WEBVTT

1
00:00:00.520 --> 00:00:07.559
<v Speaker 1>As Night's side with Dan Ray on WBZ Cooston's new video.

2
00:00:08.080 --> 00:00:14.679
<v Speaker 2>Big decision today from the State Supreme Court. The seven

3
00:00:14.960 --> 00:00:20.120
<v Speaker 2>justices concluded that not only was Karen Reid going back

4
00:00:20.160 --> 00:00:25.559
<v Speaker 2>to trial for a series of charges related to the

5
00:00:25.600 --> 00:00:29.399
<v Speaker 2>death of her boyfriend, former Boston police officer John O'Keefe,

6
00:00:29.920 --> 00:00:33.280
<v Speaker 2>but in addition, in addition, she will go back to

7
00:00:33.320 --> 00:00:39.399
<v Speaker 2>trial on all three of the indictments that she still faces.

8
00:00:39.439 --> 00:00:43.000
<v Speaker 2>She went through a trial in which the first jury

9
00:00:43.079 --> 00:00:47.119
<v Speaker 2>last July said they were hung. They were hung jury,

10
00:00:47.479 --> 00:00:54.920
<v Speaker 2>and some of the jurists came forward subsequent to the

11
00:00:54.960 --> 00:00:58.039
<v Speaker 2>conclusion of the case and said that they were hung

12
00:00:58.079 --> 00:01:01.600
<v Speaker 2>on one of the issues, which was leaving the scene

13
00:01:01.600 --> 00:01:04.719
<v Speaker 2>of an accident, and that they had voted or they

14
00:01:04.719 --> 00:01:07.480
<v Speaker 2>were unanimous in their belief that you should be acquitted

15
00:01:07.719 --> 00:01:11.560
<v Speaker 2>on two of the other issues, one of them the

16
00:01:12.040 --> 00:01:16.480
<v Speaker 2>more serious charge of second agree murder with us. Now

17
00:01:16.519 --> 00:01:21.280
<v Speaker 2>he's Boston attorney Phil Tracy, he's the defense lawyer. And Phil,

18
00:01:21.319 --> 00:01:23.400
<v Speaker 2>I'm sure you've had a chance to look at this decisions,

19
00:01:23.439 --> 00:01:29.799
<v Speaker 2>thirty five page decision you I think Field, the decision

20
00:01:30.200 --> 00:01:33.480
<v Speaker 2>was the proper decision under the circumstances. Even though you

21
00:01:33.519 --> 00:01:36.200
<v Speaker 2>are a defense lawyer, as I understand that, I know

22
00:01:36.280 --> 00:01:37.280
<v Speaker 2>you are a lawyer.

23
00:01:37.760 --> 00:01:38.200
<v Speaker 3>I think.

24
00:01:41.560 --> 00:01:44.560
<v Speaker 2>All defense lawyers were at one point to prosecutor. Right there.

25
00:01:45.319 --> 00:01:46.280
<v Speaker 4>I guess that's right.

26
00:01:47.120 --> 00:01:50.920
<v Speaker 5>But in any event, thank you Dan, thanks for having

27
00:01:50.920 --> 00:01:54.439
<v Speaker 5>me on and good to talk to you. The sanctity

28
00:01:54.560 --> 00:01:59.920
<v Speaker 5>of the jury system is really something that the courts

29
00:02:00.159 --> 00:02:03.519
<v Speaker 5>never want to fiddle with. They don't want to make

30
00:02:03.799 --> 00:02:10.719
<v Speaker 5>changes in that procedure. The ananymity of the juror's names

31
00:02:10.800 --> 00:02:15.400
<v Speaker 5>and protecting the jurors from outside influence, and in this

32
00:02:15.520 --> 00:02:18.840
<v Speaker 5>case there was a lot is really important. So I

33
00:02:18.840 --> 00:02:22.319
<v Speaker 5>think the court is not going in any direction that's

34
00:02:22.319 --> 00:02:25.240
<v Speaker 5>going to say bring these jurors back and put them

35
00:02:25.280 --> 00:02:31.039
<v Speaker 5>under oath. Unless there's a racial bias or some sort

36
00:02:31.080 --> 00:02:35.960
<v Speaker 5>of you know, corruption type thing, somebody trying to buy

37
00:02:36.039 --> 00:02:38.919
<v Speaker 5>off a dura, that type of thing, you then bring

38
00:02:38.960 --> 00:02:42.159
<v Speaker 5>the jura back in and you go for it. The

39
00:02:42.280 --> 00:02:46.719
<v Speaker 5>deliberations did not result in a verdict, that's what they said.

40
00:02:46.840 --> 00:02:50.159
<v Speaker 5>They said it was dead luck, and therefore it's going

41
00:02:50.199 --> 00:02:52.439
<v Speaker 5>to have to go back to trial. It could be

42
00:02:52.479 --> 00:02:59.360
<v Speaker 5>a pyrrhic victory though, because the charges she was acquitted on.

43
00:03:01.159 --> 00:03:05.319
<v Speaker 5>If they could go back just and do the involuntary manslaughter.

44
00:03:05.520 --> 00:03:12.479
<v Speaker 5>That would be sounds like that's the primary position for

45
00:03:12.520 --> 00:03:17.120
<v Speaker 5>the prosecution, because it looks as if the juror those

46
00:03:17.240 --> 00:03:20.080
<v Speaker 5>jurors may not be any different than the new jurors,

47
00:03:20.639 --> 00:03:23.919
<v Speaker 5>and they would find them not guilty of secondary murder,

48
00:03:23.960 --> 00:03:29.319
<v Speaker 5>but possibly guilty of the involuntary Mansillam, I believe the

49
00:03:29.360 --> 00:03:31.719
<v Speaker 5>count was nine to three for guilty.

50
00:03:32.560 --> 00:03:36.000
<v Speaker 2>Well, that's interesting that the sanctity of the jury is

51
00:03:36.039 --> 00:03:41.759
<v Speaker 2>that that was disclosed in the decision today. I was

52
00:03:41.800 --> 00:03:43.919
<v Speaker 2>not in court when the case was argued, and I

53
00:03:43.960 --> 00:03:46.800
<v Speaker 2>don't know if it was if it was disclosed, but

54
00:03:46.879 --> 00:03:51.919
<v Speaker 2>that was an interesting point. I'm surprised that the SJC

55
00:03:52.240 --> 00:03:56.000
<v Speaker 2>allowed that point to be memorialized in their decision. I mean,

56
00:03:56.039 --> 00:03:58.599
<v Speaker 2>it would seem to me that that could potentially influence

57
00:03:58.919 --> 00:03:59.879
<v Speaker 2>a future jury.

58
00:04:01.159 --> 00:04:04.879
<v Speaker 5>It could, but I think you've seen Karen read on

59
00:04:05.000 --> 00:04:08.479
<v Speaker 5>TV on and on again.

60
00:04:10.560 --> 00:04:12.520
<v Speaker 2>Well she has you know, she has the right to

61
00:04:12.560 --> 00:04:14.159
<v Speaker 2>function in the court of public opinion.

62
00:04:14.759 --> 00:04:18.160
<v Speaker 5>Uh, she is doing a good job of it. Yeah,

63
00:04:18.879 --> 00:04:21.439
<v Speaker 5>And so what you're saying is that the nine to

64
00:04:21.480 --> 00:04:27.199
<v Speaker 5>three UH count could influence fo to jury's And that's correct,

65
00:04:28.600 --> 00:04:29.120
<v Speaker 5>no question.

66
00:04:29.240 --> 00:04:35.000
<v Speaker 2>I just I just think that the prosecutors cannot campaign

67
00:04:35.120 --> 00:04:39.279
<v Speaker 2>in the court of public opinion. They you know they

68
00:04:39.519 --> 00:04:43.519
<v Speaker 2>they would never I think discuss the case as openly

69
00:04:43.600 --> 00:04:47.480
<v Speaker 2>as either she or or her lawyers have. I view

70
00:04:47.560 --> 00:04:49.920
<v Speaker 2>this and and we're going to disagree, so feel free,

71
00:04:50.040 --> 00:04:54.000
<v Speaker 2>you know your best shot. I view this that the

72
00:04:54.040 --> 00:04:59.319
<v Speaker 2>court missed an opportunity to in effect establish a procedure.

73
00:04:59.439 --> 00:05:02.920
<v Speaker 2>I think that judge should have on her own, as

74
00:05:03.439 --> 00:05:05.560
<v Speaker 2>was as they say in the court of law, Sue

75
00:05:05.600 --> 00:05:10.519
<v Speaker 2>Sponte should have inquired of the jurors discreetly. I should

76
00:05:10.519 --> 00:05:15.279
<v Speaker 2>have said, am I to understand that you are irrevocably

77
00:05:15.759 --> 00:05:21.439
<v Speaker 2>hung up and and and conflicted on all three counts?

78
00:05:22.720 --> 00:05:25.920
<v Speaker 2>Have you have you agreed on a verdict? Have you

79
00:05:26.000 --> 00:05:28.959
<v Speaker 2>come to a conclusion on any of the counts. I

80
00:05:29.000 --> 00:05:32.000
<v Speaker 2>think that her instructions are a little confusing, and I

81
00:05:32.040 --> 00:05:35.600
<v Speaker 2>think that that may have led to what went on here.

82
00:05:35.879 --> 00:05:38.360
<v Speaker 2>And I just think that the court, I would bet

83
00:05:38.399 --> 00:05:42.959
<v Speaker 2>you that if another judge has a similar case, councilor Tracy, where.

84
00:05:43.199 --> 00:05:47.360
<v Speaker 5>From from here on in in every case that's like this.

85
00:05:48.120 --> 00:05:50.759
<v Speaker 5>But I think that you know, there were three counts.

86
00:05:51.240 --> 00:05:55.240
<v Speaker 5>There were three counts, and so they each had different

87
00:05:55.519 --> 00:06:01.199
<v Speaker 5>verdict slips. So this is where the jurors, I'm not

88
00:06:01.240 --> 00:06:04.360
<v Speaker 5>going to say they filed up, but they didn't know

89
00:06:04.399 --> 00:06:10.680
<v Speaker 5>what to do. If they had signaled that we've made

90
00:06:10.680 --> 00:06:14.160
<v Speaker 5>a decision on two of the three cases, she could

91
00:06:14.160 --> 00:06:18.480
<v Speaker 5>have taken that verdict and then this case would be

92
00:06:18.560 --> 00:06:25.240
<v Speaker 5>retried only on the involuntary manslaughter case. Now, in a way,

93
00:06:25.399 --> 00:06:27.879
<v Speaker 5>is what I'm alluding to, is if I think it'd

94
00:06:27.920 --> 00:06:34.600
<v Speaker 5>be better for the prosecution if they were only trying

95
00:06:34.680 --> 00:06:38.959
<v Speaker 5>her on involuntary mansluter because what I think happened in

96
00:06:39.000 --> 00:06:42.600
<v Speaker 5>this case, and like everybody else laid people lawyers or whatever.

97
00:06:43.199 --> 00:06:47.079
<v Speaker 5>I think they had an argument. She drove the car

98
00:06:47.120 --> 00:06:50.759
<v Speaker 5>and reverse twenty five miles an hour. That's an incredible factor.

99
00:06:52.519 --> 00:06:55.360
<v Speaker 5>She hit him. She may or may not know she

100
00:06:55.439 --> 00:06:57.879
<v Speaker 5>hit him. I don't think she knew she hit him.

101
00:06:58.120 --> 00:07:01.079
<v Speaker 5>But then, of course as she sobered up, she find it.

102
00:07:01.199 --> 00:07:03.879
<v Speaker 5>She said where is he now? She gets her girlfriends,

103
00:07:03.920 --> 00:07:06.839
<v Speaker 5>they go back. She starts yelling, I hit him. I

104
00:07:06.959 --> 00:07:10.639
<v Speaker 5>must have hit him. That indicates to me that that

105
00:07:10.879 --> 00:07:14.839
<v Speaker 5>is the correct result of this case. How itever comes

106
00:07:14.839 --> 00:07:21.160
<v Speaker 5>out that was an involuntary manslaught due to her alcohol.

107
00:07:21.279 --> 00:07:24.519
<v Speaker 5>You said driving the vehicle and hitting him. Whether she

108
00:07:24.639 --> 00:07:28.079
<v Speaker 5>knew it or not, it's you know, I mean, that's

109
00:07:28.160 --> 00:07:32.120
<v Speaker 5>involuntary manslaw. She didn't didn't intend to hit him.

110
00:07:32.399 --> 00:07:35.360
<v Speaker 2>That's what I think I could see. Yeah, and I

111
00:07:35.360 --> 00:07:37.759
<v Speaker 2>can support you on that. I can see that there's

112
00:07:37.839 --> 00:07:41.199
<v Speaker 2>some sort of a bitter argument that might have started

113
00:07:41.240 --> 00:07:44.560
<v Speaker 2>at one of the bars continued, and he decided that

114
00:07:44.639 --> 00:07:46.560
<v Speaker 2>he wanted to go to the party, and she didn't

115
00:07:46.560 --> 00:07:48.319
<v Speaker 2>want to go to the party, and he said, drop

116
00:07:48.360 --> 00:07:51.160
<v Speaker 2>me off. He dropped her off, and she had the

117
00:07:51.240 --> 00:07:57.639
<v Speaker 2>car in reverse inadvertently, and that would that she would

118
00:07:57.879 --> 00:08:02.360
<v Speaker 2>drive off quickly and make us maybe so that that

119
00:08:02.399 --> 00:08:05.480
<v Speaker 2>could have and maybe they can pull some information out

120
00:08:05.480 --> 00:08:08.079
<v Speaker 2>of the electronics of the car to figure to figure

121
00:08:08.120 --> 00:08:09.040
<v Speaker 2>that out.

122
00:08:10.839 --> 00:08:13.720
<v Speaker 5>Well, you know. The other and of course, clouded into

123
00:08:13.800 --> 00:08:18.240
<v Speaker 5>this was the uh are infused into this was the

124
00:08:18.319 --> 00:08:22.800
<v Speaker 5>borish behavior of some of the past prosecution's witness, including

125
00:08:22.879 --> 00:08:27.120
<v Speaker 5>police officers and state troopers. And that turned people off.

126
00:08:27.399 --> 00:08:30.720
<v Speaker 5>You know, that would turn a duror off. A state

127
00:08:30.800 --> 00:08:35.279
<v Speaker 5>police officer acting in that fashion. Yeah, that that was

128
00:08:35.720 --> 00:08:36.200
<v Speaker 5>not good.

129
00:08:36.879 --> 00:08:40.360
<v Speaker 2>And and his fate, Michael Proctor, is his fate. His

130
00:08:40.440 --> 00:08:43.480
<v Speaker 2>professional fate still hangs in the balance. The trial starts

131
00:08:43.480 --> 00:08:46.519
<v Speaker 2>in April. First, it'll be interesting sebody Weinberg, who's a

132
00:08:46.559 --> 00:08:48.360
<v Speaker 2>good appellate lawyer, good trial.

133
00:08:48.120 --> 00:08:51.000
<v Speaker 5>Lawyer, tremendous, hemendous.

134
00:08:50.399 --> 00:08:54.240
<v Speaker 2>Lawyer, that that he was thinking of, you know, trying

135
00:08:54.240 --> 00:08:57.759
<v Speaker 2>to go into federal court because I think that the

136
00:08:57.840 --> 00:09:02.039
<v Speaker 2>issue here is obviously double chef and wouldn't it be

137
00:09:02.039 --> 00:09:06.320
<v Speaker 2>interesting if our state supreme court was somehow overruled by

138
00:09:06.399 --> 00:09:09.120
<v Speaker 2>the US Supreme Court. I have no idea if you'll

139
00:09:09.159 --> 00:09:12.320
<v Speaker 2>follow through on that.

140
00:09:13.039 --> 00:09:15.679
<v Speaker 5>Well, there's no question that you know, he's a top

141
00:09:15.759 --> 00:09:19.600
<v Speaker 5>notch attorney. We've my office and he have had a

142
00:09:19.679 --> 00:09:25.799
<v Speaker 5>relationship for many years. But I don't know if the

143
00:09:25.840 --> 00:09:29.399
<v Speaker 5>Supreme Court would take the case. On the other hand,

144
00:09:29.720 --> 00:09:34.519
<v Speaker 5>the issue you just mentioned, double jeopardy is fundamental to

145
00:09:34.639 --> 00:09:38.799
<v Speaker 5>the core of of of our judicial system, whether it's

146
00:09:38.840 --> 00:09:43.320
<v Speaker 5>federal district court, superior court, any state of the Union.

147
00:09:43.399 --> 00:09:50.039
<v Speaker 5>Once you have a double jeopardy argument, that's saying that's

148
00:09:50.159 --> 00:09:55.039
<v Speaker 5>very held in such a high standard. In other words,

149
00:09:55.039 --> 00:09:59.919
<v Speaker 5>you can't retry somebody. Now. Of course, the jury, by

150
00:10:00.120 --> 00:10:04.480
<v Speaker 5>the way, the lawyers for both the prosecution and the defense,

151
00:10:05.200 --> 00:10:07.519
<v Speaker 5>they might have come up with the idea Judge, why

152
00:10:07.519 --> 00:10:11.679
<v Speaker 5>don't you check and see what counts that they They

153
00:10:11.679 --> 00:10:15.799
<v Speaker 5>didn't do that, so you know, but you said it earlier.

154
00:10:16.320 --> 00:10:20.639
<v Speaker 5>From now on, every time there's a case like it

155
00:10:20.840 --> 00:10:25.320
<v Speaker 5>with three different counts, three different verdict slips, the judge

156
00:10:25.360 --> 00:10:27.799
<v Speaker 5>is going to quiet, well, you hung on what one

157
00:10:27.799 --> 00:10:30.600
<v Speaker 5>of them? Two of them? Are all three of them,

158
00:10:30.759 --> 00:10:33.559
<v Speaker 5>and that's that's what's going to be the rule of

159
00:10:33.639 --> 00:10:38.120
<v Speaker 5>law from now on. There's no question that that's that's

160
00:10:38.159 --> 00:10:39.000
<v Speaker 5>what's going to happen.

161
00:10:39.879 --> 00:10:42.840
<v Speaker 2>You know. It's it's interesting. I think I don't know

162
00:10:42.840 --> 00:10:44.799
<v Speaker 2>where I read this, but I think that one or

163
00:10:44.879 --> 00:10:49.000
<v Speaker 2>more of the members of the jury were lawyers. And

164
00:10:49.120 --> 00:10:52.159
<v Speaker 2>the notes that were sent back as I read them

165
00:10:52.600 --> 00:10:55.559
<v Speaker 2>in the context of the decision today, obviously they were

166
00:10:55.559 --> 00:10:58.440
<v Speaker 2>written by someone who was pretty well versed in the law.

167
00:10:59.120 --> 00:11:03.399
<v Speaker 2>And I wonder if, I don't know, uh, if if

168
00:11:03.639 --> 00:11:05.759
<v Speaker 2>if one of the four people, if the fourth person

169
00:11:05.799 --> 00:11:10.559
<v Speaker 2>of the jury was a lawyer, if maybe their language

170
00:11:10.639 --> 00:11:12.759
<v Speaker 2>was a little more stilted than it needed to be,

171
00:11:13.120 --> 00:11:18.279
<v Speaker 2>or maybe that individual was trying to be more cautious

172
00:11:18.039 --> 00:11:21.240
<v Speaker 2>in what he wrote in terms of notes to the judge.

173
00:11:22.200 --> 00:11:22.840
<v Speaker 4>It's fascinating.

174
00:11:22.840 --> 00:11:25.039
<v Speaker 2>It's a fascina any case either way, she's supposed to

175
00:11:25.080 --> 00:11:28.240
<v Speaker 2>go back on trial on April first as this case, and.

176
00:11:28.240 --> 00:11:30.200
<v Speaker 5>I think he will go to trial on April first,

177
00:11:30.200 --> 00:11:36.120
<v Speaker 5>but they they could now what the strategy for an

178
00:11:36.159 --> 00:11:39.960
<v Speaker 5>appeal would be to finally appeal and ask for a

179
00:11:40.000 --> 00:11:44.120
<v Speaker 5>stay of the state court state court trial and.

180
00:11:44.120 --> 00:11:47.080
<v Speaker 2>Which which again would would inure to the benefit of

181
00:11:47.120 --> 00:11:50.120
<v Speaker 2>the defendant, uh and would not go up. I mean

182
00:11:51.399 --> 00:11:53.519
<v Speaker 2>there'd be no way to. It would have to be tried,

183
00:11:53.679 --> 00:11:56.480
<v Speaker 2>I assume before a district court judge, and then go

184
00:11:56.559 --> 00:11:59.799
<v Speaker 2>through the appeals process if it ever were to get sure,

185
00:12:00.000 --> 00:12:02.200
<v Speaker 2>sorry to the to the US Supreme Court. I don't

186
00:12:02.200 --> 00:12:02.559
<v Speaker 2>think the.

187
00:12:04.679 --> 00:12:08.600
<v Speaker 5>A long It's a long and winding road to get

188
00:12:08.639 --> 00:12:14.720
<v Speaker 5>to that spot. Phil, Phil Tracy is always yes, eggs Ded.

189
00:12:15.360 --> 00:12:19.120
<v Speaker 2>Thank you so much, appreciate your analysis, and well we

190
00:12:19.159 --> 00:12:22.039
<v Speaker 2>will talk soon, my friend, talk to you soon. Bye

191
00:12:22.120 --> 00:12:26.200
<v Speaker 2>right now, bye bye Now. I'd like to hear from you,

192
00:12:26.879 --> 00:12:30.120
<v Speaker 2>if you are a listener, I'd love to know what

193
00:12:30.159 --> 00:12:32.600
<v Speaker 2>your thought is on this case. We can go. I

194
00:12:32.639 --> 00:12:36.600
<v Speaker 2>think most of us are familiar with the case. Uh

195
00:12:36.679 --> 00:12:39.440
<v Speaker 2>and uh. You now probably are familiar with what the

196
00:12:39.480 --> 00:12:41.679
<v Speaker 2>court did today. I can try to recap it for

197
00:12:41.720 --> 00:12:46.080
<v Speaker 2>you and give you what what what the holding of

198
00:12:46.120 --> 00:12:49.200
<v Speaker 2>the Supreme Court was. I thought it's a missed opportunity.

199
00:12:49.320 --> 00:12:51.840
<v Speaker 2>I think that the court could have said that in

200
00:12:51.879 --> 00:12:55.000
<v Speaker 2>this case she should go back to trial on the

201
00:12:55.039 --> 00:13:00.559
<v Speaker 2>manslaughter account, but the first two counts, Uh. The judge

202
00:13:00.720 --> 00:13:04.159
<v Speaker 2>should have brought the jurors back, or at a minimum,

203
00:13:04.159 --> 00:13:07.320
<v Speaker 2>they could have given the instructions in the body of

204
00:13:07.360 --> 00:13:11.840
<v Speaker 2>the case to say that that henceforwarths going for going forward.

205
00:13:12.399 --> 00:13:16.840
<v Speaker 2>Judges should be of this case in mind. Again, Look,

206
00:13:17.399 --> 00:13:20.840
<v Speaker 2>it's this is a tragedy, no matter how you look

207
00:13:20.879 --> 00:13:23.000
<v Speaker 2>at it. It's as simple as that. It's a it's

208
00:13:23.039 --> 00:13:28.480
<v Speaker 2>a horrific case. Never should have happened this way. John

209
00:13:28.519 --> 00:13:32.639
<v Speaker 2>O'Keefe should still be alive today. Maybe they would have

210
00:13:32.679 --> 00:13:36.080
<v Speaker 2>split and gone in different directions. But well, at the

211
00:13:36.120 --> 00:13:40.720
<v Speaker 2>expense that not only the financial expense, but the expense

212
00:13:40.840 --> 00:13:43.879
<v Speaker 2>on all all, all both of these families has just

213
00:13:43.919 --> 00:13:47.120
<v Speaker 2>been tremendous. Get your reaction to the Supreme Court decision today.

214
00:13:47.120 --> 00:13:49.799
<v Speaker 2>Six one, seven, two, four ten, thirty six seven nine.

215
00:13:51.279 --> 00:13:53.200
<v Speaker 2>My name is Dan Ray and this is Nightside. Feel

216
00:13:53.240 --> 00:13:56.879
<v Speaker 2>free join the conversation. Every everyone can be an armchair lawyer.

217
00:13:57.759 --> 00:14:02.039
<v Speaker 1>Now bet to Dan Ray Window World Life Side Studios

218
00:14:02.080 --> 00:14:04.000
<v Speaker 1>on WBZ the news radio.

219
00:14:05.919 --> 00:14:09.960
<v Speaker 2>So the decision that came down today from the State

220
00:14:10.000 --> 00:14:13.279
<v Speaker 2>Supreme Court here in Massachusetts was a unanimous decision seven

221
00:14:13.320 --> 00:14:17.480
<v Speaker 2>members of the court, and generally these decisions very rarely

222
00:14:18.159 --> 00:14:21.360
<v Speaker 2>in state court. In the federal system, at the US

223
00:14:21.399 --> 00:14:27.159
<v Speaker 2>Supreme Court, you often have concurrences and descents. This court

224
00:14:27.279 --> 00:14:30.879
<v Speaker 2>has a history in Massachusetts, the State Supreme Court as

225
00:14:30.919 --> 00:14:34.480
<v Speaker 2>a history of trying to reach consensus and speak as one,

226
00:14:34.519 --> 00:14:39.919
<v Speaker 2>and they indeed did speak today as one. Let me

227
00:14:40.000 --> 00:14:45.919
<v Speaker 2>try to get the point here that I would like

228
00:14:46.000 --> 00:14:48.279
<v Speaker 2>to make, and I'd love to hear what points you

229
00:14:48.320 --> 00:14:51.919
<v Speaker 2>would like to make. First of all, tremendous amount of

230
00:14:52.639 --> 00:14:57.840
<v Speaker 2>expense has been involved in this case, and clearly something

231
00:14:57.919 --> 00:15:04.039
<v Speaker 2>horrific happened. The individual victim in this cage, John O'Keefe,

232
00:15:04.519 --> 00:15:08.600
<v Speaker 2>lost his life. The question is is there any sort

233
00:15:08.720 --> 00:15:13.639
<v Speaker 2>of guilt that is associated with whatever took his life?

234
00:15:13.679 --> 00:15:19.360
<v Speaker 2>And clearly this trial went on for a long time

235
00:15:19.600 --> 00:15:22.600
<v Speaker 2>last spring, and it'll probably go on a long time

236
00:15:23.440 --> 00:15:29.080
<v Speaker 2>if and when it resumes on April first. The problem

237
00:15:29.120 --> 00:15:33.080
<v Speaker 2>that I have is that in a case like this,

238
00:15:33.960 --> 00:15:39.480
<v Speaker 2>in any superior court case of this magnitude. There's a

239
00:15:39.480 --> 00:15:42.799
<v Speaker 2>lot of pressure on the judge because the judge is

240
00:15:42.919 --> 00:15:48.559
<v Speaker 2>the ultimate arbiter of so many aspects of the case.

241
00:15:49.159 --> 00:15:51.600
<v Speaker 2>And when this jury came back three times saying that

242
00:15:51.639 --> 00:15:57.320
<v Speaker 2>they were irretrievably conflicted, and the notes that came back

243
00:15:58.440 --> 00:16:05.320
<v Speaker 2>with that came back from the jury, Foreman said that

244
00:16:05.639 --> 00:16:09.000
<v Speaker 2>they just, you know, they had reached a point where

245
00:16:09.039 --> 00:16:13.679
<v Speaker 2>morally they could not arrive at a decision. The question, though,

246
00:16:13.919 --> 00:16:19.360
<v Speaker 2>is when they when they told the judge that, and

247
00:16:19.399 --> 00:16:22.080
<v Speaker 2>they did it in notes, it's the way it works.

248
00:16:22.480 --> 00:16:25.200
<v Speaker 2>There wasn't much of a colloquay between the judge and

249
00:16:25.360 --> 00:16:30.200
<v Speaker 2>the four person of the jury, and I think the

250
00:16:30.320 --> 00:16:35.960
<v Speaker 2>judge could have easily asked, and I guess that the

251
00:16:36.440 --> 00:16:40.120
<v Speaker 2>defense lawyers or the prosecution could have inquired of the

252
00:16:40.200 --> 00:16:43.600
<v Speaker 2>judge and made a motion to request the judge. But

253
00:16:43.639 --> 00:16:46.159
<v Speaker 2>I think the judge on her own could have said

254
00:16:46.759 --> 00:16:50.120
<v Speaker 2>to the four person of the jury, am I to

255
00:16:50.320 --> 00:16:57.279
<v Speaker 2>understand that you are irretrievably conflicted on all three counts?

256
00:16:57.960 --> 00:17:01.639
<v Speaker 2>Or are you conflicted on merely one or two of

257
00:17:01.679 --> 00:17:09.480
<v Speaker 2>the counts. I'm going to, you know, prepare to to

258
00:17:09.519 --> 00:17:13.839
<v Speaker 2>clear a mistrial. However, before I do that. I want

259
00:17:13.920 --> 00:17:18.279
<v Speaker 2>to make absolutely certain that the expense and the efforts

260
00:17:18.319 --> 00:17:22.440
<v Speaker 2>by the prosecution and the defendants in this case, I

261
00:17:22.480 --> 00:17:27.200
<v Speaker 2>have to ask this final question, are you conflicted, are

262
00:17:27.240 --> 00:17:32.240
<v Speaker 2>you hung however whatever phraseology you want to employ on

263
00:17:32.480 --> 00:17:38.480
<v Speaker 2>all three counts, or have you reached a partial verdict

264
00:17:38.640 --> 00:17:44.240
<v Speaker 2>on any of these three counts that question, I assume

265
00:17:44.960 --> 00:17:51.400
<v Speaker 2>if the the jurors you know, post verdict, post trial,

266
00:17:51.759 --> 00:17:56.480
<v Speaker 2>are telling the truth. The four person might have said,

267
00:17:57.240 --> 00:18:01.519
<v Speaker 2>your honor, we are hung up on one count. We

268
00:18:01.680 --> 00:18:09.119
<v Speaker 2>have substantially agreed or agreed on two of the counts.

269
00:18:09.400 --> 00:18:11.599
<v Speaker 2>At that point, the judge could have said, well, please

270
00:18:11.640 --> 00:18:15.839
<v Speaker 2>go back and execute verdict slips on the counts on

271
00:18:15.880 --> 00:18:17.880
<v Speaker 2>which you have agreed, and then, of course she also

272
00:18:17.880 --> 00:18:20.160
<v Speaker 2>could have pulled the jurors. All of this would have

273
00:18:20.200 --> 00:18:26.400
<v Speaker 2>been avoided if the judge had done that. And I,

274
00:18:27.240 --> 00:18:29.960
<v Speaker 2>as Phil Tracy, said, this should now be the practice.

275
00:18:30.000 --> 00:18:32.640
<v Speaker 2>And I think that the court missed an opportunity today

276
00:18:32.799 --> 00:18:34.599
<v Speaker 2>because look, one of the things we want to try

277
00:18:34.599 --> 00:18:37.599
<v Speaker 2>to do is use the courts as officially and as

278
00:18:37.640 --> 00:18:42.359
<v Speaker 2>effective as fairly as possible. Clearly, but on a trial

279
00:18:42.440 --> 00:18:47.119
<v Speaker 2>like this, if the jury had agreed that there was,

280
00:18:47.240 --> 00:18:51.480
<v Speaker 2>you know, a unanimous consensus on one or more of

281
00:18:51.519 --> 00:18:56.799
<v Speaker 2>the counts, then the retrial could go forward on the

282
00:18:56.920 --> 00:19:01.079
<v Speaker 2>counts where there wasn't agreement. We're going to take a

283
00:19:01.240 --> 00:19:04.079
<v Speaker 2>quick break here for the new for the news at

284
00:19:04.119 --> 00:19:07.480
<v Speaker 2>the bottom of the hour, I'm got some callers lined up.

285
00:19:08.039 --> 00:19:10.119
<v Speaker 2>We'll get to Tom and Matt, and I've got some

286
00:19:10.240 --> 00:19:17.880
<v Speaker 2>room for you. Six six. Are you looking forward to

287
00:19:17.960 --> 00:19:21.000
<v Speaker 2>the retrial of Karen Reid on all three counts as

288
00:19:21.039 --> 00:19:25.000
<v Speaker 2>a result of the Supreme Court decision today and unless

289
00:19:25.400 --> 00:19:30.039
<v Speaker 2>her appell at attorney, Attorney Weinberg takes this case or

290
00:19:30.039 --> 00:19:32.440
<v Speaker 2>attempts to take this case in the federal court, I

291
00:19:32.480 --> 00:19:35.000
<v Speaker 2>suspect that it's on schedule for retrial on April first.

292
00:19:35.039 --> 00:19:39.079
<v Speaker 2>We'll see further developments. I'd love to know your thoughts

293
00:19:39.160 --> 00:19:43.319
<v Speaker 2>on the decision by the stay Supreme Court today. Back

294
00:19:43.319 --> 00:19:45.440
<v Speaker 2>in Nightside, right after the news at the bottom of.

295
00:19:45.400 --> 00:19:51.519
<v Speaker 1>The hour night Side with Dan Ray, I'm WBZ Boston's

296
00:19:51.599 --> 00:19:52.279
<v Speaker 1>News Radio.

297
00:19:53.240 --> 00:19:54.720
<v Speaker 2>All right, we're going to go to phone calls, and

298
00:19:54.839 --> 00:19:57.039
<v Speaker 2>as I say, we don't have to be a lawyer

299
00:19:57.119 --> 00:20:03.160
<v Speaker 2>to discuss this. This is one that really captivated us

300
00:20:03.440 --> 00:20:06.359
<v Speaker 2>the interest of people here and also people around the country.

301
00:20:06.559 --> 00:20:09.559
<v Speaker 2>Is it is a huge story. It has become a

302
00:20:09.680 --> 00:20:12.720
<v Speaker 2>national story. Believe it or not, Well you've seen it.

303
00:20:12.759 --> 00:20:15.920
<v Speaker 2>So it is. Tom is in North Andover. Tom, your

304
00:20:15.960 --> 00:20:17.960
<v Speaker 2>first this hour and nights. I appreciate you calling in.

305
00:20:18.000 --> 00:20:21.240
<v Speaker 6>Go right ahead, Tom, Thanks the tust to Mike car

306
00:20:22.400 --> 00:20:24.799
<v Speaker 6>I am a question on how to are you the

307
00:20:24.880 --> 00:20:29.079
<v Speaker 6>case anyway? Mightn't have to pass able a matter, but

308
00:20:29.720 --> 00:20:31.720
<v Speaker 6>you know, argue like who's who's just one of the

309
00:20:31.799 --> 00:20:35.039
<v Speaker 6>fact focus two people in one a day and chim

310
00:20:35.359 --> 00:20:37.759
<v Speaker 6>you know, who have to be responsible? That's we're trying

311
00:20:37.759 --> 00:20:40.920
<v Speaker 6>to find out is responsible for the death. And can

312
00:20:41.039 --> 00:20:44.839
<v Speaker 6>you you know, are you returned to how much responsibility

313
00:20:44.920 --> 00:20:47.960
<v Speaker 6>is on the person who they're committed the crime and

314
00:20:48.000 --> 00:20:50.759
<v Speaker 6>the person who also died. I mean, we have a

315
00:20:50.839 --> 00:20:55.119
<v Speaker 6>man never the street filling up prison. It didn't look

316
00:20:55.200 --> 00:20:57.440
<v Speaker 6>like I've seen some videos on it. You couldn't see

317
00:20:57.440 --> 00:21:01.839
<v Speaker 6>any more than fifteen feet and you know he's he's

318
00:21:01.839 --> 00:21:04.400
<v Speaker 6>gonna take some responsibility for her own actions. Now her

319
00:21:04.519 --> 00:21:07.200
<v Speaker 6>is also you know, driving at that speed and reverse

320
00:21:07.680 --> 00:21:10.359
<v Speaker 6>in a blinding stand and I know how many cars

321
00:21:10.359 --> 00:21:13.119
<v Speaker 6>and Sue Ruth the have a lot of blind spots too.

322
00:21:13.160 --> 00:21:15.880
<v Speaker 6>You know the big swimmer sides and everything. And so

323
00:21:16.119 --> 00:21:18.359
<v Speaker 6>if you I would have chased that it's fifty one

324
00:21:18.400 --> 00:21:21.480
<v Speaker 6>percent of one party spot and thirty nine percent of

325
00:21:21.519 --> 00:21:23.799
<v Speaker 6>the other. That that could you an acrital while if

326
00:21:23.839 --> 00:21:26.599
<v Speaker 6>you were reverse at the other doesn't matter which party,

327
00:21:26.640 --> 00:21:29.440
<v Speaker 6>but I you were chased like that? Is that a

328
00:21:29.559 --> 00:21:31.960
<v Speaker 6>viable type of defense or offense?

329
00:21:33.400 --> 00:21:39.880
<v Speaker 2>That would be a viable strategy in a civil suit.

330
00:21:40.599 --> 00:21:44.160
<v Speaker 2>If the O'Keefe family or his estate were to sue

331
00:21:44.200 --> 00:21:47.960
<v Speaker 2>Karen Reid, that that would be more likely than not

332
00:21:48.240 --> 00:21:50.839
<v Speaker 2>a different you know, different standard in a civil in

333
00:21:50.880 --> 00:21:55.119
<v Speaker 2>a civil action, uh in the criminal case in order

334
00:21:55.200 --> 00:22:00.519
<v Speaker 2>to convict a defendant, because it's a higher standard because

335
00:22:00.680 --> 00:22:05.519
<v Speaker 2>the it is just not the financial exposure that an

336
00:22:05.519 --> 00:22:09.039
<v Speaker 2>individual would have. You know, I fall and slip on

337
00:22:09.079 --> 00:22:11.079
<v Speaker 2>your property and I'm going to sue you and you

338
00:22:11.519 --> 00:22:15.279
<v Speaker 2>in effect your insurance company. No one's liberty is at stake.

339
00:22:15.559 --> 00:22:18.720
<v Speaker 2>Her liberty is at stake. And as a consequence of that,

340
00:22:19.160 --> 00:22:24.240
<v Speaker 2>in order for a judge to you know, find her guilty,

341
00:22:24.640 --> 00:22:27.440
<v Speaker 2>a jury of her peers has to find all the

342
00:22:27.519 --> 00:22:30.359
<v Speaker 2>elements of the crime that is charged beyond a reasonable doubt.

343
00:22:30.839 --> 00:22:33.440
<v Speaker 2>So they have to show in the in the case

344
00:22:33.640 --> 00:22:38.480
<v Speaker 2>of a second degree murder, that there was an intention

345
00:22:39.160 --> 00:22:44.799
<v Speaker 2>to do some harm. Involuntary manslaughter, it could be much

346
00:22:44.839 --> 00:22:51.480
<v Speaker 2>more someone was careless and they used such poor judgment

347
00:22:52.400 --> 00:22:55.559
<v Speaker 2>that it rose to the point of being reckless. Now again,

348
00:22:55.640 --> 00:23:01.000
<v Speaker 2>you then apply the facts of the case against whatever

349
00:23:01.079 --> 00:23:03.839
<v Speaker 2>standard you're using. And so that's why it's in a

350
00:23:03.920 --> 00:23:05.960
<v Speaker 2>court of law, and that's why it seems a little

351
00:23:06.000 --> 00:23:11.440
<v Speaker 2>mysterious to people. But she did not, I'm sure, intend

352
00:23:11.519 --> 00:23:14.759
<v Speaker 2>to kill him. That's why she's not charged with murder

353
00:23:14.759 --> 00:23:17.160
<v Speaker 2>in the first degree. I mean, if if she had,

354
00:23:17.480 --> 00:23:20.960
<v Speaker 2>if she had said to someone, you know, look, I'm

355
00:23:20.960 --> 00:23:25.119
<v Speaker 2>gonna kill him tonight, that's you know, this premeditation deliberation,

356
00:23:25.200 --> 00:23:27.359
<v Speaker 2>that's the standard for first degree murder. That's the most

357
00:23:27.400 --> 00:23:32.519
<v Speaker 2>serious charge. This is, as Phil Tracy said, involuntary manslaughter

358
00:23:32.559 --> 00:23:36.680
<v Speaker 2>case at best in my opinion, and I think also

359
00:23:36.680 --> 00:23:41.079
<v Speaker 2>when Phil Tracy's opinion, Uh, And they're gonna have to

360
00:23:41.119 --> 00:23:46.240
<v Speaker 2>go through the meat grinder again here. And it's I

361
00:23:46.319 --> 00:23:49.119
<v Speaker 2>just wish the judge could have could have asked the

362
00:23:49.200 --> 00:23:52.240
<v Speaker 2>questions of the jury back in July and may be

363
00:23:52.359 --> 00:23:57.720
<v Speaker 2>disposed of at least a portion of the case. Clied.

364
00:23:57.960 --> 00:23:59.799
<v Speaker 2>Have I clarified this at all for you? And know

365
00:24:00.039 --> 00:24:01.119
<v Speaker 2>if I confuse you?

366
00:24:02.799 --> 00:24:05.759
<v Speaker 6>No, No, not really, you know, I understand the several

367
00:24:05.799 --> 00:24:08.640
<v Speaker 6>cases and so have been a agument in a several

368
00:24:08.720 --> 00:24:12.079
<v Speaker 6>case than a prosecution of a criminal case. So do

369
00:24:12.200 --> 00:24:14.880
<v Speaker 6>you think that the second to Throm murder was herber

370
00:24:15.000 --> 00:24:19.279
<v Speaker 6>prosecution which brought out some vengeance from there's ever from

371
00:24:19.319 --> 00:24:22.000
<v Speaker 6>the state police, from the prosecutor. And this is why

372
00:24:22.079 --> 00:24:24.000
<v Speaker 6>she's say they had a hung jury.

373
00:24:25.039 --> 00:24:30.960
<v Speaker 2>No, no, I again, we we will never know if

374
00:24:30.960 --> 00:24:33.359
<v Speaker 2>the jury was hung on all three counts, you know,

375
00:24:33.559 --> 00:24:36.960
<v Speaker 2>or if the jury was hung on only only one

376
00:24:37.000 --> 00:24:39.839
<v Speaker 2>of the counts. We can No one has ever brought

377
00:24:39.880 --> 00:24:42.599
<v Speaker 2>all the juries back and put them under pains and

378
00:24:42.640 --> 00:24:45.599
<v Speaker 2>penalties of perjury, and and and and asked them questions

379
00:24:45.640 --> 00:24:49.039
<v Speaker 2>and found out the truth of the matter. I think

380
00:24:49.079 --> 00:24:52.160
<v Speaker 2>it would have been an interesting It would have been

381
00:24:52.160 --> 00:24:54.519
<v Speaker 2>an interesting process, and I don't think that it would

382
00:24:54.519 --> 00:24:56.960
<v Speaker 2>have been something. It might have it might have set

383
00:24:56.960 --> 00:24:59.720
<v Speaker 2>a new standard here in Massachusetts, but that's mood at

384
00:24:59.720 --> 00:25:03.480
<v Speaker 2>this point. Unless the federal judge comes in and overturns,

385
00:25:03.599 --> 00:25:07.279
<v Speaker 2>in effect, files an opinion that overturns what the state

386
00:25:07.400 --> 00:25:10.839
<v Speaker 2>Supreme court judge and federal judges are low to loath

387
00:25:10.920 --> 00:25:14.799
<v Speaker 2>to do that. Sometimes what can happen is that a

388
00:25:14.880 --> 00:25:20.079
<v Speaker 2>prosecutor may charge get a little aggressive on the charge,

389
00:25:20.400 --> 00:25:24.119
<v Speaker 2>but they have lesser included charges, or they have separate

390
00:25:24.359 --> 00:25:28.400
<v Speaker 2>indictment counts, and they might say, well, you hit her with,

391
00:25:28.680 --> 00:25:31.200
<v Speaker 2>you know, with three charges, and you want to hook

392
00:25:31.240 --> 00:25:33.559
<v Speaker 2>her on at least one. I'm not sure that's the

393
00:25:33.599 --> 00:25:41.000
<v Speaker 2>way the most ethical prosecutor would work. But sometimes it's

394
00:25:41.119 --> 00:25:45.559
<v Speaker 2>unclear even to the prosecutor. Prosecutor what really happened, and

395
00:25:45.640 --> 00:25:48.880
<v Speaker 2>so they cast a wider net would be the way

396
00:25:48.920 --> 00:25:51.519
<v Speaker 2>to describe it. That's the only way I could describe it.

397
00:25:53.039 --> 00:25:56.079
<v Speaker 6>I appreciate that. Yeah, No, I do appreciate that. So

398
00:25:56.200 --> 00:25:58.079
<v Speaker 6>it's the second trial, they're going to stick with the

399
00:25:58.119 --> 00:26:02.240
<v Speaker 6>second degree murder, up it down to like a man's no.

400
00:26:02.359 --> 00:26:04.720
<v Speaker 2>I think, no, no, no, they're gonna they're gonna go

401
00:26:04.839 --> 00:26:07.400
<v Speaker 2>back on. Let now, they could turn around at some point,

402
00:26:07.480 --> 00:26:11.200
<v Speaker 2>I guess, uh, at any point the prosecution could on

403
00:26:11.279 --> 00:26:13.359
<v Speaker 2>its own drop it. Bet I don't think so. I

404
00:26:13.359 --> 00:26:16.799
<v Speaker 2>think she's gonna go to trial if nothing else changes, uh,

405
00:26:16.920 --> 00:26:19.920
<v Speaker 2>or the trial will begin anew and it'll be on

406
00:26:20.000 --> 00:26:23.160
<v Speaker 2>the three uh, the three counts that she's facing, which

407
00:26:23.240 --> 00:26:26.240
<v Speaker 2>you know again second degree involuntary manslaughter and leaving the

408
00:26:26.240 --> 00:26:29.880
<v Speaker 2>scene of an accident. So that's we're gonna We're gonna

409
00:26:29.920 --> 00:26:34.440
<v Speaker 2>watch the movie again, I think unless the Mardy Weinberg

410
00:26:34.480 --> 00:26:36.880
<v Speaker 2>gets in decides to go into federal court and some

411
00:26:36.920 --> 00:26:39.880
<v Speaker 2>federal judge says, hey, yeah, there is a double jeopardy

412
00:26:39.960 --> 00:26:44.640
<v Speaker 2>argument here that's substantial. Uh. But but again, federal judges

413
00:26:44.640 --> 00:26:46.960
<v Speaker 2>in a case like this would be loath to to

414
00:26:47.119 --> 00:26:51.559
<v Speaker 2>overrule a unanimous decision uh by a state supreme court.

415
00:26:51.720 --> 00:26:54.240
<v Speaker 2>In my opinion, Tom, thank.

416
00:26:54.079 --> 00:26:57.759
<v Speaker 6>You for the questions, right, Thank you, I appreciate it.

417
00:26:58.160 --> 00:27:03.119
<v Speaker 2>Thanks very much. We'll talk again. Thanks six one, triple

418
00:27:03.119 --> 00:27:06.279
<v Speaker 2>eight nine, nineteen thirty. Or we got a couple of

419
00:27:06.359 --> 00:27:08.440
<v Speaker 2>lines at six one, seven, nine, three one ten thirty.

420
00:27:08.440 --> 00:27:11.960
<v Speaker 2>Should Karen Reid be facing this second trial on all

421
00:27:12.000 --> 00:27:15.160
<v Speaker 2>three counts? That's the way it looks right tonight. That's

422
00:27:15.200 --> 00:27:20.759
<v Speaker 2>the way it looks tonight. Uh. There was no give, no,

423
00:27:20.759 --> 00:27:23.240
<v Speaker 2>no leniency from the state Supreme Court. Matt in frank

424
00:27:23.359 --> 00:27:26.279
<v Speaker 2>in Franklin, Massachusetts. Matt, you're next time night side welcome Matt.

425
00:27:27.960 --> 00:27:29.599
<v Speaker 4>Yeah, I was I was going to just say this.

426
00:27:29.759 --> 00:27:32.640
<v Speaker 4>Karen Reid know how to say no, because she's like

427
00:27:32.759 --> 00:27:35.319
<v Speaker 4>six or seven million dollars in debt and counting them

428
00:27:35.319 --> 00:27:39.039
<v Speaker 4>in beaters running. And I feel like she would probably

429
00:27:39.039 --> 00:27:41.799
<v Speaker 4>listen to the lawyers and go to the federal court

430
00:27:41.880 --> 00:27:44.359
<v Speaker 4>for an appeal, even if it's like a lost cause

431
00:27:44.400 --> 00:27:44.920
<v Speaker 4>like this one.

432
00:27:45.839 --> 00:27:48.680
<v Speaker 2>Well, she's gonna sit with her lawyers and they're gonna

433
00:27:48.759 --> 00:27:51.000
<v Speaker 2>advise her, and they're gonna say, look, we think we

434
00:27:51.079 --> 00:27:53.759
<v Speaker 2>have a shot, or we don't have a shot. I

435
00:27:53.799 --> 00:27:57.319
<v Speaker 2>think this case to the State Supreme Court was was

436
00:27:57.519 --> 00:28:04.480
<v Speaker 2>very appropriately filed and argued clearly. It was not dismissed

437
00:28:04.480 --> 00:28:08.519
<v Speaker 2>out of hand. They gave the court a number of options. Look,

438
00:28:08.759 --> 00:28:12.880
<v Speaker 2>if you're fighting for your good name, your reputation as

439
00:28:12.880 --> 00:28:17.279
<v Speaker 2>well as your liberty, how much money would you be

440
00:28:17.319 --> 00:28:20.119
<v Speaker 2>willing to not be? She she has had gofund me

441
00:28:20.200 --> 00:28:23.359
<v Speaker 2>pages as I'm sure you know, a wellspring of no.

442
00:28:23.400 --> 00:28:25.720
<v Speaker 4>I know sheould have sell her house and everything else.

443
00:28:26.279 --> 00:28:28.839
<v Speaker 4>I just think, I mean, in the grand scheme of things,

444
00:28:30.720 --> 00:28:33.079
<v Speaker 4>if she had just plugged guilty, I don't know if

445
00:28:33.079 --> 00:28:36.160
<v Speaker 4>they gave her the option, And like I don't know

446
00:28:36.200 --> 00:28:38.200
<v Speaker 4>how it affected a civil trial and everything but it

447
00:28:38.279 --> 00:28:40.359
<v Speaker 4>probably would have been less than the seven millions who

448
00:28:40.359 --> 00:28:43.440
<v Speaker 4>spent to defend yourself. Then she'd be back, probably back

449
00:28:43.519 --> 00:28:44.720
<v Speaker 4>in the workforce by this point.

450
00:28:45.200 --> 00:28:50.599
<v Speaker 2>Well, I don't know about that million. I assume you're

451
00:28:50.640 --> 00:28:56.000
<v Speaker 2>not a lawyer, right, No, not okay, So what would

452
00:28:56.039 --> 00:29:00.400
<v Speaker 2>you as a non lawyer, what would you what would

453
00:29:00.440 --> 00:29:03.640
<v Speaker 2>you advise her to plead guilty to a second degree murder.

454
00:29:03.720 --> 00:29:06.079
<v Speaker 4>The involuntary manslaughter possible, I don't know.

455
00:29:07.200 --> 00:29:11.000
<v Speaker 2>Plays So when the prosecutor comes back and says to you, okay,

456
00:29:11.160 --> 00:29:14.440
<v Speaker 2>we we might consider the plea, but but we want

457
00:29:15.200 --> 00:29:19.839
<v Speaker 2>at least five year prison sentence, what do you say

458
00:29:19.880 --> 00:29:25.279
<v Speaker 2>then to you to your client and A ha, that's

459
00:29:25.279 --> 00:29:27.920
<v Speaker 2>what I'm saying. I mean, would they come back and say, oh, yeah,

460
00:29:28.720 --> 00:29:30.680
<v Speaker 2>we're gonna let you plead guilty and we'll give you

461
00:29:30.880 --> 00:29:35.240
<v Speaker 2>a suspended sentence. We'll give you six months of house confinement.

462
00:29:35.279 --> 00:29:37.240
<v Speaker 2>I don't think so. I mean, it's become such.

463
00:29:37.119 --> 00:29:42.359
<v Speaker 4>A yeah, now that's what I'm just assuming. That will

464
00:29:42.359 --> 00:29:44.839
<v Speaker 4>probably be a couple of years. But she has medical

465
00:29:44.920 --> 00:29:46.640
<v Speaker 4>issues and she could be back in the work for us.

466
00:29:46.680 --> 00:29:49.519
<v Speaker 4>But yeah, she's spending a fortune, and that looks like

467
00:29:49.599 --> 00:29:51.240
<v Speaker 4>the trial is going to be the same exact thing,

468
00:29:51.799 --> 00:29:52.960
<v Speaker 4>because they're probably.

469
00:29:52.720 --> 00:29:57.440
<v Speaker 2>Not gonna be necessarily not necessarily because generally on a retrial,

470
00:29:57.640 --> 00:30:00.759
<v Speaker 2>it's an advantage to the defense lawyer because they have

471
00:30:00.920 --> 00:30:05.319
<v Speaker 2>seen Now they have hired the Norfolk County DIA's office

472
00:30:05.359 --> 00:30:08.960
<v Speaker 2>has hired a special prosecutor, a very good defense lawyer

473
00:30:09.039 --> 00:30:09.920
<v Speaker 2>named Hank Brennan.

474
00:30:10.599 --> 00:30:10.720
<v Speaker 5>Uh.

475
00:30:11.000 --> 00:30:14.000
<v Speaker 2>And yeah, he's pretty aggressive, and I guess that he's

476
00:30:14.079 --> 00:30:16.960
<v Speaker 2>trying to glean some information from the electronics of the car.

477
00:30:17.119 --> 00:30:20.440
<v Speaker 2>I don't know enough about car electronics to know if

478
00:30:20.920 --> 00:30:24.119
<v Speaker 2>the information that that he can get access to was

479
00:30:24.200 --> 00:30:27.759
<v Speaker 2>not available in the first trial, and if it's dispositive,

480
00:30:28.079 --> 00:30:30.599
<v Speaker 2>if it shows that, you know, she went from zero

481
00:30:30.720 --> 00:30:33.960
<v Speaker 2>to twenty five in two seconds and traveled a distance,

482
00:30:35.240 --> 00:30:38.920
<v Speaker 2>there could be new information in a second trial.

483
00:30:39.319 --> 00:30:41.400
<v Speaker 4>But but yeah, I mean, he seems to be doing

484
00:30:41.440 --> 00:30:43.599
<v Speaker 4>a better job presenting the case in the previous one.

485
00:30:43.640 --> 00:30:45.079
<v Speaker 4>The previous one just kind of dragged on.

486
00:30:45.279 --> 00:30:53.000
<v Speaker 2>Non Yeah, I think Brennan will be a more formidable prosecutor.

487
00:30:53.200 --> 00:30:56.440
<v Speaker 2>He comes in, takes a second look, he gets a

488
00:30:56.480 --> 00:30:59.079
<v Speaker 2>fresh look. He's not bound by the strategy that the

489
00:30:59.160 --> 00:31:02.200
<v Speaker 2>prior prosecut to used. He can start from scratch. He

490
00:31:02.240 --> 00:31:04.599
<v Speaker 2>can he can work within the framework. It'll be an

491
00:31:04.599 --> 00:31:09.480
<v Speaker 2>interesting process. Matt, did you follow the first trial pretty closely?

492
00:31:10.079 --> 00:31:10.279
<v Speaker 5>Yeah?

493
00:31:10.319 --> 00:31:12.240
<v Speaker 4>I did. I was watching while I was working, and

494
00:31:12.960 --> 00:31:14.680
<v Speaker 4>I just kind of went on. It was like three

495
00:31:14.759 --> 00:31:16.400
<v Speaker 4>days at a time of talking to like them, they

496
00:31:16.559 --> 00:31:19.599
<v Speaker 4>or drunk about what happened three years ago. And I

497
00:31:20.279 --> 00:31:21.880
<v Speaker 4>just felt like from the beginning they were trying to

498
00:31:22.000 --> 00:31:24.559
<v Speaker 4>push it as close to July fourth, so because I

499
00:31:24.640 --> 00:31:26.880
<v Speaker 4>knew to Judge out of vacation Holme in the Cape,

500
00:31:27.359 --> 00:31:28.880
<v Speaker 4>and I feel like they were trying to get as

501
00:31:28.960 --> 00:31:31.400
<v Speaker 4>close to that date as possible so that she would

502
00:31:31.400 --> 00:31:33.240
<v Speaker 4>want to get out of there. But I think that

503
00:31:33.519 --> 00:31:35.880
<v Speaker 4>could probably happen again if it goes the same they.

504
00:31:35.799 --> 00:31:37.920
<v Speaker 2>Went right up against. I think the verdict came back

505
00:31:38.039 --> 00:31:41.079
<v Speaker 2>or the non verdict, the decision to declear a mistrial

506
00:31:41.400 --> 00:31:44.039
<v Speaker 2>accrowd in July first, and maybe that played a little

507
00:31:44.039 --> 00:31:46.440
<v Speaker 2>while in it. I don't know. Hey, Matt, appreciate the call.

508
00:31:46.559 --> 00:31:49.880
<v Speaker 2>Thank you much. That was thoughtful. Thanks good night, six

509
00:31:51.240 --> 00:31:55.200
<v Speaker 2>thirty one line there, six one, seven, nine thirty. I

510
00:31:55.279 --> 00:31:57.119
<v Speaker 2>will be more than happy to take this into the

511
00:31:57.319 --> 00:31:59.319
<v Speaker 2>into the ten o'clock hour, but you have to show

512
00:31:59.359 --> 00:32:03.359
<v Speaker 2>on interest. I have another topic that we have standing by. Uh,

513
00:32:03.559 --> 00:32:05.839
<v Speaker 2>but if you want to talk about the Karen retrial,

514
00:32:05.920 --> 00:32:08.160
<v Speaker 2>the decision today from the State Supreme Court. I know

515
00:32:08.319 --> 00:32:12.079
<v Speaker 2>that this gets into legalities, and sometimes people are are

516
00:32:12.519 --> 00:32:15.759
<v Speaker 2>hesitant to try to talk legalities, but look, feel free

517
00:32:15.799 --> 00:32:18.119
<v Speaker 2>to bring it on. Your point of view is just

518
00:32:18.240 --> 00:32:21.400
<v Speaker 2>as valuable as mine or any expert witness. Back on

519
00:32:21.519 --> 00:32:22.880
<v Speaker 2>Nightside right after the break.

520
00:32:23.799 --> 00:32:26.960
<v Speaker 1>Now back to Dan Ray live from the Window World

521
00:32:27.079 --> 00:32:30.200
<v Speaker 1>Nightside Studios on WBZ News Radio.

522
00:32:30.720 --> 00:32:32.680
<v Speaker 2>Okay, we may go into the next hour. Let me

523
00:32:32.720 --> 00:32:35.240
<v Speaker 2>go to fill in Boston. Next, phild next on Nightside,

524
00:32:35.240 --> 00:32:36.119
<v Speaker 2>go right ahead there.

525
00:32:36.839 --> 00:32:39.680
<v Speaker 7>I know more than I could show you. But no,

526
00:32:39.799 --> 00:32:41.640
<v Speaker 7>you're right, there was I believe there was a lawyer

527
00:32:41.720 --> 00:32:45.359
<v Speaker 7>on the jury. It was a foreman. But Dan, I'm

528
00:32:45.440 --> 00:32:50.359
<v Speaker 7>just it always this this this course system in this

529
00:32:50.559 --> 00:32:53.000
<v Speaker 7>area has been around for two or hundred years whatever,

530
00:32:54.039 --> 00:32:58.640
<v Speaker 7>And in this case, a similar case of verdict has

531
00:32:58.759 --> 00:33:02.200
<v Speaker 7>never happened before. Wouldn't it be a case history of

532
00:33:02.440 --> 00:33:06.839
<v Speaker 7>a situation whether they were free charges and three different

533
00:33:07.519 --> 00:33:08.079
<v Speaker 7>Apparently not?

534
00:33:08.880 --> 00:33:12.240
<v Speaker 2>Well, apparently not, because if there had been this same

535
00:33:12.440 --> 00:33:17.839
<v Speaker 2>situation and again, remember this all prompted because some of

536
00:33:17.920 --> 00:33:22.359
<v Speaker 2>the jurors on their own contacted the defense lawyers as

537
00:33:22.440 --> 00:33:25.759
<v Speaker 2>well as apparently they contacted the prosecutors when you read

538
00:33:25.799 --> 00:33:29.839
<v Speaker 2>the decision today, and the prosecutors said, look, if you

539
00:33:30.000 --> 00:33:31.920
<v Speaker 2>talk to us, we're going to have to share this

540
00:33:32.240 --> 00:33:36.799
<v Speaker 2>with the defense lawyers and with the judge and whoever

541
00:33:36.960 --> 00:33:42.319
<v Speaker 2>called them. According to the trial the decision today, those

542
00:33:42.400 --> 00:33:45.559
<v Speaker 2>people sort of backed off and said, oh, we're good,

543
00:33:45.680 --> 00:33:50.279
<v Speaker 2>We're good. You know, this is a little bit of

544
00:33:50.400 --> 00:33:52.920
<v Speaker 2>the involvement of the media. It was such a high

545
00:33:52.960 --> 00:33:55.680
<v Speaker 2>profile case. They're probably about other cases there were not

546
00:33:55.920 --> 00:34:00.160
<v Speaker 2>anywhere near this as a high profile case maybe which

547
00:34:00.160 --> 00:34:02.640
<v Speaker 2>we don't know about. I would hope that if there

548
00:34:02.759 --> 00:34:06.799
<v Speaker 2>had been a previous case in nineteen thirty seven or

549
00:34:06.880 --> 00:34:12.280
<v Speaker 2>in eighteen fifty four in which the court had ruled

550
00:34:12.360 --> 00:34:20.639
<v Speaker 2>that the judge failed to adequately question the jurors about

551
00:34:20.719 --> 00:34:26.039
<v Speaker 2>the status of their deliberations on each of the counts,

552
00:34:26.079 --> 00:34:30.440
<v Speaker 2>that the defense lawyers would have included that in their

553
00:34:30.519 --> 00:34:32.480
<v Speaker 2>arguments and their filings.

554
00:34:32.880 --> 00:34:35.679
<v Speaker 7>I can only assume, not to top off the vacation

555
00:34:35.960 --> 00:34:39.440
<v Speaker 7>thing for the judge, there was also an initial problem

556
00:34:39.559 --> 00:34:42.800
<v Speaker 7>with the jury sheet they had to vote on with.

557
00:34:42.960 --> 00:34:45.440
<v Speaker 2>Yep, there was, yeah, there was some confusion about that.

558
00:34:45.960 --> 00:34:49.079
<v Speaker 7>Yes, you think that would This thing is like an

559
00:34:49.119 --> 00:34:53.880
<v Speaker 7>ongoing soap opera. I'm holpos think it's resolved. But she's

560
00:34:53.960 --> 00:34:56.280
<v Speaker 7>got probably a book coming out. I mean, hopefully to

561
00:34:56.400 --> 00:34:58.920
<v Speaker 7>get to pay the bills in a soap opera, a

562
00:34:59.000 --> 00:34:59.800
<v Speaker 7>live soap opera.

563
00:34:59.840 --> 00:35:02.800
<v Speaker 2>Right, Well, she's got it. She'll have a lot of bills.

564
00:35:02.840 --> 00:35:05.519
<v Speaker 2>You have to sell a lot of books. You don't

565
00:35:05.559 --> 00:35:09.159
<v Speaker 2>know if it comes back, And if it comes back

566
00:35:09.199 --> 00:35:10.920
<v Speaker 2>and she gets an acquittal, she's going to be in

567
00:35:10.920 --> 00:35:16.000
<v Speaker 2>a much better shape to recover. But I hate everybody's

568
00:35:16.039 --> 00:35:18.280
<v Speaker 2>got to make those decisions. Matt talked about why not

569
00:35:18.440 --> 00:35:20.159
<v Speaker 2>reach a plea deal. I don't know that if you,

570
00:35:20.320 --> 00:35:22.800
<v Speaker 2>if you truly believe that you're innocent and you did nothing,

571
00:35:22.840 --> 00:35:24.480
<v Speaker 2>why would you want to agree to a plea deal

572
00:35:25.920 --> 00:35:31.400
<v Speaker 2>in jail? Yeah, I can't ask me. They wake you

573
00:35:31.519 --> 00:35:35.599
<v Speaker 2>up early, they don't let you sleep in Phil and breakfast,

574
00:35:35.840 --> 00:35:38.679
<v Speaker 2>and they're no buffet breakfast as far as I know.

575
00:35:40.480 --> 00:35:44.480
<v Speaker 2>Thanks Phil, doctor, you, Sue, good night. Let me go

576
00:35:44.559 --> 00:35:46.639
<v Speaker 2>back to North End over Steve. Second call of this

577
00:35:46.760 --> 00:35:48.639
<v Speaker 2>hour from North End, ver go ahead, Steve.

578
00:35:49.519 --> 00:35:51.039
<v Speaker 3>Hey, Dan, thanks for taking my call.

579
00:35:51.559 --> 00:35:53.719
<v Speaker 2>More than welcome. Thank you for calling in your next

580
00:35:53.800 --> 00:35:54.440
<v Speaker 2>go ahead.

581
00:35:54.159 --> 00:35:57.000
<v Speaker 3>I gotta say, I've been watching this from the beginning,

582
00:35:57.079 --> 00:36:00.440
<v Speaker 3>and I think of myself as a pretty rational andasonable

583
00:36:00.480 --> 00:36:02.280
<v Speaker 3>person what I would do if I were on the jury.

584
00:36:02.519 --> 00:36:05.880
<v Speaker 3>And there's just so many things that don't line up right,

585
00:36:06.000 --> 00:36:09.119
<v Speaker 3>and everyone's second guessing how the defense went about this

586
00:36:09.320 --> 00:36:12.280
<v Speaker 3>the first the first time around. But it's all about

587
00:36:12.800 --> 00:36:16.000
<v Speaker 3>you know what, what's the coincidence and what's not And

588
00:36:16.840 --> 00:36:19.199
<v Speaker 3>if you look at it from the beginning, you look

589
00:36:19.239 --> 00:36:23.000
<v Speaker 3>at this, the treatment of this murder of a Boston

590
00:36:23.119 --> 00:36:29.400
<v Speaker 3>police officer, right the whole investigation, we use.

591
00:36:29.280 --> 00:36:31.519
<v Speaker 2>It a word murder. We know it's a homicide. Okay,

592
00:36:31.599 --> 00:36:33.199
<v Speaker 2>we know all of that, but we don't know what's

593
00:36:33.239 --> 00:36:33.800
<v Speaker 2>a murder yet.

594
00:36:33.840 --> 00:36:36.360
<v Speaker 3>Okay, go ahead, Okay, it appears it appears to be.

595
00:36:36.639 --> 00:36:41.480
<v Speaker 3>But the investigation itself was done so differently than any

596
00:36:41.519 --> 00:36:44.239
<v Speaker 3>other investigation that any of those whether it was a

597
00:36:44.320 --> 00:36:49.599
<v Speaker 3>state police, the Canton cops, whatever, had done previously. You

598
00:36:49.639 --> 00:36:51.960
<v Speaker 3>look at their own track record, I mean, at the

599
00:36:52.079 --> 00:36:55.719
<v Speaker 3>end of the day, in your estimation, my estimation, whatever,

600
00:36:56.880 --> 00:37:00.639
<v Speaker 3>this is getting more traction, and Quie frankly glad that

601
00:37:00.800 --> 00:37:04.599
<v Speaker 3>it that it is nationally and maybe even internationally are

602
00:37:04.599 --> 00:37:07.320
<v Speaker 3>people going to look back at Massachusetts in five years

603
00:37:07.400 --> 00:37:09.880
<v Speaker 3>and say, you know, three years, two years, what a

604
00:37:09.960 --> 00:37:13.760
<v Speaker 3>laughing stock? This is anything that was in their control

605
00:37:14.679 --> 00:37:20.559
<v Speaker 3>was either manipulated, missing, or you know, or deleted.

606
00:37:21.000 --> 00:37:21.119
<v Speaker 2>Right.

607
00:37:21.599 --> 00:37:24.599
<v Speaker 3>And if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck.

608
00:37:24.719 --> 00:37:26.760
<v Speaker 3>And I hate to use that analogy because of what

609
00:37:27.320 --> 00:37:28.320
<v Speaker 3>that's a good analogy.

610
00:37:28.480 --> 00:37:30.960
<v Speaker 2>That's a great analogy. You know, a lot of people,

611
00:37:31.039 --> 00:37:34.599
<v Speaker 2>but particularly people who are supportive of Karen Reid, will

612
00:37:34.679 --> 00:37:37.039
<v Speaker 2>jump upon this and say, hey, look look at the history.

613
00:37:37.119 --> 00:37:39.199
<v Speaker 2>We had the witches, We had the Salem witch trials

614
00:37:39.239 --> 00:37:41.440
<v Speaker 2>in this state, and this is they will see that

615
00:37:41.559 --> 00:37:44.480
<v Speaker 2>as an extension of that. We had sackle Vinzetti. They'll

616
00:37:44.480 --> 00:37:46.519
<v Speaker 2>see that as an extension of that. You know, so

617
00:37:47.119 --> 00:37:49.039
<v Speaker 2>you might be you may hit upon something here.

618
00:37:50.079 --> 00:37:52.360
<v Speaker 3>Well, Dan, Dan, I've been following it right, And I

619
00:37:52.400 --> 00:37:53.880
<v Speaker 3>don't want to say too much, but I am a

620
00:37:53.960 --> 00:37:58.320
<v Speaker 3>fellow Falcon as well, Bentley Falcon. And and so that's

621
00:37:58.400 --> 00:37:59.760
<v Speaker 3>how I partially got into this.

622
00:38:00.119 --> 00:38:03.320
<v Speaker 2>I' that's what she taught. She taught she taught.

623
00:38:04.719 --> 00:38:07.679
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, right, and she's a she's a rational person, you know.

624
00:38:07.920 --> 00:38:10.599
<v Speaker 3>There there's I'm sure she was grieving at the moment

625
00:38:11.639 --> 00:38:14.119
<v Speaker 3>words were put in her mouth. And its just it

626
00:38:14.280 --> 00:38:14.880
<v Speaker 3>is what it is.

627
00:38:15.039 --> 00:38:16.880
<v Speaker 6>I mean, what what first.

628
00:38:16.760 --> 00:38:21.880
<v Speaker 3>Responders don't respond, whether it's a homeowner, whether it's atf agent.

629
00:38:22.320 --> 00:38:25.400
<v Speaker 3>So much smells in this case, and the truth will

630
00:38:25.480 --> 00:38:25.840
<v Speaker 3>come out.

631
00:38:26.760 --> 00:38:29.280
<v Speaker 2>Let us hope the truth. The truth should always come out.

632
00:38:29.360 --> 00:38:31.280
<v Speaker 2>It's as simple as that. Hey, Steve, that was a

633
00:38:31.320 --> 00:38:34.840
<v Speaker 2>great call. I really do appreciate it, and I'm sure

634
00:38:34.880 --> 00:38:37.840
<v Speaker 2>that if Karen Reid is listening, she'll appreciate the support

635
00:38:38.000 --> 00:38:41.000
<v Speaker 2>from a fellow Falcon. As you said, thank you so much.

636
00:38:42.599 --> 00:38:44.360
<v Speaker 2>We lost them, they didn't even get a chance. Sake

637
00:38:44.480 --> 00:38:48.800
<v Speaker 2>so long. We will stick with this. Fred and Brian,

638
00:38:48.920 --> 00:38:50.840
<v Speaker 2>you guys stay there, you'll be first up. If you're

639
00:38:50.880 --> 00:38:52.920
<v Speaker 2>not on the line, now's the time to dial in,

640
00:38:53.239 --> 00:38:56.320
<v Speaker 2>because we can always take their true calls and then

641
00:38:56.400 --> 00:38:58.480
<v Speaker 2>move on, or we can continue to talk about it.

642
00:38:58.599 --> 00:38:59.199
<v Speaker 2>You decide.