WEBVTT

1
00:00:00.640 --> 00:00:05.639
<v Speaker 1>It's night Side with Dan Ray. I'm w Besy Costin's radio.

2
00:00:06.639 --> 00:00:09.839
<v Speaker 2>All right, welcome back for interesting guests last hour. I

3
00:00:09.880 --> 00:00:11.679
<v Speaker 2>hope you had a chance to listen to Alive. If

4
00:00:11.720 --> 00:00:15.480
<v Speaker 2>you missed it, you can go to Nightside on demand

5
00:00:16.120 --> 00:00:21.039
<v Speaker 2>anytime tomorrow morning. What time, Dan, will you get those

6
00:00:21.079 --> 00:00:24.000
<v Speaker 2>four those four hours posted from tonight sometime before you

7
00:00:24.120 --> 00:00:27.039
<v Speaker 2>leave your shift tomorrow for I'm mistaken, correct me, mister producer?

8
00:00:28.039 --> 00:00:32.679
<v Speaker 2>All right, that's a what that's the hope? Okay, Well,

9
00:00:33.000 --> 00:00:36.039
<v Speaker 2>he's gonna he'll do whatever. He's a good man. He'll

10
00:00:36.039 --> 00:00:38.320
<v Speaker 2>get it done. And got noheh there with him. We'll

11
00:00:38.359 --> 00:00:41.600
<v Speaker 2>get them all pulled it up. Rob gets him up

12
00:00:41.640 --> 00:00:45.320
<v Speaker 2>around two o'clock or so. I'm sure Dan, one of

13
00:00:45.359 --> 00:00:48.799
<v Speaker 2>our producers tonight, will along with Noah, get them posted tomorrow.

14
00:00:48.840 --> 00:00:50.759
<v Speaker 2>So if you missed any of the topics in the

15
00:00:50.799 --> 00:00:55.000
<v Speaker 2>first hour, that will be available certainly by time you

16
00:00:55.039 --> 00:00:56.759
<v Speaker 2>get up in the morning. We're talking about the Red

17
00:00:56.759 --> 00:01:01.000
<v Speaker 2>Sox reversing the curse twenty years ago, believe it or not, unbelievable.

18
00:01:01.240 --> 00:01:05.959
<v Speaker 2>Talk with a bu neurologist about young people having memory

19
00:01:06.000 --> 00:01:08.799
<v Speaker 2>loss that should not happen. Talk with a Washington Post

20
00:01:08.840 --> 00:01:13.719
<v Speaker 2>reporter about eight shoulder seasoned destinations not only in this

21
00:01:13.799 --> 00:01:18.480
<v Speaker 2>country at Nantucket, Martha's Vineyard, Cape cod were mentioned prominently,

22
00:01:18.519 --> 00:01:22.239
<v Speaker 2>but also Myrtle Beach out west up in Canada Banff,

23
00:01:22.280 --> 00:01:25.000
<v Speaker 2>and then up in Canada and Western Canada and down

24
00:01:25.519 --> 00:01:29.239
<v Speaker 2>in South America as well, and talked about food borne

25
00:01:29.280 --> 00:01:33.879
<v Speaker 2>illnesses with doctor Julia Gatza. So you can check out

26
00:01:33.920 --> 00:01:35.760
<v Speaker 2>all of that information this hour. What I'd like to

27
00:01:35.760 --> 00:01:38.040
<v Speaker 2>do is like to open up a conversation. Because of

28
00:01:38.079 --> 00:01:41.879
<v Speaker 2>all the politics that we have been covering last oh

29
00:01:41.959 --> 00:01:43.680
<v Speaker 2>couple of weeks, we haven't had a chance really to

30
00:01:43.680 --> 00:01:47.000
<v Speaker 2>spend much time talking about the effort which will occur

31
00:01:47.079 --> 00:01:50.840
<v Speaker 2>on November sixth in front of the Massachusetts State Supreme

32
00:01:50.959 --> 00:01:57.480
<v Speaker 2>Judicial Court, when Karen Read's lawyers are arguing that she

33
00:01:57.640 --> 00:02:02.120
<v Speaker 2>should not be retried on all three of the indictments

34
00:02:02.159 --> 00:02:07.079
<v Speaker 2>that she faced during the trial last spring, which basically

35
00:02:07.200 --> 00:02:09.960
<v Speaker 2>ended in a hung verdict on July first. Now, I

36
00:02:10.080 --> 00:02:15.120
<v Speaker 2>want to get all really deep in the legal issues,

37
00:02:15.479 --> 00:02:19.199
<v Speaker 2>but I think everyone in my audience understands that there's

38
00:02:19.240 --> 00:02:23.680
<v Speaker 2>a concept called double jeopardy, and double jeopardy essentially means

39
00:02:23.840 --> 00:02:26.080
<v Speaker 2>that if you were tried by the government for some

40
00:02:26.400 --> 00:02:30.759
<v Speaker 2>alleged crime and a jury acquitted you of that crime.

41
00:02:31.400 --> 00:02:35.080
<v Speaker 2>Even if the government came upon some more information at

42
00:02:35.080 --> 00:02:42.400
<v Speaker 2>a subsequent point, maybe better inculpatory information, the government doesn't

43
00:02:42.479 --> 00:02:47.360
<v Speaker 2>have a right to reinstate the indictments once you are

44
00:02:47.439 --> 00:02:53.280
<v Speaker 2>acquitted that acquittal, even an acquittal that you might think

45
00:02:53.319 --> 00:02:56.199
<v Speaker 2>the jury got it wrong. That's our system of justice.

46
00:02:56.280 --> 00:03:00.159
<v Speaker 2>It's as simple as that. If you are convicted of

47
00:03:00.159 --> 00:03:03.919
<v Speaker 2>a crime. If you're convicted, your lawyers always have the

48
00:03:04.000 --> 00:03:08.919
<v Speaker 2>right to appeal that conviction, either on substantive or procedural grounds,

49
00:03:08.960 --> 00:03:13.479
<v Speaker 2>primarily on procedural grounds that a judge made a mistake,

50
00:03:13.599 --> 00:03:16.439
<v Speaker 2>or the jury was not charged properly, or there was

51
00:03:16.520 --> 00:03:18.800
<v Speaker 2>evidence introduced that the trial which should not have been

52
00:03:18.879 --> 00:03:21.879
<v Speaker 2>should have been suppressed. I think all of us understand

53
00:03:21.919 --> 00:03:25.159
<v Speaker 2>that the Karen Read case is kind of one that's

54
00:03:25.199 --> 00:03:27.919
<v Speaker 2>in the middle. And the reason the Karen Read case

55
00:03:28.039 --> 00:03:32.560
<v Speaker 2>is in the middle is there was technically no verdict

56
00:03:32.639 --> 00:03:37.639
<v Speaker 2>that was rendered in the courtroom because the jury kept

57
00:03:37.719 --> 00:03:40.280
<v Speaker 2>coming back or at least on two occasions, came back

58
00:03:40.319 --> 00:03:43.039
<v Speaker 2>to the judge and said that they were deadlocked. They

59
00:03:43.080 --> 00:03:47.560
<v Speaker 2>were a hung jury. Now, jurors do not have to

60
00:03:47.879 --> 00:03:52.199
<v Speaker 2>tell a judge, per se, well we're deadlocked eleven to

61
00:03:52.280 --> 00:03:58.520
<v Speaker 2>one or we're deadlocked six to six. That's beyond the

62
00:03:58.599 --> 00:04:03.280
<v Speaker 2>specific purview that the jury will disclose to the judge.

63
00:04:04.280 --> 00:04:10.560
<v Speaker 2>And the reason is, obviously, the jury deliberations supposed are

64
00:04:10.599 --> 00:04:14.000
<v Speaker 2>supposed to be you know, you know, very private, and

65
00:04:14.080 --> 00:04:17.399
<v Speaker 2>the verdicts are only reached when the twelve members of

66
00:04:17.399 --> 00:04:19.839
<v Speaker 2>the jury sitting as that jury sort of like almost

67
00:04:19.920 --> 00:04:22.639
<v Speaker 2>like a magic moment, similar to when a pope is

68
00:04:22.639 --> 00:04:28.639
<v Speaker 2>elected he needs a certain number of cardinals. Same way

69
00:04:28.680 --> 00:04:34.720
<v Speaker 2>here in a criminal trial in Massachusetts, you need a

70
00:04:34.839 --> 00:04:39.399
<v Speaker 2>unanimous verdict, particularly in superior court when you talk about

71
00:04:39.439 --> 00:04:44.560
<v Speaker 2>a jury of twelve. So what happened here, the facts

72
00:04:44.600 --> 00:04:48.800
<v Speaker 2>of the case are pretty important. What happened was that

73
00:04:48.839 --> 00:04:51.319
<v Speaker 2>the jury, as most juries, will send back a question

74
00:04:51.480 --> 00:04:54.920
<v Speaker 2>or two, and then at one point they apparently told

75
00:04:55.079 --> 00:04:58.000
<v Speaker 2>the judge in the case that they were deadlocked. Now,

76
00:04:58.040 --> 00:05:02.439
<v Speaker 2>the judge does not have, in my opinion, the authority

77
00:05:03.199 --> 00:05:07.000
<v Speaker 2>to say to them, well is it eleven to one,

78
00:05:07.439 --> 00:05:09.279
<v Speaker 2>or is it six to six, or is it seven

79
00:05:09.279 --> 00:05:13.600
<v Speaker 2>to five. No, And at that point, in most cases

80
00:05:13.600 --> 00:05:18.600
<v Speaker 2>in Massachusetts, the judge will give a charge in which

81
00:05:18.639 --> 00:05:21.680
<v Speaker 2>the jury is told. It's called a lot of different things,

82
00:05:21.720 --> 00:05:24.800
<v Speaker 2>but it's called in different states, different things. It's essentially

83
00:05:24.879 --> 00:05:27.759
<v Speaker 2>the judge says to the jury, Hey, you've listened to

84
00:05:27.360 --> 00:05:29.720
<v Speaker 2>all the you've listened to the case. You've listened to

85
00:05:29.759 --> 00:05:32.319
<v Speaker 2>all the witnesses, you've heard the opening arguments, you've heard

86
00:05:32.360 --> 00:05:36.800
<v Speaker 2>the closing arguments. There are no better group of twelve

87
00:05:36.879 --> 00:05:39.720
<v Speaker 2>people to render a verdict in this case than you,

88
00:05:40.000 --> 00:05:41.720
<v Speaker 2>And I want you to go back and work hard,

89
00:05:41.759 --> 00:05:45.040
<v Speaker 2>try to reconcile your differences, please, you know, don't take

90
00:05:45.079 --> 00:05:47.959
<v Speaker 2>positions that you are just going to not listen to

91
00:05:48.000 --> 00:05:51.079
<v Speaker 2>the other side, and you know, basically have an honest

92
00:05:51.160 --> 00:05:55.120
<v Speaker 2>and open deliberations. Fine, well, they came back a second time,

93
00:05:56.279 --> 00:06:01.399
<v Speaker 2>and at that point the judge ask them, and I'm

94
00:06:01.439 --> 00:06:03.759
<v Speaker 2>just trying to give you the quick version here for

95
00:06:03.800 --> 00:06:07.040
<v Speaker 2>those of you who might forget. She said, are you

96
00:06:07.160 --> 00:06:11.560
<v Speaker 2>hopelessly deadlocked? In other words, and the foreman four person

97
00:06:11.600 --> 00:06:14.839
<v Speaker 2>of the jury actually sent back a handwritten note which

98
00:06:15.199 --> 00:06:19.040
<v Speaker 2>was remarkably well written. By the way, most court observers agreed,

99
00:06:19.040 --> 00:06:21.519
<v Speaker 2>it was a really remarkably well written note for someone

100
00:06:21.560 --> 00:06:23.920
<v Speaker 2>who's a layperson, not a member of the bar or

101
00:06:23.959 --> 00:06:28.759
<v Speaker 2>a trained lawyer essentially saying that the differences were irreconcilable.

102
00:06:29.720 --> 00:06:34.839
<v Speaker 2>So the judge basically at that point agreed that it

103
00:06:34.920 --> 00:06:38.240
<v Speaker 2>was a hung jury and thanked them for their service

104
00:06:38.279 --> 00:06:43.839
<v Speaker 2>and dismissed them. Now subsequent to the now the prosecution

105
00:06:43.959 --> 00:06:45.560
<v Speaker 2>said immediately, we're going to go back and we're going

106
00:06:45.639 --> 00:06:50.160
<v Speaker 2>to retry the case. The defense lawyer said, we we

107
00:06:50.199 --> 00:06:53.759
<v Speaker 2>will defend it even more strongly. The belief is that

108
00:06:53.800 --> 00:06:58.000
<v Speaker 2>there's always an advantage to a defense a defendant because

109
00:06:58.120 --> 00:07:02.480
<v Speaker 2>the prosecution has laid their cards, and when in the

110
00:07:02.519 --> 00:07:04.800
<v Speaker 2>case of a hung jury, unless it's an eleven to

111
00:07:04.800 --> 00:07:11.360
<v Speaker 2>one hung jury for guilt, if there's really some significant doubt,

112
00:07:12.120 --> 00:07:15.120
<v Speaker 2>it gives the defense something to work on and figure

113
00:07:15.120 --> 00:07:19.959
<v Speaker 2>out what arguments work, what arguments did well. Anyway, subsequent

114
00:07:20.079 --> 00:07:27.399
<v Speaker 2>to the dismissal of the jury, several of the jurors,

115
00:07:27.959 --> 00:07:33.120
<v Speaker 2>apparently according to people who covered the trial and reporters

116
00:07:33.800 --> 00:07:41.120
<v Speaker 2>and newspaper reporters who covered the trial. According to Well

117
00:07:41.160 --> 00:07:43.639
<v Speaker 2>I'm quoting here from an article from Sean Carter The

118
00:07:43.680 --> 00:07:48.920
<v Speaker 2>Boston Globe of last week October sixteenth, multiple jurors contacted

119
00:07:48.920 --> 00:07:52.879
<v Speaker 2>both the prosecution and defense team's post trial saying they

120
00:07:52.920 --> 00:07:57.959
<v Speaker 2>were actually only deadlocked on one charge, me andslaughter by

121
00:07:58.040 --> 00:08:04.639
<v Speaker 2>operating under the influence. And these jurors told the lawyers

122
00:08:04.720 --> 00:08:07.279
<v Speaker 2>for the for the you know, the prosecutors and the

123
00:08:07.319 --> 00:08:11.040
<v Speaker 2>defense lawyers that they had come to a unanimous verdict

124
00:08:11.600 --> 00:08:15.480
<v Speaker 2>on two of the charges, one which was a charge

125
00:08:15.480 --> 00:08:18.600
<v Speaker 2>of murder in the second degree and leaving the scene

126
00:08:19.120 --> 00:08:25.560
<v Speaker 2>of a crash causing injuries. So now the defense lawyers

127
00:08:26.279 --> 00:08:30.519
<v Speaker 2>have filed an appeal. They of course filed emotions with

128
00:08:30.639 --> 00:08:34.919
<v Speaker 2>the judge in this case, the judge who oversaw the trial,

129
00:08:36.320 --> 00:08:39.799
<v Speaker 2>and the judge said, nope, in her opinion, she did

130
00:08:39.840 --> 00:08:43.279
<v Speaker 2>nothing wrong and that the jury did not render a

131
00:08:43.399 --> 00:08:46.399
<v Speaker 2>verdict because they did not announce a verdict. Well, the

132
00:08:46.440 --> 00:08:52.080
<v Speaker 2>bottom line is, should the judge have inquired when the

133
00:08:52.159 --> 00:08:56.440
<v Speaker 2>jury four person said we're deadlock? Should have judge KATONI

134
00:08:57.600 --> 00:09:01.000
<v Speaker 2>should have judged katone I should say, I believe it

135
00:09:01.080 --> 00:09:04.279
<v Speaker 2>is a correct pronunciation. Should she have said to them,

136
00:09:04.799 --> 00:09:07.679
<v Speaker 2>you're telling me you're deadlocked. Are you deadlocked on each

137
00:09:07.759 --> 00:09:10.840
<v Speaker 2>of the three issues, or are you only deadlocked on

138
00:09:10.840 --> 00:09:13.879
<v Speaker 2>one or two of the issues, something like that, And

139
00:09:13.960 --> 00:09:16.720
<v Speaker 2>at that point the jury could have easily said, if

140
00:09:16.720 --> 00:09:19.279
<v Speaker 2>they told the truth, and there's no reason why they wouldn't. No,

141
00:09:19.360 --> 00:09:22.519
<v Speaker 2>we're deadlocked on one issue. We have reached the verdict

142
00:09:22.519 --> 00:09:26.440
<v Speaker 2>on two issues, and those two issues could have been

143
00:09:26.440 --> 00:09:30.399
<v Speaker 2>disposed of. Now it turned out that the jurors are

144
00:09:30.440 --> 00:09:36.799
<v Speaker 2>saying we agreed to acquit Karen Reid on one of

145
00:09:36.840 --> 00:09:39.399
<v Speaker 2>the very serious issues. Well, they're both serious issues, but

146
00:09:39.879 --> 00:09:43.679
<v Speaker 2>the murder and second degree and leaving the scene of

147
00:09:43.679 --> 00:09:47.919
<v Speaker 2>a crash causing injuries. So that is now an issue

148
00:09:48.000 --> 00:09:50.279
<v Speaker 2>that is going to be heard in front of the

149
00:09:50.320 --> 00:09:56.600
<v Speaker 2>State Supreme Court on November sixth. My question to you

150
00:09:57.360 --> 00:10:01.039
<v Speaker 2>is the American Civil Liberties Union has filed an A

151
00:10:01.080 --> 00:10:04.399
<v Speaker 2>Meekus brief, and you know, I give the America Civil

152
00:10:04.399 --> 00:10:08.320
<v Speaker 2>Liberity And probably more criticism than they deserve, but they're

153
00:10:08.480 --> 00:10:12.240
<v Speaker 2>an August organization and on this one we agree as

154
00:10:12.279 --> 00:10:15.080
<v Speaker 2>far as I'm concerned. As far as I'm concerned, this

155
00:10:15.240 --> 00:10:19.759
<v Speaker 2>case should set a new standard of practice in the

156
00:10:19.759 --> 00:10:25.720
<v Speaker 2>courts in Massachusetts that any judge in a multiple count indictment,

157
00:10:26.360 --> 00:10:29.080
<v Speaker 2>if a jury comes back and says we are deadlocked,

158
00:10:29.600 --> 00:10:34.360
<v Speaker 2>the judge should say, are you deadlocked on all the

159
00:10:34.480 --> 00:10:36.840
<v Speaker 2>counts or on some of the counts? And if they

160
00:10:36.919 --> 00:10:39.799
<v Speaker 2>said well, we're deadlocked on most of the accounts or

161
00:10:39.840 --> 00:10:43.000
<v Speaker 2>some of the accounts, then there should be a question,

162
00:10:43.200 --> 00:10:46.360
<v Speaker 2>have you reached a verdict on any of the accounts? Yes,

163
00:10:47.159 --> 00:10:51.440
<v Speaker 2>which counts? Have you reached a unanimous verdict on counts

164
00:10:51.440 --> 00:10:53.360
<v Speaker 2>in this case counts one and three. Well, that would

165
00:10:53.360 --> 00:10:55.879
<v Speaker 2>have disposed of those two cases. The judge at that

166
00:10:55.919 --> 00:10:58.559
<v Speaker 2>point could have said, I'd like you to go back

167
00:10:58.679 --> 00:11:01.879
<v Speaker 2>to the jury room and fill out that verdict slips.

168
00:11:03.480 --> 00:11:08.240
<v Speaker 2>Obviously there was there was a misunderstanding, a lack of communication,

169
00:11:08.480 --> 00:11:12.399
<v Speaker 2>not involving the defendant, but involving the judge and the jurors.

170
00:11:13.240 --> 00:11:15.840
<v Speaker 2>And I'm going to be fascinated to see how the

171
00:11:15.879 --> 00:11:19.360
<v Speaker 2>Supreme Court decides this case. Karen Reid is supposed to

172
00:11:19.360 --> 00:11:22.480
<v Speaker 2>face retrial on three of the counts, all three of

173
00:11:22.559 --> 00:11:28.360
<v Speaker 2>the counts murder, leaving, leaving the scene and manslaughter. Those

174
00:11:28.480 --> 00:11:34.639
<v Speaker 2>those she still would be facing a manslaughter operating under

175
00:11:34.679 --> 00:11:39.679
<v Speaker 2>the influence. So I'm in agreement or the ACIU is

176
00:11:39.720 --> 00:11:41.759
<v Speaker 2>an agreement with me on this one. And I just

177
00:11:41.799 --> 00:11:45.480
<v Speaker 2>think it's unfair to Karen Reid. Whether you like Karen

178
00:11:45.519 --> 00:11:48.200
<v Speaker 2>Reid or not, whether you like her style or not. Okay,

179
00:11:48.639 --> 00:11:52.120
<v Speaker 2>I just think it's a matter of fairness that her

180
00:11:52.240 --> 00:11:56.399
<v Speaker 2>lawyers and she should not be put through a second

181
00:11:56.480 --> 00:12:01.080
<v Speaker 2>trial on the issues that the first jury decided on.

182
00:12:02.039 --> 00:12:04.440
<v Speaker 2>It's as simple as that. I'd love to hear from

183
00:12:04.480 --> 00:12:07.639
<v Speaker 2>you on this one. The case will be argued oral

184
00:12:07.720 --> 00:12:11.600
<v Speaker 2>arguments on November sixth, the day after the presidential election.

185
00:12:12.279 --> 00:12:15.879
<v Speaker 2>So assuming we do get a judgment on who's going

186
00:12:15.919 --> 00:12:18.960
<v Speaker 2>to be our next president. Once that is settled, we'll

187
00:12:18.960 --> 00:12:22.639
<v Speaker 2>be refocusing on the Karen Reid case. Uh, it's a

188
00:12:22.759 --> 00:12:28.960
<v Speaker 2>fascinating case. Something bad happened. I don't know the truth. However,

189
00:12:29.559 --> 00:12:32.799
<v Speaker 2>if the jury did come to a verdict on two

190
00:12:32.799 --> 00:12:36.039
<v Speaker 2>of the three charges and the judge who's in charge

191
00:12:36.080 --> 00:12:42.720
<v Speaker 2>of the courtroom did not think about saying to the jury, four, person,

192
00:12:43.320 --> 00:12:46.879
<v Speaker 2>are you deadlocked on all three counts or on just

193
00:12:47.039 --> 00:12:52.240
<v Speaker 2>some of the counts, the answer would have been instructed

194
00:12:52.240 --> 00:12:55.440
<v Speaker 2>the judge as to what should be done next six seven, two, five,

195
00:12:55.559 --> 00:12:59.759
<v Speaker 2>four ten thirty, six seven, nine, three thirty, triple eight

196
00:13:00.039 --> 00:13:02.200
<v Speaker 2>nine two, nine, ten thirty were come on right back

197
00:13:02.240 --> 00:13:03.600
<v Speaker 2>on Nightside.

198
00:13:03.159 --> 00:13:06.120
<v Speaker 1>Now back to Dan Way live from the Window World

199
00:13:06.120 --> 00:13:11.720
<v Speaker 1>to night Side Studios on WBZ News Radio.

200
00:13:12.320 --> 00:13:15.240
<v Speaker 2>All right, we're back here on Nightside, and we're going

201
00:13:15.320 --> 00:13:17.080
<v Speaker 2>to go to phone calls. We're talking about the Karen

202
00:13:17.120 --> 00:13:21.279
<v Speaker 2>Reid double jeopardy appeal to the State Supreme Court. Now,

203
00:13:21.320 --> 00:13:25.440
<v Speaker 2>I am fairly familiar with this court, not as familiar

204
00:13:25.440 --> 00:13:27.759
<v Speaker 2>with this court as I have been with other state

205
00:13:27.799 --> 00:13:30.360
<v Speaker 2>Supreme courts. There's been a lot of changes in the

206
00:13:30.440 --> 00:13:34.279
<v Speaker 2>last few years, both under Governor Baker and now under

207
00:13:34.320 --> 00:13:37.639
<v Speaker 2>Governor Healy. But I would say this court instinctively is

208
00:13:37.639 --> 00:13:40.879
<v Speaker 2>a fairly progressive court, as you would expect, and I

209
00:13:40.919 --> 00:13:44.480
<v Speaker 2>would think that they, if they follow their instincts, they

210
00:13:44.480 --> 00:13:47.840
<v Speaker 2>would like to basically use this case to set an

211
00:13:47.879 --> 00:13:55.000
<v Speaker 2>example for proper practice in Massachusetts court system. That's what

212
00:13:55.080 --> 00:13:57.159
<v Speaker 2>I think we're looking at here, And let's see what

213
00:13:57.200 --> 00:13:59.279
<v Speaker 2>you think. Let me go to Larry down on the

214
00:13:59.320 --> 00:14:02.240
<v Speaker 2>Cape and Dennis Larry you in next on Nightsiger, right, hit.

215
00:14:02.200 --> 00:14:02.440
<v Speaker 3>Sir.

216
00:14:03.840 --> 00:14:07.320
<v Speaker 4>Dan, very interesting wellness guest that you had in that

217
00:14:07.399 --> 00:14:08.200
<v Speaker 4>segment before.

218
00:14:08.919 --> 00:14:12.039
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, we are gonna have a different, different, interesting guest

219
00:14:12.080 --> 00:14:13.600
<v Speaker 2>in that first hour. Absolutely.

220
00:14:14.240 --> 00:14:16.480
<v Speaker 4>Yeah, she was excellent, especially with the gut health which

221
00:14:16.480 --> 00:14:20.159
<v Speaker 4>could possibly help me with my inflammation. Okay, Now getting

222
00:14:20.159 --> 00:14:24.440
<v Speaker 4>to the case. At the time of the mistrial, the

223
00:14:24.559 --> 00:14:28.000
<v Speaker 4>judge did not ask the jury those questions about the

224
00:14:28.320 --> 00:14:29.440
<v Speaker 4>all three charges?

225
00:14:29.879 --> 00:14:33.360
<v Speaker 2>Correct? Correct? I think that she assumed. I think that

226
00:14:33.440 --> 00:14:35.440
<v Speaker 2>she assumed that they were.

227
00:14:35.399 --> 00:14:41.000
<v Speaker 4>Hung on all three Okay, now, don't you feel that

228
00:14:41.240 --> 00:14:45.840
<v Speaker 4>Karen Reid's lawyers were also negligent in not asking the

229
00:14:46.000 --> 00:14:51.080
<v Speaker 4>judge because they accepted the finding. Shouldn't they have asked

230
00:14:51.080 --> 00:14:53.759
<v Speaker 4>the judge at the time? Can you ask if all

231
00:14:53.960 --> 00:14:57.080
<v Speaker 4>three charges were mistrials?

232
00:14:57.879 --> 00:15:00.159
<v Speaker 2>I think that's an argument that could be made. I

233
00:15:00.159 --> 00:15:02.879
<v Speaker 2>think that's a good argument. But I would counter that

234
00:15:03.039 --> 00:15:06.840
<v Speaker 2>argument by saying, the person who is in charge of

235
00:15:06.879 --> 00:15:10.240
<v Speaker 2>the courtroom is not the prosecutor, is not the defense lawyers,

236
00:15:10.639 --> 00:15:14.159
<v Speaker 2>It's the judge. And you would think for a lot

237
00:15:14.200 --> 00:15:18.039
<v Speaker 2>of reasons, the judge in this case could have asked

238
00:15:18.039 --> 00:15:21.480
<v Speaker 2>that simple question if she had asked the question on

239
00:15:21.519 --> 00:15:27.200
<v Speaker 2>her own, without emotion from either prosecution or defense? Are

240
00:15:27.240 --> 00:15:32.600
<v Speaker 2>you hung? Am I to understand that you are irreconcilably hung?

241
00:15:33.720 --> 00:15:37.679
<v Speaker 2>There's no hope for getting to a verdict on any

242
00:15:37.720 --> 00:15:39.600
<v Speaker 2>of the three counts? Is that what you're telling me?

243
00:15:39.919 --> 00:15:44.000
<v Speaker 2>That simple question? If the jury four person understood it,

244
00:15:44.039 --> 00:15:46.039
<v Speaker 2>and he answered it, and I'm sure that they would

245
00:15:46.039 --> 00:15:48.759
<v Speaker 2>have understood it and answered it was posed that way.

246
00:15:49.360 --> 00:15:52.399
<v Speaker 2>They would have then said, no, we're hung on one count.

247
00:15:52.519 --> 00:15:54.399
<v Speaker 2>They were under the impression that they had to come

248
00:15:54.440 --> 00:15:57.440
<v Speaker 2>back with all three verdicts, you know, whether it's all

249
00:15:57.480 --> 00:16:02.000
<v Speaker 2>guilty or not guilty, or combination thereof. And the judge

250
00:16:02.120 --> 00:16:05.320
<v Speaker 2>is the person on whom rests the responsibility. Now, if

251
00:16:05.480 --> 00:16:08.399
<v Speaker 2>if let us say, the Supreme Court in Massachusetts were

252
00:16:08.440 --> 00:16:12.679
<v Speaker 2>to say agree that read would should not be subject

253
00:16:12.840 --> 00:16:15.399
<v Speaker 2>to a retrial on the two areas, and first of all,

254
00:16:15.559 --> 00:16:17.799
<v Speaker 2>you got to bring the juris back and you got

255
00:16:17.840 --> 00:16:20.759
<v Speaker 2>to ask the jurors, did you you they are the

256
00:16:20.799 --> 00:16:24.639
<v Speaker 2>only people in the in the jury room, did all

257
00:16:24.679 --> 00:16:27.679
<v Speaker 2>of you reach a verdict on the first count, which

258
00:16:27.759 --> 00:16:30.200
<v Speaker 2>was the murder in second degrade? And if they all

259
00:16:30.240 --> 00:16:32.759
<v Speaker 2>come in and the court knows who they are, and

260
00:16:32.759 --> 00:16:35.279
<v Speaker 2>they all say, yes, we did. And did you reach

261
00:16:35.279 --> 00:16:38.159
<v Speaker 2>a verdict on the third count, which was you know,

262
00:16:38.279 --> 00:16:40.879
<v Speaker 2>leaving the scene of an accident where a serious bodily

263
00:16:40.919 --> 00:16:45.360
<v Speaker 2>injury it occurred, they say, yes, we did. And am

264
00:16:45.360 --> 00:16:47.759
<v Speaker 2>I to understand that you did not reach a verdict

265
00:16:47.840 --> 00:16:51.720
<v Speaker 2>on the second count. And there have been reports that

266
00:16:51.480 --> 00:16:55.200
<v Speaker 2>the second count was really hung seven five or six six.

267
00:16:56.679 --> 00:16:59.759
<v Speaker 2>If the judge had done that, they could have now moved.

268
00:17:00.559 --> 00:17:03.679
<v Speaker 2>They would try her again on the second issue, but

269
00:17:03.759 --> 00:17:07.160
<v Speaker 2>it would be a more streamlined trial. Uh, it would.

270
00:17:07.200 --> 00:17:10.359
<v Speaker 2>It would save the Commonwealth money, it would it would

271
00:17:10.440 --> 00:17:14.400
<v Speaker 2>you remove from her the possibility of having to go

272
00:17:14.440 --> 00:17:19.880
<v Speaker 2>through two trials and get either two separate acquittals on

273
00:17:19.960 --> 00:17:22.119
<v Speaker 2>each of those the first charge of the in the

274
00:17:22.119 --> 00:17:24.759
<v Speaker 2>third charge. Well, what happens if she gets a conflicting

275
00:17:24.880 --> 00:17:27.319
<v Speaker 2>charge and the second trialger she gets so guilty on

276
00:17:27.319 --> 00:17:31.559
<v Speaker 2>one of those two charges. It's a mess. It's a mess,

277
00:17:31.880 --> 00:17:34.240
<v Speaker 2>and I think the way that the court should deal

278
00:17:34.279 --> 00:17:38.440
<v Speaker 2>with it is let her go to trial on the

279
00:17:38.480 --> 00:17:43.680
<v Speaker 2>manslaughter which is which is a very serious charge, and

280
00:17:43.839 --> 00:17:47.119
<v Speaker 2>disposed of the first of the first and third indictments.

281
00:17:47.319 --> 00:17:49.480
<v Speaker 2>That's mine and the American Civil Liberty so you get

282
00:17:49.519 --> 00:17:50.920
<v Speaker 2>Dan Ray and the A C l U on the

283
00:17:50.920 --> 00:17:52.000
<v Speaker 2>same side of the argument.

284
00:17:52.720 --> 00:17:56.480
<v Speaker 4>That's right, Okay, So right, So one last question when

285
00:17:56.519 --> 00:17:59.359
<v Speaker 4>it goes to the Supreme Court, and like you said,

286
00:17:59.400 --> 00:18:01.680
<v Speaker 4>you are hoping that they set a precedent so for

287
00:18:01.759 --> 00:18:07.599
<v Speaker 4>future trials. Yeah, right, going back to this trial, will

288
00:18:07.640 --> 00:18:10.640
<v Speaker 4>they have the power of the rights to recall the

289
00:18:10.720 --> 00:18:12.720
<v Speaker 4>jury and say what were your findings for the other

290
00:18:12.759 --> 00:18:13.400
<v Speaker 4>two cases?

291
00:18:15.559 --> 00:18:18.759
<v Speaker 2>No, because I think that what has gone on here

292
00:18:18.920 --> 00:18:22.480
<v Speaker 2>is I think that even though several jury members have

293
00:18:22.519 --> 00:18:24.839
<v Speaker 2>gone to both the defense and the prosecution and said, hey,

294
00:18:24.880 --> 00:18:28.279
<v Speaker 2>we we were in agreement on one in three, I

295
00:18:28.319 --> 00:18:30.680
<v Speaker 2>think the court has an obligation to bring them back,

296
00:18:31.119 --> 00:18:34.759
<v Speaker 2>assuming that they're still alive and they're still available, or

297
00:18:34.799 --> 00:18:37.319
<v Speaker 2>bring back as many as possible. I mean, I'm sure

298
00:18:37.359 --> 00:18:41.559
<v Speaker 2>they could find them and if necessary, send the bailiffs

299
00:18:41.559 --> 00:18:44.799
<v Speaker 2>out to bring them in and ask them that question.

300
00:18:46.799 --> 00:18:50.960
<v Speaker 1>With Dan Ray on Boston's news radio.

301
00:18:51.640 --> 00:18:55.720
<v Speaker 2>The power of government to accuse someone of a crime,

302
00:18:56.480 --> 00:19:01.119
<v Speaker 2>and obviously with a conviction to i've them of their liberty,

303
00:19:02.160 --> 00:19:06.680
<v Speaker 2>there's no greater power that a government could have. And

304
00:19:07.279 --> 00:19:10.920
<v Speaker 2>we in this country have always had checks, and sometimes

305
00:19:11.039 --> 00:19:15.279
<v Speaker 2>they were checks that were not popular. And obviously, if

306
00:19:15.279 --> 00:19:18.920
<v Speaker 2>you're invested in this case, either as a supporter of

307
00:19:19.000 --> 00:19:23.079
<v Speaker 2>Karen Reid or as a supporter of the O'Keefe family,

308
00:19:23.119 --> 00:19:26.640
<v Speaker 2>which I certainly do understand he lost his life. You

309
00:19:26.680 --> 00:19:30.640
<v Speaker 2>want to get to the truth. Sometimes you have to

310
00:19:30.680 --> 00:19:32.559
<v Speaker 2>look at the big picture, and I'm looking at the

311
00:19:32.559 --> 00:19:34.559
<v Speaker 2>big picture. I think the ACLU is looking at the

312
00:19:34.559 --> 00:19:36.240
<v Speaker 2>big picture. We'll have to see how it comes out.

313
00:19:36.319 --> 00:19:38.200
<v Speaker 2>I've been told by lawyers who are better than me,

314
00:19:39.000 --> 00:19:42.039
<v Speaker 2>more experienced lawyers than I am, then I'm wrong, I

315
00:19:42.200 --> 00:19:44.519
<v Speaker 2>hope not. Where are we going to go next? Let

316
00:19:44.559 --> 00:19:46.880
<v Speaker 2>me go next to Rob in South Boston. Rob, you

317
00:19:46.880 --> 00:19:47.720
<v Speaker 2>are next on Nightside.

318
00:19:47.759 --> 00:19:53.480
<v Speaker 5>Welcome Dan, Thanks taking my call. I would definitely have

319
00:19:53.559 --> 00:19:57.480
<v Speaker 5>to be agreeing with you. In the ACLU. I think

320
00:19:57.599 --> 00:20:05.160
<v Speaker 5>the judge failed neglected in her responsibility to inquire with

321
00:20:05.240 --> 00:20:08.759
<v Speaker 5>the jury. Did they come to any findings, Yeah, with

322
00:20:08.839 --> 00:20:10.839
<v Speaker 5>any of the charges well.

323
00:20:10.680 --> 00:20:13.920
<v Speaker 2>To the best of my knowledge. And what the prosecution

324
00:20:14.079 --> 00:20:16.920
<v Speaker 2>is going to argue is that there was no affirmative

325
00:20:17.000 --> 00:20:21.119
<v Speaker 2>obligation on the judge. I'm not saying that the judge

326
00:20:21.720 --> 00:20:25.000
<v Speaker 2>failed to do something that she had that she should

327
00:20:25.000 --> 00:20:28.079
<v Speaker 2>have known that she should do. But it seems to

328
00:20:28.119 --> 00:20:32.039
<v Speaker 2>me that this case and the omission of the judge

329
00:20:32.039 --> 00:20:33.720
<v Speaker 2>and the way this worked out, I mean, you know,

330
00:20:33.799 --> 00:20:36.039
<v Speaker 2>if it had gone and it was you know, three

331
00:20:37.000 --> 00:20:39.640
<v Speaker 2>indictments that got that were split nine to three or

332
00:20:39.680 --> 00:20:42.920
<v Speaker 2>eight to four or whatever on all three, well you

333
00:20:42.960 --> 00:20:45.079
<v Speaker 2>know you're going to have to go through a new trial.

334
00:20:45.119 --> 00:20:47.039
<v Speaker 2>It's as simple as that. But I think that this

335
00:20:47.079 --> 00:20:52.119
<v Speaker 2>could set a standard of practice for judges, which would

336
00:20:52.160 --> 00:20:53.480
<v Speaker 2>be helpful going forward too.

337
00:20:54.400 --> 00:20:56.920
<v Speaker 5>I think I think if you were a judged there,

338
00:20:57.160 --> 00:20:58.920
<v Speaker 5>I think you would have been quired.

339
00:21:00.480 --> 00:21:03.880
<v Speaker 2>Well, I don't know if I would have, and be

340
00:21:03.920 --> 00:21:06.720
<v Speaker 2>honest with you when I say that, I could easily say, oh, yeah,

341
00:21:06.720 --> 00:21:08.519
<v Speaker 2>I would have been smart. No, you know what, I

342
00:21:08.559 --> 00:21:12.400
<v Speaker 2>think that the judge might have read the body language

343
00:21:12.519 --> 00:21:15.359
<v Speaker 2>of the jury. She might. You know, she's more experienced

344
00:21:15.359 --> 00:21:18.799
<v Speaker 2>in the courtroom as a judge than I would ever

345
00:21:18.839 --> 00:21:21.160
<v Speaker 2>be because it never been a judge. I'm not in

346
00:21:21.200 --> 00:21:24.240
<v Speaker 2>any way, shape or form indicting her. I'm just saying

347
00:21:24.240 --> 00:21:28.720
<v Speaker 2>that this is an opportunity we could improve the law

348
00:21:28.759 --> 00:21:32.640
<v Speaker 2>practice here in Massachusetts. I mean, this is not Mississippi

349
00:21:32.680 --> 00:21:35.920
<v Speaker 2>in nineteen fifty. This is Massachusetts in twenty twenty four.

350
00:21:37.039 --> 00:21:39.559
<v Speaker 2>And that's what I think.

351
00:21:40.880 --> 00:21:41.880
<v Speaker 5>No, I totally agree.

352
00:21:42.079 --> 00:21:42.519
<v Speaker 3>I think.

353
00:21:43.000 --> 00:21:46.400
<v Speaker 5>I mean, we all feel for, you know, the terrible

354
00:21:46.519 --> 00:21:49.160
<v Speaker 5>accident that happened, and we all want to get to

355
00:21:49.200 --> 00:21:53.319
<v Speaker 5>the truth here. But I think the jury did come

356
00:21:53.359 --> 00:21:57.960
<v Speaker 5>to a conclusion on two of the charges. But you know,

357
00:21:58.440 --> 00:22:03.119
<v Speaker 5>the judge wasn't a wisitive enough to even ask that.

358
00:22:03.759 --> 00:22:05.480
<v Speaker 2>And by the way, it might have been that any

359
00:22:05.559 --> 00:22:09.039
<v Speaker 2>judge in that county might have had that same lack

360
00:22:09.079 --> 00:22:13.480
<v Speaker 2>of curiosity. Maybe they they're they're used to they see it.

361
00:22:13.480 --> 00:22:16.039
<v Speaker 2>It just would have been going that extra step. Now

362
00:22:16.440 --> 00:22:19.759
<v Speaker 2>if the going the extra step wasn't required, but if

363
00:22:19.960 --> 00:22:25.279
<v Speaker 2>by not going an unrequired extra step, now the defendant

364
00:22:25.400 --> 00:22:28.160
<v Speaker 2>is going to have to be retried on all three charges.

365
00:22:29.519 --> 00:22:32.119
<v Speaker 2>I think that double jeopardy arguments is pretty strong argument.

366
00:22:32.279 --> 00:22:34.680
<v Speaker 2>Now again, you can you can rely on the technical

367
00:22:34.720 --> 00:22:37.000
<v Speaker 2>and say, well, there was no verdict rendered because there

368
00:22:37.039 --> 00:22:41.240
<v Speaker 2>was no verdict announced in the court room. That's the

369
00:22:41.359 --> 00:22:43.799
<v Speaker 2>argument that the prosecutor is going to put forward. And

370
00:22:44.240 --> 00:22:47.160
<v Speaker 2>I think that every once in a while a case

371
00:22:47.240 --> 00:22:51.799
<v Speaker 2>comes along which which cries out for you know, a

372
00:22:51.839 --> 00:22:55.440
<v Speaker 2>little bit of common sense, and all they could do

373
00:22:55.519 --> 00:22:57.599
<v Speaker 2>is they make this case every judge in the future

374
00:22:57.640 --> 00:22:59.640
<v Speaker 2>when there's a multi case. I mean, if it's one

375
00:22:59.680 --> 00:23:01.440
<v Speaker 2>in die men and the joy comes back and says

376
00:23:01.799 --> 00:23:08.160
<v Speaker 2>we're hung, we're irreconcilably different on this situation, that's easy.

377
00:23:08.599 --> 00:23:10.200
<v Speaker 2>She's not going to say, well, you've just told me

378
00:23:10.279 --> 00:23:13.079
<v Speaker 2>that on the one verdict, on the one account, you

379
00:23:13.079 --> 00:23:15.960
<v Speaker 2>can't reach a verdict. Are there any other counts that

380
00:23:16.119 --> 00:23:18.279
<v Speaker 2>did you reach a verdict any of the counts? Obviously,

381
00:23:18.319 --> 00:23:21.680
<v Speaker 2>in that situation, you know you you would have a terminology.

382
00:23:22.200 --> 00:23:23.920
<v Speaker 2>You know, you wouldn't have to ask that. But if

383
00:23:23.920 --> 00:23:26.400
<v Speaker 2>there's two counts, you might say, are you telling me

384
00:23:26.440 --> 00:23:29.720
<v Speaker 2>you're hung on both counts? Yes, your honor? Okay, fine,

385
00:23:29.759 --> 00:23:33.200
<v Speaker 2>I declare a mistrial. Okay, But you ask the question.

386
00:23:34.799 --> 00:23:38.519
<v Speaker 5>Considering how you know how many charges were here? I

387
00:23:38.519 --> 00:23:45.480
<v Speaker 5>think it would have been just you know, the interest

388
00:23:45.559 --> 00:23:49.279
<v Speaker 5>is to ask the question, have you come to any

389
00:23:49.319 --> 00:23:51.359
<v Speaker 5>conclusion on any charges?

390
00:23:51.519 --> 00:23:55.480
<v Speaker 2>Exactly? Exactly what we look for is fairness and clarity.

391
00:23:55.640 --> 00:23:59.400
<v Speaker 5>I mean, right, you know what I mean like you're

392
00:23:59.480 --> 00:24:02.160
<v Speaker 5>talking in a sense, I'm talking to contens I mean

393
00:24:03.119 --> 00:24:07.000
<v Speaker 5>something that is severe. This woman's facing right, yeah, I'd

394
00:24:07.039 --> 00:24:09.960
<v Speaker 5>be like, what's what both families.

395
00:24:09.519 --> 00:24:10.720
<v Speaker 3>Have been through? Right?

396
00:24:11.200 --> 00:24:14.119
<v Speaker 5>Yeah, everybody's been through. But I mean, like, I think

397
00:24:14.160 --> 00:24:17.920
<v Speaker 5>the jury came to a conclusion on two charges, and

398
00:24:18.279 --> 00:24:21.279
<v Speaker 5>but somehow, because it wasn't brought up in the courtroom,

399
00:24:21.759 --> 00:24:23.519
<v Speaker 5>she's going to be rechas on everything.

400
00:24:23.960 --> 00:24:27.039
<v Speaker 2>Yes, sir, got to be retried. She will be recharged.

401
00:24:27.079 --> 00:24:31.279
<v Speaker 2>You'd be retried, Bob, Rob, Thank you, thank you for

402
00:24:31.880 --> 00:24:34.599
<v Speaker 2>supporting me on this. One, my friend, I appreciate.

403
00:24:34.079 --> 00:24:37.240
<v Speaker 6>It, Okay, thank you.

404
00:24:38.200 --> 00:24:39.880
<v Speaker 2>Let me go to Steve and Cambridge. Steve might be

405
00:24:39.920 --> 00:24:41.799
<v Speaker 2>a contrarian on this one. I'm not sure. What do

406
00:24:41.839 --> 00:24:42.799
<v Speaker 2>you What do you say, Steve?

407
00:24:43.119 --> 00:24:46.640
<v Speaker 7>And when you talk the law, you're really not talking

408
00:24:47.359 --> 00:24:55.799
<v Speaker 7>common sense. You're talking fundamental principles and precedent. They go back, uh,

409
00:24:56.400 --> 00:25:01.519
<v Speaker 7>Jeroman law and so forth. And you're not supposed to

410
00:25:01.559 --> 00:25:04.559
<v Speaker 7>speak peak. You're not supposed to speak of the big picture.

411
00:25:05.680 --> 00:25:08.359
<v Speaker 7>You're supposed to speak of what are the legal principles.

412
00:25:10.000 --> 00:25:15.039
<v Speaker 7>And I think no verdict was delivered. I think that's fundamental.

413
00:25:15.960 --> 00:25:20.200
<v Speaker 7>A jury does not deliver three verdicts. They find the

414
00:25:20.240 --> 00:25:25.240
<v Speaker 7>defendant guilty of one count or guilty of all counts,

415
00:25:25.279 --> 00:25:28.480
<v Speaker 7>but there's only one verdict, and no verdict was given.

416
00:25:29.160 --> 00:25:32.640
<v Speaker 2>Well, there was no verdict that was announced in the courtroom,

417
00:25:32.960 --> 00:25:36.440
<v Speaker 2>there's no question about that, okay. But obviously a jury

418
00:25:36.440 --> 00:25:38.640
<v Speaker 2>on a multi count indictment can't come back with a

419
00:25:38.680 --> 00:25:41.240
<v Speaker 2>split verdict. They can come back and say not guilty

420
00:25:41.240 --> 00:25:43.599
<v Speaker 2>on one and three guilty on two, as apparently was

421
00:25:43.640 --> 00:25:48.680
<v Speaker 2>the case here. I just think that case law that

422
00:25:49.160 --> 00:25:52.200
<v Speaker 2>they're probably there's certainly going to be no statute in

423
00:25:52.240 --> 00:25:56.440
<v Speaker 2>Massachusetts that said, upon being told by a juror by

424
00:25:56.480 --> 00:25:59.640
<v Speaker 2>a jury that they're hung, there's an affirmative obligation in

425
00:25:59.680 --> 00:26:02.759
<v Speaker 2>the is to inquire if they're hung on all verdicts

426
00:26:02.759 --> 00:26:06.400
<v Speaker 2>are just part you know, all of the indictments. That

427
00:26:06.480 --> 00:26:10.799
<v Speaker 2>doesn't exist. That's how you in effect codify through case

428
00:26:10.920 --> 00:26:14.079
<v Speaker 2>law better court room practice. That's all.

429
00:26:14.319 --> 00:26:16.400
<v Speaker 7>Well, what is the precedent here? I mean this this

430
00:26:16.680 --> 00:26:19.079
<v Speaker 7>has I don't need what's that?

431
00:26:19.200 --> 00:26:22.319
<v Speaker 2>I don't need a precedent here? If it was a president,

432
00:26:22.359 --> 00:26:24.119
<v Speaker 2>it would be a Shutt and Coll's case. I mean,

433
00:26:24.119 --> 00:26:27.039
<v Speaker 2>if if there was a case from nineteen forty five

434
00:26:27.440 --> 00:26:31.440
<v Speaker 2>which was similar, and the judges had instructions that they

435
00:26:31.480 --> 00:26:34.599
<v Speaker 2>always had to inquire on a multi count indictment if

436
00:26:35.160 --> 00:26:37.720
<v Speaker 2>the hung, if the jury was hung on all verdicts,

437
00:26:37.759 --> 00:26:40.640
<v Speaker 2>all all of the counts, that would be precedent.

438
00:26:40.960 --> 00:26:41.960
<v Speaker 8>I don't know right about.

439
00:26:42.000 --> 00:26:46.599
<v Speaker 7>What about there is precedent that generally judges do not inquire,

440
00:26:47.359 --> 00:26:50.759
<v Speaker 7>and if a jury is hung on one count, the

441
00:26:51.160 --> 00:26:57.240
<v Speaker 7>defendant can be tried on the whole bundle, and that

442
00:26:57.440 --> 00:26:58.960
<v Speaker 7>is not double jeopardy.

443
00:26:59.440 --> 00:27:02.200
<v Speaker 2>I don't think. I don't think there's any case what

444
00:27:02.359 --> 00:27:07.279
<v Speaker 2>makes this case unique, Steve uh Stephen is this is

445
00:27:07.319 --> 00:27:10.960
<v Speaker 2>the only case that I think you could find where

446
00:27:11.000 --> 00:27:16.400
<v Speaker 2>a jury, subsequent to being dismissed, went to the Apparently

447
00:27:16.480 --> 00:27:19.640
<v Speaker 2>that's what the news reports say that multiple jurors have

448
00:27:19.799 --> 00:27:22.079
<v Speaker 2>gone to both the prosecution and defense and said, hey,

449
00:27:22.079 --> 00:27:24.839
<v Speaker 2>wait a second, we reached a verdict on count one

450
00:27:24.839 --> 00:27:27.920
<v Speaker 2>in count three and it was not guilty. Now the

451
00:27:28.000 --> 00:27:30.559
<v Speaker 2>judge can bring these people back in and if these

452
00:27:30.640 --> 00:27:33.200
<v Speaker 2>media reports are false, But what do you do if

453
00:27:33.200 --> 00:27:35.440
<v Speaker 2>she brings.

454
00:27:34.400 --> 00:27:36.799
<v Speaker 7>Say the jury, no, I don't argue the facts. I mean,

455
00:27:36.839 --> 00:27:43.880
<v Speaker 7>I understand, did go and try to, in essence reverse

456
00:27:44.000 --> 00:27:48.640
<v Speaker 7>the judges hoped that the judge or whom ever would

457
00:27:48.680 --> 00:27:50.480
<v Speaker 7>reverse the judge's decision.

458
00:27:51.400 --> 00:27:56.039
<v Speaker 2>But the judge didn't render a decision. The judge did

459
00:27:56.079 --> 00:27:59.400
<v Speaker 2>not communicate and did not ask a question that now

460
00:27:59.519 --> 00:28:01.880
<v Speaker 2>is a errent to me? And I think the A

461
00:28:02.000 --> 00:28:04.200
<v Speaker 2>C l U. And when you have me and the

462
00:28:04.240 --> 00:28:05.720
<v Speaker 2>A C l U in the same side.

463
00:28:05.519 --> 00:28:08.400
<v Speaker 7>Of the argument, right, well, that that should give you pause,

464
00:28:08.519 --> 00:28:09.319
<v Speaker 7>right there, Dan.

465
00:28:10.240 --> 00:28:12.240
<v Speaker 2>Maybe you should give them pause. I don't know.

466
00:28:15.839 --> 00:28:18.960
<v Speaker 7>Okay for another so we have to you know, what

467
00:28:19.000 --> 00:28:22.400
<v Speaker 7>the jurors want is really not material.

468
00:28:22.759 --> 00:28:26.480
<v Speaker 2>It's what is the jurists don't want anything. They're reporting

469
00:28:26.839 --> 00:28:28.519
<v Speaker 2>factually what occurred in.

470
00:28:28.400 --> 00:28:32.559
<v Speaker 7>That courtroom, right, I mean, let.

471
00:28:32.400 --> 00:28:34.759
<v Speaker 2>Me ask you this question, Steve. Let's assume that there

472
00:28:34.799 --> 00:28:38.759
<v Speaker 2>was one Let's take another case, and let's assume there's

473
00:28:38.759 --> 00:28:44.920
<v Speaker 2>one juror that's a holdout for acquittal hypothetical. Okay, hypothetics hypothetical, yes,

474
00:28:44.920 --> 00:28:47.920
<v Speaker 2>And when the when the verdict is announced and open court,

475
00:28:48.599 --> 00:28:50.880
<v Speaker 2>they say guilt. The foreman says guilty.

476
00:28:51.960 --> 00:28:53.440
<v Speaker 7>Well, no, no, it has to be it has to

477
00:28:53.440 --> 00:28:54.039
<v Speaker 7>be unanimous.

478
00:28:54.079 --> 00:28:57.960
<v Speaker 2>Well it does, I know it does. But let's let's

479
00:28:58.000 --> 00:29:00.400
<v Speaker 2>assume that this happened, okay.

480
00:29:00.279 --> 00:29:03.079
<v Speaker 7>So that the foreman says kilty when there is a

481
00:29:03.119 --> 00:29:03.799
<v Speaker 7>hung jury.

482
00:29:03.920 --> 00:29:04.960
<v Speaker 2>Well, not a hung jury.

483
00:29:04.960 --> 00:29:08.119
<v Speaker 7>There's one persony, isn't it Well.

484
00:29:07.920 --> 00:29:10.960
<v Speaker 2>It can be yes, yes, technically fine, okay. So then

485
00:29:11.519 --> 00:29:16.480
<v Speaker 2>the judge dismisses the jury. The juror felt intimidated, hypothetically,

486
00:29:17.119 --> 00:29:20.319
<v Speaker 2>and then the juror comes back and goes to the

487
00:29:20.359 --> 00:29:23.880
<v Speaker 2>defense lawyers and says, look, I know you don't believe me,

488
00:29:24.480 --> 00:29:27.720
<v Speaker 2>but I held out for an acquittal and they ran

489
00:29:27.799 --> 00:29:28.680
<v Speaker 2>roughshot over me.

490
00:29:28.839 --> 00:29:29.000
<v Speaker 8>Right.

491
00:29:29.039 --> 00:29:32.640
<v Speaker 7>Well, that means that the foreman of the jury would

492
00:29:32.680 --> 00:29:35.319
<v Speaker 7>be subject to criminal Uh, criminal.

493
00:29:35.200 --> 00:29:42.519
<v Speaker 2>I understand that. Okay, let's see what I got you

494
00:29:42.599 --> 00:29:46.000
<v Speaker 2>in before the break here, my friend. Okay, uh and

495
00:29:46.119 --> 00:29:49.519
<v Speaker 2>uh as always your You're always well. You agree to disagree?

496
00:29:49.519 --> 00:29:51.119
<v Speaker 2>You're one of my best calls. You know that.

497
00:29:51.160 --> 00:29:52.799
<v Speaker 7>If not my Dan, you're too kind.

498
00:29:53.039 --> 00:29:54.920
<v Speaker 2>Thanks, buddy, Talk to you soon. Take a quick break,

499
00:29:54.960 --> 00:29:57.000
<v Speaker 2>coming right back here on nights Side right after this.

500
00:29:58.039 --> 00:30:01.279
<v Speaker 1>Now back to Dan ra from the Window World night

501
00:30:01.359 --> 00:30:04.279
<v Speaker 1>Side Studios on w b Z, the news radio.

502
00:30:05.000 --> 00:30:07.400
<v Speaker 2>Okay, we got to crank it a little bit here, folks.

503
00:30:07.440 --> 00:30:09.079
<v Speaker 2>I've been letting people go on a little bit. I

504
00:30:09.079 --> 00:30:11.079
<v Speaker 2>want to know whether you agree to disagree. Charlie isn't

505
00:30:11.119 --> 00:30:13.480
<v Speaker 2>ever Charlie next on night Side? You have heard the arguments?

506
00:30:13.519 --> 00:30:14.559
<v Speaker 2>What say you, my friend?

507
00:30:16.279 --> 00:30:19.240
<v Speaker 8>Oh, did you say Charlie Charlie?

508
00:30:19.359 --> 00:30:22.519
<v Speaker 2>Is it Charlie or Kelly? What's the name? I did

509
00:30:22.519 --> 00:30:24.400
<v Speaker 2>say Charlie, Charlie from effort.

510
00:30:24.440 --> 00:30:28.599
<v Speaker 8>I'm sorry, I gotta ask a question. Sure, how did

511
00:30:28.720 --> 00:30:34.960
<v Speaker 8>the judge instruct the jury before deliberation? The judge say

512
00:30:35.319 --> 00:30:36.960
<v Speaker 8>you're deliberating on all three?

513
00:30:37.039 --> 00:30:37.200
<v Speaker 3>You have?

514
00:30:39.759 --> 00:30:40.920
<v Speaker 8>What did she say?

515
00:30:41.279 --> 00:30:45.119
<v Speaker 2>She would have given him a standard deduction, a standard instruction? Okay,

516
00:30:45.200 --> 00:30:47.480
<v Speaker 2>and obviously they knew that they were deliberating on three

517
00:30:47.519 --> 00:30:52.119
<v Speaker 2>separate indictments, and apparently they were confused. They thought that

518
00:30:52.160 --> 00:30:54.559
<v Speaker 2>they had to come. I'm sure she said to them,

519
00:30:54.680 --> 00:30:57.160
<v Speaker 2>you know, in order to convict, you need a unanimous verdict.

520
00:30:57.160 --> 00:30:59.920
<v Speaker 2>Now she might have said a unanimous verdict on all

521
00:31:00.079 --> 00:31:01.720
<v Speaker 2>three and.

522
00:31:01.799 --> 00:31:04.160
<v Speaker 8>May I'm saying she may have said, but what did

523
00:31:04.200 --> 00:31:04.960
<v Speaker 8>he want?

524
00:31:05.000 --> 00:31:06.359
<v Speaker 2>I don't know. I don't know.

525
00:31:06.400 --> 00:31:07.039
<v Speaker 5>That's a question.

526
00:31:07.200 --> 00:31:09.000
<v Speaker 8>I can tell you one more three. I was on

527
00:31:09.000 --> 00:31:11.680
<v Speaker 8>the jury three or four times in nineteen seventy five,

528
00:31:11.680 --> 00:31:14.440
<v Speaker 8>atter with thirty days. Three One case I was on,

529
00:31:15.279 --> 00:31:17.960
<v Speaker 8>the judge changed our decision. You know what the jury did.

530
00:31:18.519 --> 00:31:20.720
<v Speaker 8>They all nodded their heads, and they know what the

531
00:31:20.759 --> 00:31:24.480
<v Speaker 8>death of the gloriousness. They jumped up and they said, Judge,

532
00:31:24.519 --> 00:31:27.200
<v Speaker 8>I want this to note it. The jury is all

533
00:31:27.279 --> 00:31:28.119
<v Speaker 8>nodding me ahead.

534
00:31:28.279 --> 00:31:31.680
<v Speaker 2>Yeah. Well that's what that's called. That's called judgment n Olvian,

535
00:31:32.119 --> 00:31:34.559
<v Speaker 2>a judgment entered by a judge notwithstanding the verdict.

536
00:31:36.079 --> 00:31:39.319
<v Speaker 8>I play bar with. That's why I time I go

537
00:31:39.599 --> 00:31:44.079
<v Speaker 8>do okay, eight years old? Eighty years old is the temper?

538
00:31:44.119 --> 00:31:47.759
<v Speaker 2>Buddy, Happy birthday, Happy birthday, Get easy. Let me go

539
00:31:47.799 --> 00:31:49.519
<v Speaker 2>to Bruce and how Bruce, you gotta be quick for me.

540
00:31:49.519 --> 00:31:50.599
<v Speaker 2>There's a couple more behind you.

541
00:31:50.640 --> 00:31:53.640
<v Speaker 3>Go ahead, Bruce, Yeah, Dan Ali, I will make it fast.

542
00:31:53.720 --> 00:31:58.480
<v Speaker 3>Steve hit the nail on the head with his precedent's comments.

543
00:31:58.519 --> 00:32:03.359
<v Speaker 3>My concern is they should rule that those charges are

544
00:32:03.720 --> 00:32:07.839
<v Speaker 3>dismissed and set a precedence for the future.

545
00:32:08.279 --> 00:32:10.079
<v Speaker 2>Exactly. That's my argument.

546
00:32:11.359 --> 00:32:16.240
<v Speaker 3>Or if there if it isn't appropriate to dismiss those charges,

547
00:32:16.400 --> 00:32:21.039
<v Speaker 3>great retryer on three chargers, but write a law that says,

548
00:32:21.319 --> 00:32:23.160
<v Speaker 3>let's not have this happen again.

549
00:32:23.359 --> 00:32:26.400
<v Speaker 2>Well, here's the problem for taking thank you, but one

550
00:32:26.519 --> 00:32:30.200
<v Speaker 2>you got to rely upon the legislature. The Supreme Court

551
00:32:30.559 --> 00:32:32.599
<v Speaker 2>can act on their own. It's called case law. They

552
00:32:32.640 --> 00:32:35.839
<v Speaker 2>can establish a practice in Massachusetts if they ruled the

553
00:32:35.839 --> 00:32:39.160
<v Speaker 2>way that I suggested the aco you suggested this case.

554
00:32:39.440 --> 00:32:41.480
<v Speaker 2>If it goes to he can hill to the legislature.

555
00:32:41.680 --> 00:32:46.240
<v Speaker 2>Good luck with that. Thanks Bruce, good night, Bye bye. Okay,

556
00:32:46.319 --> 00:32:49.640
<v Speaker 2>real quick Steve and Merrimack, and then we'll get Kristen

557
00:32:49.680 --> 00:32:50.200
<v Speaker 2>and Franklin.

558
00:32:50.200 --> 00:32:53.160
<v Speaker 6>Go ahead, Steve, Hey, Dan, thanks for taking my call.

559
00:32:53.359 --> 00:32:53.839
<v Speaker 2>You welcome.

560
00:32:55.119 --> 00:32:57.079
<v Speaker 6>You know I have to disagree with you on this

561
00:32:57.160 --> 00:32:59.799
<v Speaker 6>one because the way I look at it, this is

562
00:32:59.839 --> 00:33:03.519
<v Speaker 6>a collective action by the prosecution on one event. The

563
00:33:03.599 --> 00:33:06.960
<v Speaker 6>event was what happened to O'Keefe, you know, as a

564
00:33:07.000 --> 00:33:10.240
<v Speaker 6>result of what happened with that vehicle, and you know

565
00:33:10.480 --> 00:33:14.559
<v Speaker 6>her motive and intent. So my my way I look

566
00:33:14.599 --> 00:33:17.920
<v Speaker 6>at it. You know, if you have ambiguity on one

567
00:33:17.960 --> 00:33:22.000
<v Speaker 6>of the charges, that it's not for the jury to decide.

568
00:33:22.079 --> 00:33:25.359
<v Speaker 6>It's the judge to decide whether they're going to retry it.

569
00:33:25.599 --> 00:33:27.759
<v Speaker 6>And I think the jury is trying to overstep the

570
00:33:27.839 --> 00:33:28.720
<v Speaker 6>judges authority.

571
00:33:29.359 --> 00:33:32.799
<v Speaker 2>Judge. Judge doesn't have any authority here. But the case

572
00:33:32.839 --> 00:33:34.599
<v Speaker 2>now is out of the judge's hand. The case is

573
00:33:34.640 --> 00:33:36.799
<v Speaker 2>in the hand of the State Supreme Court, and the

574
00:33:36.799 --> 00:33:40.519
<v Speaker 2>State Supreme Court has the has the opportunity now to

575
00:33:41.000 --> 00:33:44.920
<v Speaker 2>set a new standard of practice in Massachusetts. That's all

576
00:33:45.240 --> 00:33:45.839
<v Speaker 2>that's really.

577
00:33:46.200 --> 00:33:51.000
<v Speaker 6>The question is will they allow the retrial or are

578
00:33:51.000 --> 00:33:53.240
<v Speaker 6>they going to throw out the other two charges? But

579
00:33:53.319 --> 00:33:54.240
<v Speaker 6>I'm not sure.

580
00:33:54.599 --> 00:33:57.160
<v Speaker 2>Well that's that's that'll be the decision that they'll make.

581
00:33:57.160 --> 00:34:01.240
<v Speaker 2>They'll either say no, there is no verdict rendered and

582
00:34:01.240 --> 00:34:02.920
<v Speaker 2>she's got to go to trial in all three, or

583
00:34:02.920 --> 00:34:05.839
<v Speaker 2>they'll say yes. You know, again, there's a little bit

584
00:34:05.880 --> 00:34:07.359
<v Speaker 2>of work to be done here. But I think it'll

585
00:34:07.400 --> 00:34:10.800
<v Speaker 2>be better better practice, better better practice going forward. I

586
00:34:10.800 --> 00:34:12.599
<v Speaker 2>gotta grab one more, Steve, I thank you much. I

587
00:34:12.679 --> 00:34:13.880
<v Speaker 2>appreciate that call very much.

588
00:34:14.280 --> 00:34:14.559
<v Speaker 6>Thank you.

589
00:34:14.639 --> 00:34:17.320
<v Speaker 2>Last one is Kristin and Franklin. Kristin, what say you

590
00:34:17.360 --> 00:34:18.679
<v Speaker 2>on this year? The last caller?

591
00:34:19.880 --> 00:34:27.719
<v Speaker 9>Dan, I disagree. I feel like the judge got a

592
00:34:27.719 --> 00:34:30.840
<v Speaker 9>lot of intel from the jurors from their letters about

593
00:34:30.880 --> 00:34:35.239
<v Speaker 9>them being in a standing or I'm not using the

594
00:34:35.280 --> 00:34:35.639
<v Speaker 9>right word.

595
00:34:35.840 --> 00:34:37.800
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, they're they're they're hung there, Yeah.

596
00:34:37.880 --> 00:34:39.519
<v Speaker 3>They're yeah, they're hung yep.

597
00:34:39.760 --> 00:34:42.840
<v Speaker 9>But at the end of the court, I don't know

598
00:34:42.880 --> 00:34:48.119
<v Speaker 9>if you saw, the defense ran out. They were very

599
00:34:48.119 --> 00:34:50.239
<v Speaker 9>happy for the mistrial and ran out and made a

600
00:34:50.280 --> 00:34:52.000
<v Speaker 9>big statement on the steps.

601
00:34:53.280 --> 00:34:55.960
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, that's that's what a defense lawyer is going to

602
00:34:56.039 --> 00:34:57.960
<v Speaker 2>do in that situation. They're going to say that they

603
00:34:59.199 --> 00:35:02.119
<v Speaker 2>that it was a hunger and that their client was

604
00:35:02.199 --> 00:35:06.079
<v Speaker 2>not convicted, and in fact they were correct because on

605
00:35:06.519 --> 00:35:10.519
<v Speaker 2>one issue, one indictment was hung and the other two

606
00:35:10.519 --> 00:35:13.039
<v Speaker 2>of the juris. What we're hearing from the juris is

607
00:35:13.039 --> 00:35:14.039
<v Speaker 2>they came to one acquittal.

608
00:35:14.719 --> 00:35:17.559
<v Speaker 9>Yeah, but I am. My question is that I was

609
00:35:17.599 --> 00:35:20.360
<v Speaker 9>going to ask, how valid do we know that they

610
00:35:20.440 --> 00:35:23.639
<v Speaker 9>are really hearing from the jurors.

611
00:35:23.360 --> 00:35:27.239
<v Speaker 2>Real simple, real simple, simple Christian. They know who the

612
00:35:27.320 --> 00:35:29.599
<v Speaker 2>jurors are. They bring the juris back in and they

613
00:35:29.679 --> 00:35:33.360
<v Speaker 2>questioned the jurors under oath, and if one juris is no, no, no,

614
00:35:33.519 --> 00:35:35.639
<v Speaker 2>that's not true. Were we were hung on all three?

615
00:35:36.239 --> 00:35:38.800
<v Speaker 3>Then they're not doing that.

616
00:35:38.840 --> 00:35:40.480
<v Speaker 9>Are you saying that that's what they should do.

617
00:35:41.039 --> 00:35:43.559
<v Speaker 2>I think that's what the the Prime State Supreme Court

618
00:35:43.639 --> 00:35:46.239
<v Speaker 2>should should instruct Judge Catoni to do.

619
00:35:46.360 --> 00:35:50.480
<v Speaker 9>Yes, okay, because right now, so far, all this hullabaloo

620
00:35:50.599 --> 00:35:53.880
<v Speaker 9>is by the defense telling us what they're hearing from

621
00:35:53.880 --> 00:35:54.400
<v Speaker 9>the jurors.

622
00:35:54.800 --> 00:35:57.400
<v Speaker 2>Apparently the jurors have gone to the prosecution as well,

623
00:35:57.440 --> 00:35:59.760
<v Speaker 2>according to the Boston Globe. And I will accept that

624
00:35:59.800 --> 00:36:03.400
<v Speaker 2>as truth up against it. You gotta call earlier. I

625
00:36:03.400 --> 00:36:05.679
<v Speaker 2>gotta go here because the ten oclock News, and I

626
00:36:05.760 --> 00:36:07.440
<v Speaker 2>got a guess coming up on the other side. Other

627
00:36:07.480 --> 00:36:09.880
<v Speaker 2>than that, I keep you with us, Thanks, Kristin. Here

628
00:36:09.960 --> 00:36:12.280
<v Speaker 2>comes the ten o'clock news. We're going to talk about

629
00:36:12.360 --> 00:36:14.440
<v Speaker 2>space weather on the other side.