WEBVTT 1 00:00:00.560 --> 00:00:06.040 It's nice side with Dan Ray on WBSY constance video. 2 00:00:07.120 --> 00:00:11.160 Well, the Karen Reid murder case is back in the headlines. 3 00:00:11.199 --> 00:00:14.039 I think anyone who has lived in Massachusetts and hasn't 4 00:00:14.080 --> 00:00:16.679 lived under a rock for the last couple of years 5 00:00:16.760 --> 00:00:19.120 is familiar with the Karen Reid case, in which she 6 00:00:19.199 --> 00:00:25.120 is accused of backing her automobile into her boyfriend back 7 00:00:25.160 --> 00:00:27.920 in January of twenty twenty two on a very snowy night, 8 00:00:29.079 --> 00:00:34.039 causing his death. She was charged with not only a 9 00:00:34.119 --> 00:00:36.640 murder in the second degree, which is the most serious charge, 10 00:00:36.679 --> 00:00:39.560 but also manslaughter and leaving the scene of an accident, 11 00:00:40.479 --> 00:00:44.439 and her trial concluded on July first, this past summer. 12 00:00:44.640 --> 00:00:49.719 It was a long trial, very highly publicized trial. It 13 00:00:49.719 --> 00:00:53.039 almost came to the level of an Oj Simpson trial nationally. 14 00:00:53.039 --> 00:00:57.320 A lot of national coverage with it as well. The 15 00:00:57.359 --> 00:01:02.240 boyfriend who died that night was a Boston police officer 16 00:01:02.320 --> 00:01:06.879 named John O'Keefe, and there's a lot of side stories 17 00:01:06.920 --> 00:01:09.200 on it. But we're going to focus tonight on what 18 00:01:09.439 --> 00:01:11.920 was argued in front of the State Supreme Court yesterday, 19 00:01:11.920 --> 00:01:16.799 and the lawyers for Karen Reid are basically claiming that 20 00:01:17.599 --> 00:01:23.400 the jury had come to decisions on two of the counts, 21 00:01:23.439 --> 00:01:25.599 the murder count and the leading the scene of an accident, 22 00:01:25.680 --> 00:01:29.640 to acquit her. They agreed unanimously, although they could not 23 00:01:29.760 --> 00:01:33.319 agree to a decision on the manslaugh of charge. And 24 00:01:33.359 --> 00:01:36.640 so an issue has went up before the State Supreme 25 00:01:36.640 --> 00:01:41.959 Court yesterday, which was whether or not the judge in 26 00:01:42.040 --> 00:01:46.200 the case, the trial judge, should have inquired of the 27 00:01:46.319 --> 00:01:52.920 jurors if they were hung on all three counts, or 28 00:01:53.000 --> 00:01:55.959 if there were any counts that they may have actually 29 00:01:56.040 --> 00:01:59.239 reached unanimity on, and those questions were never asked and 30 00:01:59.319 --> 00:02:05.519 the jury never responded. A mistrial, hung jury was what 31 00:02:05.599 --> 00:02:08.719 was declared by the judge, and she scheduled to go 32 00:02:08.919 --> 00:02:11.759 back on trial on all three charges in April. And 33 00:02:11.439 --> 00:02:14.759 he her lawyers say, look, jurors came to us and 34 00:02:14.879 --> 00:02:21.240 to the prosecutors after the the mistrial was declared, and 35 00:02:21.520 --> 00:02:25.639 apparently the jury is claiming or that many of the 36 00:02:25.719 --> 00:02:28.520 jurors are claiming they had agreed to acquit her on 37 00:02:28.639 --> 00:02:31.639 the charge of murder and on the leaving the scene 38 00:02:31.639 --> 00:02:35.080 of an accident. That brings us to Phil Tracy, a 39 00:02:35.159 --> 00:02:39.599 veteran criminal defense lawyer, this is a case an issue 40 00:02:39.599 --> 00:02:46.719 that there's no precedent here in Massachusettsville. It's very interesting, 41 00:02:46.960 --> 00:02:50.360 interesting situation that the judges are being asked to sort 42 00:02:50.400 --> 00:02:54.800 of second guess the actions of the trial court. Judge, 43 00:02:55.360 --> 00:02:58.319 I know that you're very familiar with the case. What's 44 00:02:58.840 --> 00:03:00.840 what's your what's your sense of this case? I mean, 45 00:03:00.879 --> 00:03:02.960 this is interesting issue. 46 00:03:03.120 --> 00:03:06.680 Prevent that you're correct in saying there is no precedent 47 00:03:07.319 --> 00:03:13.080 for this type of inquiry. That didn't happen. Now from 48 00:03:13.120 --> 00:03:18.199 here on out, all judges will be asking, in multiple charges, 49 00:03:19.120 --> 00:03:21.919 have you reached a verdict on any one of the charges? 50 00:03:22.560 --> 00:03:26.719 And that way a partial verdict Sometimes, as in the past, 51 00:03:26.719 --> 00:03:30.879 has come down the Supreme Court may order that this 52 00:03:30.960 --> 00:03:37.800 is part of the institutional part of trials that in 53 00:03:37.919 --> 00:03:42.159 multiple count cases that you have to check with the 54 00:03:42.280 --> 00:03:45.439 jury if they're hung on all of the cases. Now, 55 00:03:45.520 --> 00:03:49.199 I will say this, the judge is a tremendous judge 56 00:03:49.199 --> 00:03:51.919 and she's been you know, she's done a great job 57 00:03:51.960 --> 00:03:54.120 in a lot of cases over the years. There's no 58 00:03:54.240 --> 00:04:00.680 criticism of her. But the jurors never said, you know, 59 00:04:01.039 --> 00:04:04.919 anything that would indicate other than the fact that they 60 00:04:04.960 --> 00:04:10.520 were deadlocked and the defense they could have brought it 61 00:04:10.639 --> 00:04:12.759 up they could have said, well, are they deadlocked on 62 00:04:12.879 --> 00:04:18.879 all three charges? They didn't do that, So I think 63 00:04:18.920 --> 00:04:24.160 the Supreme Court was very skeptical of bringing the jurors back. 64 00:04:24.240 --> 00:04:26.439 But on the other hand, I think they'll set a 65 00:04:26.480 --> 00:04:32.279 president a precedent that will say you've got to examine 66 00:04:32.279 --> 00:04:38.000 those jurors before you declare a mistrial. And I don't 67 00:04:38.040 --> 00:04:40.079 know if they can bring them back now. I think 68 00:04:40.120 --> 00:04:44.879 it's an undue burden on the jurors. They'll be exposed 69 00:04:44.959 --> 00:04:49.279 to some sort of publicity, I think, and that's something 70 00:04:49.319 --> 00:04:52.879 that the courts try their very hardest to keep the 71 00:04:53.000 --> 00:04:58.399 jurors anonymous throughout the process, especially in the case like this. 72 00:05:00.040 --> 00:05:04.000 Understanding is that some of the jurors have actually gone 73 00:05:04.079 --> 00:05:09.160 to the defense lawyers into the prosecutors. So the court 74 00:05:09.240 --> 00:05:16.279 has to balance here phil the the sanctity of deliberations. Uh, 75 00:05:16.319 --> 00:05:19.160 And that you know, once a jury either announces a 76 00:05:19.279 --> 00:05:22.040 verdict or chooses not to announce a verdict, and the 77 00:05:22.120 --> 00:05:27.560 jury is dismissed, in theory, the jury now has been dissolved. 78 00:05:27.800 --> 00:05:27.920 Uh. 79 00:05:29.040 --> 00:05:32.560 Do you think that the court might order Judge Canoni 80 00:05:32.639 --> 00:05:35.759 to bring the court knows who the jurors are, bring 81 00:05:35.759 --> 00:05:39.480 the juris back and enclosed behind closed doors in cameras, 82 00:05:39.639 --> 00:05:42.360 as we would say, uh, question those jurors. I mean, 83 00:05:42.360 --> 00:05:45.240 if one juror says no, no, no, I was ready 84 00:05:45.240 --> 00:05:49.360 to vote to to convict, then as long as that's 85 00:05:49.680 --> 00:05:53.199 on the record, then then no harm, no foul. 86 00:05:53.519 --> 00:05:58.759 But but well. 87 00:05:58.639 --> 00:06:02.879 What are the interests of Karen Reid, you know, to 88 00:06:03.079 --> 00:06:07.399 have It's the argument that Marty Weinberg, her appellate attorney's making, 89 00:06:07.519 --> 00:06:11.000 is that she's now going to suffer double jeopardy, that 90 00:06:11.040 --> 00:06:14.800 in effects, she's she's faced one trial with where verdict 91 00:06:14.839 --> 00:06:21.040 was reached and and and you know she has an 92 00:06:21.079 --> 00:06:24.720 interest here as well. It's a tough balance. 93 00:06:24.759 --> 00:06:28.439 I think, well, it's a tough balance. But the reality 94 00:06:28.639 --> 00:06:32.160 is there was never a verdict. So it isn't double jeopardy. 95 00:06:32.800 --> 00:06:37.480 What it is is whether or not, as so much 96 00:06:37.560 --> 00:06:40.439 time has gone by, now, whether you bring jurors back 97 00:06:40.480 --> 00:06:43.759 to question them. Now, let's say you question them and 98 00:06:43.800 --> 00:06:46.439 you say they all say we were going to quit 99 00:06:46.439 --> 00:06:49.560 her on two counts, but on account where she was 100 00:06:49.680 --> 00:06:55.319 charged with manslaughter drinking, you know, drinking heavily and then 101 00:06:55.560 --> 00:07:01.240 hitting him by accident, you know, I mean, they obviously 102 00:07:02.360 --> 00:07:06.759 were didn't come to a verdict on that charge one 103 00:07:06.800 --> 00:07:10.079 way or the other. They said, we're deadlocked. They told 104 00:07:10.120 --> 00:07:13.319 the judge, we are deadlock. We cannot go any further, 105 00:07:13.920 --> 00:07:17.279 we can't help. We've tried our best. 106 00:07:18.000 --> 00:07:20.240 But if the judge, if the judge had asked the 107 00:07:20.360 --> 00:07:23.839 question of the jurors and had said, are you telling me? 108 00:07:23.920 --> 00:07:26.360 Are you telling the court that you're deadlocked on each 109 00:07:26.399 --> 00:07:29.639 of three these three counts, If that was just a 110 00:07:29.839 --> 00:07:33.560 simple question the judge asked, and if the jurors are 111 00:07:33.560 --> 00:07:38.759 telling the truth, she should have They would have then said, well, no, 112 00:07:39.040 --> 00:07:42.079 we're deadlocked on count two, but we do have a 113 00:07:42.160 --> 00:07:44.959 verdict on count one and three. And at that point 114 00:07:45.000 --> 00:07:47.279 the judge would have simply said, well, please go back 115 00:07:47.319 --> 00:07:50.160 to the to the to the jury room, fill out 116 00:07:50.160 --> 00:07:53.600 the verdicts, slip on count one and count three, and 117 00:07:53.639 --> 00:07:58.680 come back, and everything would have been done perfectly. 118 00:08:01.360 --> 00:08:03.519 That was the right move to make. 119 00:08:03.600 --> 00:08:07.439 But it is not a requirement of the judge to 120 00:08:07.560 --> 00:08:13.439 do that. There's always the issue of the judge not 121 00:08:13.800 --> 00:08:19.680 interfering with the jury delivery deliberations or coaxing them one 122 00:08:19.680 --> 00:08:22.879 way or the other to find a verdict. Now, the 123 00:08:22.920 --> 00:08:26.639 famous charge called the two were Rodriguez charge, in which 124 00:08:26.680 --> 00:08:31.720 they the defense asked that that be brought to the 125 00:08:31.839 --> 00:08:35.159 jurors attention and read to the jurors as a way 126 00:08:35.200 --> 00:08:39.200 of breaking the deadlock. So I think that, you know, 127 00:08:39.279 --> 00:08:45.039 in most cases a murder case like that, the defense, 128 00:08:45.240 --> 00:08:47.720 when they have a hung jury, they consider that a 129 00:08:47.840 --> 00:08:52.200 victory because their client has not been convicted, you know. 130 00:08:53.480 --> 00:08:57.159 So my question is this, I think earlier you said 131 00:08:57.159 --> 00:09:00.840 that you thought that the court might come back with 132 00:09:01.120 --> 00:09:07.080 an instruction. Then going forward, judges in the same set 133 00:09:07.080 --> 00:09:11.080 of circumstances with a multi count indictment, they have to 134 00:09:11.120 --> 00:09:14.639 get clarification from the jury if they are at an 135 00:09:14.639 --> 00:09:18.120 impasse on all the counts or unjust some of the counts. 136 00:09:18.159 --> 00:09:21.279 And if that is what I understood you to say, 137 00:09:21.799 --> 00:09:26.480 and the Supreme Court, you know, gives this guidance or 138 00:09:26.559 --> 00:09:32.440 requirement in future cases. In effect, Karen Reid's case, she's 139 00:09:32.480 --> 00:09:35.120 been sort of the guinea pig here on the case. 140 00:09:35.720 --> 00:09:39.480 And if they come down with that instruction going forward, 141 00:09:39.759 --> 00:09:41.559 how do they not apply it to her case? 142 00:09:43.320 --> 00:09:48.080 Well, you know, it's such a difficult question from all 143 00:09:48.159 --> 00:09:52.919 different sides, from the judicial side, the judges side, the 144 00:09:52.960 --> 00:09:58.840 prosecution side, and the defense side, they're ramping up for 145 00:09:59.120 --> 00:10:02.519 a trial on all all three counts, and they're seeking 146 00:10:02.679 --> 00:10:07.720 new evidence. They have a new prosecutor, so they're going 147 00:10:07.840 --> 00:10:13.600 full steam ahead and ignoring the claim of double jeopardy. 148 00:10:13.679 --> 00:10:17.360 They don't the prosecution doesn't buy it. On the other hand, 149 00:10:17.480 --> 00:10:20.759 the defense is saying, you know, we know that they 150 00:10:21.360 --> 00:10:24.279 could have come into the courtroom and said she's not 151 00:10:24.360 --> 00:10:27.519 guilty on one and three, and we can't make a 152 00:10:27.519 --> 00:10:28.360 decision on two. 153 00:10:29.720 --> 00:10:34.360 Yeah. Yeah, I think I think it's gonna be a 154 00:10:34.360 --> 00:10:35.360 fascinating decision. 155 00:10:35.559 --> 00:10:40.320 And well, you know, I mean, like anything else the 156 00:10:40.320 --> 00:10:46.799 court system, it tries to move in a deliberate and 157 00:10:47.639 --> 00:10:51.559 fast way, but this is this case is draggedon for 158 00:10:51.600 --> 00:10:55.759 a long time. Now we're facing the situation where if 159 00:10:55.799 --> 00:10:59.519 the Supreme Court makes a decision, how does that affect 160 00:10:59.559 --> 00:11:05.279 the upcome trial. I think clearly both sides are looking 161 00:11:05.320 --> 00:11:09.720 to postpone from January to April, so hopefully the Suprene 162 00:11:09.720 --> 00:11:13.759 Court will have a concrete decision on this matter and 163 00:11:13.799 --> 00:11:15.720 then they'll proceed from there. 164 00:11:16.960 --> 00:11:20.759 Well it's going to be interesting, Phil, that's that's for sure, 165 00:11:20.759 --> 00:11:22.480 And we'll be following it and we'll have. 166 00:11:22.399 --> 00:11:25.600 You back when down on. 167 00:11:27.039 --> 00:11:29.879 My pleasure, Phil Tracy, thanks so much, is always my friend. 168 00:11:29.879 --> 00:11:34.759 Will Okay, thanks Phil, right now, Thanks Bell. What I 169 00:11:34.799 --> 00:11:37.200 want to do is, I would like to ask all 170 00:11:37.200 --> 00:11:42.759 of you. I think Phil has basically put the issues 171 00:11:42.840 --> 00:11:48.919 out there pretty clearly. My feeling, to be really honest 172 00:11:48.960 --> 00:11:53.879 with you, and I am not nearly the experienced criminal 173 00:11:53.960 --> 00:11:57.440 defense lawyer that Phil Tracy is. My feeling is that 174 00:11:57.480 --> 00:12:02.039 the court should order the judge to bring the jury 175 00:12:02.080 --> 00:12:07.679 back and talk with them and find out if indeed 176 00:12:07.720 --> 00:12:11.919 the jury had reached a verdict and because of a misunderstanding, 177 00:12:13.360 --> 00:12:16.960 they were under the impression that they had to return 178 00:12:17.000 --> 00:12:22.000 a verdict on all three counts, and even though if 179 00:12:22.039 --> 00:12:25.159 they were indeed in agreement that on two of the 180 00:12:25.279 --> 00:12:29.720 counts they had come to a verdict, but on the 181 00:12:29.799 --> 00:12:35.480 second count they were hung up. They were at an impasse. 182 00:12:37.039 --> 00:12:39.559 All the judge had to do was to have simply inquired. 183 00:12:39.759 --> 00:12:47.759 Now again, a long trial, very expensive, extraordinarily expensive. I 184 00:12:47.799 --> 00:12:50.519 think that you got to look at this from the 185 00:12:50.600 --> 00:12:55.759 perspective of the defendant. She still has a trial upcoming 186 00:12:56.919 --> 00:13:02.480 on manslaughter no matter what. But I think that this 187 00:13:02.759 --> 00:13:07.360 is an important issue. It's an important issue because it 188 00:13:07.360 --> 00:13:10.000 could be you or me who are in the dock 189 00:13:10.639 --> 00:13:13.919 and facing a second trial. Phil Tracy was absolutely correct 190 00:13:13.960 --> 00:13:17.360 because there was no verdict, no verdict slip handed to 191 00:13:17.399 --> 00:13:20.720 the clerk who hands it to the judge. Technically there's 192 00:13:20.759 --> 00:13:25.360 no verdict. However, if they had agreed and because of 193 00:13:25.480 --> 00:13:31.919 miscommunication that had not been communicated properly, how much of 194 00:13:32.039 --> 00:13:36.679 a burden is upon the judge to make sure that 195 00:13:37.960 --> 00:13:40.879 she got everything out of that jury possible, just in 196 00:13:41.000 --> 00:13:45.240 terms of also just the economy of the case. I mean, 197 00:13:45.440 --> 00:13:48.440 this case, if it is reduced to one charge, it 198 00:13:48.440 --> 00:13:50.440 would go a lot more quickly than with three. So 199 00:13:50.879 --> 00:13:52.720 I'm going to open it up and I'm going to 200 00:13:52.840 --> 00:13:56.759 let all of my legal eagles here. Whether you're a 201 00:13:56.840 --> 00:13:59.480 lawyer or not, you know the facts of the case. 202 00:14:00.240 --> 00:14:02.080 How do you think how would you like to see 203 00:14:02.159 --> 00:14:05.039 the State Supreme Court rule on this one? I'm fascinated 204 00:14:05.080 --> 00:14:08.200 by it. It's not often that the court the judge 205 00:14:08.200 --> 00:14:11.639 did nothing wrong here, but it was an oversight and 206 00:14:11.799 --> 00:14:15.279 maybe eight out of ten judges would have handled it 207 00:14:15.320 --> 00:14:20.080 the same way. But if they're going to issue a recommendation, 208 00:14:21.080 --> 00:14:27.159 they're going forward on multiple count indictments that judges clearly 209 00:14:27.240 --> 00:14:29.840 find out for the jury if when they come back 210 00:14:29.879 --> 00:14:32.320 and say that they are at an impass, are they 211 00:14:32.320 --> 00:14:35.799 at an impass on all the indictments or just some 212 00:14:35.879 --> 00:14:39.039 of the indictments six one, seven, two, five, four, ten, 213 00:14:39.120 --> 00:14:42.320 thirty six one seven, nine, three, one, ten thirty. We're 214 00:14:42.320 --> 00:14:44.879 going to talk about this until at ten, and then 215 00:14:44.919 --> 00:14:49.000 at ten we're going to switch to politics again. Joe Biden. 216 00:14:49.039 --> 00:14:51.639 Did President Biden spoke today, and I spoke pretty eloquently. 217 00:14:51.679 --> 00:14:53.399 I thought we'll get to all of that right after 218 00:14:53.440 --> 00:14:56.519 the ten But for now, for the next thirty four minutes, 219 00:14:56.559 --> 00:14:59.000 thirty five minutes, I'd love to hear from you on 220 00:14:59.080 --> 00:15:02.039 this one. The conversation coming right back on Nightside. 221 00:15:03.120 --> 00:15:06.120 Now, back to Dan Ray live from the Window World 222 00:15:06.240 --> 00:15:09.879 night Side Studios. I'm DUMBZ News Radio. 223 00:15:10.879 --> 00:15:13.080 I think the case is a fascinating case, and that's 224 00:15:13.080 --> 00:15:15.919 why I want to talk about it again. We will 225 00:15:15.919 --> 00:15:19.519 deal with this now until ten o'clock. I know that 226 00:15:19.559 --> 00:15:21.519 there's a lot of emotions on it, but I think 227 00:15:21.559 --> 00:15:23.840 if you cut to the core of this and you 228 00:15:23.879 --> 00:15:25.480 look at it from a point of view of just, 229 00:15:26.000 --> 00:15:30.799 you know, fairness, is it fair to this defendant that 230 00:15:30.919 --> 00:15:35.600 you would face retrial on two charges, the murder charge 231 00:15:35.600 --> 00:15:37.360 and the leaving the scene of an accident if the 232 00:15:37.440 --> 00:15:45.720 jury had come to a conclusion. Now again, I think 233 00:15:45.759 --> 00:15:47.679 that that in terms of fairness, there's a lot to 234 00:15:47.720 --> 00:15:50.279 be said here. Let's go first off to Bill and 235 00:15:50.360 --> 00:15:53.919 Charlton Massachusetts out there in central Massachusetts. Bill, you are 236 00:15:53.919 --> 00:15:56.559 first as our nights. I appreciate you calling in your thoughts. 237 00:15:57.799 --> 00:16:01.440 Hi, Dan, first time caller, long time collar. 238 00:16:01.960 --> 00:16:05.720 Well all right, that's a class of our virtual studio audience. 239 00:16:05.799 --> 00:16:06.480 Go right ahead. 240 00:16:06.559 --> 00:16:09.600 Not to hear what you have to listen to Larry 241 00:16:09.639 --> 00:16:13.200 Click on my nine hole transit the radio back in 242 00:16:13.279 --> 00:16:15.120 the sixties and early seventies. 243 00:16:15.879 --> 00:16:18.759 Well, well I did as well. I want you to 244 00:16:18.840 --> 00:16:20.840 know I was listening to Larry back then too. 245 00:16:20.960 --> 00:16:29.240 Go ahead, my thoughts on the Karen Reid case. I'm 246 00:16:29.320 --> 00:16:34.000 sure you can walk up. The days of verdict was 247 00:16:34.919 --> 00:16:39.159 red or the days at the case with the clear 248 00:16:39.840 --> 00:16:41.120 declared mins trial. 249 00:16:41.600 --> 00:16:44.080 Yeah, I think it was that day first, Yes, go. 250 00:16:44.080 --> 00:16:51.440 Ahead, Okay, what's coming up for a nice long weekend 251 00:16:51.519 --> 00:16:52.200 for everybody? 252 00:16:53.559 --> 00:16:54.159 Fourth of July? 253 00:16:54.360 --> 00:16:57.240 Yeah, I guess it was the July and everybody just 254 00:16:57.360 --> 00:16:58.960 wanted to get out of the courthouse. 255 00:16:59.759 --> 00:16:59.919 Yeah. 256 00:17:00.159 --> 00:17:04.319 My theory well, they didn't consider everything. 257 00:17:05.759 --> 00:17:09.240 Well, it's tough to get into the mind of the 258 00:17:09.359 --> 00:17:14.240 jury in many times when you approach a weekend like 259 00:17:14.319 --> 00:17:18.400 the fourth of July, if it's eleven to one or 260 00:17:18.559 --> 00:17:21.160 ten to two in the jury room, juries have been 261 00:17:21.200 --> 00:17:23.880 known to all of a sudden see the wisdom of 262 00:17:23.960 --> 00:17:26.640 reaching a verdict in advance of the holiday, which I 263 00:17:26.680 --> 00:17:29.480 think is what you're saying, but. 264 00:17:29.839 --> 00:17:35.519 In effect, but it affected everybody in the courtroom moving 265 00:17:35.839 --> 00:17:38.599 anxious begin a long weekend. 266 00:17:39.000 --> 00:17:40.039 Including a judge. 267 00:17:40.119 --> 00:17:43.359 Everybody has their families and want to get going With's 268 00:17:43.359 --> 00:17:46.519 a weekend, great, great weekend. 269 00:17:47.319 --> 00:17:50.319 Yeah. The question here is she's still facing one charge, 270 00:17:50.400 --> 00:17:53.240 so there's no doubt there'll be a second trial U 271 00:17:53.559 --> 00:17:57.440 And the prosecution has brought in an experienced criminal defense lawyer, 272 00:17:57.440 --> 00:18:01.200 a guy named Hank Brennan, who's really veryccomplished defense lawyer, 273 00:18:01.559 --> 00:18:03.759 to be a special prosecutor in the case, which is 274 00:18:03.799 --> 00:18:08.559 an interesting move by the district attorney down in Norfolk County. 275 00:18:10.000 --> 00:18:12.839 My sense is that the court should provide some guidance. 276 00:18:12.920 --> 00:18:16.240 At a minimum, there should be guidance to judges to say, look, 277 00:18:16.319 --> 00:18:20.400 in these situations, you have to before you dismiss a 278 00:18:20.480 --> 00:18:26.160 jury at least inquire briefly on a multi multi count case, 279 00:18:27.279 --> 00:18:31.359 is there have you reached a conclusion on any of 280 00:18:31.440 --> 00:18:37.039 the counts or are you hopelessly at an impasse on 281 00:18:37.240 --> 00:18:40.119 all in this case, all three counts, And I think 282 00:18:40.200 --> 00:18:42.720 that go ahead. 283 00:18:42.799 --> 00:18:46.680 I'm sorry, I do agree with you that I do 284 00:18:46.880 --> 00:18:51.480 agree with you that this should be an example and 285 00:18:53.119 --> 00:18:56.440 from here forward that should be the protocol. 286 00:18:57.079 --> 00:19:01.519 But by the way, the court a lot of these cases, 287 00:19:01.559 --> 00:19:05.680 if you go back to the Miranda case, when Miranda 288 00:19:05.920 --> 00:19:09.720 did not get the proper warnings and evidence of comments 289 00:19:09.759 --> 00:19:13.240 that he had made was excluded, and police learned from 290 00:19:13.319 --> 00:19:18.759 that case to be obligated to require warnings given to 291 00:19:18.880 --> 00:19:20.960 prisoners once they're under arrest, that they have a right 292 00:19:21.039 --> 00:19:23.240 to remain silent. Anything that they say can and will 293 00:19:23.279 --> 00:19:25.960 be used against them. Do they want to contact a 294 00:19:26.039 --> 00:19:29.839 lawyer once they get the warning? If the guy says, hey, 295 00:19:29.880 --> 00:19:31.960 look I did it. I was really upset. I'm sorry, 296 00:19:32.039 --> 00:19:34.440 but I did it, that then can be brought into evidence. 297 00:19:34.519 --> 00:19:36.839 But they got to give them the warning first. Same 298 00:19:36.920 --> 00:19:42.160 way here, do you instruct judges in future cases to 299 00:19:42.240 --> 00:19:46.400 do it that way without providing some consideration to this 300 00:19:46.559 --> 00:19:51.400 defendant and force her to face trial in all three charges. 301 00:19:51.480 --> 00:19:54.599 That's where I think that the judgment by the court 302 00:19:54.839 --> 00:19:57.720 gets really dicey at this point, because if they come 303 00:19:57.799 --> 00:19:59.640 back and they say, no, we're going to deny the motion, 304 00:20:00.240 --> 00:20:03.519 We're going to support what the judge did. I think 305 00:20:03.519 --> 00:20:05.000 a lot of people are going to say, well, why 306 00:20:05.039 --> 00:20:07.920 would they not at least issue an instruction going forward 307 00:20:08.000 --> 00:20:11.000 that this should be part of the normal practice that 308 00:20:11.119 --> 00:20:14.519 any judge would engage in, particularly in a trial like this. 309 00:20:14.680 --> 00:20:18.839 This is not a quick two day trial where you know, 310 00:20:18.920 --> 00:20:22.279 there's not a lot of expense involved, so we'll see. Hey, Bill, 311 00:20:22.319 --> 00:20:24.160 I really appreciate the fact that you take a time 312 00:20:24.240 --> 00:20:26.279 to call in. Always good. You're a veteran listener. Now 313 00:20:26.319 --> 00:20:29.039 you're a veteran caller, so I look forward to your second. 314 00:20:28.839 --> 00:20:32.880 Call coming up terrific. I'm more compward to play singer 315 00:20:33.039 --> 00:20:36.400 the well good job Dan, thank you, great job too. 316 00:20:36.920 --> 00:20:39.519 Takes It takes takes some coverage to pick that phone up, 317 00:20:39.519 --> 00:20:41.279 folks for the first time, But believe me, I'm not 318 00:20:41.319 --> 00:20:43.799 going to bite your hat off. I really enjoy talking 319 00:20:43.839 --> 00:20:48.200 to different people and getting different perspectives and enlarging the 320 00:20:48.279 --> 00:20:51.319 pool of callers as well as of course in enlarging 321 00:20:51.359 --> 00:20:56.279 the pool of listeners. Now we will continue. There's only 322 00:20:56.359 --> 00:20:58.400 one well, that line just filled up. The only lines 323 00:20:58.440 --> 00:21:02.519 that are open right now, six one seven, two lines there, 324 00:21:02.599 --> 00:21:06.720 six one seven. Let me know what you think, Okay, 325 00:21:06.920 --> 00:21:08.960 I think it's I think it's a very close call. 326 00:21:09.640 --> 00:21:09.759 Uh. 327 00:21:10.000 --> 00:21:13.880 And we have what's considered to be a fairly forward 328 00:21:13.920 --> 00:21:16.839 looking Supreme Court, you might call it a progressive Supreme 329 00:21:16.880 --> 00:21:19.839 Court in the good sense, uh, and that this might 330 00:21:19.920 --> 00:21:23.400 be an opportunity for them to uh make justice a 331 00:21:23.480 --> 00:21:27.480 little swifter and a little fairer here in Massachusetts. We'll 332 00:21:27.519 --> 00:21:29.920 be back on nightside right after the break. At the 333 00:21:29.960 --> 00:21:31.519 bottom of the hour, here comes the news. 334 00:21:33.440 --> 00:21:38.079 It's night Side with Boston's news Radio. 335 00:21:40.599 --> 00:21:42.680 All right, let's get back to the calls. We are 336 00:21:42.799 --> 00:21:46.839 going to go to I Marie in Bridgewater. In Marie 337 00:21:46.880 --> 00:21:49.000 in Bridgewater, You're next on nightside in Marie. 338 00:21:50.200 --> 00:21:51.160 Hey, Dan, how are you? 339 00:21:52.000 --> 00:21:54.240 I'm doing just great? Right, go right ahead. 340 00:21:55.160 --> 00:21:58.880 I have first to comment. I guess I'm not one 341 00:21:58.960 --> 00:22:02.720 hundred per convinced she had savvy lawyers that they didn't 342 00:22:02.759 --> 00:22:04.480 know what they were doing when they chose not to 343 00:22:04.559 --> 00:22:07.559 pull the jury. But setting that aside, I'm wondering what 344 00:22:07.680 --> 00:22:12.279 you think under your scenario of you know, pulling the jury. 345 00:22:12.759 --> 00:22:14.640 What if they had come up that they were guilty 346 00:22:14.720 --> 00:22:16.400 on two counts, do you think she would have been 347 00:22:16.480 --> 00:22:18.599 ready to deal with that or do you think she 348 00:22:18.640 --> 00:22:21.559 would have wanted another bite at the apple on all 349 00:22:21.599 --> 00:22:22.240 three charges? 350 00:22:22.759 --> 00:22:26.319 Well, I think I agree with you in a large part. 351 00:22:26.400 --> 00:22:27.920 Let me tell you why I agree. First of all, 352 00:22:27.960 --> 00:22:30.920 the lawyers are thinking to themselves, Okay, we got a 353 00:22:31.000 --> 00:22:35.279 hung jury on all three counts, and we're not going 354 00:22:35.359 --> 00:22:38.599 to stand up and complicate things here. And they didn't. 355 00:22:38.799 --> 00:22:41.480 The defense lawyers didn't. That was the tactical decision they 356 00:22:41.519 --> 00:22:44.079 had to make. Most defense lawyers would tell you in 357 00:22:44.079 --> 00:22:48.960 a case like that, hey, we've gone through the prosecution 358 00:22:49.079 --> 00:22:51.440 has taken the best shot they can at our client, 359 00:22:51.519 --> 00:22:54.880 and we have defended her. And now we know what 360 00:22:54.960 --> 00:22:58.119 they're coming at, what evidence they have, The defense will 361 00:22:58.160 --> 00:23:02.759 have an advantage on a second turn. However, however, the 362 00:23:02.880 --> 00:23:07.519 prosecution didn't say, your hona, could you inquire of the 363 00:23:07.759 --> 00:23:14.359 jury chairperson? If this impasse is on all counts, all 364 00:23:14.440 --> 00:23:17.519 three counts are on just one or more of the counts, 365 00:23:18.839 --> 00:23:20.759 neither one of them ask for that and the judge 366 00:23:20.799 --> 00:23:23.519 did not inquire. What would have happened if the judge 367 00:23:23.599 --> 00:23:25.759 on her own said, are you telling me that you 368 00:23:25.960 --> 00:23:28.559 have you're at an impasse on all three counts? 369 00:23:30.440 --> 00:23:30.519 Right? 370 00:23:30.559 --> 00:23:32.839 I think both parties would have had to have agreed 371 00:23:33.279 --> 00:23:35.920 and then have to agree to accept whichever way it went. 372 00:23:36.480 --> 00:23:38.839 So that's why I don't believe. I don't believe if 373 00:23:39.160 --> 00:23:41.759 I would respect he was going to be guilty on 374 00:23:41.839 --> 00:23:44.119 the first two, if she's going to be okay, I'll 375 00:23:44.160 --> 00:23:47.319 accept that guilt, and then she's going to want another 376 00:23:47.359 --> 00:23:50.000 bite at the apple and all three. You just can't 377 00:23:50.039 --> 00:23:50.880 have it both ways. 378 00:23:51.400 --> 00:23:57.119 So no, that's fine. I'm just saying with you, either 379 00:23:57.240 --> 00:24:01.279 the prosecution or the defense lawyers would have asked the 380 00:24:01.440 --> 00:24:05.839 judge to make further inquiry, however. 381 00:24:05.640 --> 00:24:11.359 Right, and the tactically didn't. But you can't say you 382 00:24:11.440 --> 00:24:13.039 think you heard something from somebody. 383 00:24:13.359 --> 00:24:13.440 Ye. 384 00:24:14.400 --> 00:24:17.200 Let me finish my point if I could. There's nothing 385 00:24:18.039 --> 00:24:22.480 in the in the practice that would prevent a judge 386 00:24:22.680 --> 00:24:28.519 from saying to the jury, four person, is it your position, 387 00:24:29.319 --> 00:24:32.880 mister four person happened to be a guy here that 388 00:24:33.079 --> 00:24:37.680 your your jury is deadlocked on all three counts? Or 389 00:24:38.960 --> 00:24:42.839 have has the jury come to an agreement on one 390 00:24:43.039 --> 00:24:46.440 or more of the counts. So that is what the 391 00:24:46.599 --> 00:24:49.880 judge could have asked. That's and so the question is 392 00:24:50.680 --> 00:24:57.519 that maybe the State Supreme Court will instruct superior court 393 00:24:57.599 --> 00:25:01.440 judges going forward. I mean we're talking about, you know, 394 00:25:01.839 --> 00:25:05.960 fairness to the defendant if you put yourself in her position. Uh, 395 00:25:06.680 --> 00:25:09.759 she's not a lawyer, she's she obviously has defense lawyers 396 00:25:09.799 --> 00:25:12.799 with her. It's a question of will the will the 397 00:25:13.279 --> 00:25:17.759 Supreme Court say to judges look going forward on a 398 00:25:17.920 --> 00:25:21.079 multi count indictment, if they come back and say they're hung, 399 00:25:21.119 --> 00:25:22.680 you got to make sure they hung on all three 400 00:25:23.039 --> 00:25:25.920 because a partial verdict is is very. 401 00:25:25.920 --> 00:25:30.480