Legal Analyst discusses defense's attempt to get 2 charges dismissed in Karen Read murder trial
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 авг 2024
- WBZ-TV Legal Analyst Jennifer Roman spoke to Tammy Mutasa about what it means for the defense to attempt to get two charges dismissed against Karen Read.
The prosecution is going to look like even bigger fools when this is all over.
Corruption
They don't have to be unanimous on all charges which is what was just said and confused the jury. They have to be unanimous on each separate charge.
We're going to have another prosecutor who is the type who keeps a dead horse out in the back yard so they can go out twice a day to flog it. Another trial will just be a money pit and a pit full of perjurers.
The defense’s motion is bound to fail:
1. Trials are a carefully laid out orchestrated process and with collaboration of both parties. The motion contradicts and seeks to challenge the following.
2. It was clear the jury knew exactly what they were doing and did not; ask any questions in this regard, announce any verdicts in open court, nor fill out any verdict forms, and thus did not indicate an agreement or acquittal on any of the charges.
3. The jury foreman’s notes to the judge. Including, they could not reach an agreement on the “charges” (not one of the charges) and thus were deadlocked and never able to make a decision on all of them, and therefore did not reach any verdicts partial or otherwise.
4. The judge consulted both parties at all times during the deliberations and upon declaring the mistrial (hung jury), she sent the jury back to the deliberations room to wait and held a hearing with the attorneys in regards to scheduling for the next hearing (status conference).
5. Whilst there was plenty of time during this hearing (and prior) for the defense to raise any matter they so saw fit to do so, at no time did they; ask or enquire, if there was a verdict on any count/s, submit to the court that they would take a verdict on any count/s, and that on any count/s the jury may be hung on a mistrial could be declared, nor did they seek a poll of the jury, and no objections were raised to the mistrial on all counts.
6. The defense were given a full opportunity to be heard throughout deliberations and had (forcefully) sought and obtained changes to the jury slips and repeatedly and eagerly pushed for a mistrial to be declared.
7. The judge then met with the jury afterwards and evidently nothing was said to her that is being alleged now by the alleged jurors.
8. Further, the defense’s outside contact with the alleged jury member/s, is impermissible and expressly prohibited.
9. Consequently, it is now too late for anything to happen (after the court doors have closed as it were) and the jury can’t now be reassembled to vote again (for obvious reasons including they’ve (allegedly) spoken directly with the defense team).
10. The upcoming retrial does not constitute double jeopardy regardless, and even more so that it relates to a mistrial and not a conviction/s, of the charges.
11. The defense’s motion has no rational/proper basis and is bound to fail.
12. Blueford v Arkansas, 566, U.S. 599 (2012) - Supreme Court.
It is hearsay because it is the attorneys' affidavits that is precisely why the defense is asking permission to contact the jurors and or have a voir dire to clarify the matter. That somehow flew over this reporter and CW's heads.
The prosecution has and will continue to use a whatever legal means they can to prevent truth and justice from occurring.
nah. that's the defense. this last stunt is truly pitiful.
Do the people of Mass have a say in how their tax dollars are spent? Are they behind the DA's megalomanic actions and reactions to this case and are they prepared to pay for another trial to come to (at best) a 2nd mistrial? Wouldn't it be prudent and a better use of the taxpayers money to call a hearing of the jurors to substantiate or refute the claims of the defence that 2 charges were unanimously decided? Someone with some common sense needs to step in and reign in this freight train of misuse and abuse of power all the way from the police, to the DA, to the judge. With the additional development of the suspension of both Proctor and K. Albert, their already weak case is now even weaker. The DA can't see that, instead they're doubling down? Wow. I'm so glad not to live and pay taxes there.
Since when does the procecution Not want justice? I just don’t understand ,lally you took a damn oath! Say they are lying you should talk with the jury!!! If the defense isn’t lying and the jurors do feel that way, LAlly you should celebrate the justice!!!! This dude needs to be removed!!
who said the prosecution doesn't want justice?
@@BoxerClover wouldn’t you want to know? Don’t you think they should know? Also why wouldn’t they want to speak with the jury? Also if the jury didn’t understand a form? Reading the motion it seems they want to “look the other way” which isn’t justice!
@@ElizabethButler.39 huh? all i asked was who's saying the prosecution doesn't want justice?
Corruption at its core
Worse judge ever and prosecutor seems unethical-interested in winning, not justice. A bit distressing
How does any of this foolery move forward with the lead investigators situation? Not to mention all ties......🤐
Her lawyer submitted a sworn affidavit saying a juror told him they were unanimous on 2 counts. I don't know how the law works here but saying there is no evidence is false. Sworn testimony is evidence.
There is no evidence of the alleged juror/s, therefore by the rule of law it is taken as hearsay, until such time as the jurors provide an affidavit, take to the stand and are put under cross examination.
Corruption at its finest. Shame on you Aunty Bev
why must riders misuse the "at its finest" phrase? it was meant to hold sarcasm and irony.
The Mass petty bureaucratic legal structure is a page out of the 1970’s Soviet Union- rotting from within
No expert it’s not what happened here. It’s a little more complicated.
TB for the loss again
Nope
😂Riders, stop outing & embarrassing yourselves: no one can take you seriously with your exhausted phrases and uninspired nicknames.
"Aunty Bev" "McAlberts" "Where's Chloe?" "Hos long for justice?" "Lunchbox Lally" etc. etc. etc. etc.
I mean- ᗯ😮ᗯ! You rhymed "Trooper" with "Pooper."
Revolutionary.
I'm sure Eminem's shakin' in his Converse.
As wr wb dear musilm women in the Holy Quran Surah Maraji 70:28_3
إِنَّ عَذَابَ رَبِّهِمْ غَيْرُ مَأْمُونٍ
Indeed, the punishment of their Lord is not faithful.
And those for whom they are guardians
They protected their genitals,
إِلَّا عَلَىٰ أَزْوَاجِمِمْ أَوْ مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ فَإِنَّمُمْ غَيْرُ مَلُومِينَ
Except on their daughters or what they have acquired by right; indeed, they are not to blame.
فَمَنِ ابْتَغَىٰ وَرَاءَ ذَٰلِكَ فَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْعَادُونَ
And whoeve
layman’s terms please. It’s confusing