is that with as high profile and contentious as this case was, why wouldn’t the court make sure everything was documented to the highest level? Just in case the verdict was in dispute, like it is 🤦♀️
@MLA56Ай бұрын
This is Eastern Massachusetts. The most-Far- Left part of THE MOST LEFTIST state in the country. I don't say "liberal," because that word implies FREEDOM. LEFTISTS DON'T WANT FREEDOM. They want TOTALITARIANISM. A SELF-SERVING REGIME, not a DEMOCRACY. So, they DON'T CARE what The People think. Not until The People stand up for themselves and REMOVE THEM FROM OFFICE. VOTE. And in an area where corruption is SO deeply entrenched, make VERY CERTAIN that the election results are ACCURATE. A quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson is, "When government fears the people, there is liberty. When people fear the government, there is tyranny." So, citizens of Massachusetts, what are YOU as a group going to do about it?
@lawnerddownunder3461Ай бұрын
Bcs ThAtS nOT hOw We Do ThInGs In MaSsAcHuSsEtTs
@walkerjoggerrunner7571Ай бұрын
I'd bet $10 that Bev knew that's why she hastily got them out. She didn't want any questions, or looks (😶😤) resulting in KR's attorneys asking for a poll Bev purposely gave confusing instructions.
@shanedaley6236Ай бұрын
@@walkerjoggerrunner7571she went so quick in the morning and at the end of the day it felt like she wanted to be anywhere else
@kristyreynoldsapaintersdau9016Ай бұрын
How many times did we hear Bev say This is how we do it here.
@Jina_GАй бұрын
How annoying was she! Every time she opened her mouth!!
@screamingcats72Ай бұрын
I think Bev created an environment where the jurors didn’t feel comfortable asking. He strict time cut offs and the semi-condescending way she spoke to the jurors made it feel like, to me, that no one should speak unless spoken to. The attorneys have dealt with it and even they were hesitant at times.
@TricommStrategiesАй бұрын
IT SHOULDN'T BE UP TO THE JURY TO SAY! OR ASK! OR WONDER!
@mostlyvoid.partiallystarsАй бұрын
Amen.
@OMGKitteh88Ай бұрын
The fact that Yanetti asked for a hung jury to be announced, doesn't mean that defense didn't want/expect a judge to poll on charges. Bev just said "mistrial" and sent off the jury. ???
@silikon2Ай бұрын
Judge Bev: "aw, screw it, mistrial." You'd think after a couple month trial a bit more care should have been taken, instead of "kthxbye".
@origamikiddo2625Ай бұрын
I'm really interested in how her last case went cuz I heard mistrial and was there similar thing with confusion about instructions but wasn't high profile so we don't know about it?
@JuleAllbright-pq1mqАй бұрын
When did Defence get time to object or question, the judge declared mistrial??
@lawnerddownunder3461Ай бұрын
There was literally no time. She didn't draw breath until is was a done deal
@camillasaietz4856Ай бұрын
This is the longest lasting slow motion train wreck I've ever seen!
@Wattooo141Ай бұрын
I understand not enquiring into a juries deliberations but if potential jurors start to assume that any verdicts they may reach will be for want of a better term “ignored” then there is no faith in what is essentially the foundation of the legal system, a jury of peers.
@CeejbotАй бұрын
This is not on the jurors. This is 100% on the judge for not helping them in a situation they're new to and confused by. Her instructions pushed them in the wrong direction, and she didn't help them out of it. Cannone messed this up, and the responsibility is on her. It seems pretty horrific for a judge to be able to rush through declaring a mistrial and nobody having *any* remedy for a judicial error like that.
@andreacollins3204Ай бұрын
Hi to all my lawnerds friends. Replay crew from Ireland. 🇮🇪 🇮🇪
@valkyrie4340Ай бұрын
Me too!
@MsCharlie2007Ай бұрын
So, I see this as a failure on the side of the legal system to properly instruct the laypeople (jury). I find it interesting that, when this happened in the Baldwin case, remedy was swift and in strong favor of the defendant. Essentially, regardless of who was at fault or intentionality, the system was held responsible for executing their job perfectly. Here, it also seems the system has failed the defendant. It's concerning to me that there's not a legal remedy in this situation. Surely this can't be a novel situation.
@wannabetrucker7475Ай бұрын
I think someone usually asks for jury to be polled., but the defense was happy for a mistrial, and never considered it could be an even better outcome....bse the jury notes were very straightforward
@Whattupp-b7bАй бұрын
Judge Bev had no problem asking Lally if you needed to object during the whole trial so she couldn’t ask the defense if they objected on the miss trial she even asked them she did it very very quickly and the fourth jury told the judge what they voted on so she did know the informationdoesn’t the defendant have a right to know what they voted on each charge why didn’t they go down each charge? The judge made it sound like they were hung up on all charges
@origamikiddo2625Ай бұрын
I'll have to rewatch the trial, but when exhibits are being introduced as evidence the judge will ask the other side of there is any objection, unless they say that before the judge can ask. I think that's the only times she asked pros of he objects. I don't remember other times.
@williamp6800Ай бұрын
@@origamikiddo2625Many times she asked Lally if he had an objection. Early on she was signalling him by coughing. Then it became a meme on social media and she stopped doing that. Later on she turned to straight out asking Lally. It was absolutely disgraceful.
@laurelwild735Ай бұрын
I'm happy the Baldwin case was dismissed. I think he probably acted like an arrogant star on the set but I don't think he deserved to go to jail. I think living with it for the rest of his life is punishment in itself & the husband & child have at least been financial compensated even though that fixes nothing at least they don't have to worry about money which may relieve some type of stress. Very sad all the way around.
@shazstar13Ай бұрын
Apparently some said they were swayed by the taillight “embedded” in the shirt - which wasn’t evidence. It was only in Lally’s opening & closing and I didn’t think they were meant to consider openings & closing as evidence? I guess we’ll find out eventually.
@australobuchiaАй бұрын
You're right, they're not supposed to consider that as evidence. The prosecution is also not really supposed to say things that can't prove 🤔
@origamikiddo2625Ай бұрын
Was that the microscopic pieces in the shirt of John? The same shirt that was bundled up with clothes that Proctor grabbed from hospital? And then went directly to get her car? And then left out on butcher paper in the station for 6 days to dry, where make ppl had access to both car, collected evidence (which was logged as a group days later not every time and day it was collected)?? We're not treating that as not secured so it could have issues with what was found there? And going with whatever Trooper Paul was trying to explain happened?
@kitcatkit6240Ай бұрын
@@origamikiddo2625don’t forget it didn’t get logged into evidence until March!!
@mostlyvoid.partiallystarsАй бұрын
Bad instructions in, bad process and judge, bad results out. Asking for Allan charge is not consent to mistrial, just as asking the judge to poll the jury does not imply consent to NOT appeal. There’s a reason legal language should be explicit. This judge said mistrial, kicked out the jury, and never once addressed either party in that process in open court. It also should NOT be on the lawyers to ask the judge to question whether the jury is deadlocked on ALL charges. That is PROCESS. The judge should do that regardless. Here’s a small correction the law would allow. Prior to declaration of mistrial - “jurors, I am about to declare a mistrial based on your findings. Do you have any questions for me about the process or forms before we adjourn court and mistrial this case?” May have helped. Maybe not but it would not hurt.
@PlaytechyАй бұрын
And let's not forget; the defense was told by the court the jury was hung on all charges. Based on that, they had no grounds to object to a mistrial. Given that appears to have been false; they raised the issue as soon as they found out. It is incredible the CW is trying to say the defense should have opposed to the mistrial when they were told and believed that the jury was hung on all charges - and would never have had the grounds to do so.
@annm9589Ай бұрын
@@Playtechy The judge believed they were hung on all charges based on the note. She simply did not confirm. MA does not require her to confirm, simply says "may." So I do worry that the defense will lose on this issue unless Bev decides to consider the spirit of the law instead of the letter of the law. I unfortunately do not think she will.
@neraknawoc7709Ай бұрын
Would love you to go through some of the pre trail stuff from the Read trial and explain how judge Bev was allowed to make some of the decisions she did
@neilcrowley5232Ай бұрын
Frightening to think your life can be in hands of these Jurors, reasonable doubt at every turn in KR case
@origamikiddo2625Ай бұрын
Rather jurors than a single judge like Bev?? Or Glanville? Or Oklahoma texting judge? Much as jurors can have issues, a group of 12 ppl your lawyer has some say over who hear the case vs a judge that gets assigned and I don't think you can change without real issues. I'll take the jurors.
@williamp6800Ай бұрын
In the hands of an incompetent or corrupt judge.
@karinaz8756Ай бұрын
Have you listened to the Karen is guilty crowd. They think the entire case is “I hit him I hit him “. Physics , destroyed phones, and incompetent “experts” be dammed.
@shilogall8038Ай бұрын
I'm shocked the jury didn't acquit of all charges in about 10 mins. Were they not watching the same trial as the rest of us??? 🙄🙄 The defense repeatedly proved John wasn't hit by a car, which is way above the standard of just creating reasonable doubt. I don't get it. Stupid
@amandamacabreАй бұрын
I think it's the wording. They were told to consider her guilty if her actions led to his death. Where is the line there? Does the include dropping him off?
@robyn_rainbowАй бұрын
Also don't forget they don't get to watch things more than once. If they were having an off day they might miss important information. And they aren't meant to talk about it with anyone until deliberations so if they follow that rule it would be a very different experience. I think that's right anyway.
@cailinanneАй бұрын
@@robyn_rainbowyou are correct, I was on a jury for a long trial. It was basically impossible to get things run back for us, they could only read us the transcript from a specific day or witness and they had the read the whole thing. We couldn’t skip to the part in question. Basically you have to listen to it all again, and it’s literally useless because you’ll zone out if it’s at the end of a long testimony. This was in CA.
@garywatts1Ай бұрын
It's also likely that the demonstrations will increase in volume and frequency the likes of which Canton has never seen before!
@Rae777Ай бұрын
Their note actually makes more sense with the context of it specifically referencing count 2. IMO, they were likely split regarding whether Karen’s actions in drinking and driving and leaving him there contributed directly to his death. No one ever explained what “contributing to his death” meant legally
@Whattupp-b7bАй бұрын
This case should have been thrown out right from the start. How do you continue a case when the investigation wasn’t done correctly when they were all kinds of violations and investigation where it was biased where they didn’t do a proper investigation that enough should Loan be thrown out just on that fact alone and then to withholdinformation from karen to let her know that two of the verdict were 12 to 0. The judge knew the judge knows what’s going on karen we had a write to know the verdict information they made it sound like they were hung up on all the verdict and that was not the case, the judge didn’t do a good job, she violated her rights once again.
@jcs137Ай бұрын
🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯
@MsCharlie2007Ай бұрын
I interpret "consensus" to mean "unanimous on all charges". I think the jury felt confident they could not meet that definition of consensus. The issue here was not that the jury had questions, they and the court had a miscommunication about the definition of "consensus" 1:12:25
@ChimeraTruelyАй бұрын
The judge brought the jury back and told them that there were some changes to the jury instructions that were sent back, so she was going to read the corrected ones. Before she started reading them, she told them that what she said now was to take priority over any other notes or jury instructions they had in the deliberation room. The shock and idea of having multiple jurors remembering parts of both instructions broke my brain. 🤯 The next thing I realized, the judge was halfway through the new instructions, and I felt helpless. I can't imagine how they felt. 😢
@sherryernst9901Ай бұрын
The only issue that I take with all of the read stuff, well, I have a lot of issues with it, but with the jury thing. Nobody at all. The judge, the lawyers, nobody made it clear that they could in fact come back with an answer on two and not three. They they never were told that. The way that the statue is worded, it's they need to come back with everything, not some or all that I think is where the issue is. But really there's no remedy for that besides the state not bringing those two charges again.
@supergran62Ай бұрын
Am I the only one who recalls argument from the defence that the wording of count 2 Jury instructions left room for error?
@yellowpillNPАй бұрын
During the initial jury instructions, they were told to not give details about deliberations. The first 2 times the jury said they were deadlocked, they were brought back into the room and they were given instructions by the judge. It makes sense to me that they expected instructions the third time they were brought back into the room after sending a note. Why would it be bad to poll the jury of their opinion at that point in time, at this time? Specify that it is their opinion at that moment in time, not now, and have them say it under oath. I feel like that could be just, it’s frustrating that the jury was left confused.
@BearSirenАй бұрын
The fact that the TikToc psychic can continue to file motion after motion is insanity.
@sahitchcockАй бұрын
Could legislature make a law that says all hung juries should be polled on the record? This way, it's on the books and the rights of the accused are protected in the future. Is that even a possibility??
@origamikiddo2625Ай бұрын
I would think it could be, maybe then there would be specific language required to be used (and not used) so it wouldn't stray into inquiring about jury deliberation and specify needed to be done before case was dismissed.
@PlaytechyАй бұрын
I don't see why this couldn't be done, just make it anonymous and as you said, make it part of the record. That way the government can't hide unanimous jury decisions like what may have happened in this case.
@cailinanneАй бұрын
that could _theoretically_ hurt a defendant so idk… Someone find some case law! 😂
@PlaytechyАй бұрын
@@cailinanne I think case law would be against that, which is why you'd need to write new law to make it possible. It's have to be carefully worded and thought out to not open a defendant up to be harmed by it.
@cailinanneАй бұрын
@@Playtechy oh shoot. Sorry I should have been more clear, I meant case law that proves it’s bad for defendants, because I feel like that’s gotta be out there. Which is why I think people would fight that _hard_ Not that I’m opposed atm, I don’t know enough yet to really have a fully formed opinion (hence the jokey request for case law)
@CassidyKBАй бұрын
There is no way these lawyers don’t watch this coverage by other lawyers. This is free advice.
@krystalbrooks3418Ай бұрын
Someone needs to tell Tik-Tok girl that her rights end where the rights’ of others begin. Simply put. What is going to happen if she just continues this willfully defiant behaviors? This poor professor, I can’t even imagine the frustration.🤦🏼♀️🤦🏼♀️🤦🏼♀️
@annm9589Ай бұрын
frustration, embrassment, stress, and $$ to legally fight it
@krystalbrooks3418Ай бұрын
@@annm9589 I cannot even imagine 😩
@madcitywendyАй бұрын
Thank you Emily D Baker for interrogating the conflicting arguments. I feel so honored to work in the court system in my state. This shit is important and hard.
@elizabethvinas7873Ай бұрын
EDB. The jury could of been only confused on process, i.e. the verdict form. The note addressed the fact that they couldn't reach a unanimous verdict on all counts, not the verdict form, they should have been polled.
@Jina_GАй бұрын
Good luck to finding a new unbiased jury Commonwealth! Love your channel Emily ♥️
@katara6227Ай бұрын
Is there a way to complain about the Judge? I feel like she is the source for this confusion. WE were all just in shock and it was done! Judge Bev was very vague from the very beginning when AJ was questioning the instructions.
@MellyLunaАй бұрын
We need merch with “That Ship has Sailed” and/or “There are Boundaries!” 🤣🤣
@wannabetrucker7475Ай бұрын
If they retry k.r. trial, the prosecution isn't going to have any better evidence, or witnesses...it would kind of be foolishness to walk down that road again ....unless they have new evidence.
@Jina_GАй бұрын
And to quote Karen....."a waste of taxpayers money"!
@kitcatkit6240Ай бұрын
And I think they can now go deeper into the crash daddy experts. They were limited on what they could talk about and they weren’t prepped for it
@susanlprinceАй бұрын
Replay crew here: The note from the Read jury is not ambiguous. However, if they understood they were to be unanimous on every count in order to be unanimous, what they said is accurate. They may not have understood they could be unanimous on some counts and deadlocked on others. They were simply ignorant. Maybe they didn't know what they didn't know, so they didn't ask. They didn't realize that is actually *was* a lack of understanding. Maybe? I'd hate for her to be tried again on those counts. This trial was ridiculous, at least how it was prosecuted was, and I would hope the CW would give serious consideration to retrying on the murder or manslaughter charges. The more they push it, the more they keep the questionable and unethical investigation of the case in the limelight. I feel for the O'Keefe family, but this case is a mess.
@lawnerddownunder3461Ай бұрын
"Charges" could mean all 3 counts, or it could mean Count 2 and the lesser includeds. Therefore ambiguous as to their meaning.
@Jina_GАй бұрын
This is Bev's second mistrial within 18 months.
@HDnursepractitionerАй бұрын
This whole trial was ridiculous. I have never seen so many inept witnesses on the prosecution side. Lally does not adhere to his Duties as set by the ABA Standard Functions and Duties, to seek justice, not merely to convict.
@lsehАй бұрын
At the very least the jury should be vudired to learn where the break down happened for court learning purposes to ensure it doesn't happen again, and hasn't happened in past cases, especially since they weren't televised allowing this stuff to come up.
@TinaDanielssonАй бұрын
Yes, THIS! It should be in everyone's interest even if it wouldn't change the outcome of this particular trial. If I've understood it correctly such a thing wouldn't require the details of the juror's votes or verdicts to become public. So that should "protect" the prosecution from getting even more backlash from the public.
@DeanneH-sm9pzАй бұрын
Hi, replay crew here. I remember Jackson arguing with the judge about the instructions. I remember him saying “I don’t care how it’s done in MA.”
@wannabetrucker7475Ай бұрын
😂😂 that's funny, then he shouldn't be practicing in MA
@KaitlynJaneyАй бұрын
@@wannabetrucker7475Yanetti practices in MA and he agreed with Jackson and even said that the verdict forms were not like the ones he’s ever seen. I believe the reason for Yanetti saying they were different is because somehow from the time Jackson and Yanetti agreed with CW on those forms, to the time the jury got those forms and J&Y saw them again a very important line was missing that made it how it would usually be done. That sentence was: Not guilty of count 1 “and all lesser included charges” that last part was suddenly gone and they had to ask for it to be put on or back on I should say. Plus it doesn’t matter how it’s usually done anyway it’s what suits best for the charges and particular trial you are dealing with. The lawyers come up with all the language on those forms so they will always likely have one difference or another.
@susanadair3360Ай бұрын
Emily the defense told the court the jury forms were confusing, then they came back twice dead locked. When the court accepted the mistrial she did not poll the jury. The judge dismissed the jury and scheduling for a new trial
@shamina1908Ай бұрын
@@susanadair3360 The judge changed the form to exactly what the defense attorney cried about.
@susanwilson8487Ай бұрын
I hope the court and lawyers get that the average person does NOT know you can split things. I never did understand the second charges…
@paranrmlgrlАй бұрын
I think that the jury both believed they understood the jury instructions and misinterpreted the jury instructions. I think both can be true at the same time. At the time of the deadlock, I think they truly believed that they were right in declaring themselves hopelessly deadlocked - IF they believed that they could not produce a verdict unanimously on ALL counts. That would make them, in their minds, deadlocked. Love all the LawTubers, but law has a lot of legalese that you spend your entire lives in. We “regular people” do not always understand, which is why it’s nice that you and others sit here and explain it all to us! 😊 I completely think that the jury should be polled and the judge was too quick to declare a mistrial. Not because I believe Karen Read is not guilty (which I do), but because not all the information was gathered - which is scary to me.
@lawnerddownunder3461Ай бұрын
Yes! Both things can be true!
@robinroe8559Ай бұрын
I believe the jury was very deliberate in its wording. They never wrote they were in disagreement over the "Counts," just the "Charges." The only "charges" were in Count 2; therefore, Bev owed it to the jurors and the defendant to inquire about Counts 1 and 3. She did not, however. In fact, it was Bev who declared deliberations were over, not the jurors. This is all Bev's fault! Regardless, the CW shouldn't have prosecuted this case, the Judge should have dismissed this case, and the jury should have had the opportunity to acquit KR in this case (at least on 2 of the 3 Counts). The System failed KR once again!
@AshleyMarie-mr4ryАй бұрын
I don't understand how the court system takes so long to do anything, yet the jury instructions were so incredibly hard to understand as a layperson. Team JD explained them so clearly, but I now wonder if it's because it was a civil case.
@Jeshuaben_josephАй бұрын
Jury’s statement letter gave the impression they were 💯 clear on being in disagreement. They acted as though they knew they had ZERO options by way of not asking any questions
@emilyrosenthal9853Ай бұрын
I 💜 the way you put Legality is not the same as morality.
@origamikiddo2625Ай бұрын
First time I heard her taking about that was with the Petito vs Landrey lawsuit and whether the Landrey parents helped Brian with lawyer, supplies, cleaning Van and going hiking never to return.
@lawnerddownunder3461Ай бұрын
It's a legal system, not a justice system. Sometimes the legal system is also just, but not often.
@alliealaska7858Ай бұрын
I don't think the jury felt like they had an open communication with judge Bev. It felt more like she made the calls and they went along including, I've given you all the evidence you're going to get
@Jina_GАй бұрын
And that was disgraceful of her. If there's a retrial, Bevvy needs to be on the witness stand.
@MoonDragon1Ай бұрын
If it’s the jury that is willing to talk and testify with no pressure. It should be up to each one to decide if they want to talk. I don’t think saying I voted not guilty here and we were split here is going into it personally
@ginafabiani5629Ай бұрын
Maybe they wrote the note like that because they felt like they couldn’t tell unless they agreed on all. Maybe.
@MrSoullessnessАй бұрын
I mean, what to say a judge sees a verdict they dont like and just declares a mistrial unprompted? What recourse is there at that point. The judge wasn't asked to declare the mistrial, the jury didn't get to speak up whether they managed to find any of the charges. So its a free try again for the prosecution?
@denadimarzo4237Ай бұрын
Scariest part, whats happening to Karen Read can happen to ANY ONE OF US!!! Thats a frightening prospect.
@Hayley-sl9lmАй бұрын
How could they not ask, if they were unsure, whether or not they could render not guilty on some counts but not others? Were they all just extremely shy? That is insane...? A woman's life is on the line for Christ's sake.
@silikon2Ай бұрын
Jury instructions that take an hour for a judge to read are outrageous, I don't care if the parties and judge agreed to them or not. The "build your own conviction" of count 2 is also outrageous. Yeah, I get "lesser includeds", but only because I'm a slight law nerd. The jury is supposed to be finder of fact, not deducer of the fine print. All the lawyers who think this remotely makes sense need to step out of the coffee house. There shouldn't be a section of the verdict slip that reads like a pizza topping menu. It really SHOULD be guilty/not guilty.
@MoonDragon1Ай бұрын
Was the jury told not to tell anyone the jury diliberations , the split and so on? That is what it seems like to me.
@origamikiddo2625Ай бұрын
No, I think the jury can talk about that, but the court cannot get into it with them or the lawyers. If the jurors want to discuss it that's fine, but the court can't being then back in have them talk about how deliberating went.
@kristyreynoldsapaintersdau9016Ай бұрын
But the judge said at the end if my verbal instructions are different than the written my verbal instructions you will follow my verbal instructions.
@iceguy9723Ай бұрын
Isn't having jury consider multiple verdicts for same crime, such as in Reed case, double jeopardy?
@tupacalypse88Ай бұрын
only if they tried those counts in a second trial after a not guilty verdict
@johannawigg6921Ай бұрын
I think if the defense in the Karen Read teial can call judge Bev as a witness, that will then mean she can't oversea the next trial... doesn't it ?? That's a win right there !!
@MissesCakesАй бұрын
Great report Emily.
@phylliskelly7910Ай бұрын
Replay Crew here Emily, you are accompanying me to my Dr appointment, the Vet appointment and then the shopping. Thank you for your time, I love your channel and this community 💚☘️🇮🇪
@RosemarieJ16 күн бұрын
@Emily D. Baker. TY for all you do and covering trial that mean so much to us❤❤❤❤
@lawnerddownunder3461Ай бұрын
I've been driving for hours and yelling at the livestream. Bev explicitly told the jury that they were not.tonfill out the verdict formS until they had reached a unanimous verdict. My thoughts are 1. Is this on the written jury instructions, or merely a verbal instruction? In any event Bev told the jury verbal instructions win over written instructions. 2. That statement is what distinguishes cited cases from the current situation, and gives a clear reason why no form was filled out by the jury and handed over.
@KayDАй бұрын
I can see an appeal court overturning the mistrial. Not because of these jurors saying there was consensus on other charges, but because the defence wasn't given any consultation or chance to object before she declared it and dismissed the jury. I know you said emily that 'we all knew what you meant' when he pushed for the tuey rodriguez charge, as in, we all know he was in favour of a mistrial. But 'what we think you meant' is not legal grounds. And it's not legal grounds for Bev to make that ruling without consulting. The defendant could have changed her mind between those two events IMO and she wasn't given a chance. THAT is a fundamental error imo
@lawnerddownunder3461Ай бұрын
Exactly this. She gave no opportunity to consult with either counsel.
@KayDАй бұрын
@lawnerddownunder3461 I kept watching and saw the defence make the same argument lmao 🤦♀️ I need to finish the stream before I start commenting haha
@lawnerddownunder3461Ай бұрын
@@KayD haha me too. I keep yelling at the various motions and have to comment real time 😂
@megan3576Ай бұрын
I wonder how much of the wording of the note was influenced by the foreman’s knowledge of the court system, since it seems pretty commonly rumored that he was a cop. It feels like the jury not asking about a split verdict might’ve been a combination of hesitancy because of the judge’s response to the one question they asked and a confident foreman asserting that the court would address their position about the various counts before dismissing them.
@JMcCarthyworldАй бұрын
'I don't know what to do if I am not in trial?' literally me right now. i miss it already.... I am so angry on the behalf of the jurors for KR!!! Also, there is SO MUCH FLUFF in these motions
@sapphiraolson1489Ай бұрын
You know what would have been helpful? If the lawyers had spent time explaining the jury instructions in final arguments.
@SamanthaLeigh7Ай бұрын
Your argument is totally valid. What I think is bullshit is getting a 1 hour closing argument after how many days of testimony? 29?? That's not enough. They should have at least gotten 2 hours, but Bev was hoping to wrap this thing up and get to the Cod.
@cailinanneАй бұрын
@@SamanthaLeigh7dude, she rushed the end to go on vacation FOR SURE. She’s so lazy and entitled in my opinion.
@lawnerddownunder3461Ай бұрын
Sadly they weren't allowed the time to do that
@lamontsheridan5405Ай бұрын
Maybe the jury should have used less high dollar words and just said what they mean.
@sunshinemitchАй бұрын
Why can’t they just say are you deadlocked on all counts?? Easy answer- yes or no
@susanwilson8487Ай бұрын
Does the law only follow past cases? How is anything new created?
@TheEmilyDBakerАй бұрын
When things go up on appeal they look at the cases that have come before (the jurisprudence), and evaluate it. In their new decision sometimes things evolve, sometimes they stay the same. It’s is a slow and evolving process. Alternatively, the state/federal law makers can determine they don’t like a result and make new laws, or change the existing one which happens all the time.
@Whip-It_2014Ай бұрын
I'm so confused as to why the prosecution in the KR case has dug in so hard. Like why? You're not supposed to be seeking Ws, you're supposed to be seeking JUSTICE.
@lawnerddownunder3461Ай бұрын
Ohhhh sweet summer child. But your question is 100% valid. Why have they dug in so hard? Hopefully the Feds will inform us eventually.
@dsn385Ай бұрын
Thanks!
@sn0tpuppy347Ай бұрын
There really needs to be some way to prevent situations like what is happening to the professor from continuing to occurring.
@SaitainaАй бұрын
If they were inclined to drop the charges, they wouldn't bring the case considering we all saw how bad it is.
@cakesboo6554Ай бұрын
love the T-shirt Emily. Aussie's represent!
@Jina_GАй бұрын
Acca Dacca!! 🦘🦘🦘
@jerryjones281811 күн бұрын
You got a prosecutor in the Baldwin case who was determined to win at all costs and made gerself the decider of fact .
@justjuan589Ай бұрын
Idk why I’m so invested in tik tok psychic case, but I am. Thanks for covering it.
@honeybadgerzsАй бұрын
All I know for sure is that I'm thankful that I'll never have to sit as a jury member on a trial in the U.S. There service is not over when it's over, they will be dragged back in to legal wrangling regardless of verdict. Feel so sorry for all the jury that were simply trying their best but are now the subject of scrutiny, caught in the battle between prosecutor and defense.
@mynursekel7958Ай бұрын
I understand that the note everybody wants to say was the jury but the person who wrote the note was the Retired police officer that was your number one that the judge picked prior to the alternates being picked. That is the person that wrote the note. we don’t know if he wrote the note based on everybody’s opinion and how it should be written.
@Jina_GАй бұрын
Rigged.
@sarah_n_dippityАй бұрын
We don’t know if the foreperson wrote the note. Someone else on the jury could have been a very good writer and could have been delegated to write the note, with the agreement of the rest of the jury. The foreperson is the first among equals. If you have never been on a jury, it is a truly democratic process, and no one person can control it. The influence advantage will go to members who have been paying attention during the trial, and to those who can express their thoughts clearly. But each member will have their own vote, nonetheless.
@GothBoyUKАй бұрын
@@sarah_n_dippityIf anyone other than the Foreperson wrote it then it's a big problem because they were very clearly instructed by the Court that *ONLY the foreperson* could write notes or fill in the forms (with the oversight of the bailiff).
@PlaytechyАй бұрын
I have a question: Let's assume the Jury found Karen Read NG on 1 and 3 - The judge doesn't inform the defense that happened (Perhaps she didn't know and didn't ask, or perhaps she knew and didn't care) and were led to believe it was a hung jury on all 3 counts, how can it be expected that they would object under those facts? The court coming to the wrong decision based on wrong information shouldn't, in my opinion, remove the possibility to object to something when correct information comes up later. Am I missing something? I think it is interesting that the Prosecution isn't debating over whether the Jury found Karen Read NG on 1 and 3 - their argument seems to be "Even if the jury did acquit her and the court made a mistake by not informing defense about that - the defense should have seen into the future and objected, based on information they didn't have at the time". What could Defense have done with the information they had at the time? The Court said they were Hung on the charges (Plural) and provided no indication whatsoever there may have been a unanimous decision made on some of the charges.
@primarybufferpanel9939Ай бұрын
Why weren't the jurors more clear that they were split on one charge? Surely that only makes sense to put that in the note to the judge. Or ask the judge what they should do in that situation. They were vague and this is the result.
@Rae777Ай бұрын
@@primarybufferpanel9939 They were both extremely clear and extremely vague. I think they thought the jury instructions precluded them from reporting the fact that they came to a conclusion on some counts. Whose fault that is is anyone’s opinion.
@lawnerddownunder3461Ай бұрын
@@Rae777side eye @ Bev
@religiohominilupus5259Ай бұрын
@@Rae777 Even if the jury misunderstood the instructions (which we don't know), they were clear on being allowed to ask questions (as evidenced by their prior inquiry). They didn't though. In their notes, they explicitly expressed that the deadlock was not due to lack of comprehension of the law.
@lindagierich9772Ай бұрын
Both Erlinda Johnson and Kari Morrissey were added to the New Mexico Brady list for prosecutor misconduct.
@collettepryce3747Ай бұрын
I feel that's unfair to Erlinda... I don't think she knew
@lawnerddownunder3461Ай бұрын
What???? Oh hell I hope Erlinda has.lots of words about that!
@stevepuglia8964Ай бұрын
The law should always be on the defensive side. It's innocent until proven guilty so everything should benefit the defense
@AlmostCHАй бұрын
Travis walking in with the meme made my day 😂
@manderpandersalamander9977Ай бұрын
I agree with you on the Read case. Those jury notes and the case law provided by Lally are pretty damning. It sucks so bad, but, there really is nothing more to be done. 😔 “Voice to text” 🤣🤣🤣
@TheVishusfishАй бұрын
Best legal notion I learned through my divorce is that law is not fair, it’s law. Once I accepted that, life got easier.
@lamarburrows4672Ай бұрын
Not for me I don't like when the Prosecutors cheat and I don't like it when witnesses only have real answers for the prosecution
@GodessofwisdomАй бұрын
Was waiting for this the smoke and mirrors are lifting. Thank you EDB