Speaker 1: As Night's side with Dan Ray on WBZ Cooston's new video.
Speaker 2: Big decision today from the State Supreme Court. The seven
Speaker 2: justices concluded that not only was Karen Reid going back
Speaker 2: to trial for a series of charges related to the
Speaker 2: death of her boyfriend, former Boston police officer John O'Keefe,
Speaker 2: but in addition, in addition, she will go back to
Speaker 2: trial on all three of the indictments that she still faces.
Speaker 2: She went through a trial in which the first jury
Speaker 2: last July said they were hung. They were hung jury,
Speaker 2: and some of the jurists came forward subsequent to the
Speaker 2: conclusion of the case and said that they were hung
Speaker 2: on one of the issues, which was leaving the scene
Speaker 2: of an accident, and that they had voted or they
Speaker 2: were unanimous in their belief that you should be acquitted
Speaker 2: on two of the other issues, one of them the
Speaker 2: more serious charge of second agree murder with us. Now
Speaker 2: he's Boston attorney Phil Tracy, he's the defense lawyer. And Phil,
Speaker 2: I'm sure you've had a chance to look at this decisions,
Speaker 2: thirty five page decision you I think Field, the decision
Speaker 2: was the proper decision under the circumstances. Even though you
Speaker 2: are a defense lawyer, as I understand that, I know
Speaker 2: you are a lawyer.
Speaker 3: I think.
Speaker 2: All defense lawyers were at one point to prosecutor. Right there.
Speaker 4: I guess that's right.
Speaker 5: But in any event, thank you Dan, thanks for having
Speaker 5: me on and good to talk to you. The sanctity
Speaker 5: of the jury system is really something that the courts
Speaker 5: never want to fiddle with. They don't want to make
Speaker 5: changes in that procedure. The ananymity of the juror's names
Speaker 5: and protecting the jurors from outside influence, and in this
Speaker 5: case there was a lot is really important. So I
Speaker 5: think the court is not going in any direction that's
Speaker 5: going to say bring these jurors back and put them
Speaker 5: under oath. Unless there's a racial bias or some sort
Speaker 5: of you know, corruption type thing, somebody trying to buy
Speaker 5: off a dura, that type of thing, you then bring
Speaker 5: the jura back in and you go for it. The
Speaker 5: deliberations did not result in a verdict, that's what they said.
Speaker 5: They said it was dead luck, and therefore it's going
Speaker 5: to have to go back to trial. It could be
Speaker 5: a pyrrhic victory though, because the charges she was acquitted on.
Speaker 5: If they could go back just and do the involuntary manslaughter.
Speaker 5: That would be sounds like that's the primary position for
Speaker 5: the prosecution, because it looks as if the juror those
Speaker 5: jurors may not be any different than the new jurors,
Speaker 5: and they would find them not guilty of secondary murder,
Speaker 5: but possibly guilty of the involuntary Mansillam, I believe the
Speaker 5: count was nine to three for guilty.
Speaker 2: Well, that's interesting that the sanctity of the jury is
Speaker 2: that that was disclosed in the decision today. I was
Speaker 2: not in court when the case was argued, and I
Speaker 2: don't know if it was if it was disclosed, but
Speaker 2: that was an interesting point. I'm surprised that the SJC
Speaker 2: allowed that point to be memorialized in their decision. I mean,
Speaker 2: it would seem to me that that could potentially influence
Speaker 2: a future jury.
Speaker 5: It could, but I think you've seen Karen read on
Speaker 5: TV on and on again.
Speaker 2: Well she has you know, she has the right to
Speaker 2: function in the court of public opinion.
Speaker 5: Uh, she is doing a good job of it. Yeah,
Speaker 5: And so what you're saying is that the nine to
Speaker 5: three UH count could influence fo to jury's And that's correct,
Speaker 5: no question.
Speaker 2: I just I just think that the prosecutors cannot campaign
Speaker 2: in the court of public opinion. They you know they
Speaker 2: they would never I think discuss the case as openly
Speaker 2: as either she or or her lawyers have. I view
Speaker 2: this and and we're going to disagree, so feel free,
Speaker 2: you know your best shot. I view this that the
Speaker 2: court missed an opportunity to in effect establish a procedure.
Speaker 2: I think that judge should have on her own, as
Speaker 2: was as they say in the court of law, Sue
Speaker 2: Sponte should have inquired of the jurors discreetly. I should
Speaker 2: have said, am I to understand that you are irrevocably
Speaker 2: hung up and and and conflicted on all three counts?
Speaker 2: Have you have you agreed on a verdict? Have you
Speaker 2: come to a conclusion on any of the counts. I
Speaker 2: think that her instructions are a little confusing, and I
Speaker 2: think that that may have led to what went on here.
Speaker 2: And I just think that the court, I would bet
Speaker 2: you that if another judge has a similar case, councilor Tracy, where.
Speaker 5: From from here on in in every case that's like this.
Speaker 5: But I think that you know, there were three counts.
Speaker 5: There were three counts, and so they each had different
Speaker 5: verdict slips. So this is where the jurors, I'm not
Speaker 5: going to say they filed up, but they didn't know
Speaker 5: what to do. If they had signaled that we've made
Speaker 5: a decision on two of the three cases, she could
Speaker 5: have taken that verdict and then this case would be
Speaker 5: retried only on the involuntary manslaughter case. Now, in a way,
Speaker 5: is what I'm alluding to, is if I think it'd
Speaker 5: be better for the prosecution if they were only trying
Speaker 5: her on involuntary mansluter because what I think happened in
Speaker 5: this case, and like everybody else laid people lawyers or whatever.
Speaker 5: I think they had an argument. She drove the car
Speaker 5: and reverse twenty five miles an hour. That's an incredible factor.
Speaker 5: She hit him. She may or may not know she
Speaker 5: hit him. I don't think she knew she hit him.
Speaker 5: But then, of course as she sobered up, she find it.
Speaker 5: She said where is he now? She gets her girlfriends,
Speaker 5: they go back. She starts yelling, I hit him. I
Speaker 5: must have hit him. That indicates to me that that
Speaker 5: is the correct result of this case. How itever comes
Speaker 5: out that was an involuntary manslaught due to her alcohol.
Speaker 5: You said driving the vehicle and hitting him. Whether she
Speaker 5: knew it or not, it's you know, I mean, that's
Speaker 5: involuntary manslaw. She didn't didn't intend to hit him.
Speaker 2: That's what I think I could see. Yeah, and I
Speaker 2: can support you on that. I can see that there's
Speaker 2: some sort of a bitter argument that might have started
Speaker 2: at one of the bars continued, and he decided that
Speaker 2: he wanted to go to the party, and she didn't
Speaker 2: want to go to the party, and he said, drop
Speaker 2: me off. He dropped her off, and she had the
Speaker 2: car in reverse inadvertently, and that would that she would
Speaker 2: drive off quickly and make us maybe so that that
Speaker 2: could have and maybe they can pull some information out
Speaker 2: of the electronics of the car to figure to figure
Speaker 2: that out.
Speaker 5: Well, you know. The other and of course, clouded into
Speaker 5: this was the uh are infused into this was the
Speaker 5: borish behavior of some of the past prosecution's witness, including
Speaker 5: police officers and state troopers. And that turned people off.
Speaker 5: You know, that would turn a duror off. A state
Speaker 5: police officer acting in that fashion. Yeah, that that was
Speaker 5: not good.
Speaker 2: And and his fate, Michael Proctor, is his fate. His
Speaker 2: professional fate still hangs in the balance. The trial starts
Speaker 2: in April. First, it'll be interesting sebody Weinberg, who's a
Speaker 2: good appellate lawyer, good trial.
Speaker 5: Lawyer, tremendous, hemendous.
Speaker 2: Lawyer, that that he was thinking of, you know, trying
Speaker 2: to go into federal court because I think that the
Speaker 2: issue here is obviously double chef and wouldn't it be
Speaker 2: interesting if our state supreme court was somehow overruled by
Speaker 2: the US Supreme Court. I have no idea if you'll
Speaker 2: follow through on that.
Speaker 5: Well, there's no question that you know, he's a top
Speaker 5: notch attorney. We've my office and he have had a
Speaker 5: relationship for many years. But I don't know if the
Speaker 5: Supreme Court would take the case. On the other hand,
Speaker 5: the issue you just mentioned, double jeopardy is fundamental to
Speaker 5: the core of of of our judicial system, whether it's
Speaker 5: federal district court, superior court, any state of the Union.
Speaker 5: Once you have a double jeopardy argument, that's saying that's
Speaker 5: very held in such a high standard. In other words,
Speaker 5: you can't retry somebody. Now. Of course, the jury, by
Speaker 5: the way, the lawyers for both the prosecution and the defense,
Speaker 5: they might have come up with the idea Judge, why
Speaker 5: don't you check and see what counts that they They
Speaker 5: didn't do that, so you know, but you said it earlier.
Speaker 5: From now on, every time there's a case like it
Speaker 5: with three different counts, three different verdict slips, the judge
Speaker 5: is going to quiet, well, you hung on what one
Speaker 5: of them? Two of them? Are all three of them,
Speaker 5: and that's that's what's going to be the rule of
Speaker 5: law from now on. There's no question that that's that's
Speaker 5: what's going to happen.
Speaker 2: You know. It's it's interesting. I think I don't know
Speaker 2: where I read this, but I think that one or
Speaker 2: more of the members of the jury were lawyers. And
Speaker 2: the notes that were sent back as I read them
Speaker 2: in the context of the decision today, obviously they were
Speaker 2: written by someone who was pretty well versed in the law.
Speaker 2: And I wonder if, I don't know, uh, if if
Speaker 2: if one of the four people, if the fourth person
Speaker 2: of the jury was a lawyer, if maybe their language
Speaker 2: was a little more stilted than it needed to be,
Speaker 2: or maybe that individual was trying to be more cautious
Speaker 2: in what he wrote in terms of notes to the judge.
Speaker 4: It's fascinating.
Speaker 2: It's a fascina any case either way, she's supposed to
Speaker 2: go back on trial on April first as this case, and.
Speaker 5: I think he will go to trial on April first,
Speaker 5: but they they could now what the strategy for an
Speaker 5: appeal would be to finally appeal and ask for a
Speaker 5: stay of the state court state court trial and.
Speaker 2: Which which again would would inure to the benefit of
Speaker 2: the defendant, uh and would not go up. I mean
Speaker 2: there'd be no way to. It would have to be tried,
Speaker 2: I assume before a district court judge, and then go
Speaker 2: through the appeals process if it ever were to get sure,
Speaker 2: sorry to the to the US Supreme Court. I don't
Speaker 2: think the.
Speaker 5: A long It's a long and winding road to get
Speaker 5: to that spot. Phil, Phil Tracy is always yes, eggs Ded.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much, appreciate your analysis, and well we
Speaker 2: will talk soon, my friend, talk to you soon. Bye
Speaker 2: right now, bye bye Now. I'd like to hear from you,
Speaker 2: if you are a listener, I'd love to know what
Speaker 2: your thought is on this case. We can go. I
Speaker 2: think most of us are familiar with the case. Uh
Speaker 2: and uh. You now probably are familiar with what the
Speaker 2: court did today. I can try to recap it for
Speaker 2: you and give you what what what the holding of
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court was. I thought it's a missed opportunity.
Speaker 2: I think that the court could have said that in
Speaker 2: this case she should go back to trial on the
Speaker 2: manslaughter account, but the first two counts, Uh. The judge
Speaker 2: should have brought the jurors back, or at a minimum,
Speaker 2: they could have given the instructions in the body of
Speaker 2: the case to say that that henceforwarths going for going forward.
Speaker 2: Judges should be of this case in mind. Again, Look,
Speaker 2: it's this is a tragedy, no matter how you look
Speaker 2: at it. It's as simple as that. It's a it's
Speaker 2: a horrific case. Never should have happened this way. John
Speaker 2: O'Keefe should still be alive today. Maybe they would have
Speaker 2: split and gone in different directions. But well, at the
Speaker 2: expense that not only the financial expense, but the expense
Speaker 2: on all all, all both of these families has just
Speaker 2: been tremendous. Get your reaction to the Supreme Court decision today.
Speaker 2: Six one, seven, two, four ten, thirty six seven nine.
Speaker 2: My name is Dan Ray and this is Nightside. Feel
Speaker 2: free join the conversation. Every everyone can be an armchair lawyer.
Speaker 1: Now bet to Dan Ray Window World Life Side Studios
Speaker 1: on WBZ the news radio.
Speaker 2: So the decision that came down today from the State
Speaker 2: Supreme Court here in Massachusetts was a unanimous decision seven
Speaker 2: members of the court, and generally these decisions very rarely
Speaker 2: in state court. In the federal system, at the US
Speaker 2: Supreme Court, you often have concurrences and descents. This court
Speaker 2: has a history in Massachusetts, the State Supreme Court as
Speaker 2: a history of trying to reach consensus and speak as one,
Speaker 2: and they indeed did speak today as one. Let me
Speaker 2: try to get the point here that I would like
Speaker 2: to make, and I'd love to hear what points you
Speaker 2: would like to make. First of all, tremendous amount of
Speaker 2: expense has been involved in this case, and clearly something
Speaker 2: horrific happened. The individual victim in this cage, John O'Keefe,
Speaker 2: lost his life. The question is is there any sort
Speaker 2: of guilt that is associated with whatever took his life?
Speaker 2: And clearly this trial went on for a long time
Speaker 2: last spring, and it'll probably go on a long time
Speaker 2: if and when it resumes on April first. The problem
Speaker 2: that I have is that in a case like this,
Speaker 2: in any superior court case of this magnitude. There's a
Speaker 2: lot of pressure on the judge because the judge is
Speaker 2: the ultimate arbiter of so many aspects of the case.
Speaker 2: And when this jury came back three times saying that
Speaker 2: they were irretrievably conflicted, and the notes that came back
Speaker 2: with that came back from the jury, Foreman said that
Speaker 2: they just, you know, they had reached a point where
Speaker 2: morally they could not arrive at a decision. The question, though,
Speaker 2: is when they when they told the judge that, and
Speaker 2: they did it in notes, it's the way it works.
Speaker 2: There wasn't much of a colloquay between the judge and
Speaker 2: the four person of the jury, and I think the
Speaker 2: judge could have easily asked, and I guess that the
Speaker 2: defense lawyers or the prosecution could have inquired of the
Speaker 2: judge and made a motion to request the judge. But
Speaker 2: I think the judge on her own could have said
Speaker 2: to the four person of the jury, am I to
Speaker 2: understand that you are irretrievably conflicted on all three counts?
Speaker 2: Or are you conflicted on merely one or two of
Speaker 2: the counts. I'm going to, you know, prepare to to
Speaker 2: clear a mistrial. However, before I do that. I want
Speaker 2: to make absolutely certain that the expense and the efforts
Speaker 2: by the prosecution and the defendants in this case, I
Speaker 2: have to ask this final question, are you conflicted, are
Speaker 2: you hung however whatever phraseology you want to employ on
Speaker 2: all three counts, or have you reached a partial verdict
Speaker 2: on any of these three counts that question, I assume
Speaker 2: if the the jurors you know, post verdict, post trial,
Speaker 2: are telling the truth. The four person might have said,
Speaker 2: your honor, we are hung up on one count. We
Speaker 2: have substantially agreed or agreed on two of the counts.
Speaker 2: At that point, the judge could have said, well, please
Speaker 2: go back and execute verdict slips on the counts on
Speaker 2: which you have agreed, and then, of course she also
Speaker 2: could have pulled the jurors. All of this would have
Speaker 2: been avoided if the judge had done that. And I,
Speaker 2: as Phil Tracy, said, this should now be the practice.
Speaker 2: And I think that the court missed an opportunity today
Speaker 2: because look, one of the things we want to try
Speaker 2: to do is use the courts as officially and as
Speaker 2: effective as fairly as possible. Clearly, but on a trial
Speaker 2: like this, if the jury had agreed that there was,
Speaker 2: you know, a unanimous consensus on one or more of
Speaker 2: the counts, then the retrial could go forward on the
Speaker 2: counts where there wasn't agreement. We're going to take a
Speaker 2: quick break here for the new for the news at
Speaker 2: the bottom of the hour, I'm got some callers lined up.
Speaker 2: We'll get to Tom and Matt, and I've got some
Speaker 2: room for you. Six six. Are you looking forward to
Speaker 2: the retrial of Karen Reid on all three counts as
Speaker 2: a result of the Supreme Court decision today and unless
Speaker 2: her appell at attorney, Attorney Weinberg takes this case or
Speaker 2: attempts to take this case in the federal court, I
Speaker 2: suspect that it's on schedule for retrial on April first.
Speaker 2: We'll see further developments. I'd love to know your thoughts
Speaker 2: on the decision by the stay Supreme Court today. Back
Speaker 2: in Nightside, right after the news at the bottom of.
Speaker 1: The hour night Side with Dan Ray, I'm WBZ Boston's
Speaker 1: News Radio.
Speaker 2: All right, we're going to go to phone calls, and
Speaker 2: as I say, we don't have to be a lawyer
Speaker 2: to discuss this. This is one that really captivated us
Speaker 2: the interest of people here and also people around the country.
Speaker 2: Is it is a huge story. It has become a
Speaker 2: national story. Believe it or not, Well you've seen it.
Speaker 2: So it is. Tom is in North Andover. Tom, your
Speaker 2: first this hour and nights. I appreciate you calling in.
Speaker 6: Go right ahead, Tom, Thanks the tust to Mike car
Speaker 6: I am a question on how to are you the
Speaker 6: case anyway? Mightn't have to pass able a matter, but
Speaker 6: you know, argue like who's who's just one of the
Speaker 6: fact focus two people in one a day and chim
Speaker 6: you know, who have to be responsible? That's we're trying
Speaker 6: to find out is responsible for the death. And can
Speaker 6: you you know, are you returned to how much responsibility
Speaker 6: is on the person who they're committed the crime and
Speaker 6: the person who also died. I mean, we have a
Speaker 6: man never the street filling up prison. It didn't look
Speaker 6: like I've seen some videos on it. You couldn't see
Speaker 6: any more than fifteen feet and you know he's he's
Speaker 6: gonna take some responsibility for her own actions. Now her
Speaker 6: is also you know, driving at that speed and reverse
Speaker 6: in a blinding stand and I know how many cars
Speaker 6: and Sue Ruth the have a lot of blind spots too.
Speaker 6: You know the big swimmer sides and everything. And so
Speaker 6: if you I would have chased that it's fifty one
Speaker 6: percent of one party spot and thirty nine percent of
Speaker 6: the other. That that could you an acrital while if
Speaker 6: you were reverse at the other doesn't matter which party,
Speaker 6: but I you were chased like that? Is that a
Speaker 6: viable type of defense or offense?
Speaker 2: That would be a viable strategy in a civil suit.
Speaker 2: If the O'Keefe family or his estate were to sue
Speaker 2: Karen Reid, that that would be more likely than not
Speaker 2: a different you know, different standard in a civil in
Speaker 2: a civil action, uh in the criminal case in order
Speaker 2: to convict a defendant, because it's a higher standard because
Speaker 2: the it is just not the financial exposure that an
Speaker 2: individual would have. You know, I fall and slip on
Speaker 2: your property and I'm going to sue you and you
Speaker 2: in effect your insurance company. No one's liberty is at stake.
Speaker 2: Her liberty is at stake. And as a consequence of that,
Speaker 2: in order for a judge to you know, find her guilty,
Speaker 2: a jury of her peers has to find all the
Speaker 2: elements of the crime that is charged beyond a reasonable doubt.
Speaker 2: So they have to show in the in the case
Speaker 2: of a second degree murder, that there was an intention
Speaker 2: to do some harm. Involuntary manslaughter, it could be much
Speaker 2: more someone was careless and they used such poor judgment
Speaker 2: that it rose to the point of being reckless. Now again,
Speaker 2: you then apply the facts of the case against whatever
Speaker 2: standard you're using. And so that's why it's in a
Speaker 2: court of law, and that's why it seems a little
Speaker 2: mysterious to people. But she did not, I'm sure, intend
Speaker 2: to kill him. That's why she's not charged with murder
Speaker 2: in the first degree. I mean, if if she had,
Speaker 2: if she had said to someone, you know, look, I'm
Speaker 2: gonna kill him tonight, that's you know, this premeditation deliberation,
Speaker 2: that's the standard for first degree murder. That's the most
Speaker 2: serious charge. This is, as Phil Tracy said, involuntary manslaughter
Speaker 2: case at best in my opinion, and I think also
Speaker 2: when Phil Tracy's opinion, Uh, And they're gonna have to
Speaker 2: go through the meat grinder again here. And it's I
Speaker 2: just wish the judge could have could have asked the
Speaker 2: questions of the jury back in July and may be
Speaker 2: disposed of at least a portion of the case. Clied.
Speaker 2: Have I clarified this at all for you? And know
Speaker 2: if I confuse you?
Speaker 6: No, No, not really, you know, I understand the several
Speaker 6: cases and so have been a agument in a several
Speaker 6: case than a prosecution of a criminal case. So do
Speaker 6: you think that the second to Throm murder was herber
Speaker 6: prosecution which brought out some vengeance from there's ever from
Speaker 6: the state police, from the prosecutor. And this is why
Speaker 6: she's say they had a hung jury.
Speaker 2: No, no, I again, we we will never know if
Speaker 2: the jury was hung on all three counts, you know,
Speaker 2: or if the jury was hung on only only one
Speaker 2: of the counts. We can No one has ever brought
Speaker 2: all the juries back and put them under pains and
Speaker 2: penalties of perjury, and and and and asked them questions
Speaker 2: and found out the truth of the matter. I think
Speaker 2: it would have been an interesting It would have been
Speaker 2: an interesting process, and I don't think that it would
Speaker 2: have been something. It might have it might have set
Speaker 2: a new standard here in Massachusetts, but that's mood at
Speaker 2: this point. Unless the federal judge comes in and overturns,
Speaker 2: in effect, files an opinion that overturns what the state
Speaker 2: Supreme court judge and federal judges are low to loath
Speaker 2: to do that. Sometimes what can happen is that a
Speaker 2: prosecutor may charge get a little aggressive on the charge,
Speaker 2: but they have lesser included charges, or they have separate
Speaker 2: indictment counts, and they might say, well, you hit her with,
Speaker 2: you know, with three charges, and you want to hook
Speaker 2: her on at least one. I'm not sure that's the
Speaker 2: way the most ethical prosecutor would work. But sometimes it's
Speaker 2: unclear even to the prosecutor. Prosecutor what really happened, and
Speaker 2: so they cast a wider net would be the way
Speaker 2: to describe it. That's the only way I could describe it.
Speaker 6: I appreciate that. Yeah, No, I do appreciate that. So
Speaker 6: it's the second trial, they're going to stick with the
Speaker 6: second degree murder, up it down to like a man's no.
Speaker 2: I think, no, no, no, they're gonna they're gonna go
Speaker 2: back on. Let now, they could turn around at some point,
Speaker 2: I guess, uh, at any point the prosecution could on
Speaker 2: its own drop it. Bet I don't think so. I
Speaker 2: think she's gonna go to trial if nothing else changes, uh,
Speaker 2: or the trial will begin anew and it'll be on
Speaker 2: the three uh, the three counts that she's facing, which
Speaker 2: you know again second degree involuntary manslaughter and leaving the
Speaker 2: scene of an accident. So that's we're gonna We're gonna
Speaker 2: watch the movie again, I think unless the Mardy Weinberg
Speaker 2: gets in decides to go into federal court and some
Speaker 2: federal judge says, hey, yeah, there is a double jeopardy
Speaker 2: argument here that's substantial. Uh. But but again, federal judges
Speaker 2: in a case like this would be loath to to
Speaker 2: overrule a unanimous decision uh by a state supreme court.
Speaker 2: In my opinion, Tom, thank.
Speaker 6: You for the questions, right, Thank you, I appreciate it.
Speaker 2: Thanks very much. We'll talk again. Thanks six one, triple
Speaker 2: eight nine, nineteen thirty. Or we got a couple of
Speaker 2: lines at six one, seven, nine, three one ten thirty.
Speaker 2: Should Karen Reid be facing this second trial on all
Speaker 2: three counts? That's the way it looks right tonight. That's
Speaker 2: the way it looks tonight. Uh. There was no give, no,
Speaker 2: no leniency from the state Supreme Court. Matt in frank
Speaker 2: in Franklin, Massachusetts. Matt, you're next time night side welcome Matt.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I was I was going to just say this.
Speaker 4: Karen Reid know how to say no, because she's like
Speaker 4: six or seven million dollars in debt and counting them
Speaker 4: in beaters running. And I feel like she would probably
Speaker 4: listen to the lawyers and go to the federal court
Speaker 4: for an appeal, even if it's like a lost cause
Speaker 4: like this one.
Speaker 2: Well, she's gonna sit with her lawyers and they're gonna
Speaker 2: advise her, and they're gonna say, look, we think we
Speaker 2: have a shot, or we don't have a shot. I
Speaker 2: think this case to the State Supreme Court was was
Speaker 2: very appropriately filed and argued clearly. It was not dismissed
Speaker 2: out of hand. They gave the court a number of options. Look,
Speaker 2: if you're fighting for your good name, your reputation as
Speaker 2: well as your liberty, how much money would you be
Speaker 2: willing to not be? She she has had gofund me
Speaker 2: pages as I'm sure you know, a wellspring of no.
Speaker 4: I know sheould have sell her house and everything else.
Speaker 4: I just think, I mean, in the grand scheme of things,
Speaker 4: if she had just plugged guilty, I don't know if
Speaker 4: they gave her the option, And like I don't know
Speaker 4: how it affected a civil trial and everything but it
Speaker 4: probably would have been less than the seven millions who
Speaker 4: spent to defend yourself. Then she'd be back, probably back
Speaker 4: in the workforce by this point.
Speaker 2: Well, I don't know about that million. I assume you're
Speaker 2: not a lawyer, right, No, not okay, So what would
Speaker 2: you as a non lawyer, what would you what would
Speaker 2: you advise her to plead guilty to a second degree murder.
Speaker 4: The involuntary manslaughter possible, I don't know.
Speaker 2: Plays So when the prosecutor comes back and says to you, okay,
Speaker 2: we we might consider the plea, but but we want
Speaker 2: at least five year prison sentence, what do you say
Speaker 2: then to you to your client and A ha, that's
Speaker 2: what I'm saying. I mean, would they come back and say, oh, yeah,
Speaker 2: we're gonna let you plead guilty and we'll give you
Speaker 2: a suspended sentence. We'll give you six months of house confinement.
Speaker 2: I don't think so. I mean, it's become such.
Speaker 4: A yeah, now that's what I'm just assuming. That will
Speaker 4: probably be a couple of years. But she has medical
Speaker 4: issues and she could be back in the work for us.
Speaker 4: But yeah, she's spending a fortune, and that looks like
Speaker 4: the trial is going to be the same exact thing,
Speaker 4: because they're probably.
Speaker 2: Not gonna be necessarily not necessarily because generally on a retrial,
Speaker 2: it's an advantage to the defense lawyer because they have
Speaker 2: seen Now they have hired the Norfolk County DIA's office
Speaker 2: has hired a special prosecutor, a very good defense lawyer
Speaker 2: named Hank Brennan.
Speaker 5: Uh.
Speaker 2: And yeah, he's pretty aggressive, and I guess that he's
Speaker 2: trying to glean some information from the electronics of the car.
Speaker 2: I don't know enough about car electronics to know if
Speaker 2: the information that that he can get access to was
Speaker 2: not available in the first trial, and if it's dispositive,
Speaker 2: if it shows that, you know, she went from zero
Speaker 2: to twenty five in two seconds and traveled a distance,
Speaker 2: there could be new information in a second trial.
Speaker 4: But but yeah, I mean, he seems to be doing
Speaker 4: a better job presenting the case in the previous one.
Speaker 4: The previous one just kind of dragged on.
Speaker 2: Non Yeah, I think Brennan will be a more formidable prosecutor.
Speaker 2: He comes in, takes a second look, he gets a
Speaker 2: fresh look. He's not bound by the strategy that the
Speaker 2: prior prosecut to used. He can start from scratch. He
Speaker 2: can he can work within the framework. It'll be an
Speaker 2: interesting process. Matt, did you follow the first trial pretty closely?
Speaker 5: Yeah?
Speaker 4: I did. I was watching while I was working, and
Speaker 4: I just kind of went on. It was like three
Speaker 4: days at a time of talking to like them, they
Speaker 4: or drunk about what happened three years ago. And I
Speaker 4: just felt like from the beginning they were trying to
Speaker 4: push it as close to July fourth, so because I
Speaker 4: knew to Judge out of vacation Holme in the Cape,
Speaker 4: and I feel like they were trying to get as
Speaker 4: close to that date as possible so that she would
Speaker 4: want to get out of there. But I think that
Speaker 4: could probably happen again if it goes the same they.
Speaker 2: Went right up against. I think the verdict came back
Speaker 2: or the non verdict, the decision to declear a mistrial
Speaker 2: accrowd in July first, and maybe that played a little
Speaker 2: while in it. I don't know. Hey, Matt, appreciate the call.
Speaker 2: Thank you much. That was thoughtful. Thanks good night, six
Speaker 2: thirty one line there, six one, seven, nine thirty. I
Speaker 2: will be more than happy to take this into the
Speaker 2: into the ten o'clock hour, but you have to show
Speaker 2: on interest. I have another topic that we have standing by. Uh,
Speaker 2: but if you want to talk about the Karen retrial,
Speaker 2: the decision today from the State Supreme Court. I know
Speaker 2: that this gets into legalities, and sometimes people are are
Speaker 2: hesitant to try to talk legalities, but look, feel free
Speaker 2: to bring it on. Your point of view is just
Speaker 2: as valuable as mine or any expert witness. Back on
Speaker 2: Nightside right after the break.
Speaker 1: Now back to Dan Ray live from the Window World
Speaker 1: Nightside Studios on WBZ News Radio.
Speaker 2: Okay, we may go into the next hour. Let me
Speaker 2: go to fill in Boston. Next, phild next on Nightside,
Speaker 2: go right ahead there.
Speaker 7: I know more than I could show you. But no,
Speaker 7: you're right, there was I believe there was a lawyer
Speaker 7: on the jury. It was a foreman. But Dan, I'm
Speaker 7: just it always this this this course system in this
Speaker 7: area has been around for two or hundred years whatever,
Speaker 7: And in this case, a similar case of verdict has
Speaker 7: never happened before. Wouldn't it be a case history of
Speaker 7: a situation whether they were free charges and three different
Speaker 7: Apparently not?
Speaker 2: Well, apparently not, because if there had been this same
Speaker 2: situation and again, remember this all prompted because some of
Speaker 2: the jurors on their own contacted the defense lawyers as
Speaker 2: well as apparently they contacted the prosecutors when you read
Speaker 2: the decision today, and the prosecutors said, look, if you
Speaker 2: talk to us, we're going to have to share this
Speaker 2: with the defense lawyers and with the judge and whoever
Speaker 2: called them. According to the trial the decision today, those
Speaker 2: people sort of backed off and said, oh, we're good,
Speaker 2: We're good. You know, this is a little bit of
Speaker 2: the involvement of the media. It was such a high
Speaker 2: profile case. They're probably about other cases there were not
Speaker 2: anywhere near this as a high profile case maybe which
Speaker 2: we don't know about. I would hope that if there
Speaker 2: had been a previous case in nineteen thirty seven or
Speaker 2: in eighteen fifty four in which the court had ruled
Speaker 2: that the judge failed to adequately question the jurors about
Speaker 2: the status of their deliberations on each of the counts,
Speaker 2: that the defense lawyers would have included that in their
Speaker 2: arguments and their filings.
Speaker 7: I can only assume, not to top off the vacation
Speaker 7: thing for the judge, there was also an initial problem
Speaker 7: with the jury sheet they had to vote on with.
Speaker 2: Yep, there was, yeah, there was some confusion about that.
Speaker 7: Yes, you think that would This thing is like an
Speaker 7: ongoing soap opera. I'm holpos think it's resolved. But she's
Speaker 7: got probably a book coming out. I mean, hopefully to
Speaker 7: get to pay the bills in a soap opera, a
Speaker 7: live soap opera.
Speaker 2: Right, Well, she's got it. She'll have a lot of bills.
Speaker 2: You have to sell a lot of books. You don't
Speaker 2: know if it comes back, And if it comes back
Speaker 2: and she gets an acquittal, she's going to be in
Speaker 2: a much better shape to recover. But I hate everybody's
Speaker 2: got to make those decisions. Matt talked about why not
Speaker 2: reach a plea deal. I don't know that if you,
Speaker 2: if you truly believe that you're innocent and you did nothing,
Speaker 2: why would you want to agree to a plea deal
Speaker 2: in jail? Yeah, I can't ask me. They wake you
Speaker 2: up early, they don't let you sleep in Phil and breakfast,
Speaker 2: and they're no buffet breakfast as far as I know.
Speaker 2: Thanks Phil, doctor, you, Sue, good night. Let me go
Speaker 2: back to North End over Steve. Second call of this
Speaker 2: hour from North End, ver go ahead, Steve.
Speaker 3: Hey, Dan, thanks for taking my call.
Speaker 2: More than welcome. Thank you for calling in your next
Speaker 2: go ahead.
Speaker 3: I gotta say, I've been watching this from the beginning,
Speaker 3: and I think of myself as a pretty rational andasonable
Speaker 3: person what I would do if I were on the jury.
Speaker 3: And there's just so many things that don't line up right,
Speaker 3: and everyone's second guessing how the defense went about this
Speaker 3: the first the first time around. But it's all about
Speaker 3: you know what, what's the coincidence and what's not And
Speaker 3: if you look at it from the beginning, you look
Speaker 3: at this, the treatment of this murder of a Boston
Speaker 3: police officer, right the whole investigation, we use.
Speaker 2: It a word murder. We know it's a homicide. Okay,
Speaker 2: we know all of that, but we don't know what's
Speaker 2: a murder yet.
Speaker 3: Okay, go ahead, Okay, it appears it appears to be.
Speaker 3: But the investigation itself was done so differently than any
Speaker 3: other investigation that any of those whether it was a
Speaker 3: state police, the Canton cops, whatever, had done previously. You
Speaker 3: look at their own track record, I mean, at the
Speaker 3: end of the day, in your estimation, my estimation, whatever,
Speaker 3: this is getting more traction, and Quie frankly glad that
Speaker 3: it that it is nationally and maybe even internationally are
Speaker 3: people going to look back at Massachusetts in five years
Speaker 3: and say, you know, three years, two years, what a
Speaker 3: laughing stock? This is anything that was in their control
Speaker 3: was either manipulated, missing, or you know, or deleted.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 3: And if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck.
Speaker 3: And I hate to use that analogy because of what
Speaker 3: that's a good analogy.
Speaker 2: That's a great analogy. You know, a lot of people,
Speaker 2: but particularly people who are supportive of Karen Reid, will
Speaker 2: jump upon this and say, hey, look look at the history.
Speaker 2: We had the witches, We had the Salem witch trials
Speaker 2: in this state, and this is they will see that
Speaker 2: as an extension of that. We had sackle Vinzetti. They'll
Speaker 2: see that as an extension of that. You know, so
Speaker 2: you might be you may hit upon something here.
Speaker 3: Well, Dan, Dan, I've been following it right, And I
Speaker 3: don't want to say too much, but I am a
Speaker 3: fellow Falcon as well, Bentley Falcon. And and so that's
Speaker 3: how I partially got into this.
Speaker 2: I' that's what she taught. She taught she taught.
Speaker 3: Yeah, right, and she's a she's a rational person, you know.
Speaker 3: There there's I'm sure she was grieving at the moment
Speaker 3: words were put in her mouth. And its just it
Speaker 3: is what it is.
Speaker 6: I mean, what what first.
Speaker 3: Responders don't respond, whether it's a homeowner, whether it's atf agent.
Speaker 3: So much smells in this case, and the truth will
Speaker 3: come out.
Speaker 2: Let us hope the truth. The truth should always come out.
Speaker 2: It's as simple as that. Hey, Steve, that was a
Speaker 2: great call. I really do appreciate it, and I'm sure
Speaker 2: that if Karen Reid is listening, she'll appreciate the support
Speaker 2: from a fellow Falcon. As you said, thank you so much.
Speaker 2: We lost them, they didn't even get a chance. Sake
Speaker 2: so long. We will stick with this. Fred and Brian,
Speaker 2: you guys stay there, you'll be first up. If you're
Speaker 2: not on the line, now's the time to dial in,
Speaker 2: because we can always take their true calls and then
Speaker 2: move on, or we can continue to talk about it.
Speaker 2: You decide.