It's so satisfying to watch, and kinda cathartic??@TheEmilyDBaker Its like woah, okay, they really are nitpicking EVERYONE and EVERYTHING and I'm so here for that 🎉😂 My pedantic self is in love 😂
Watching these appellate lawyers argue was incredible to watch. I have never watched this before and it was so different from arguments made during a trial. I see why lawyers specialize in this and trial lawyers don’t just continue on with this for their clients. Great video. Thanks for cover it EDB 💜
I was amazed at how calm and clear the appellate attorneys were. I could never shift topics and keep that calm that quickly. Very educational. Thank you, Emily.
Never seen an appellate argument before. Now I understand better why Sarah Boone's lawyer said he would pass the buck for her appeal. Thanks for sharing this.
You really didn't listen to the appellate argument on presidential immunity? I am shocked. Our very existence as a country was on the line. Just so you know, appellate arguments are available to hear and/or see and effect us all.
@@tracyhaverstick5672 you’re assuming that person is American… even if they are, not everyone actively tunes into those things. The condescension is beyond unnecessary
@@aliioana8586 I didn't assume anything at all. There also wasn't anything I said that was even close to condescension. Who are you to go over every comment and individual thread and appoint yourself all knowing and to tell others what they should or shouldn't do? Was I speaking to you? No, I wasn't. Maybe, you should mind your own business.
Right!!! I thought the same. The Defense ASKED for clarification and the judge told them no. I remember thinking that was really not going to be good. I remember them arguing back and forth and her being very adamant that she didn’t care because “that’s how we do it in Massachusetts.”
Massachusetts. “That’s how we do it in Massachusetts.” Judge Cannone’s argument was (and is) BS, in my opinion. She absolutely was in error here, in rushing to declare a mistrial.
This is such an interesting appeal. I think the fact that jurors came out and said we did reach a verdict on these counts should mean something, especially since they explained they were confused about instructions.
@ I actually think there was bad communication all around. Judge was wholly unhelpful to jury, jury confused but didn’t say anything, and defense should’ve spoke up.
I appreciate that the appellate Court pointed out that the prosecution should be as interested in polling the jurors as the defense. Because WHY would you want to spend all this time and money AGAIN (unless you are corrupt perhaps?)
@@acousticprojekt exactly. The CW trying to detail this shows they're NOT interested in the TRUTH. we already know this too be proven fact by the birchmore case which Morrissey and these same cops over saw!!
@@vee_grave not that ADA. He was unprepared and didn't have any arguement other than we don't want you to do it. The defense stood on better ground and cited case law. The reason they brought in this other guy to retry her is cuz no1 in the DAs office would do it. Smart, they don't want to go down with Morrissey and hang. They know there's no case and don't want to sink their careers.
Has anyone brought up or argued that THE JUDGE gave instructions to the jury before deliberations to NOT WRITE ANY DECISIONS UNTIL THEY HAVE AGREED ON ALL 3 COUNTS???
@@ChildOfGod0621 YES! One of the many things I've been stuck on regarding this stage of deliberation/verdict. There's a hidden plethora of problematic gems like this ... from the incident of what is still unknown as to what happened to John O'Keefe. To even now; only a small group of the authorities involved in this disgraceful side show investigation being shuffled around from their positions with one of them actually being promoted (lieutenant I believe). The reality that most of us couldn't even fathom the cost of this defense team. This feels like it can happen to anyone surrounded by this twisted power, which most of don't even know the connections of 👥+🤑=🔌⚖️ (huge concern🤦🏽♀️) As Emily mentioned, and many of us have been so curious about the FBI investigation. We want to trust this system of justice we have because it should be something we're proud of (much like democracy) -- only if it's done correctly as intended. I hope the SC Judges are taking into consideration the lack of evidence/proving any of the charges by the Commonwealth
But doesn’t she just read the jury instructions that both the state and defense agree to? It’s not on the Judge if the defense agreed to that language.
@@SoSoSteph trial attorneys won't do appeals. You always have to find an appellate attorney cuz that's all they do is appeals. It's a specialty and completely different than a trial.
@ clearly I’m aware. I’m not sure what you think you are doing by pointing out the obvious which I stated in my comment. Your comment serves no purpose.
Rewatch crew checking in, still in my pj's at 230pm to say thank you EDB for taking us into this part of the judicial system that we dont usually get to see. very interesting & gives me a new appreciate for all the knowledge that lawyers & judges have! gotta be on your toe for real!
@@laimanarbute4188 ya but that's exactly how it's done you don't get to give ur presentation and then they ask questions. You're presentation was your brief that you filled. They've read that very carefully and dissected it. Everything you submitted before they agreed to take the appeal was thoroughly read and gone over b4 they even agreed to take this case so they already know you're arguement.... now they want you to back that arguement up and see if you really have grounds to stand on. They will play devils advocate and throw everything at you and see how well your arguement withstands that. It's awesome to watch.
Can we read the instructions and the court transcripts bc I swear Judge Cannone said (paraphrasing) if there is confusion between the written instruction and my spoken instruction, then follow my spoken instruction. So if she told them one thing and the written instruction said another, shouldn't the SJC really be reviewing that?
@@SweeetPea13 the main thing in her verbal statement is that nothing should be filed out until a decision has been made on ALL counts. THAT'S why no verdict slip was ever filed out and should have been brought to appellate courts attention.
Why didn't they say Judge Bev told the jury Not to fill in the jury form until they had come to a decision on all charges..Or did I miss that somewhere???..
There must be some reason that is moot. I’m thinking bc the instructions were agreed to on both sides. If they aren’t bringing it up it’s bc it’s not going to help them.
Well, yes, appellate court, I AM implying that when there are multiple charges, the judge MUST ask if the impasse is on some or all charges! That's kind of their job, actually.
This is my instinct too, but then what about the cases that have 20+ charges? How unbearable would it be to painstakingly go through each one in front of the courtroom. I can't think of a reasonable way to make a blanket rule.
@@liminal-refridgerator I think it's immaterial if it's painstaking. It would be no longer than reading the verdicts. They do those individually, so as far as I'm concerned, it is a blanket rule.
@@JayeEllis The issue I see is that repeatedly checking in with the jury on their verdicts in front of the defendant and the lawyers may reveal individual votes (I would have a hard time not reacting for so long), and it may invite social pressure from the courtroom.
I think the concept of double jeopardy is the most eloquent and fair elements of our law. I stand with the jury’s original verdicts. This is heartbreaking
They can simply ask the question “Did you as a group reach a not guilty verdict on charge 1” Please answer only “YES OR NO” if yes then ask the same question for charge 3. If all answer “Yes” then ask The question “Did you know that you could let the judge know that you could give her the verdicts on charges that were agreed upon” If the answer is “No” to that question Then double Jeopardy applies
Yeah okay, and the fear of death they've openly admitted to since trial ended comes in where? I don't know about you but if I got a mistrial I don't want the next Kari coming along and saying "Well 4 jurors contacted me saying they all voted to convict" and get sent to prison. Also count 2 alone is a much easier case to prove on its own, the prosecutors don't need to bring in the whole circus to prove intent on it.
I think one of the big issues must be precedent. If they allow this, then it means any jury members can come together post-trial and potentially lie to enable the jury to be brought back and questioned. Idk I could be totally wrong, but I’ve thought that from the beginning that it might be an issue. That’s why they talk about the sanctity of trial; I think it would be damaging and dangerous to allow the jury to be brought back and make retroactive changes.
@ The only reason it needs to be done this time is because the judge told him they could not fill out the verdict slip Until they had made a decision on all charges. If they are brought in now and asked these questions it will not happen in the future so it won’t need to be done again
@@mommajo2781 yeah but that wasn’t the judge just saying it, that was the judge reading an agreed upon and standard set of instructions (as far as I know). So this judge didn’t err. Also I didn’t hear any of the lawyers here make this argument that you’re making, which would be an insane oversight (not even the appellate judges used it against the prosecut rep) so I assume, as they’re the experts, that this somehow isn’t an issue. Idk why not though, but they’re the experts. Did it come up? For clarification my tone is tentative + friendly debate and not rude or argumentative as I could be wrong! I just feel like if that argument that you’re making is valid then it certainly would have been brought up.
If I was a taxpayer paying for all of this, I would be beyond infuriated! I’m just a Canadian following all of this very closely and I’m beyond infuriated!
The problem was the jury instructions, not the jury form. The instructions specified they had to come to verdict on all three counts else report hung on all. That’s automatic error. There was a hearing on problems with the jury form, that first Cannone denied, but then made a minor correction to the jury form: never to the jury instructions. Did DFDTs counsel request fix re instructions, and heard, but no ruling? Need transcript. Anyway, Cannone was on notice of issues and should’ve polled the jury if only in abundance of caution on the fact that there had been a hearing on the jury form that retained potential issue; and 6th amendment hazard easy to expect from jury instructions. I love the idea of impeaching the foreman because whoever that was spoke for all the jurors incorrectly.
@@XTRL_DATA_SCI canone also admitted she never gave the corrected verdict form to the jury. There was an error with the forms as there was only 1 NG box.
This whole thing feels soo unfair for the jury. They suffered through this mess of a trial and then they weren’t properly listened to because they misunderstood a part of the procedural instruction. The judge failed them in my opinion. Even if she followed their local rules, it’s wrong and the rules should be changed. This mess could’ve been avoided if the judge made sure to have a thorough and clear record before the jury was dismissed.
Its sounds like their foreperson was a problem too. Like he/she had some air about them that they could decide for the rest what their opinions were. The notes were giving Teachers Pet IMO.
I feel like Judge Canonoe wanted the trial to be over so she jumped to declaring a mistrial without thinking about asking for jury polling. At the end of the day, she could've prevented all of this if she's just slowed down to ask one question "are you at an impasse on all counts?"
@GoblinsAreAGirlsBestFriend fair but this whole case felt like extra precautions should've been taken. I'm also just coming off the Sarah Boone trial where a judge Kraynick covered allll the bases.
The defense also was wanting a mistrial and didn’t want more deliberations. But yes that seemed too quick although I strongly believe the defense would have agreed to the mistrial if been asked.
Yes the law there allow the judge discretion declare mistrial when it's impasse in that juncture. She should asked the lawyer. But for strategically reason they didn't object that become a huge hurdle right now.
Why did he not immediately bring up the erroneous jury instructions that clearly caused a misunderstanding to occur when the male judge began asking about how it wasn’t an acquittal because none of the elements such as a signed verdict form were met.??? They have to introduce the element of the misleading at best jury instructions in order for this to have legs!
Canone said there is no checkbox for "Not Guilty" because the jurors would just leave the "Guilty" line blank. The lawyers should have been shown the jury slip: all lines would have been blank.
"If you are questioned like this in everyday life" 😂😂 as a Dutchie I didn't perceive this kind of hearing as rude at all. This IS a normal convo in everyday life of a Dutch person 😂. Honest, straight to the point, leave no room for misconception. I honestly don't understand how people can find that rude 🙈
Why didn't he bring up the fact that the jurors were told not too check the jury slip until a verdict was made in ALL CHARGES?? Her instructions confused the jurors as well as did the jury slip which SHE ADMITTED SHE FAILED TO GIVE THEM THE UPDATED SLIP!!!!
@@wendywebberly7362 me either she's so corrupt. I've never in my life and I've been in courts for 30+years, seen a judge stop a defense attny in the middle of a wisdom, to all the DA if he wants to object. Like WTF?? if he's sleeping on it that's his bad it's not her job to do that. Her job is to decide on legal issues that's it. If he objects she rules whether yes or no but she's not suppose to superimpose herself into the case and she has in a big way. She's in in the corruption period. She's pissed Karen brought in attnys that know more than the CW. She wanted Karen to take a plea like everyone else but they held her feet to the fire and with the feds investigating you would think she wouldn't have been so obvious!!!
I LOVED THIS SO MUCH!! it reminded me of the scene in Twilight when Bella meets the Volturi! 😂 I really love this level of directness. I appreciate it because I am that way and it’s usually considered rude to others. I relate to this whole vibe. Also, I like to ask a lot of questions about many things. I find that others don’t prefer that trait and it comes across as me being skeptical or like I am questioning someone’s honesty when in reality I am just curious and looking for more details. I guess this is why my hobby is listening to trials. No one in my circle understand why I watch so many trials and I can’t explain it, it just makes me feel very happy.
I love watching appellate court in action. It's really interesting to see how the lawyers think on their feet when responding to the justices questions. And, equally compelling is hearing the questions the justices ask - the probing, analytical, "what if" questions. Fascinating. I took the opportunity to watch the Kansas Supreme Court in action via its website. Quite interesting.
Mass laws are ridiculous. Ive worked in the court system for 30+years and I've seen jurors polled multiple, multiple times weather a verdict was reached or they were at an impasse but esp if they were at an impasse esp with a defendant with multiple charges worth the number 1 question being have u reached a verdict on any of the changes? If yes then which charge and what was the verdict? These jurors have said they aquitted her on the FIRST DAY of charges 1 & 3 ande it was never discussed again so why would the defense NOT bring THAT up HERE!?!? Also why didn't they mention that there was bullying in the jury room AFTER the Tuhey instructing?
BEST video ive watched in a long time! FASCINATING...Being from uk where we see little of our law system. Loved the proper nerdiness of this too! Loved to see the knowledge and skills of these people have, especially the soooo experienced defense! So thought proviking! Brilliant commentary too!!! 2 hrs so well spent, not a thing I can often say after watching youtube!! Yes it 'tickled' my non lawyer brain and feel better for it!!!
Well damn! I'm so glad I found your channel. So interesting. When I started college I wanted to be in law, this stuff reminds me why. Love your content, keep rocking EDB!
I’m rewatching in my comfy Gap sweatshirt and jeans. I wasn’t caffeinated enough to understand everything I watched this morning; the appellate process seems so stressful, yet interesting. The lighting in that courtroom is so good! Can I just bring in my painting stuff? I could get so much done in such a well lit space. Thank you to all you lovely Law Nerds for your congratulations on my grant! I think it’s time for a new easel or one of those fancy cutting machines.
The entire building-the John Adams Courthouse-is gorgeous and has incredible history. The SJC is older than the US Supreme Court. I guarantee you’ve seen the outside of the building on a legal TV show (Boston Legal, for sure)! I encourage you to visit if you’re in Boston!
Why didnt the defense bring up Judge's instructions to the jury which said to not turn in the form until answer all and that the written instructions take precedent over instructions. They were confused but trying to follow orders.
Thanks Emily for your commentary, it helps me understand. The Karen Reid appellate court was so interesting. I’m from the UK and wish this land televised this kind of stuff. But this judicial system has too much to hide 😡
He’s making the wrong argument! The argument isn’t that the judge should have gleaned that there was a verdict on some counts, although yes she erred in not asking- the argument is that the jury instructions were extremely confusing and stated that they shouldn’t sign their verdict slip until they had come to a unanimous decision on ALL CHARGES. That is erroneous and misleading, and is what directly caused the confusion for the jurors! Why isn’t he addressing that and trying to argue uphill about why the defense didn’t object to the mistrial??
I missed the beginning of the hearing, I am a lawyer wannabe, but it seems to me even a mistrial should be double jeopardy even in a mistrial the prosecution couldn’t do their job. It blows my mind they’re gonna do this again.
This is my thing too. The prosecution now knows every hole in their own argument they need to fill, and every method and strategy the defense has. It doesn’t seem fair in a case like this where the defense asked for clarification and was told no, and where the judge told them not to fill it out until they were unanimous (I think?). It was a recipe for disaster.
same here! so glad EDB covered this to show us this part of the process!! so interesting to get a glimpse into the parts of court we don't usually get to see!!
It was obvious for me that the defense was happy with the mistrial, after Yannettis speech to the media. They regretted it after the Jurors came forward. Understandably, but they missed to ask the Judge to inquire the impasse on each charge
As an autistic person who really struggles with masking and reading people, the strict boundaries and lack of emotion and concentration on fine point details is a literal dream. I love watching trials but I have to take a lot of breaks due to the theatrics and emotion that comes in. Some lawyers and witnesses I literally cannot watch because they give me so much anxiety.
As an autistic person myself, I feel this in my soul…but I am also a highly emotional person who struggles separating my own anxieties from the logic required to be decisive (because brains and feelings are both weird).
@Emily D Baker. This case is bigger than local. People all over the country and in Europe are following this case. I, myself have been following this case locally and follow many creators covering this case. It’s huge. I see where people are from that are following this.
I usually listen whilst doing housework/driving/in a shower. These guys were actually pretty interesting to watch. It gave off some dystopian movie vibes. Those pretty and smart people in their high chair. Would love to be at their lunch breaks where they discuss everyday things in this style.
That was very interesting I had fun. I definitely want to watch that again 😂 I can get annoyed when council skirts around answering questions, so the interruptions made sense
Repkay crew here. I have a question. Couldn't they have argued that the jury instructions were ambiguous (I know an objection was made and the judge made a small change) and that combined with verbal instructions not to fill out the forms until they had reached a verdict on all counts created the mindset within the jury that prevented them from filling out the forms?
I tried to watch listen feel reason my way through 30 minutes of the Supreme Court Hearing - - I have NO Legal Background. I am smart and reasonable and very intuitive. I got the gist but the high level of doubting Thomas Resistors on the Panel was TENSE and Frustrating for Me. In the End I Didn't Actually Understand Why They Were SO Resistive to Seeing The Problem with NOT Spelling Out During Proceedings That the Jury Came to Some Agreement that Was Counter To Fully Guilty - - and Press the Start Over Instead of Steering Through the Rapids and Obstacles to Get To The End of and Release of Karen Reads ORDEAL.
I didn’t know apellete judges just poke holes in arguments, found my new dream job 😂
It's literally all they do is poke at the arguments from both sides.
Seems like playing Devil's advocate to me, which I enjoy.
It's so satisfying to watch, and kinda cathartic??@TheEmilyDBaker
Its like woah, okay, they really are nitpicking EVERYONE and EVERYTHING and I'm so here for that 🎉😂
My pedantic self is in love 😂
Watching these appellate lawyers argue was incredible to watch. I have never watched this before and it was so different from arguments made during a trial. I see why lawyers specialize in this and trial lawyers don’t just continue on with this for their clients. Great video. Thanks for cover it EDB 💜
I was amazed at how calm and clear the appellate attorneys were. I could never shift topics and keep that calm that quickly. Very educational. Thank you, Emily.
It reminds me of a competitive military board 🤣
It’s like debate team essentially.
Never seen an appellate argument before. Now I understand better why Sarah Boone's lawyer said he would pass the buck for her appeal. Thanks for sharing this.
Very few trial attorneys file the appeal. That process is done by attorneys that specialize in appellate law.
Yeh this was cool
You really didn't listen to the appellate argument on presidential immunity? I am shocked. Our very existence as a country was on the line. Just so you know, appellate arguments are available to hear and/or see and effect us all.
@@tracyhaverstick5672 you’re assuming that person is American… even if they are, not everyone actively tunes into those things. The condescension is beyond unnecessary
@@aliioana8586 I didn't assume anything at all. There also wasn't anything I said that was even close to condescension. Who are you to go over every comment and individual thread and appoint yourself all knowing and to tell others what they should or shouldn't do? Was I speaking to you? No, I wasn't. Maybe, you should mind your own business.
Right!!! I thought the same. The Defense ASKED for clarification and the judge told them no. I remember thinking that was really not going to be good. I remember them arguing back and forth and her being very adamant that she didn’t care because “that’s how we do it in Massachusetts.”
Massachusetts. “That’s how we do it in Massachusetts.”
Judge Cannone’s argument was (and is) BS, in my opinion. She absolutely was in error here, in rushing to declare a mistrial.
Yes I agree. She was against the defense in my opinion
@@mxnjones ooos of course it was Massachusetts! That’s what I get for multitasking. 😜
This is such an interesting appeal. I think the fact that jurors came out and said we did reach a verdict on these counts should mean something, especially since they explained they were confused about instructions.
And it’s unopposed by any jurors which is interesting to me
I wish all of them would come forward
The time to come forward was the note which should have said that there verdicts on some counts. Judge Bev sucks, but so did the jury.
@ I actually think there was bad communication all around. Judge was wholly unhelpful to jury, jury confused but didn’t say anything, and defense should’ve spoke up.
I appreciate that the appellate Court pointed out that the prosecution should be as interested in polling the jurors as the defense. Because WHY would you want to spend all this time and money AGAIN (unless you are corrupt perhaps?)
Also glad they pointed it out. Also why wouldn't they want to know the truth.
@@acousticprojekt exactly. The CW trying to detail this shows they're NOT interested in the TRUTH. we already know this too be proven fact by the birchmore case which Morrissey and these same cops over saw!!
@@acousticprojekt there can be no justice until justice is upheld.
Corrupt from town,city,state and multiple professional law personal in Massachusetts ! Governor needs to look but she’s not.
@@seascape185 she's just as corrupt.
Appellate court is no joke. Gotta be quick on your feet. Definitely admire these attorneys for their skill.
Same.. my heart rate was up!
@@vee_grave not that ADA. He was unprepared and didn't have any arguement other than we don't want you to do it. The defense stood on better ground and cited case law. The reason they brought in this other guy to retry her is cuz no1 in the DAs office would do it. Smart, they don't want to go down with Morrissey and hang. They know there's no case and don't want to sink their careers.
I LOVE appellate arguments. So stressful but so impressive.
Has anyone brought up or argued that THE JUDGE gave instructions to the jury before deliberations to NOT WRITE ANY DECISIONS UNTIL THEY HAVE AGREED ON ALL 3 COUNTS???
I've just asked the same , didn't see your comment ❤
@@ChildOfGod0621 YES! One of the many things I've been stuck on regarding this stage of deliberation/verdict.
There's a hidden plethora of problematic gems like this ... from the incident of what is still unknown as to what happened to John O'Keefe. To even now; only a small group of the authorities involved in this disgraceful side show investigation being shuffled around from their positions with one of them actually being promoted (lieutenant I believe).
The reality that most of us couldn't even fathom the cost of this defense team. This feels like it can happen to anyone surrounded by this twisted power, which most of don't even know the connections of 👥+🤑=🔌⚖️ (huge concern🤦🏽♀️)
As Emily mentioned, and many of us have been so curious about the FBI investigation. We want to trust this system of justice we have because it should be something we're proud of (much like democracy) -- only if it's done correctly as intended.
I hope the SC Judges are taking into consideration the lack of evidence/proving any of the charges by the Commonwealth
But doesn’t she just read the jury instructions that both the state and defense agree to? It’s not on the Judge if the defense agreed to that language.
@@NerdyDogMom1this is true ultimately. It’s going to be denied but it’s so wrong. The state should have done the correct thing.
They want to spend millions just to safe face.
I love that all judges asked questions and pushed both sides.
It’s so fascinating.
I had to hire a separate appellate attorney for my custody case. My trial attorney said nope. Get somebody else to do it lol and I won
@@SoSoSteph trial attorneys won't do appeals. You always have to find an appellate attorney cuz that's all they do is appeals. It's a specialty and completely different than a trial.
@ clearly I’m aware. I’m not sure what you think you are doing by pointing out the obvious which I stated in my comment. Your comment serves no purpose.
@@SoSoSteph That was a rude comment! IMO! Not called for!
@@J-ellO like you said. Your opinion. Which holds no weight.
Rewatch crew checking in, still in my pj's at 230pm to say thank you EDB for taking us into this part of the judicial system that we dont usually get to see. very interesting & gives me a new appreciate for all the knowledge that lawyers & judges have! gotta be on your toe for real!
Ditto, never seen this before!
This is why the forms should be clear and ALL forms should have an answer and signed, not left BLANK. 🤦🏼♀️🤦🏼♀️🤦🏼♀️🤦🏼♀️
It was so unexpected to me that they started interrupting from the beginning😅😅
@@laimanarbute4188 ya but that's exactly how it's done you don't get to give ur presentation and then they ask questions. You're presentation was your brief that you filled. They've read that very carefully and dissected it. Everything you submitted before they agreed to take the appeal was thoroughly read and gone over b4 they even agreed to take this case so they already know you're arguement.... now they want you to back that arguement up and see if you really have grounds to stand on. They will play devils advocate and throw everything at you and see how well your arguement withstands that. It's awesome to watch.
@@Lolabear00 yes, it was fascinating to watch ❤😅😅
Replay crew: This is so fascinating. The court and lawyers are so thoughtful and intelligent.
Stressing me out! Whew, at least the judges have calm voices❤
Can we read the instructions and the court transcripts bc I swear Judge Cannone said (paraphrasing) if there is confusion between the written instruction and my spoken instruction, then follow my spoken instruction. So if she told them one thing and the written instruction said another, shouldn't the SJC really be reviewing that?
I think that's what she said as well.
@@SweeetPea13 the main thing in her verbal statement is that nothing should be filed out until a decision has been made on ALL counts. THAT'S why no verdict slip was ever filed out and should have been brought to appellate courts attention.
Why didn't they say Judge Bev told the jury Not to fill in the jury form until they had come to a decision on all charges..Or did I miss that somewhere???..
Thank you! You wrote my comment for me!
There must be some reason that is moot. I’m thinking bc the instructions were agreed to on both sides. If they aren’t bringing it up it’s bc it’s not going to help them.
Well, yes, appellate court, I AM implying that when there are multiple charges, the judge MUST ask if the impasse is on some or all charges! That's kind of their job, actually.
This is my instinct too, but then what about the cases that have 20+ charges? How unbearable would it be to painstakingly go through each one in front of the courtroom. I can't think of a reasonable way to make a blanket rule.
@@liminal-refridgerator I think it's immaterial if it's painstaking. It would be no longer than reading the verdicts. They do those individually, so as far as I'm concerned, it is a blanket rule.
@@JayeEllis The issue I see is that repeatedly checking in with the jury on their verdicts in front of the defendant and the lawyers may reveal individual votes (I would have a hard time not reacting for so long), and it may invite social pressure from the courtroom.
@@liminal-refridgerator Not repeatedly. Just before they declare they mistrial. Again, like they read the verdicts. Once.
I think the concept of double jeopardy is the most eloquent and fair elements of our law. I stand with the jury’s original verdicts. This is heartbreaking
They can simply ask the question “Did you as a group reach a not guilty verdict on charge 1” Please answer only “YES OR NO” if yes then ask the same question for charge 3. If all answer “Yes” then ask The question “Did you know that you could let the judge know that you could give her the verdicts on charges that were agreed upon” If the answer is “No” to that question Then double Jeopardy applies
Yeah okay, and the fear of death they've openly admitted to since trial ended comes in where? I don't know about you but if I got a mistrial I don't want the next Kari coming along and saying "Well 4 jurors contacted me saying they all voted to convict" and get sent to prison. Also count 2 alone is a much easier case to prove on its own, the prosecutors don't need to bring in the whole circus to prove intent on it.
I think one of the big issues must be precedent. If they allow this, then it means any jury members can come together post-trial and potentially lie to enable the jury to be brought back and questioned. Idk I could be totally wrong, but I’ve thought that from the beginning that it might be an issue. That’s why they talk about the sanctity of trial; I think it would be damaging and dangerous to allow the jury to be brought back and make retroactive changes.
@ The only reason it needs to be done this time is because the judge told him they could not fill out the verdict slip Until they had made a decision on all charges. If they are brought in now and asked these questions it will not happen in the future so it won’t need to be done again
@@mommajo2781 yeah but that wasn’t the judge just saying it, that was the judge reading an agreed upon and standard set of instructions (as far as I know). So this judge didn’t err. Also I didn’t hear any of the lawyers here make this argument that you’re making, which would be an insane oversight (not even the appellate judges used it against the prosecut rep) so I assume, as they’re the experts, that this somehow isn’t an issue. Idk why not though, but they’re the experts. Did it come up? For clarification my tone is tentative + friendly debate and not rude or argumentative as I could be wrong! I just feel like if that argument that you’re making is valid then it certainly would have been brought up.
Replay crew love your dedication to this. I am in my robe as well🎉
Robes and sweat pants are the best !
If I was a taxpayer paying for all of this, I would be beyond infuriated! I’m just a Canadian following all of this very closely and I’m beyond infuriated!
I am and I am! I am. Embarrassed that this went down in my state. It’s disgraceful!
Me too. I am Canadian as well‼️🇨🇦
And it feels like it all could have been avoided by simply polling the jury 🙄
I feel the judge should have checked the form for a signature and the options marked and also polling the jury..
@@dianamead2990 right?!?
She should have seen it and stopped this whole predicament from happening!
I love the questions for both sides from the same judges. The process seems pretty unbiased and fair with how tough they are on both sides
This is so stressful and yet they are so calm! How?! I could never 🙈
This was interesting to watch. Thank you for going over it with us :)
The problem was the jury instructions, not the jury form. The instructions specified they had to come to verdict on all three counts else report hung on all. That’s automatic error. There was a hearing on problems with the jury form, that first Cannone denied, but then made a minor correction to the jury form: never to the jury instructions. Did DFDTs counsel request fix re instructions, and heard, but no ruling? Need transcript. Anyway, Cannone was on notice of issues and should’ve polled the jury if only in abundance of caution on the fact that there had been a hearing on the jury form that retained potential issue; and 6th amendment hazard easy to expect from jury instructions. I love the idea of impeaching the foreman because whoever that was spoke for all the jurors incorrectly.
@@XTRL_DATA_SCI canone also admitted she never gave the corrected verdict form to the jury. There was an error with the forms as there was only 1 NG box.
This whole thing feels soo unfair for the jury. They suffered through this mess of a trial and then they weren’t properly listened to because they misunderstood a part of the procedural instruction. The judge failed them in my opinion. Even if she followed their local rules, it’s wrong and the rules should be changed. This mess could’ve been avoided if the judge made sure to have a thorough and clear record before the jury was dismissed.
Its sounds like their foreperson was a problem too. Like he/she had some air about them that they could decide for the rest what their opinions were. The notes were giving Teachers Pet IMO.
I feel like Judge Canonoe wanted the trial to be over so she jumped to declaring a mistrial without thinking about asking for jury polling. At the end of the day, she could've prevented all of this if she's just slowed down to ask one question "are you at an impasse on all counts?"
Pretty sure I heard somewhere not polling is pretty usual in MA?
@GoblinsAreAGirlsBestFriend fair but this whole case felt like extra precautions should've been taken. I'm also just coming off the Sarah Boone trial where a judge Kraynick covered allll the bases.
The defense also was wanting a mistrial and didn’t want more deliberations. But yes that seemed too quick although I strongly believe the defense would have agreed to the mistrial if been asked.
Yes the law there allow the judge discretion declare mistrial when it's impasse in that juncture. She should asked the lawyer. But for strategically reason they didn't object that become a huge hurdle right now.
Or Karen reads lawyers could have asked lol
Why did he not immediately bring up the erroneous jury instructions that clearly caused a misunderstanding to occur when the male judge began asking about how it wasn’t an acquittal because none of the elements such as a signed verdict form were met.??? They have to introduce the element of the misleading at best jury instructions in order for this to have legs!
Canone said there is no checkbox for "Not Guilty" because the jurors would just leave the "Guilty" line blank. The lawyers should have been shown the jury slip: all lines would have been blank.
I do agree with the Appellate Judges that the Defense messed up by not objecting or asking for a side bar
This was fascinating and very interesting to hear- was amazed at the extent of their questioning and it was very educational.
This is the most fascinating thing I’ve ever seen. This is my favorite content you have covered so far. Thank you!
I want to see more Apelit court. This is very interesting and quite a change from trial. I like how they’re equally critical of both parties.
Rewatch crew I love this,he's very knowledgeable and I think he did well. Love the questions asked by the panel
I loved this back and forth. This is interesting and you learn so much.
The dissecting of the arguments is sooo fun.
This is so much more captivating than hearing the drone of lally in trial.
100% agree
I love this. I could watch this type of setting allllllllllll day.
Wow I loved this 😍 Thank you Emily!
I truly enjoyed this. Thank you Emily.
This is fascinating. Thank you Emily.
"If you are questioned like this in everyday life" 😂😂 as a Dutchie I didn't perceive this kind of hearing as rude at all. This IS a normal convo in everyday life of a Dutch person 😂. Honest, straight to the point, leave no room for misconception. I honestly don't understand how people can find that rude 🙈
So glad I found your channel! ❤️ I’m obsessed!!!
Replay in my jammies - TY for covering this. Love this insight into this area of law we rarely see.
I loved this back and forth. This is interesting and you learn so much.
Why didn't he bring up the fact that the jurors were told not too check the jury slip until a verdict was made in ALL CHARGES?? Her instructions confused the jurors as well as did the jury slip which SHE ADMITTED SHE FAILED TO GIVE THEM THE UPDATED SLIP!!!!
Yeah, I feel like this is so easy, yet we make this nonsense like a damn rat in a maze, it's insane.
Yup. I didn’t like Judge C
@@wendywebberly7362 me either she's so corrupt. I've never in my life and I've been in courts for 30+years, seen a judge stop a defense attny in the middle of a wisdom, to all the DA if he wants to object. Like WTF?? if he's sleeping on it that's his bad it's not her job to do that. Her job is to decide on legal issues that's it. If he objects she rules whether yes or no but she's not suppose to superimpose herself into the case and she has in a big way. She's in in the corruption period. She's pissed Karen brought in attnys that know more than the CW. She wanted Karen to take a plea like everyone else but they held her feet to the fire and with the feds investigating you would think she wouldn't have been so obvious!!!
@@Lolabear00I’ve seen so many people talking about her relationship with the Albert’s too
I LOVED THIS SO MUCH!! it reminded me of the scene in Twilight when Bella meets the Volturi! 😂 I really love this level of directness. I appreciate it because I am that way and it’s usually considered rude to others. I relate to this whole vibe. Also, I like to ask a lot of questions about many things. I find that others don’t prefer that trait and it comes across as me being skeptical or like I am questioning someone’s honesty when in reality I am just curious and looking for more details. I guess this is why my hobby is listening to trials. No one in my circle understand why I watch so many trials and I can’t explain it, it just makes me feel very happy.
Absolutely love a Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday stream situation
I love watching appellate court in action. It's really interesting to see how the lawyers think on their feet when responding to the justices questions. And, equally compelling is hearing the questions the justices ask - the probing, analytical, "what if" questions. Fascinating. I took the opportunity to watch the Kansas Supreme Court in action via its website. Quite interesting.
Mass laws are ridiculous. Ive worked in the court system for 30+years and I've seen jurors polled multiple, multiple times weather a verdict was reached or they were at an impasse but esp if they were at an impasse esp with a defendant with multiple charges worth the number 1 question being have u reached a verdict on any of the changes? If yes then which charge and what was the verdict? These jurors have said they aquitted her on the FIRST DAY of charges 1 & 3 ande it was never discussed again so why would the defense NOT bring THAT up HERE!?!? Also why didn't they mention that there was bullying in the jury room AFTER the Tuhey instructing?
Thanks for explaining the "My Brother"
BEST video ive watched in a long time! FASCINATING...Being from uk where we see little of our law system. Loved the proper nerdiness of this too! Loved to see the knowledge and skills of these people have, especially the soooo experienced defense! So thought proviking! Brilliant commentary too!!! 2 hrs so well spent, not a thing I can often say after watching youtube!! Yes it 'tickled' my non lawyer brain and feel better for it!!!
Well damn! I'm so glad I found your channel. So interesting. When I started college I wanted to be in law, this stuff reminds me why. Love your content, keep rocking EDB!
Loved watching this type of argument!
Love the rewatch Emily, so much appreciated and even betta in my jammies 😊. Thank you
I’m rewatching in my comfy Gap sweatshirt and jeans. I wasn’t caffeinated enough to understand everything I watched this morning; the appellate process seems so stressful, yet interesting. The lighting in that courtroom is so good! Can I just bring in my painting stuff? I could get so much done in such a well lit space.
Thank you to all you lovely Law Nerds for your congratulations on my grant! I think it’s time for a new easel or one of those fancy cutting machines.
It's an incredibly stately room!
The entire building-the John Adams Courthouse-is gorgeous and has incredible history. The SJC is older than the US Supreme Court. I guarantee you’ve seen the outside of the building on a legal TV show (Boston Legal, for sure)! I encourage you to visit if you’re in Boston!
Fascinating to watch, thank you Emily!
Loved this. It was fascinating
And she has to pay her lawyers again for a retrial because the judge didnt poll the jurors?
Watching an appellate court is so fun! Thank you for explaining as we follow along.
That was really interesting to watch!!
Yes!!! We like a Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday stream!!! Yes!!!
Here's an idea, stop giving judges so much discretion and standardise processes!
Why didnt the defense bring up Judge's instructions to the jury which said to not turn in the form until answer all and that the written instructions take precedent over instructions. They were confused but trying to follow orders.
appellate judge would be the PERFECT position for judge john judge
Except he’s so polite I don’t think he would be able to interrupt 😂
REPLAY CREW!!! 🎉🎉
replay crew - thank you for being my only smile this morning with your pajama party
Thanks Emily for your commentary, it helps me understand. The Karen Reid appellate court was so interesting. I’m from the UK and wish this land televised this kind of stuff. But this judicial system has too much to hide 😡
Forms should require, guilty, not guilty, couldn't come to a verdict.
For each count.
Right. Guilty, not guilty, or deadlocked. On EACH count
Why would they even agree to hear this if they were already decided that they didn’t meet the burden??? WTAF what a waste of time and money.
Assuming the defense doesn’t win here, these arguments can still be used for the purposes of preventing this from happening in the future
Why are they not bringing up that judge Canone told the jury not to give her any information on a split verdict?!?!
Great show - thank you Team Baker!
Is "my brother" in Massachusetts like "my learned friend" in commonwealth nations?
edit: Never mind! EDB answered this in the stream!
As I recall Karen Read appeared very HAPPY when the JUDGE called a MISTRIAL! Karen was SMILING, went to her FATHER and gave him a BIG hug.
Just out of a mid-term, time to Emily!
Hope all your exams go well!
@@speckle2592aw thank you so much 🫶
He’s making the wrong argument! The argument isn’t that the judge should have gleaned that there was a verdict on some counts, although yes she erred in not asking- the argument is that the jury instructions were extremely confusing and stated that they shouldn’t sign their verdict slip until they had come to a unanimous decision on ALL CHARGES. That is erroneous and misleading, and is what directly caused the confusion for the jurors! Why isn’t he addressing that and trying to argue uphill about why the defense didn’t object to the mistrial??
Because ultimately the defense agreed to those instructions 😢
Congratulations on your 80k subscribers ❤❤🇨🇦🇺🇸💕🥰
Watching on replay crew cuz I’m on the West Coast and I just woke up!!!
Omg, 13 min in and this already reminds me of the oral exams I had in my law degree, which were one big reason I didn't finish. The tension!
I missed the beginning of the hearing, I am a lawyer wannabe, but it seems to me even a mistrial should be double jeopardy even in a mistrial the prosecution couldn’t do their job. It blows my mind they’re gonna do this again.
This is my thing too. The prosecution now knows every hole in their own argument they need to fill, and every method and strategy the defense has. It doesn’t seem fair in a case like this where the defense asked for clarification and was told no, and where the judge told them not to fill it out until they were unanimous (I think?). It was a recipe for disaster.
What about what her verbal instructions were vs her written instructions
They said they talked about it on the bus ride how weird it was and if they realized that they acquitted on those two charges.
I so hope she gets overturned for any reason.
LOVE seeing this appellate hearing! have never seen one. this is amazing and so cool
It's so refreshing to see respectful and calm discourse!
There hasn't been a single outburst 😱 Didn't know it was possible 😂
same here! so glad EDB covered this to show us this part of the process!! so interesting to get a glimpse into the parts of court we don't usually get to see!!
It was obvious for me that the defense was happy with the mistrial, after Yannettis speech to the media. They regretted it after the Jurors came forward. Understandably, but they missed to ask the Judge to inquire the impasse on each charge
I enjoyed that!
As an autistic person who really struggles with masking and reading people, the strict boundaries and lack of emotion and concentration on fine point details is a literal dream. I love watching trials but I have to take a lot of breaks due to the theatrics and emotion that comes in. Some lawyers and witnesses I literally cannot watch because they give me so much anxiety.
As an autistic person myself, I feel this in my soul…but I am also a highly emotional person who struggles separating my own anxieties from the logic required to be decisive (because brains and feelings are both weird).
More and more appreciate my boss’ boss who is our corporate lawyer!! I can’t, glad he can
Replying after my Disney trip thanks EDB and team 💜
@Emily D Baker. This case is bigger than local. People all over the country and in Europe are following this case. I, myself have been following this case locally and follow many creators covering this case. It’s huge. I see where people are from that are following this.
I usually listen whilst doing housework/driving/in a shower. These guys were actually pretty interesting to watch. It gave off some dystopian movie vibes. Those pretty and smart people in their high chair. Would love to be at their lunch breaks where they discuss everyday things in this style.
You’re almost to 1 million subscribers!
Thanks, Emily!
The judge said they only tick the box if she was guilty, no ticks, not guilty surely
Emily thanks for teaching me about appellate courts….nothing like actually watching it in action
That was very interesting I had fun. I definitely want to watch that again 😂 I can get annoyed when council skirts around answering questions, so the interruptions made sense
Repkay crew here. I have a question. Couldn't they have argued that the jury instructions were ambiguous (I know an objection was made and the judge made a small change) and that combined with verbal instructions not to fill out the forms until they had reached a verdict on all counts created the mindset within the jury that prevented them from filling out the forms?
The Karen Read hearing was very interesting ❤ can you cover this kind of thing more often please 🙏
I tried to watch listen feel reason my way through 30 minutes of the Supreme Court Hearing - - I have NO Legal Background. I am smart and reasonable and very intuitive. I got the gist but the high level of doubting Thomas Resistors on the Panel was TENSE and Frustrating for Me. In the End I Didn't Actually Understand Why They Were SO Resistive to Seeing The Problem with NOT Spelling Out During Proceedings That the Jury Came to Some Agreement that Was Counter To Fully Guilty - - and Press the Start Over Instead of Steering Through the Rapids and Obstacles to Get To The End of and Release of Karen Reads ORDEAL.
It felt like a thesis defense LOL, it reminded me when I had to defend my Ph.D.
I'm an in house counsel and this is what discussion with my boss is. We always discuss like that