Speaker 1: It's nice side with Dan Ray on WBSY constance video.
Speaker 2: Well, the Karen Reid murder case is back in the headlines.
Speaker 2: I think anyone who has lived in Massachusetts and hasn't
Speaker 2: lived under a rock for the last couple of years
Speaker 2: is familiar with the Karen Reid case, in which she
Speaker 2: is accused of backing her automobile into her boyfriend back
Speaker 2: in January of twenty twenty two on a very snowy night,
Speaker 2: causing his death. She was charged with not only a
Speaker 2: murder in the second degree, which is the most serious charge,
Speaker 2: but also manslaughter and leaving the scene of an accident,
Speaker 2: and her trial concluded on July first, this past summer.
Speaker 2: It was a long trial, very highly publicized trial. It
Speaker 2: almost came to the level of an Oj Simpson trial nationally.
Speaker 2: A lot of national coverage with it as well. The
Speaker 2: boyfriend who died that night was a Boston police officer
Speaker 2: named John O'Keefe, and there's a lot of side stories
Speaker 2: on it. But we're going to focus tonight on what
Speaker 2: was argued in front of the State Supreme Court yesterday,
Speaker 2: and the lawyers for Karen Reid are basically claiming that
Speaker 2: the jury had come to decisions on two of the counts,
Speaker 2: the murder count and the leading the scene of an accident,
Speaker 2: to acquit her. They agreed unanimously, although they could not
Speaker 2: agree to a decision on the manslaugh of charge. And
Speaker 2: so an issue has went up before the State Supreme
Speaker 2: Court yesterday, which was whether or not the judge in
Speaker 2: the case, the trial judge, should have inquired of the
Speaker 2: jurors if they were hung on all three counts, or
Speaker 2: if there were any counts that they may have actually
Speaker 2: reached unanimity on, and those questions were never asked and
Speaker 2: the jury never responded. A mistrial, hung jury was what
Speaker 2: was declared by the judge, and she scheduled to go
Speaker 2: back on trial on all three charges in April. And
Speaker 2: he her lawyers say, look, jurors came to us and
Speaker 2: to the prosecutors after the the mistrial was declared, and
Speaker 2: apparently the jury is claiming or that many of the
Speaker 2: jurors are claiming they had agreed to acquit her on
Speaker 2: the charge of murder and on the leaving the scene
Speaker 2: of an accident. That brings us to Phil Tracy, a
Speaker 2: veteran criminal defense lawyer, this is a case an issue
Speaker 2: that there's no precedent here in Massachusettsville. It's very interesting,
Speaker 2: interesting situation that the judges are being asked to sort
Speaker 2: of second guess the actions of the trial court. Judge,
Speaker 2: I know that you're very familiar with the case. What's
Speaker 2: what's your what's your sense of this case? I mean,
Speaker 2: this is interesting issue.
Speaker 3: Prevent that you're correct in saying there is no precedent
Speaker 3: for this type of inquiry. That didn't happen. Now from
Speaker 3: here on out, all judges will be asking, in multiple charges,
Speaker 3: have you reached a verdict on any one of the charges?
Speaker 3: And that way a partial verdict Sometimes, as in the past,
Speaker 3: has come down the Supreme Court may order that this
Speaker 3: is part of the institutional part of trials that in
Speaker 3: multiple count cases that you have to check with the
Speaker 3: jury if they're hung on all of the cases. Now,
Speaker 3: I will say this, the judge is a tremendous judge
Speaker 3: and she's been you know, she's done a great job
Speaker 3: in a lot of cases over the years. There's no
Speaker 3: criticism of her. But the jurors never said, you know,
Speaker 3: anything that would indicate other than the fact that they
Speaker 3: were deadlocked and the defense they could have brought it
Speaker 3: up they could have said, well, are they deadlocked on
Speaker 3: all three charges? They didn't do that, So I think
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court was very skeptical of bringing the jurors back.
Speaker 3: But on the other hand, I think they'll set a
Speaker 3: president a precedent that will say you've got to examine
Speaker 3: those jurors before you declare a mistrial. And I don't
Speaker 3: know if they can bring them back now. I think
Speaker 3: it's an undue burden on the jurors. They'll be exposed
Speaker 3: to some sort of publicity, I think, and that's something
Speaker 3: that the courts try their very hardest to keep the
Speaker 3: jurors anonymous throughout the process, especially in the case like this.
Speaker 2: Understanding is that some of the jurors have actually gone
Speaker 2: to the defense lawyers into the prosecutors. So the court
Speaker 2: has to balance here phil the the sanctity of deliberations. Uh,
Speaker 2: And that you know, once a jury either announces a
Speaker 2: verdict or chooses not to announce a verdict, and the
Speaker 2: jury is dismissed, in theory, the jury now has been dissolved.
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 2: Do you think that the court might order Judge Canoni
Speaker 2: to bring the court knows who the jurors are, bring
Speaker 2: the juris back and enclosed behind closed doors in cameras,
Speaker 2: as we would say, uh, question those jurors. I mean,
Speaker 2: if one juror says no, no, no, I was ready
Speaker 2: to vote to to convict, then as long as that's
Speaker 2: on the record, then then no harm, no foul.
Speaker 3: But but well.
Speaker 2: What are the interests of Karen Reid, you know, to
Speaker 2: have It's the argument that Marty Weinberg, her appellate attorney's making,
Speaker 2: is that she's now going to suffer double jeopardy, that
Speaker 2: in effects, she's she's faced one trial with where verdict
Speaker 2: was reached and and and you know she has an
Speaker 2: interest here as well. It's a tough balance.
Speaker 3: I think, well, it's a tough balance. But the reality
Speaker 3: is there was never a verdict. So it isn't double jeopardy.
Speaker 3: What it is is whether or not, as so much
Speaker 3: time has gone by, now, whether you bring jurors back
Speaker 3: to question them. Now, let's say you question them and
Speaker 3: you say they all say we were going to quit
Speaker 3: her on two counts, but on account where she was
Speaker 3: charged with manslaughter drinking, you know, drinking heavily and then
Speaker 3: hitting him by accident, you know, I mean, they obviously
Speaker 3: were didn't come to a verdict on that charge one
Speaker 3: way or the other. They said, we're deadlocked. They told
Speaker 3: the judge, we are deadlock. We cannot go any further,
Speaker 3: we can't help. We've tried our best.
Speaker 2: But if the judge, if the judge had asked the
Speaker 2: question of the jurors and had said, are you telling me?
Speaker 2: Are you telling the court that you're deadlocked on each
Speaker 2: of three these three counts, If that was just a
Speaker 2: simple question the judge asked, and if the jurors are
Speaker 2: telling the truth, she should have They would have then said, well, no,
Speaker 2: we're deadlocked on count two, but we do have a
Speaker 2: verdict on count one and three. And at that point
Speaker 2: the judge would have simply said, well, please go back
Speaker 2: to the to the to the jury room, fill out
Speaker 2: the verdicts, slip on count one and count three, and
Speaker 2: come back, and everything would have been done perfectly.
Speaker 5: That was the right move to make.
Speaker 3: But it is not a requirement of the judge to
Speaker 3: do that. There's always the issue of the judge not
Speaker 3: interfering with the jury delivery deliberations or coaxing them one
Speaker 3: way or the other to find a verdict. Now, the
Speaker 3: famous charge called the two were Rodriguez charge, in which
Speaker 3: they the defense asked that that be brought to the
Speaker 3: jurors attention and read to the jurors as a way
Speaker 3: of breaking the deadlock. So I think that, you know,
Speaker 3: in most cases a murder case like that, the defense,
Speaker 3: when they have a hung jury, they consider that a
Speaker 3: victory because their client has not been convicted, you know.
Speaker 2: So my question is this, I think earlier you said
Speaker 2: that you thought that the court might come back with
Speaker 2: an instruction. Then going forward, judges in the same set
Speaker 2: of circumstances with a multi count indictment, they have to
Speaker 2: get clarification from the jury if they are at an
Speaker 2: impasse on all the counts or unjust some of the counts.
Speaker 2: And if that is what I understood you to say,
Speaker 2: and the Supreme Court, you know, gives this guidance or
Speaker 2: requirement in future cases. In effect, Karen Reid's case, she's
Speaker 2: been sort of the guinea pig here on the case.
Speaker 2: And if they come down with that instruction going forward,
Speaker 2: how do they not apply it to her case?
Speaker 3: Well, you know, it's such a difficult question from all
Speaker 3: different sides, from the judicial side, the judges side, the
Speaker 3: prosecution side, and the defense side, they're ramping up for
Speaker 3: a trial on all all three counts, and they're seeking
Speaker 3: new evidence. They have a new prosecutor, so they're going
Speaker 3: full steam ahead and ignoring the claim of double jeopardy.
Speaker 3: They don't the prosecution doesn't buy it. On the other hand,
Speaker 3: the defense is saying, you know, we know that they
Speaker 3: could have come into the courtroom and said she's not
Speaker 3: guilty on one and three, and we can't make a
Speaker 3: decision on two.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, I think I think it's gonna be a
Speaker 2: fascinating decision.
Speaker 3: And well, you know, I mean, like anything else the
Speaker 3: court system, it tries to move in a deliberate and
Speaker 3: fast way, but this is this case is draggedon for
Speaker 3: a long time. Now we're facing the situation where if
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court makes a decision, how does that affect
Speaker 3: the upcome trial. I think clearly both sides are looking
Speaker 3: to postpone from January to April, so hopefully the Suprene
Speaker 3: Court will have a concrete decision on this matter and
Speaker 3: then they'll proceed from there.
Speaker 2: Well it's going to be interesting, Phil, that's that's for sure,
Speaker 2: And we'll be following it and we'll have.
Speaker 3: You back when down on.
Speaker 2: My pleasure, Phil Tracy, thanks so much, is always my friend.
Speaker 2: Will Okay, thanks Phil, right now, Thanks Bell. What I
Speaker 2: want to do is, I would like to ask all
Speaker 2: of you. I think Phil has basically put the issues
Speaker 2: out there pretty clearly. My feeling, to be really honest
Speaker 2: with you, and I am not nearly the experienced criminal
Speaker 2: defense lawyer that Phil Tracy is. My feeling is that
Speaker 2: the court should order the judge to bring the jury
Speaker 2: back and talk with them and find out if indeed
Speaker 2: the jury had reached a verdict and because of a misunderstanding,
Speaker 2: they were under the impression that they had to return
Speaker 2: a verdict on all three counts, and even though if
Speaker 2: they were indeed in agreement that on two of the
Speaker 2: counts they had come to a verdict, but on the
Speaker 2: second count they were hung up. They were at an impasse.
Speaker 2: All the judge had to do was to have simply inquired.
Speaker 2: Now again, a long trial, very expensive, extraordinarily expensive. I
Speaker 2: think that you got to look at this from the
Speaker 2: perspective of the defendant. She still has a trial upcoming
Speaker 2: on manslaughter no matter what. But I think that this
Speaker 2: is an important issue. It's an important issue because it
Speaker 2: could be you or me who are in the dock
Speaker 2: and facing a second trial. Phil Tracy was absolutely correct
Speaker 2: because there was no verdict, no verdict slip handed to
Speaker 2: the clerk who hands it to the judge. Technically there's
Speaker 2: no verdict. However, if they had agreed and because of
Speaker 2: miscommunication that had not been communicated properly, how much of
Speaker 2: a burden is upon the judge to make sure that
Speaker 2: she got everything out of that jury possible, just in
Speaker 2: terms of also just the economy of the case. I mean,
Speaker 2: this case, if it is reduced to one charge, it
Speaker 2: would go a lot more quickly than with three. So
Speaker 2: I'm going to open it up and I'm going to
Speaker 2: let all of my legal eagles here. Whether you're a
Speaker 2: lawyer or not, you know the facts of the case.
Speaker 2: How do you think how would you like to see
Speaker 2: the State Supreme Court rule on this one? I'm fascinated
Speaker 2: by it. It's not often that the court the judge
Speaker 2: did nothing wrong here, but it was an oversight and
Speaker 2: maybe eight out of ten judges would have handled it
Speaker 2: the same way. But if they're going to issue a recommendation,
Speaker 2: they're going forward on multiple count indictments that judges clearly
Speaker 2: find out for the jury if when they come back
Speaker 2: and say that they are at an impass, are they
Speaker 2: at an impass on all the indictments or just some
Speaker 2: of the indictments six one, seven, two, five, four, ten,
Speaker 2: thirty six one seven, nine, three, one, ten thirty. We're
Speaker 2: going to talk about this until at ten, and then
Speaker 2: at ten we're going to switch to politics again. Joe Biden.
Speaker 2: Did President Biden spoke today, and I spoke pretty eloquently.
Speaker 2: I thought we'll get to all of that right after
Speaker 2: the ten But for now, for the next thirty four minutes,
Speaker 2: thirty five minutes, I'd love to hear from you on
Speaker 2: this one. The conversation coming right back on Nightside.
Speaker 1: Now, back to Dan Ray live from the Window World
Speaker 1: night Side Studios. I'm DUMBZ News Radio.
Speaker 2: I think the case is a fascinating case, and that's
Speaker 2: why I want to talk about it again. We will
Speaker 2: deal with this now until ten o'clock. I know that
Speaker 2: there's a lot of emotions on it, but I think
Speaker 2: if you cut to the core of this and you
Speaker 2: look at it from a point of view of just,
Speaker 2: you know, fairness, is it fair to this defendant that
Speaker 2: you would face retrial on two charges, the murder charge
Speaker 2: and the leaving the scene of an accident if the
Speaker 2: jury had come to a conclusion. Now again, I think
Speaker 2: that that in terms of fairness, there's a lot to
Speaker 2: be said here. Let's go first off to Bill and
Speaker 2: Charlton Massachusetts out there in central Massachusetts. Bill, you are
Speaker 2: first as our nights. I appreciate you calling in your thoughts.
Speaker 5: Hi, Dan, first time caller, long time collar.
Speaker 2: Well all right, that's a class of our virtual studio audience.
Speaker 2: Go right ahead.
Speaker 5: Not to hear what you have to listen to Larry
Speaker 5: Click on my nine hole transit the radio back in
Speaker 5: the sixties and early seventies.
Speaker 2: Well, well I did as well. I want you to
Speaker 2: know I was listening to Larry back then too.
Speaker 5: Go ahead, my thoughts on the Karen Reid case. I'm
Speaker 5: sure you can walk up. The days of verdict was
Speaker 5: red or the days at the case with the clear
Speaker 5: declared mins trial.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think it was that day first, Yes, go.
Speaker 5: Ahead, Okay, what's coming up for a nice long weekend
Speaker 5: for everybody?
Speaker 2: Fourth of July?
Speaker 5: Yeah, I guess it was the July and everybody just
Speaker 5: wanted to get out of the courthouse.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 5: My theory well, they didn't consider everything.
Speaker 2: Well, it's tough to get into the mind of the
Speaker 2: jury in many times when you approach a weekend like
Speaker 2: the fourth of July, if it's eleven to one or
Speaker 2: ten to two in the jury room, juries have been
Speaker 2: known to all of a sudden see the wisdom of
Speaker 2: reaching a verdict in advance of the holiday, which I
Speaker 2: think is what you're saying, but.
Speaker 5: In effect, but it affected everybody in the courtroom moving
Speaker 5: anxious begin a long weekend.
Speaker 4: Including a judge.
Speaker 5: Everybody has their families and want to get going With's
Speaker 5: a weekend, great, great weekend.
Speaker 2: Yeah. The question here is she's still facing one charge,
Speaker 2: so there's no doubt there'll be a second trial U
Speaker 2: And the prosecution has brought in an experienced criminal defense lawyer,
Speaker 2: a guy named Hank Brennan, who's really veryccomplished defense lawyer,
Speaker 2: to be a special prosecutor in the case, which is
Speaker 2: an interesting move by the district attorney down in Norfolk County.
Speaker 2: My sense is that the court should provide some guidance.
Speaker 2: At a minimum, there should be guidance to judges to say, look,
Speaker 2: in these situations, you have to before you dismiss a
Speaker 2: jury at least inquire briefly on a multi multi count case,
Speaker 2: is there have you reached a conclusion on any of
Speaker 2: the counts or are you hopelessly at an impasse on
Speaker 2: all in this case, all three counts, And I think
Speaker 2: that go ahead.
Speaker 5: I'm sorry, I do agree with you that I do
Speaker 5: agree with you that this should be an example and
Speaker 5: from here forward that should be the protocol.
Speaker 2: But by the way, the court a lot of these cases,
Speaker 2: if you go back to the Miranda case, when Miranda
Speaker 2: did not get the proper warnings and evidence of comments
Speaker 2: that he had made was excluded, and police learned from
Speaker 2: that case to be obligated to require warnings given to
Speaker 2: prisoners once they're under arrest, that they have a right
Speaker 2: to remain silent. Anything that they say can and will
Speaker 2: be used against them. Do they want to contact a
Speaker 2: lawyer once they get the warning? If the guy says, hey,
Speaker 2: look I did it. I was really upset. I'm sorry,
Speaker 2: but I did it, that then can be brought into evidence.
Speaker 2: But they got to give them the warning first. Same
Speaker 2: way here, do you instruct judges in future cases to
Speaker 2: do it that way without providing some consideration to this
Speaker 2: defendant and force her to face trial in all three charges.
Speaker 2: That's where I think that the judgment by the court
Speaker 2: gets really dicey at this point, because if they come
Speaker 2: back and they say, no, we're going to deny the motion,
Speaker 2: We're going to support what the judge did. I think
Speaker 2: a lot of people are going to say, well, why
Speaker 2: would they not at least issue an instruction going forward
Speaker 2: that this should be part of the normal practice that
Speaker 2: any judge would engage in, particularly in a trial like this.
Speaker 2: This is not a quick two day trial where you know,
Speaker 2: there's not a lot of expense involved, so we'll see. Hey, Bill,
Speaker 2: I really appreciate the fact that you take a time
Speaker 2: to call in. Always good. You're a veteran listener. Now
Speaker 2: you're a veteran caller, so I look forward to your second.
Speaker 5: Call coming up terrific. I'm more compward to play singer
Speaker 5: the well good job Dan, thank you, great job too.
Speaker 2: Takes It takes takes some coverage to pick that phone up,
Speaker 2: folks for the first time, But believe me, I'm not
Speaker 2: going to bite your hat off. I really enjoy talking
Speaker 2: to different people and getting different perspectives and enlarging the
Speaker 2: pool of callers as well as of course in enlarging
Speaker 2: the pool of listeners. Now we will continue. There's only
Speaker 2: one well, that line just filled up. The only lines
Speaker 2: that are open right now, six one seven, two lines there,
Speaker 2: six one seven. Let me know what you think, Okay,
Speaker 2: I think it's I think it's a very close call.
Speaker 6: Uh.
Speaker 2: And we have what's considered to be a fairly forward
Speaker 2: looking Supreme Court, you might call it a progressive Supreme
Speaker 2: Court in the good sense, uh, and that this might
Speaker 2: be an opportunity for them to uh make justice a
Speaker 2: little swifter and a little fairer here in Massachusetts. We'll
Speaker 2: be back on nightside right after the break. At the
Speaker 2: bottom of the hour, here comes the news.
Speaker 1: It's night Side with Boston's news Radio.
Speaker 2: All right, let's get back to the calls. We are
Speaker 2: going to go to I Marie in Bridgewater. In Marie
Speaker 2: in Bridgewater, You're next on nightside in Marie.
Speaker 7: Hey, Dan, how are you?
Speaker 2: I'm doing just great? Right, go right ahead.
Speaker 7: I have first to comment. I guess I'm not one
Speaker 7: hundred per convinced she had savvy lawyers that they didn't
Speaker 7: know what they were doing when they chose not to
Speaker 7: pull the jury. But setting that aside, I'm wondering what
Speaker 7: you think under your scenario of you know, pulling the jury.
Speaker 7: What if they had come up that they were guilty
Speaker 7: on two counts, do you think she would have been
Speaker 7: ready to deal with that or do you think she
Speaker 7: would have wanted another bite at the apple on all
Speaker 7: three charges?
Speaker 2: Well, I think I agree with you in a large part.
Speaker 2: Let me tell you why I agree. First of all,
Speaker 2: the lawyers are thinking to themselves, Okay, we got a
Speaker 2: hung jury on all three counts, and we're not going
Speaker 2: to stand up and complicate things here. And they didn't.
Speaker 2: The defense lawyers didn't. That was the tactical decision they
Speaker 2: had to make. Most defense lawyers would tell you in
Speaker 2: a case like that, hey, we've gone through the prosecution
Speaker 2: has taken the best shot they can at our client,
Speaker 2: and we have defended her. And now we know what
Speaker 2: they're coming at, what evidence they have, The defense will
Speaker 2: have an advantage on a second turn. However, however, the
Speaker 2: prosecution didn't say, your hona, could you inquire of the
Speaker 2: jury chairperson? If this impasse is on all counts, all
Speaker 2: three counts are on just one or more of the counts,
Speaker 2: neither one of them ask for that and the judge
Speaker 2: did not inquire. What would have happened if the judge
Speaker 2: on her own said, are you telling me that you
Speaker 2: have you're at an impasse on all three counts?
Speaker 5: Right?
Speaker 7: I think both parties would have had to have agreed
Speaker 7: and then have to agree to accept whichever way it went.
Speaker 7: So that's why I don't believe. I don't believe if
Speaker 7: I would respect he was going to be guilty on
Speaker 7: the first two, if she's going to be okay, I'll
Speaker 7: accept that guilt, and then she's going to want another
Speaker 7: bite at the apple and all three. You just can't
Speaker 7: have it both ways.
Speaker 2: So no, that's fine. I'm just saying with you, either
Speaker 2: the prosecution or the defense lawyers would have asked the
Speaker 2: judge to make further inquiry, however.
Speaker 7: Right, and the tactically didn't. But you can't say you
Speaker 7: think you heard something from somebody.
Speaker 4: Ye.
Speaker 2: Let me finish my point if I could. There's nothing
Speaker 2: in the in the practice that would prevent a judge
Speaker 2: from saying to the jury, four person, is it your position,
Speaker 2: mister four person happened to be a guy here that
Speaker 2: your your jury is deadlocked on all three counts? Or
Speaker 2: have has the jury come to an agreement on one
Speaker 2: or more of the counts. So that is what the
Speaker 2: judge could have asked. That's and so the question is
Speaker 2: that maybe the State Supreme Court will instruct superior court
Speaker 2: judges going forward. I mean we're talking about, you know,
Speaker 2: fairness to the defendant if you put yourself in her position. Uh,
Speaker 2: she's not a lawyer, she's she obviously has defense lawyers
Speaker 2: with her. It's a question of will the will the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court say to judges look going forward on a
Speaker 2: multi count indictment, if they come back and say they're hung,
Speaker 2: you got to make sure they hung on all three
Speaker 2: because a partial verdict is is very.
Speaker 7: Acceptable, right, So what if it's partially guilt. That's what
Speaker 7: you'd have to have parties agree. They would have to
Speaker 7: agree that we're going to accept it no matter what. Yep,
Speaker 7: they have a no no no, no, no, no, no no,
Speaker 7: because no.
Speaker 2: The question that the judge should ask is a is
Speaker 2: what I would consider to be a threshold question. If
Speaker 2: she asked and said, yes, we have no, your honor,
Speaker 2: we are where we are stuck on one of the counts,
Speaker 2: on two of the counts, we do have agreement. The
Speaker 2: judge at that point is going to say, go back
Speaker 2: to the jury room, fill out the jury the verdict
Speaker 2: slipped on the counts upon which you agree, and come
Speaker 2: back here and give us the verdicts the verdict slip.
Speaker 2: She is not going to at that point say to
Speaker 2: the lawyer, to the prosecutor and the defense lawyers, well,
Speaker 2: as you can see, they have two verdicts here, what
Speaker 2: do you want me to do? I mean, that's that's
Speaker 2: It's not a game show where you're saying do you
Speaker 2: want door number one or door knob?
Speaker 4: Oh.
Speaker 7: I understand that, but I don't think people would want
Speaker 7: to go for that with the risk of it being
Speaker 7: a guilt is a question.
Speaker 2: No, it would. They would never have the option. The
Speaker 2: question would be they could have asked the judge, you're
Speaker 2: on it. Could you ask the jury if they're if
Speaker 2: they are guilt, if they are at an impass on offering.
Speaker 2: They could have asked the judge to do it. The
Speaker 2: judge then might have said I don't want to do it,
Speaker 2: or she might have said, okay, I will ask. But
Speaker 2: even though neither one of them asked the judge, the
Speaker 2: judges runs the court room. She could have turned to
Speaker 2: the to the jury for person and said what I
Speaker 2: just said, have you reached the verdict on any of
Speaker 2: the counts? Oh? Yes, on and we do have a
Speaker 2: verdict on two outs. We've reached the agreement on twoke outs.
Speaker 2: At that point she's going to say, well, please go
Speaker 2: back to the jury room, fill out those verdict slips
Speaker 2: and bring them back to me. There's also this was
Speaker 2: a long trial.
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 2: It tied up courtrooms for three for a courtroom for
Speaker 2: three months. We'll see what the is.
Speaker 7: I just don't know how you get around if that
Speaker 7: had been guilt now she's potentially.
Speaker 2: Doesn't matter if they reached it.
Speaker 7: Now you are on those two counts. I don't think
Speaker 7: people are going to want to go for that.
Speaker 2: Fair enough, Okay, I've tried to you know, appreciate I
Speaker 2: appreciate the opportunity to uh that you would call. Thank
Speaker 2: you very much, Ann, Marie, thank you so much. Take
Speaker 2: a break coming back here on Nightside. Thanks. If you'd
Speaker 2: like to jump on board, feel free. I've tried to
Speaker 2: explain my position as best I can. I hope, I
Speaker 2: hope you understand it. We'll be back on Nightside after this.
Speaker 1: Now back to Dan Ray Mine from the Window World
Speaker 1: Nightside Studios on WBZ News Radio.
Speaker 2: Okay, let's keep rolling. They're going to go to Paul
Speaker 2: and Need and Paul, I'm going to sit back and
Speaker 2: listen to what you have to say, because I think
Speaker 2: I've made my position pretty clear.
Speaker 4: Go right ahead, Paul, Yes, good evening. Again. I've talked
Speaker 4: to some police officers and some lawyers, and they tell
Speaker 4: me that a lot of superior court judges do pull
Speaker 4: the jury when there's multiple charges. So some of the
Speaker 4: previous callers in conversation seems to think that this is
Speaker 4: standard practice that they don't pull the jury, but a
Speaker 4: lot of from what I'm told, a lot of well
Speaker 4: what they do.
Speaker 2: Yeah, let me just let me clarify that they do
Speaker 2: pull the jury sometimes when a verdict has been rendered,
Speaker 2: particularly if it's a guilty verdict. You'll see that in
Speaker 2: high profile guilty cases where the defense lawyers will that
Speaker 2: the jury be pulled to make sure that all twelve
Speaker 2: of the defense lawyers, all twelve of the jurors are asked,
Speaker 2: is your is you're a number ten? Is your verdict
Speaker 2: guilty or not guilty? Guilty? And they they want to
Speaker 2: make sure that there's no doubt and there's no equivocation,
Speaker 2: but they do not pull the jury. Uh when when
Speaker 2: the jury is in a hung position, where they're at
Speaker 2: an impasse, they would not do that. And she she assumed,
Speaker 2: I guess this judge assumed that these these jurors were
Speaker 2: at an impass on all three counts, not.
Speaker 4: Just it's a pretty bad assumption.
Speaker 2: Well, I think I can judge, in all due respect,
Speaker 2: if if her decision not to inquire any further, what
Speaker 2: harm would have been done if she said, so, mister
Speaker 2: fourth person, you were telling me that, uh, there's you're
Speaker 2: the jurors are hung, are hung on all three counts?
Speaker 2: Is that what I'm to understand?
Speaker 5: And if he said up to me, simple question, that
Speaker 5: sounds to me like it's the common sense thing to do.
Speaker 2: Well, And that is I think the strongest argument that
Speaker 2: they have, and maybe the court will say this is
Speaker 2: this has to be the practice. The court will set
Speaker 2: the precedent. Phil Tracy said there's no such precedent, and
Speaker 2: he's right, But there was no such precedent for the
Speaker 2: miranda warning either. At some point. For a lot of times,
Speaker 2: when when when courts, supreme courts and state supreme courts,
Speaker 2: UH issue a ruling that that sets a new standard
Speaker 2: of practice. So that's what we're talking about.
Speaker 6: Paul.
Speaker 4: Let me just say one other thing. I read where
Speaker 4: her legal bills are in excess of five million dollars
Speaker 4: miss reads outstanding. Yeah, five million dollars in outstanding legal bills.
Speaker 2: So yeah, but again that is going to be irrelevant
Speaker 2: to what the Supreme Court decides here, and they're not
Speaker 2: going to say, well, because she's got big legel bills,
Speaker 2: as she hired high powered lawyers, were going to treat
Speaker 2: her more favorably. This should be a standard of practice
Speaker 2: I think that the judges should use to basically maximize
Speaker 2: the time of the court. You have courtrooms, and you
Speaker 2: have judges, and you have so many cases, and you
Speaker 2: try generally on many cases to try to get to
Speaker 2: a plea agreement, so you avoid tying up court rooms.
Speaker 2: But this is going to this is going to be
Speaker 2: another long trial, particularly if it's three counts. Thanks Paul,
Speaker 2: appreciate the call. Thank you so much. All right, good night.
Speaker 2: Let me go to Sue and Milford. Sue you went
Speaker 2: next on night side. I want to get two more
Speaker 2: in SUGA.
Speaker 8: Right ahead, I Dan, So I'm shocked in a pall
Speaker 8: that we are where we are with this, Why was
Speaker 8: the jury not given explicit instruction on how to deliver
Speaker 8: deliberate Yeah, I just I don't understand it. Like this
Speaker 8: is not the first case in the world that's had
Speaker 8: multiple charges, I presume, and not the first case that
Speaker 8: has had a hung jury. And I don't know. I'm
Speaker 8: just I cannot wrap.
Speaker 2: I don't know if. I don't know if in the
Speaker 2: charge of the jury in a situation like this. Frankly,
Speaker 2: I've been in court rooms where there were multiple indictments, uh,
Speaker 2: And I don't know that when the jury is charged
Speaker 2: that the judge would say, now, look, if you agree
Speaker 2: upon one or more of the indictments, feel free to
Speaker 2: bring back a split verdict. I don't know that that's
Speaker 2: ever addressed. And if it had been addressed in this case,
Speaker 2: I suspect that that would have been brought up by
Speaker 2: the prosecution as they as they attempt to defend themselves,
Speaker 2: they would have said, this jury was given an explicit
Speaker 2: instruction which they chose not to follow. So I think
Speaker 2: that's right. But I wasn't in the court for the
Speaker 2: instructions and right right if there were such an instructions
Speaker 2: like that given before the jury started to deliberate, that
Speaker 2: would be that would suggest that that that the judge
Speaker 2: did her job perfectly. But if those instructions were not given,
Speaker 2: or if they weren't given, and when the jury came
Speaker 2: back and said we're hung, she didn't ask the simple question,
Speaker 2: are you telling the court that you were at an
Speaker 2: impasse on all three counts or have you reached some
Speaker 2: partial verdict?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 8: And also too, then why do we know that they
Speaker 8: did reach a verdict on two of the country.
Speaker 2: Were members, there were members of the jury. There were
Speaker 2: members of the jury who presented themselves.
Speaker 8: And it's rhetorical, it's almost rhetorical. And I know that
Speaker 8: that happened. But normal, under normal circumstances, we wouldn't have
Speaker 8: known that, right, I mean unless.
Speaker 2: The Yeah, it's a high profile case though, and obviously
Speaker 2: there were some jurors. I guess there was a number
Speaker 2: of number of five jurors who have gone to some
Speaker 2: combination on the defense lawyer and the prosecutors got to
Speaker 2: get two more in so I share your progress, perplexity.
Speaker 2: Thank you, goodnight. Let me go to Betty on the boat. Betty,
Speaker 2: did I see you on TV tonight being interviewed by
Speaker 2: one of the local television stations.
Speaker 9: You did, and I'm just being escorted.
Speaker 2: You've had quite a cat, had quite a day, Betty.
Speaker 2: What do you think the court should do here?
Speaker 8: Uh?
Speaker 9: I think that I'm not a fan of the judicial system.
Speaker 9: I've seen too many inequities. I think I saw a
Speaker 9: critter that I think that the jury should have been pulled.
Speaker 2: Well, they wouldn't be pulled if they only are polled
Speaker 2: once a verdict is rendered, and then, as I explained
Speaker 2: to one of the other callers, they pulled to recommit
Speaker 2: the firm that they've all come to the unanimous decision.
Speaker 2: The question is whether or not the judge should have
Speaker 2: said to them when when when the fourth person came
Speaker 2: back and said, we're hung on, we're at an impasse,
Speaker 2: the judge king should have asked and said, are you
Speaker 2: at an impass on all counts? And if the if
Speaker 2: the four person said yes, we're in an impass on
Speaker 2: all three counts, then then it's over. But if the
Speaker 2: if the fourth person said, well, we're on and we
Speaker 2: have got agreement on a couple of accounts, but we're
Speaker 2: at an impass on one count, then she could have
Speaker 2: taken she could have allowed for a partial verdict.
Speaker 9: Correct.
Speaker 2: One more. I want to sneak in here, Betty. You
Speaker 2: sound like you're you're working on the boat here.
Speaker 9: No, you know, with the doc failure, I have to
Speaker 9: get the cat. I have to get her to get
Speaker 9: her out of here.
Speaker 2: Well, you go ahead and take care of the cat. Okay,
Speaker 2: and we'll talk again.
Speaker 8: Thanks, Betty, Bye bye bye.
Speaker 2: Let me get filling boss to feel I can give
Speaker 2: you about a minute here, go ahead.
Speaker 6: When in the jury, originally when the jury was to
Speaker 6: put the panel or whatever take him back on the sheet,
Speaker 6: there was no there was no not guilty on the sheet,
Speaker 6: and they got the defense lawyer said when there's no
Speaker 6: choice here for something not guilty, and and the judge
Speaker 6: apparently said, no, that's all we do things in Massachusetts.
Speaker 6: And then eventually it was flipped around whether the bell
Speaker 6: was changed where it was guilty or not guilty. But
Speaker 6: the point I'm going to confused situations, I'm guessing.
Speaker 2: We couldn't know there was there was that, there was
Speaker 2: that element of confusion. I was not in court yesterday
Speaker 2: whether or not that was disgust in front of the
Speaker 2: inter State Supreme Court, Phil, you called in late, and
Speaker 2: I'm running out of time, so I gotta let you go.
Speaker 2: But you raised, you raised the point that was an
Speaker 2: important one. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. We
Speaker 2: came back on to talk about Joe Biden's statement at
Speaker 2: the White House, which I thought was very respectful. And
Speaker 2: maybe we are going to somehow pull this off and
Speaker 2: have a smooth transition of power on January twentieth. Wouldn't
Speaker 2: that be nice. We'll be back, we'll talk about it
Speaker 2: in the ten o'clock hour.