Speaker 1: It's with Dan Ray.
Speaker 2: I'm telling you easy Boston Radio.
Speaker 3: All Right, so we're talking about the Karen Reid trial.
Speaker 3: The second trial now scheduled for April first. It looks
Speaker 3: as if it will proceed on schedule. We'll have to
Speaker 3: see what happens in the next two months. But today
Speaker 3: the Massachusetts State Supreme Court unanimously decided to reject her appeal,
Speaker 3: particularly as it relates to double jeopardy, saying that the
Speaker 3: judge was not required to do anything more than she
Speaker 3: than she did. Judge Beverly Canoni, and she will be
Speaker 3: the presiding judge beginning on April first, and will be
Speaker 3: very similar to a year ago. It will probably start
Speaker 3: in April and wind its way through May and maybe
Speaker 3: get to the jury sometime in June. So it's sort
Speaker 3: of like just the calendar is going to be taken
Speaker 3: back a year. And the question is was the court
Speaker 3: correct in their decisions today? In my opinion, there was
Speaker 3: an opportunity for them to at least leave an instruction
Speaker 3: for future trials in Massachusetts when a jury comes back,
Speaker 3: and the way it goes is the jury sends a
Speaker 3: note to the judge and there's not a lot of
Speaker 3: conversation generally between the jury four person and the judge.
Speaker 3: Sometimes there's absolutely no conversation.
Speaker 4: I was not in.
Speaker 3: Court when these notes were passed back three times. According
Speaker 3: to the the State's High Court, the state Supreme Court,
Speaker 3: the judge did what only what she was obligated to do,
Speaker 3: didn't have any further obligation. I think that the judge,
Speaker 3: you know, in the interest of judicial economy, should have
Speaker 3: said to the four person, are you telling the court
Speaker 3: that you are deadlocked on all three counts? Count one,
Speaker 3: count two, and count three?
Speaker 4: Yes? Or no?
Speaker 3: That's all? And if they said yes, we're deadlocked on
Speaker 3: all three counts at that point, as long as no
Speaker 3: jurors said whoa, wait a second, hold it, wait a second,
Speaker 3: that would have been the end of it. If if,
Speaker 3: on the other hand, the fourth person said, we're deadlocked
Speaker 3: on one count, your honor, the judge then could have
Speaker 3: easily said, have you reached a verdict?
Speaker 4: Have you reached.
Speaker 3: Consensus in the jury room if the guys, if the
Speaker 3: four person said, yes, your honor, we have reached consensus
Speaker 3: on two of the three counts, the judge then could
Speaker 3: have said, well, there's nothing wrong with the partial verdict.
Speaker 3: Please go back to the jury room, and if you
Speaker 3: remain in consensus, feel free to fill out the verdict
Speaker 3: slipt on whatever verdicts you have reached, and I will
Speaker 3: take those verdicts and we will declare a mistrial on
Speaker 3: the verdicts that you have not reached consents.
Speaker 4: It's as simple as that.
Speaker 3: But the quote chose not to give that guidance or
Speaker 3: that instruction, although from a practical point of view, I
Speaker 3: think any judge going forward would be swat to follow
Speaker 3: that that advice. Let me go to the call is
Speaker 3: going to go to Fred and Needham. Fred, you were
Speaker 3: next on nights. I appreciate you holding through the news.
Speaker 3: Go right ahead, Fred, I am.
Speaker 5: I agree with you and a couple of the previous calls.
Speaker 5: I feel really sorry for this women. The state and
Speaker 5: the judge are doing a lousy job. But from my experience,
Speaker 5: personal experience many years ago, the minor situation and this
Speaker 5: is like we're talking maybe thirty years ago at least.
Speaker 5: But you know, if there's a second trial, and whether
Speaker 5: it's defense or prosecution, second time around, they do a
Speaker 5: lot of bitage job and they usually they make out
Speaker 5: my bandit's getting their ways. So I think she's in trouble.
Speaker 5: I think the state is going to do a lot
Speaker 5: better job in in spite of everything that's going on.
Speaker 5: So that's my opinion. I think she's in big trouble
Speaker 5: because they're out together, and second time around, they're going
Speaker 5: to be a lot smarter than they were the first time.
Speaker 3: Well, I think they have a very experienced lawyer in
Speaker 3: Hank Brennan. I don't know Attorney Brennan very well, but
Speaker 3: I know enough of his reputation to know that he
Speaker 3: will come very well prepared. I think that he will
Speaker 3: probably be interact with the jury more effectively than the
Speaker 3: assistant district attorney who handled the case the first time.
Speaker 3: But at the same time, the defense now normally in
Speaker 3: a situation like this, knows where the prosecution's going. They're
Speaker 3: a little bit more familiar with the evidence. Maybe they
Speaker 3: can find they can poke holes in the evidence more effectively.
Speaker 3: I mean, it's it's a chess game. It's a chess match,
Speaker 3: even though it deals with the wives and in this case,
Speaker 3: the death of a human being and the future life
Speaker 3: of Karen Reid. It sounds to me like you think
Speaker 3: that they're going to be able to get a prosecution
Speaker 3: to get a successful prosecution the second time around, is
Speaker 3: what I'm hearing you say.
Speaker 5: Between the lines, right, because because they're going to be
Speaker 5: a lot smarter than the first time. But the other thing,
Speaker 5: where does Karen Reid these lawyers sound that she has.
Speaker 5: They sound intredibly expensive. Where does she get that kind
Speaker 5: of money to be able to afford lawyers of the
Speaker 5: scalab I'm glad she has them, but it's I.
Speaker 3: Think if I'm not mistaken, and someone might know better
Speaker 3: than me, but I believe that she has a GoFundMe
Speaker 3: page which has raised I think I've seen figures close
Speaker 3: to a half a million dollars or maybe more. Her
Speaker 3: legal expenses far exceed that. I assume the lawyers may
Speaker 3: be giving her a little bit of a break because
Speaker 3: the one thing that a lot of criminal defense lawyers
Speaker 3: enjoy is some notoriety in publicity because that will drive
Speaker 3: other clients to them, so they may be they may
Speaker 3: be in it. And and what happens sometimes is a
Speaker 3: lawyer really gets committed to the case and is willing
Speaker 3: to give the their client a little bit of a
Speaker 3: break on the on the costs, particularly when it gets
Speaker 3: up to these sort of figures.
Speaker 4: I mean, we were talking about.
Speaker 3: A minimum of a million dollar case and it probably
Speaker 3: is going to be close to two million dollars when
Speaker 3: you had in the second trial. So now that's some
Speaker 3: factors that play. And I don't know if she has
Speaker 3: family money or whatever, but but lawyers are you know,
Speaker 3: no lawyer is going to walk away from her at
Speaker 3: this point.
Speaker 4: She does not have to worry about that. In my opinion,
Speaker 4: it's good to know.
Speaker 5: And uh, thanks for then. The other thing though, it's, uh,
Speaker 5: you know, right from the beginning, Uh, I had dinner
Speaker 5: with friends around the time of this trial in Canton,
Speaker 5: and the neighborhood. Uh they you know, people who are
Speaker 5: a lot closer to what's going on in Canton were
Speaker 5: really suspicious of the whole thing. So I think the state,
Speaker 5: like you said, it's a chess game, unfortunately, and uh,
Speaker 5: it's more of a chess game and an out together
Speaker 5: situation by the prosecution. And uh, in a way, I'm ashamed.
Speaker 5: I'm ashamed of that that that our state is uh
Speaker 5: is behaving the way they are in this case. It's uh,
Speaker 5: they you know, they're capable of a lot, uh a
Speaker 5: lot better behavior than they're they're showing in this case,
Speaker 5: and that opportunity.
Speaker 3: Yeah, for the from the point of view of the prosecutor,
Speaker 3: if the prosecutor were sitting with you and me tonight,
Speaker 3: that prosecutor would say, look, an individual unnecessarily lost their
Speaker 3: life that night, and the state has an obligation to
Speaker 3: find out what happened and whether there was any criminal
Speaker 3: culpability involved in his death. Now, if it was a
Speaker 3: pure accident in which there were no you know, no
Speaker 3: factors which pushed it beyond simple accident, then it's an accident.
Speaker 3: But they need to they would argue that as a prosecutor,
Speaker 3: they they need to find out if there was any
Speaker 3: criminal intent, any criminal negligence, gross negligence involved here. That
Speaker 3: that because someone lost lost their life. I mean, the
Speaker 3: the O'Keefe family has lost a son and a father.
Speaker 3: So that's the balance the prosecutor has to has to
Speaker 3: take into consideration.
Speaker 5: I mean, just one last thing. I agree with you
Speaker 5: that if it just like you said, if it's an accident,
Speaker 5: I think after all this time, they should know. You know,
Speaker 5: I had respect for for our system in Massachusetts. If
Speaker 5: it was an accident, they should know. And I think
Speaker 5: I hate to say it. I think they're out to
Speaker 5: get this woman, even knowing it was an accident. I think.
Speaker 4: I think there are many people, There were many.
Speaker 3: There are many people on your side of the courtroom
Speaker 3: who's shared that point of view.
Speaker 4: Fred.
Speaker 3: Appreciate you taking the time and the corriage to call tonight.
Speaker 4: Talk to you soon.
Speaker 5: Oh, thank you, Dan, Okay, good night.
Speaker 3: All right, keep rolling here A six one seven four
Speaker 3: ten thirty. That's the only line that's opened right now.
Speaker 3: All the others are full six one seven two five
Speaker 3: four ten thirty. Back with more phone calls right after
Speaker 3: the break.
Speaker 1: Now back to Dan Way live from the Window World.
Speaker 2: Nice sights too, yours Don Basy News Radio.
Speaker 3: Most of the callers on this topic tonight have been men.
Speaker 3: So let's go to Diane and Peabody and see what
Speaker 3: she thinks. Diane, you were next on Nightside.
Speaker 4: Welcome.
Speaker 6: Hi, thank you so much for having me on the call,
Speaker 6: and thank you for covering this very, very heartbreaking case.
Speaker 6: I have been following this case really since day one.
Speaker 6: I remember when she was arrested and walked in with
Speaker 6: her face mask on and her hands cut behind her back,
Speaker 6: and something just didn't feel right to me right from
Speaker 6: day one, it didn't make sense to me how this woman,
Speaker 6: who was highly successful and by all accounts from everybody
Speaker 6: who knew her, just a really loving, caring, wonderful person,
Speaker 6: how all of a sudden she just lost her mind
Speaker 6: and either on purpose or accidentally killed her boyfriend.
Speaker 3: And then I think of the one of the arguments
Speaker 3: that was involved was there was a lot of drinking
Speaker 3: going on that night.
Speaker 6: Yes there was, And if you tuned into Ted Daniel's
Speaker 6: interview with her last night or Super Bowl evening, she
Speaker 6: admitted that there was a lot of drinking that happened
Speaker 6: in their relationship in general. When you think about it,
Speaker 6: he was a Boston police officer. It's kind of strange
Speaker 6: that he let her drive when she was that intoxicated.
Speaker 6: And what the prosecution is alleging is that she had
Speaker 6: nine Votga tonics. I don't know if you've ever seen
Speaker 6: Karen Reid, but I don't think she even tips the
Speaker 6: scales at ninety five pounds, and she has a multitude
Speaker 6: of health issues, so the likelihood of her being able
Speaker 6: to drink nine Votga tonics over a period of four
Speaker 6: to five hours is pretty absurd. That being said, you know,
Speaker 6: when you think about the prosecution's entire case, their theory
Speaker 6: is that they were out drinking, they were invited to
Speaker 6: an after party. They pulled up to the after party
Speaker 6: at some point Karen and John allegedly gotten a really
Speaker 6: heated argument. He got out of the car, and she
Speaker 6: deliberately or accidentally knowingly hit him with her vehicle and
Speaker 6: left him for dead. With that awareness of that, then
Speaker 6: she drove home to his house, where his niece and
Speaker 6: nephew were, and then called her mother and father to
Speaker 6: allegedly confess to doing this, and then decided to call
Speaker 6: John repeatedly and lead very hateful voicemails, and then decided
Speaker 6: to call two of his friends who are particularly Diane.
Speaker 3: I think we're Diane. I think we're familiar with a
Speaker 3: lot of that. And again, I'm you clearly believe that
Speaker 3: that something untoward has happened to to to Karen Reid.
Speaker 3: I understand that, and clearly you have a lot of
Speaker 3: more insight into her personality. You mentioned the fact that
Speaker 3: if if you're a Boston cop and you've been drinking, uh,
Speaker 3: you probably don't want to drive, and he might have
Speaker 3: been more than happy to have her drive in case
Speaker 3: you get pulled over and you're a Boston cop.
Speaker 4: That can cost you a job. So there's arguments on
Speaker 4: both sides, you know, and and it's going to get unfortunately.
Speaker 2: Well let me yeah, go ahead.
Speaker 4: I just you were making the case, you were making
Speaker 4: the closing eyes.
Speaker 6: That I didn't hear that you. Yeah, let me just
Speaker 6: hear say something that I don't think you touched on
Speaker 6: this evening. And a lot of callers did touch on
Speaker 6: a lot of great things. But before the jury went
Speaker 6: to deliberation, there was a serious issue and a serious
Speaker 6: concern about that jewelry ballot and it was raised by
Speaker 6: Attorney Jackson and and that was really and she got
Speaker 6: really angry.
Speaker 4: Yeah she did.
Speaker 6: We're absolutely allow.
Speaker 3: Me to at least confirm you're correct, okay, but I
Speaker 3: also want you to know it was alluded to last hour.
Speaker 3: So yeah, there was some confusion there, and there's some responsibility.
Speaker 3: Again when you're the judge, you're in charge, and you're
Speaker 3: in charge for all the right reasons as well as
Speaker 3: the wrong reasons. And uh, it's too bad that she
Speaker 3: did not inquire the judge did not inquire of the
Speaker 3: jury for person and make sure that they were indeed
Speaker 3: deadlocked on all three counts because maybe two of them
Speaker 3: could have been disposed of.
Speaker 5: Thank you much as great agreed.
Speaker 6: Actually a very bad for her, But she does have
Speaker 6: she does have a lot of donations coming her way.
Speaker 6: So she's up to almost a million dollars in donation
Speaker 6: from people not only in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, but
Speaker 6: actually all around the world and as far as Australia is.
Speaker 6: So that's where in part she's getting the money. Plus
Speaker 6: she sold her house. So thank you so much for
Speaker 6: covering this really important case.
Speaker 5: I appreciate it.
Speaker 3: Yep, we'll continue to us well, thanks for listening. Thank
Speaker 3: you much, Thank you, Diane. Let me go to John
Speaker 3: in Bridgewater. John, appreciate your patience here next one night,
Speaker 3: Zacher right.
Speaker 2: Ahead, Hi Dan, how are.
Speaker 4: You good, sir? What's your take on this?
Speaker 2: My take is that when Karen was at thirty four
Speaker 2: three of you with John, she dropped them off, allegedly
Speaker 2: right went back to his home. She woke up about
Speaker 2: five am, four and a half hours later after she
Speaker 2: allegedly hit him.
Speaker 1: Where is he?
Speaker 2: So, as you probably remember the footage of her backing
Speaker 2: out of his garage and tapping his traverse with her
Speaker 2: right tail light.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I've seen footage.
Speaker 3: Again, I don't want to proclaim myself to be an
Speaker 3: expert here. I think there was some disagreement as to
Speaker 3: whether or not contact was made at that point.
Speaker 4: But I know the footage you're referring to.
Speaker 2: Okay, she proceeds forward down John's driveway to go look
Speaker 2: for him. If you freeze frame that, you will see
Speaker 2: both rear tail lights are completely intact. Okay, they both
Speaker 2: match perfectly. There was no piece missing from that right
Speaker 2: tail light, let alone finding forty seven pieces on thirty four.
Speaker 2: Fear of you, days and days later, this case. If
Speaker 2: they show that footage alone, this case is over. Her
Speaker 2: tail light was not damaged.
Speaker 4: Was that?
Speaker 3: I'm asking you now an honest question. I'm not trying
Speaker 3: to trick you. I'm asking you honest question that evidence
Speaker 3: presented to the jury.
Speaker 2: I'm not aware. I don't know. I've been following the
Speaker 2: case closely, but I'm not sure.
Speaker 4: That's why.
Speaker 3: No, Well, that's why I asked you the question, because
Speaker 3: when you said to me, I remember seeing that that videotape,
Speaker 3: and I thought there was some question.
Speaker 4: Again, I followed it casually.
Speaker 3: I thought that there was some question about whether there
Speaker 3: ever was a contact made.
Speaker 2: And so well, then when the car went down supposedly
Speaker 2: I don't know where it was fall river or that
Speaker 2: officer Barrows was testifying said that he only saw the
Speaker 2: tail like cracked. There were no missing pieces, Dan none,
Speaker 2: So how did they come up with forty seven pieces?
Speaker 2: Days later? You could take that footage you can watch
Speaker 2: it on YouTube and when the cars driving down the
Speaker 2: driveway freeze.
Speaker 3: The kitchen, Yeah, no, I understand, fatail and of course,
Speaker 3: and of course what your what your what your argument
Speaker 3: is is that that was at around five thirty in
Speaker 3: the morning, some four hours or four and a half
Speaker 3: hours after the h the impact would have occurred and
Speaker 3: the tail light would have been broken.
Speaker 4: That's true.
Speaker 2: That's exactly she dropped them off approximately twelve thirty and
Speaker 2: then five or seven Yeah, yeah, after she allegedly hit them.
Speaker 2: It's still intact.
Speaker 3: But again, what I would question is was that was
Speaker 3: that presented the jury and presented effectively or has that
Speaker 3: uh that videotape come up after the trial if because
Speaker 3: if it was not available at trial, if it was
Speaker 3: available a trial and it wasn't presented the jury, you
Speaker 3: make a very compelling argument.
Speaker 4: It should have been.
Speaker 2: You know exactly, you know that. I don't know, Dan,
Speaker 2: but I mean it's a slam dunk once. Once you
Speaker 2: see that, you'll say no idea again.
Speaker 3: If you made the point, you made the point, you
Speaker 3: made it well two times, three times. I just you
Speaker 3: follow this case more closely than I did.
Speaker 4: That I did.
Speaker 3: And that's why I'm asking you if you knew, and
Speaker 3: you're telling me you don't.
Speaker 4: So I'll accept that.
Speaker 3: Why the defense did not get that if that video
Speaker 3: was available, why the defense didn't make a big deal
Speaker 3: out of that and get it into evidence.
Speaker 4: That's that's a big.
Speaker 5: Question on me, I know.
Speaker 2: And if it came from John's home, came from his camera.
Speaker 3: Yeah, okay, you know, all right, fair enough. Thanks thank you, John,
Speaker 3: John from Bridgewater. See if other people react to what
Speaker 3: you have to.
Speaker 4: Say, Thanks you, thank you, thank you.
Speaker 3: All right, good night. Coming back on Night's side. After
Speaker 3: the break here at ten thirty we got the news
Speaker 3: six two, five, four, ten thirty one line there two
Speaker 3: lines at six one, seven, nine thirty. We will get
Speaker 3: to the other topic of the night, and that is
Speaker 3: what is going on with the US Agency for International
Speaker 3: Development That has of course become a big point of
Speaker 3: concern between the Trump administration and now judges and Democrats.
Speaker 3: We're going to get to that. There's an interesting article
Speaker 3: in the Washington Post today that I'd like to bring
Speaker 3: to your attention. But I'm more than willing to talk
Speaker 3: about this at least until eleven o'clock.
Speaker 4: But if you want to.
Speaker 3: Join the conversation, do it now, because if not, we'll
Speaker 3: be wrapping this up on the other side after a
Speaker 3: couple of callers six one, seven, nine, three one ten
Speaker 3: thirty or six one, seven, two five four to ten thirty.
Speaker 3: Back on night Side.
Speaker 1: It's Night Side with Dan Ray on WBS Boston's news radio.
Speaker 4: Back to the phones we go. Let me go to
Speaker 4: Mark in Austin. Mark, welcome back. How are you tonight, sir?
Speaker 7: Hi Dan, good evening, and thanks for taking my call.
Speaker 7: Maybe I have a special perspective on this case because
Speaker 7: I am a survivor. I don't cry myself. I generally
Speaker 7: avoid watching must crime.
Speaker 3: Yeah you know, Mark, hold on for a second. You
Speaker 3: have a bad connection here, so I want Rob to c.
Speaker 4: Connection.
Speaker 7: Okay, other electronic device in my apartment is turned safely off.
Speaker 7: That's weird.
Speaker 3: Okay, Well hold on, Rob will clean you up. We're
Speaker 3: gonna get you maybe get closer to a window, don't
Speaker 3: hang up. We'll get you on and then back at
Speaker 3: in a minute.
Speaker 4: Rob.
Speaker 3: Please take care of Mark. Let's in the meantime go
Speaker 3: to in Florida. Matt, you were next on Nightside. I'm
Speaker 3: sure your connection in Florida is going to be cleaner
Speaker 3: than Mark's and Alston.
Speaker 5: I hope.
Speaker 4: So you know.
Speaker 8: I know you're a lawyer. I'm in the lead. I
Speaker 8: used to be in the legal field. I have respect
Speaker 8: for the legal system, but it doesn't want it anymore.
Speaker 8: You got the guy you called two times ago. He
Speaker 8: made a really good point about that evidence clear as
Speaker 8: as day. Okay, wait, no one's in charge of what's
Speaker 8: going on with this stuff. The second that is discovered,
Speaker 8: along with the evidence that his app that the dead
Speaker 8: guy's Apple Watch was moving around after he was dead,
Speaker 8: that evidence right there, Someone, someone, an adult in society,
Speaker 8: needs to stand up and say no, there's clear evidence.
Speaker 8: This is not what is going on here, and it
Speaker 8: shouldn't be up to a new crop of nine idiots
Speaker 8: who could who who get put up on a journey
Speaker 8: to decide what's going on When the whole world realizes
Speaker 8: that this is a sham. And again, I'm not trying
Speaker 8: to like make a bigger point of this, but it's
Speaker 8: the same joke as why you know Trump can't bring
Speaker 8: in a national god in Chicago and raid everyone's house
Speaker 8: and get rid of all the guns. That is what
Speaker 8: needs to get done. And this ridiculous legal system we
Speaker 8: have in this country, it's a it's a fraud, Dan,
Speaker 8: It's a fraud. And it gets me really angry that
Speaker 8: we just keep going with this.
Speaker 3: Here's my well, Matt, hold say, I want to ask
Speaker 3: you a question because you make a lot of sense here.
Speaker 4: So the question is if.
Speaker 3: The evidence is that overwhelming and I didn't cover the
Speaker 3: story as a when I was a reporter, I was
Speaker 3: in the courtroom talking to lawyers, you know. I covered
Speaker 3: the stories pretty effectively, I think, and I took them
Speaker 3: very seriously. My question is, if this evidence is as
Speaker 3: overwhelming as you say it isn't it it very well?
Speaker 4: Maybe it's so much evident.
Speaker 3: Okay, hold on, hold on, she has some very good lawyers, Okay,
Speaker 3: Alan Jackson, Ynedni. They're very competent lawyers. How did they
Speaker 3: not drive these points home during the testimony? You know,
Speaker 3: and in the closing argument, so that the jury could
Speaker 3: have walked into the jury room and said, what, we've
Speaker 3: wasted our time for the evidence.
Speaker 8: I think they did, And I think it just goes
Speaker 8: to more of what I'm trying to say of like
Speaker 8: this whole system it doesn't work. You're you're a perfect example.
Speaker 8: You and your partner got an innocent guy who I'm
Speaker 8: sure you guys knew the whole time how much of
Speaker 8: a fraud that case was. But you guys probably you
Speaker 8: guys probably had like clear stay evidence. And there needs
Speaker 8: to be a mechanism in this country where it's like
Speaker 8: where where an adult in the room, and I know
Speaker 8: there isn't any but where someone can just go listen,
Speaker 8: look at this. That's ridiculous. Why we're doing this, Like
Speaker 8: you said, it goes to judicial economy and the money.
Speaker 8: So everyone knows that this whole world is gonna watch
Speaker 8: us on Netflix. Everyone even already knows what's going on.
Speaker 8: So we're gonna go through this again. It's like, it's
Speaker 8: like it's insane to me, and I, like I said,
Speaker 8: it dovetails with these other issues that will.
Speaker 3: Be Yeah, but here's here's the difference. Okay, in this case,
Speaker 3: you have a police officer who's dead, so that's you
Speaker 3: got to get to the truth of what happened. Now
Speaker 3: you're saying, Okay, the evidence is overwhelming. I look at
Speaker 3: the case and I don't know enough about the case.
Speaker 3: I know about the Salvadi Lamoni case, but we were
Speaker 3: fighting corrupt FBI agents and the legacy of corrupt FBI
Speaker 3: agents and also corrupt police officials who did not want
Speaker 3: as I the phrase I used was their scrapbook were rearranged.
Speaker 3: You know, they had gotten the convictions. That's all they
Speaker 3: cared about. This is in the nineteen sixties. It was
Speaker 3: like they didn't care whether these people were innocent or not,
Speaker 3: or if they were guilty or not.
Speaker 4: They were going to convict them because they were bad guys.
Speaker 3: And if they could get people on the witness and
Speaker 3: that the jury would believe who were who were?
Speaker 4: Who were?
Speaker 3: You know, criminals themselves. You couldn't have a better witness
Speaker 3: to convince the jury. Back in those days, the jury
Speaker 3: system was fooled, actively fooled by corrupt FBI agents in
Speaker 3: the nineteen sixties. In the Savada Lamona case, this situation
Speaker 3: is much more open. There are television cameras in courts,
Speaker 3: in this case in court, I think what you're really
Speaker 3: you're really condemning I think the jurors and saying, how
Speaker 3: could these juris sit there and see this evidence and
Speaker 3: not come to the obvious conclusion. That's what I think
Speaker 3: you're saying.
Speaker 8: I just I think I'm really just more the whole system.
Speaker 8: I just this happened so often. I just and like
Speaker 8: the whole point of this is just to get to
Speaker 8: the truth of it, right, Why all these laws, all
Speaker 8: these laws we have, they should say, listen, Carrie, it
Speaker 8: clearly didn't have anything to do with it, looking at
Speaker 8: this evidence. Why don't we Why don't we arrest these
Speaker 8: people from this house, make them, make them take light
Speaker 8: Attacktive has make them And like I know this, there's
Speaker 8: like these personal liberties and all this crap. But I
Speaker 8: mean it's.
Speaker 4: Called they it's called the constitution.
Speaker 8: Well, no, I don't. I think it needs I think
Speaker 8: we need a complete reworking in this country. And again
Speaker 8: I'm not trying to act like a lunatic here, but
Speaker 8: we we need like your Banillavit dictator in this country
Speaker 8: to come may.
Speaker 3: Have one at displaying you may have one good, Thank
Speaker 3: you Dan.
Speaker 8: Can I make what can I just make one more
Speaker 8: quick statement? I think it goes in regards to the
Speaker 8: next topic. But uh, none of this stuff Trump's doing
Speaker 8: with the aid and all this unless our taxes get lowered,
Speaker 8: none of it needs anything. So this guy could could
Speaker 8: clear up all the corruption. But as long as my
Speaker 8: tax rate is still thirty five percent on FEDS, it
Speaker 8: doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: None of it matters.
Speaker 8: So that's why I just want to say that, thank you.
Speaker 3: That's good, got it all in, Thank you man, appreciate it.
Speaker 3: Good night, six thirty one line there.
Speaker 4: Six.
Speaker 3: We don't want to short change Mark, but we will
Speaker 3: get him next. I'm gonna go to the break. Is
Speaker 3: Mark's line cleared up for us?
Speaker 4: Joe?
Speaker 3: Thanks Rob, Okay, we'll take a quick break. I got
Speaker 3: room for a couple more calls if you'd like, six, one, seven.
Speaker 3: We will wrap this at ten, I promise, and we
Speaker 3: will get to the whole question of usaid. And there's
Speaker 3: an interesting article on the Washington Post that is it's
Speaker 3: it you find it. I think you're going to find
Speaker 3: the next hour very interesting as well, And not that
Speaker 3: this has not been interesting, that's for sure. Feel free
Speaker 3: to join the conversation back on Nightside after this.
Speaker 1: Now back to Dan Ray Mine from the window World.
Speaker 3: Nights Side Studios on w b Z, the news Radio.
Speaker 4: Let's go to back to Mark and Austin.
Speaker 3: Mark, I want to see if you get a better connection,
Speaker 3: Gorett ahead.
Speaker 7: Oh thank you, Dan, and thanks for taking that call
Speaker 7: the season.
Speaker 8: I'll be sure it's.
Speaker 4: A much better it's a much better connection. It's worth it.
Speaker 4: Go right ahead.
Speaker 7: Oh, thank you. Maybe we were attacked by Graham Ones
Speaker 7: just the joke. Anyway, I'm informed very much by my
Speaker 7: very positive experience as a juror in a Maritaco Now
Speaker 7: Practice case back in two thousand and five presided over
Speaker 7: by the late great Judge Ralph Kance, and you know,
Speaker 7: generally speaking, jurors followed the Judge's instructions very carefully. We
Speaker 7: had a tape recording of Judge Kance's instructions, and we
Speaker 7: took only about eight hours to find for the defendant.
Speaker 7: The key instruction really was, we could consider this equipment
Speaker 7: maker's report to the FDA, but only if we believed
Speaker 7: that it had originated directly from somebody who was clearly
Speaker 7: in the operating room at the time.
Speaker 3: This is this is this telephone?
Speaker 4: Mark?
Speaker 2: Mark.
Speaker 3: This is a complicated case of which no one in
Speaker 3: my audience has any knowledge. So I would prefer you
Speaker 3: to apply your experience with what the court said today.
Speaker 3: Do you think that the judge at trial last July
Speaker 3: should have taken the additional step and said to the jurors,
Speaker 3: you tell me you're deadlocked? Are you deadlocked on all
Speaker 3: three counts? Or are you deadlocked on one or two
Speaker 3: of the counts? If she'd simply asked that question.
Speaker 4: And I agree with.
Speaker 7: That, the judge should have asked a direct question and
Speaker 7: gotten a direct answer. Because judge generally just hate just
Speaker 7: hate them. And almost always in any case in a courtroom,
Speaker 7: the judge or issues of very careful and thoughtful menu
Speaker 7: of options to the jury, like in this particular case,
Speaker 7: it would have been something like second degree murder versus
Speaker 7: first degree murder.
Speaker 4: Well, first agree murder.
Speaker 3: Mark wasn't on the table, Mark, Mark, first degree murder
Speaker 3: wasn't on wasn't on the table, It was a second agreement.
Speaker 7: Well, so justice would have been done with a second
Speaker 7: degree murder.
Speaker 3: Uh, not necessarily because because they because the jurors, Mark,
Speaker 3: if you're familiar with the case said that they had agreed,
Speaker 3: uh that she was not guilty of second degree murder,
Speaker 3: and they said that.
Speaker 4: Only on.
Speaker 7: I mean, so, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
Speaker 3: To I'm sorry to confuse the conversation with facts from
Speaker 3: the decision. But I've had the advantage.
Speaker 7: I'm sorry. I'm going with many facts that I know
Speaker 7: for sure. I mean, the charge was essentially.
Speaker 4: Very very familiar, very familiar with charge.
Speaker 3: More Mark, there are some people who are often mistaken
Speaker 3: but never endowed in. On this case, I think I'm
Speaker 3: gonna put you that category. She was charged with second
Speaker 3: degree murder. The jurors subsequent to the trial reported to
Speaker 3: both the prosecution I believe, and to the defense lawyers
Speaker 3: that they were unanimous to acquit her on second degree
Speaker 3: murder and to acquit her on leaving the scene of
Speaker 3: an accident. And that was the threat. That was the quest.
Speaker 7: I just don't understand it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, okay, I I that's the I agree with you
Speaker 3: that you you don't quite understand that, and a lot
Speaker 3: of other people don't as well.
Speaker 4: Mark.
Speaker 3: I appreciate you, Carl, thank you much, appreciate it. Much
Speaker 3: better connection this time.
Speaker 4: Let me go to Frank.
Speaker 3: Yeah, why don't you get Frank. Oh my god, I'll
Speaker 3: tell you what. If Frank's ready, great, If not, we're
Speaker 3: just gonna move. We're gonna move fun.
Speaker 1: I'm right here, Dan, can you hear me?
Speaker 4: Yeah, Frank, were you in a barroom or something?
Speaker 7: A what?
Speaker 1: No?
Speaker 4: No?
Speaker 1: Then I was yelling?
Speaker 4: Who was yelling at you? Frank?
Speaker 1: They've been yelling since I called you. You may recall
Speaker 1: on the day that this appeal was filed and you
Speaker 1: had the issue that that night was you were predicting
Speaker 1: that the court would rule in favor of the appeal.
Speaker 1: And I called and said, this is procedural nonsense. That
Speaker 1: was my exact words. And I said, if I was
Speaker 1: a judge, I would have just uh dismissed it at
Speaker 1: the time. And you told me that day, Okay, let's
Speaker 1: wait to see when the court issues the decision and
Speaker 1: call back and when the issue decision.
Speaker 4: So I remember the call, So take your victory. Laugh
Speaker 4: right ahead.
Speaker 1: No, but but I'm not well, it's it's very predictable.
Speaker 1: And because as sensational as it sounds, uh to the public,
Speaker 1: it is procedural nonsense. It was from the beginning. And
Speaker 1: and just like they're saying, we'll take it at federal court. Now,
Speaker 1: federal court will laugh them out. It's it's absolutely ridiculous.
Speaker 1: The premise of this.
Speaker 3: Well, I can tell you is that I respectfully disagree
Speaker 3: with you tonight. I I respectfully disagreed with you when
Speaker 3: we spoke about it last fall. Your prediction is accurate.
Speaker 3: Have you had a chance to read the decision today
Speaker 3: or no?
Speaker 1: Yes? And and the thing how many?
Speaker 4: How many pages?
Speaker 1: Thirty five? Thirty five pages?
Speaker 3: Goods so so the the justice is did not dismiss
Speaker 3: it as cavalierly as you might have. Obviously you look
Speaker 3: at it as balder dash. I think it's a serious question.
Speaker 3: Let me ask you this question. You tell me at
Speaker 3: the time you're a lawyer, correct, yes, yeah, Okay. Going forward,
Speaker 3: let us assume that at some point there's a similar case,
Speaker 3: a criminal case where there are multiple counts and the
Speaker 3: jury comes back and represents to the judge that they
Speaker 3: are deadlocked. Do you think that the judge in that case,
Speaker 3: hypothetical case going forward is likely to remember this case
Speaker 3: and inquire of the jurors if they are deadlocked on
Speaker 3: all of the counts or on just some of the counts.
Speaker 1: The judge made. But I will point out that the defense,
Speaker 1: even though they won't say it, they would have at
Speaker 1: the time, made a calculated decision. I'm not going to
Speaker 1: ask the I'm not going to ask, but but listen,
Speaker 1: here's no one's uh, no one's no, one's focusing on
Speaker 1: this man. The defense when the jury came back and
Speaker 1: said we are deadlocked, the defense was like, our whole
Speaker 1: defense was based on. This was a frame up which
Speaker 1: if the jury bought that, they would have been back
Speaker 1: with are not guilty? In two minutes. When they came
Speaker 1: back and said we are deadlocked, the defense said, okay,
Speaker 1: they blew that. So we're not going to ask for
Speaker 1: are you in agreement on any counts because the answer
Speaker 1: could be yes, we're we're in.
Speaker 3: The agreement and correct correct on that because obviously by
Speaker 3: their actions the actions, we know what they chose not
Speaker 3: to do. The point is that normally in a criminal
Speaker 3: case of this magnitude, and when the jury comes back
Speaker 3: truly deadlocked, and whether these guys were truly deadlocked on
Speaker 3: all three or just on one, it's moved.
Speaker 4: For the moment.
Speaker 3: The defense looks that as a victory because any good
Speaker 3: defense lawyer will tell you that now we have a
Speaker 3: chance to get a second bite at the apple. And
Speaker 3: we know the prosecution strategy, we know the weaknesses of
Speaker 3: their case, we know the strengths of their case. That
Speaker 3: the defense generally in a case like this, has an
Speaker 3: advantage post deadlock. Would you agree with me on that?
Speaker 1: I would because I'm a criminal defense and usually a
Speaker 1: mistrial is a victory. But in the case where your
Speaker 1: defense is that it's a frame up, and then the
Speaker 1: jury comes back and says no. And if you look
Speaker 1: at what the jurors said, and I believe that those
Speaker 1: jurors when they came after the fact and said this
Speaker 1: is what we were hung up on, I believe that
Speaker 1: was true. They said we would ten to two guilty
Speaker 1: of manslaughter.
Speaker 4: So they nine. Let me correct your counselor.
Speaker 3: In the decision today, the s JC reported that the jurors,
Speaker 3: one juror reportedly said that they were nine to three.
Speaker 3: Uh two.
Speaker 1: Yeah. But if you but if you look at one
Speaker 1: at one of the jurors had questions that were very
Speaker 1: intelligent and very technical, which which if you look at
Speaker 1: it meant that that juror was convinced that she hit him.
Speaker 1: So that was that was they.
Speaker 3: None of that None of that was in the the
Speaker 3: decision that I read today.
Speaker 1: I don't know what this is, no, but it was,
Speaker 1: but it was if you look at what the jurors,
Speaker 1: jurists said so anyway, so whether it's nine to three,
Speaker 1: are ten to two with they you had a very
Speaker 1: intelligent jury who heard all of the evidence. So all
Speaker 1: of this stuff that calls a calling this, what about that?
Speaker 1: What about the dogs?
Speaker 3: Let's see, let's see, let's say we're gonna she's gonna
Speaker 3: probably go to go.
Speaker 4: To the retrial starts on April first, and let's continue
Speaker 4: the issue. The issue was.
Speaker 1: The issue was not did she hit The issue for
Speaker 1: that jury was no, it wasn't murder, but she hit him.
Speaker 1: It was from that from the beginning they overcharged her.
Speaker 1: That was the fault of the uh the prosecutions.
Speaker 3: That you know, if you're if you're a criminal defense attorney,
Speaker 3: if you're a criminal defense attorney and I suspect you are,
Speaker 3: you know that often prosecutors will overcharge in hopes of saying, well,
Speaker 3: we might we might not hook her on on on
Speaker 3: murder too, but that's going to make it easier for
Speaker 3: the jury to.
Speaker 4: Come back with a compromise. And hook her on involuntary manslaughter.
Speaker 4: That's what they were probably shooting for.
Speaker 1: And that and that jury was very intelligent and they
Speaker 1: said it wasn't murder, but they were equally intelligent saying, well,
Speaker 1: they rejected, they rejected that if you look at.
Speaker 3: Okay, all right, Frank, Frank, we have gone on very
Speaker 3: long here, and unfortunately I'm up against my time limit.
Speaker 3: I wish that we could continue the conversation. We'll continue
Speaker 3: the conversation when the trial starts in April.
Speaker 1: Okay, after the guilty of manslaughter. That's my great action.
Speaker 4: Well, thanks very much. You were right the first time.
Speaker 3: I'm not sure that legally or procedurally it's it's a
Speaker 3: good position to take, but you were accurate. Thanks very much,
Speaker 3: appreciate your call. Here comes the eleven o'clock News, and
Speaker 3: to the callers who are now calling in here a
Speaker 3: little late, we're going to change topics on the other side.