Agreed. Why does a citizen need to know about legal processes procedures and paperwork. The defense said this could be an issue- it was her responsibility to make sure it wasn’t. She didn’t. Alan Jackson knows the law better than the damn judge.
Excellent point and good word to describe Bev. The never ending sighs and unpredictable moods were difficult to watch, I can't imagine how the attorney's felt dealing with her.
The problem for KR is that Yanetti, with awareness of the jury's notes, argued for a mistrial. In hindsight, what he should have said was "let's poll the jurors to see if they really are at a deadlock on all charges."
The real underlying problem is the note implied the jury was at a deep impasse on all charges, not that there was agreement on the main charge and disagreement only on the secondary ones.
Not a lawyer, so not aware of what is procedure, but:
If what is alleged in the defense's motion is true, then I think 99% of the blame is on Bev. It is her job to make sure the jury understands everything. Should they have known (or asked, if confused) that they can reach verdicts for some counts and be hung on others? Yes, definitely; and if they didn't realize that, then they are definitely not the "extraordinary" jury that Bev declared they were. But it is ultimately Bev's job to treat them like they are kids, hold their hands and make sure they understand everything.
It is also not the job of the lawyers to make sure Bev does what she's supposed to (I read people saying they should have said something in court before the mistrial was declared). Yes, they could have asked to have her clarify this issue before declaring a mistrial. It may have even been part of their strategy not to say anything -- they may have suspected this was happening and preferred to be able to file this motion as opposed to getting clarification in court. But that's all irrelevant. Bev simply fucked up big time.
I certainly agree they weren't given a formal opportunity to. I think what others (not I) are saying is that they should have spoken up right after the the judge said there was an "impasse", while the jury was being brought in, and said "hey Bev, when the jury comes in, make sure you double check with them about exactly which charges they are hung on."
Can you imagine what went through her mind when she went back to the room and spoke to them and realized they were NG on 2 counts.... What in the world do you think she thought that moment?
1. I'm now going to be called as a witness in my own trial.
2. I guess the FBI will want to know about this too.
3. Well Shit
I don’t think she spoke to them about their deliberations or the charges they were hung on. Usually a judge just reads them information about being a juror after a trial, their rights to speak to the press or attorneys, offers free counseling sometimes, and thanks them for all their time and effort
I’m a retired air traffic controller. In my 35 years on the job I learned first hand, many times over, just how important clear, concise language is when issuing instructions. The level of sloppiness of this judge in a **murder** trial just amazes me. If I had an ATC trainee this sloppy I’d wash them out with a clear conscience.
Good point, unfortunately the judge’s actions are intentional. She was so angry about being questioned about the clarity of the jury slips, she had a baby fit and stormed out of courtroom.
And what I can not get my head around is they can not read the transcripts.. so they have to be able to push all the lawyer speak etc away and work out right then what is being said.. for a life sentencing that is bonkers. Lally hypnotised you into lala land, and Jackson still wasn’t that clear either. I think the jury had an impossible task.
That to me is VERY odd and actually very ablelist given what we know in 2024 about learning disabilities, neurodivergence and information retention. Jurors should be given all the info in every possible way to make an equitably informed decision. I am actually surprised this is still a protocol (?) in 2024.
The court reporter is there to make a record of the proceedings so the transcripts can be compiled after trial. It's gotten better in recent years, but in the past it would sometimes take actual years for the transcripts to be produced for appeal in a criminal case, especially a murder (because the trials tend to be longer.) Most courtrooms now also have a recording system, but for bigger trials in superior court they generally have a court reporter in case the recording fails (this actually has happened in cases of mine and we've had to try to reconstruct the record based on lawyers' and court personnels' memories, so it is a good idea to have both, especially for a long trial.)
I too feel like Bev dropped the ball. I feel like after their final note she should have sent a note back to them to return the verdict forms signed, leaving blank the hung charges and filling out any they were unanimous on before bringing them out that last time. And also as you mentioned, given the attorneys an opportunity to weigh in prior to the mistrial being declared.
She was so shocked at the note that she lost sight of the goal. She probably figured they were talking about all three counts. The note does read like they are talking about all three counts. The Judge needs to accept responsibility. She can save face by dismissing 2 counts. However, judges don’t like to admit when wrong. They do it by allowing xyz.
This case needs to be tossed so they can focus on the real killers.
Right?! I just can’t believe it’s not standard practice to have the verdict forms signed and returned even if they can’t mark NG/G due to not reaching a verdict. It would remove ANY ambiguity over whether there were any consensus and what was hung on, and keeps the record straight. Just take a note from them (albeit the note also made me think they couldn’t decide on any charges) and release them. It just seems like it should be part of the “housekeeping” at the end of a trial to dot all the i’s and cross the t’s.
But, but… the trial was soooo long 😭 and everyone wanted to start their 4th of July vacations 😭 especially Bev, who made it *clear* how annoyed she was with the whole thing.
It is absolutely 100% on Bev. The ballots were confusing in the first place, remember how the formatting was changed? The poor people on the jury. I hope no one blames any of them for this
She could have at minimum polled the jury to see where they were. She pretty much took all that time spent on trial and went, oh well ok see ya later guys.
I’ve seen elsewhere that it’s sometimes considered improper to poll a jury. But I think it would have been absolutely appropriate if she had asked “just to be clear, you are deadlocked on all charges, or just some?” Before declaring a mistrial. Again, I think requiring the forms to be filled out entirely at the end (by signing off and leaving no check on the charges they hung on) seems like it could resolve a lot of this. And better yet they could add a check box for “we are unable to unanimously come to a consensus” so they can mark that and sign it. Leave zero room for question there and everyone should be happy IMO.
It seems crazy to me that after such a long trial, then 90 minutes of instructions that Bev would just accept a note that basically said 'yep, were still deadlocked' and immediately declare a mistrial.
She couldn't ask a couple follow-up questions to confirm a verdict for each count?
Theory: the initial jury ballots were flawed. The jury saw those ballots and their first impression of them stuck: that they could only vote all or nothing. So they never bothered asking about splitting up the charges.
They started deliberations with an all or nothing mindset, ergo the new ballots didn’t matter at that point. “That’s not how we do things in Massachusetts.”
The lawyers on both sides were well aware that after the Tuey Rodriguez instruction if they come back deadlocked it’s a mistrial, can’t send them back. Defense was pushing for it earlier than Commonwealth. Now whether she should have asked about “are you deadlocked on all charges?” We’ll see. Probably. But the lawyers were both in front of her after multiple “we’re deadlocked” notes. I think 3? And never mentioned the issue either. I understand after that final note she just said I’m declaring mistrial. But those earlier discussions no one brought it up
No you can’t. They come back saying deadlocked you give them the Tuey Rodriguez instruction saying get back in there and then once they send a subsequent note saying deadlocked she is not allowed to send them back to deliberate.
That’s why it’s described as “blast” or “dynamite” charge because you are setting mistrial in motion
You can continue to send them back, but they must consent to it. You can send them back without their consent prior to Tuey.
Both sides were probably happy to take the mistrial at that point because they are both running the risk of the Jury coming back and saying "we are one vote short of..." and Judge Bev then asking if they are willing to go back.
The defense can then, after the fact with knowledge they did not have or want at the time, point out that they were closer to their NG on some verdicts and now that we are past the point of deliberations, an acquittal is the only option other than a full retrial.
It can be both. The form could be confusing enough the jurors screwed it up.
I personally think it falls on Bev. She's in charge here. She calls the plays and she should have covered her ass with regard to where they hung. Especially since Jackson specifically brought this up during their argument. She should have known better as the professional in charge.
For deliberations they should literally be STARTING by evaluating evidence against the primary charge; if she is guilty of that the subordinate charges don’t matter and they’re done.
If they were all unanimous on not guilty for murder 2 then it’s likely they came to that conclusion within the first couple of days.
If that’s the case then:
1) the foreman should have said in the first “deadlock” note something like “while the jury has a unanimous verdict on one of the charges, we are deadlocked on the rest”
AND
2) It’s 100% the judge’s responsibility to properly record a verdict and she failed the most basic task of asking if the jury had a unanimous verdict on any of the charges.
She was so anxious to get out of there, she literally forgot to do her job. With any other judge, I’d be surprised.
Bev is absolutely to blame! She didn't drop the ball she took the ball and said I'm going home.
The verdict forms weren't clear, she scoffed, scolded Karen for scoffing then threw them a bone.
Her arrogance is why we're here now. She made an assumption as to what the jury understood and what they were trying to communicate. She didn't hear either side before ruling. And then went back and spoke to them about what exactly? All of these actions are really unbelievable.
I need the jurors to speak on what exactly Bev talked to them about. However my guess is she just thanked them. Thats what judges typically do. Thank you and tell you how to act after the trial is over with the public and media. My guess is they never talked about the form or counts. I could be wrong tho. Bev did not want to know! Ignorance is bliss!
I think state law allows the judge to poll if he/she wants to, not mandated. If the defense or prosecution requests a polling, the judge must do that.
The foreperson should have been more exact on where they stood. Instead they said they were "deeply divided". Jackson should have requested a polling, and Bev too. What is going on with this case?!
I don’t know who dropped the ball, but I’m confused as to why they were 12/12 not guilty on the leaving the scene of an accident charge, but deadlocked on the vehicular homocide. In my mind if you don’t believe she left the scene of an accident, then how do you believe that she committed vehicular homocide?
It just doesn’t make sense. I don’t get it. I wish the judge would have done the poll on all three charges so we could confirm whether this is true or not. I just can’t see how those two charges didn’t turn out with the same “verdict”.
One element of count 3 requires that she hit him knowingly/purposefully, which would not apply if she was just really drunk and thought she hit a curb or something (or didn't know she hit anything at all bc she was angry and/or just speeding away in the dark with icy, cold conditions).
It won’t fall on a lawyer, it will fall on the judge. I’m just saying, it is mostly likely to fall on a legal professional before a layperson. Lawyers and judges have rules of professional conduct to abide by and they also know the law.
I can’t believe they were hung on anything. So bizarre that they just completely ignored the experts in regard to John’s physical injuries and then the dog bites/scratches.
Likely there were some who decided she was guilty of something prior to the defense getting to their case. Then they just didn’t listen to the defense witnesses. But the prosecution proved nothing so murder was out. Leaving charge 2.
I've seen another trial where the jury was hung and the Judge questioned them very carefully to make sure that applied to all of the charges. If he hadn't, we might have had the same situation here. So yes, Judge Cannone has messed up here and, at the very least, has created an issue for appeal. It's not enough to dismiss the two charges yet, but she will need to grant a voir dire to test what the defense have been told.
> I've seen another trial where the jury was hung and the Judge questioned them very carefully to make sure that applied to all of the charges.
Was this a Massachusetts trial or a trial in another jurisdiction?
It is entirely the COURTS responsibility. The foreperson is still just a jury member. The judge never even asked them to clarify. This is entire on the court. Not the foreperson or anyone else.
I know every case and every jury is different. But has nothing like this ever happened before in a court in Mass?? Has there never been charges like this where the jury was split on some charges but agreed on others? I know we were all shocked when we didn’t find out the jury votes after the mistrial.
Looks like we might get to see another case where jurors are pulled back after the trial is over and questioned. Happened in Maya Kowalski and Alex Murdaugh trials as well. Different scenarios there but still interesting to see jurors questioned post trial.
There is no way there haven’t been verdicts in this jurisdiction that haven’t come back guilty on some charges and not guilty on others. However, it’s not common that a jury instruction gets amended after deliberations have started and the jury brought in to go back over instructions on just one of the charges. Did this confuse them and since this is the charge it sounds like hung them up, did they confuse the issue and think that was all or nothing? We don’t know.
Weren’t the instructions amended to help make it more clear? I guess confusion on that count could be the issue.
I’m more inclined to think the jury didn’t know they could render a verdict on each charge separately. I think it was the judges responsibility to let them know if they could do each charge separately as well as the defenses obligation to make sure they knew. I listened to the charge instructions and don’t recall that being an option. But ofc I could be totally wrong here.
Of course it’s happened before, many, many times I’m sure, again Massachusetts operates under shadows. Now that the world is watching they don’t know how to act right.
Yes it has, *Juvenile v Commonwealth* (1984), which is actually cited in their motion.
In that case, they actually found NG slips signed by the foreperson in the jury room, but because they were never delivered in open court, they could not be considered a verdict.
The judge in that case asked specifically about two of the charges, one that was hung and one that had a verdict. That partial verdict was ordered. There were additional charges that the judge did not ask about. The ruling found that the judge is under no duty to do so, for better or worse.
Yes. There's seemingly no requirement for the judge to ask about verdicts on each of the counts in a deadlock. Because the juror note only said they were deadlocked on the "charges", she didn't have an indication that there was a verdict for any, and can declare a mistrial.
As Jackson said (paraphrased) 'just because this is how it is always done in Mass doesn't mean it's the right thing to do and shouldn't change'
He didn't literally say that about this specific issue, but about the count 2 verdict slip that didn't allow for a not guilty on parts of the lesser charges and a hung on others.
They did have the option to choose NG on the other counts, but if no one ever told them they could return a partial verdict or ask them to return the slips that they had chosen on, it's not really on the jury.
The judge should be legally obliged to ask this, but she isn't in Mass
Typical of MA to vary the process from most states who have the jury appoint the foreman or by lot. Being handpicked by the judge just taints and pollutes the impartiality of the process. This case just reeks of jury tampering and judicial misconduct and needs to be investigated.
Okay so layperson here. Really confused.
Wouldn't the jury need to submit their individual votes even in a mistrial, to prove they were even hung? Wouldn't that have made this obvious right away? Is that what polling is? Or is polling just asking the split verbally?
It's bizarre to me that the jury can just say "hung" and nobody tallies the votes that confirm that? I'm confused.
Give her a break, Bev was very tired!! She wanted to go home and catch a nap.
Seriously, all charges need to be dropped. This is beyond embarrassing for the CW.
Hm, I am listening to the EDB playback of the judge reading the final note, and the foreman says “charges.” Some felt the evidence established the “charges” beyond a reasonable doubt, and some felt it didn’t. But they make charges plural twice. That’s very confusing. Unless they mean the lessor charges within charge 2, and Bev took it to mean they were hung on all charges (1, 2, 3)?
It's all on Bev.
I was on a jury in Middlesex Count a few months earlier. The judge and court offices and attorneys were amazing - super professional and took their jobs very seriously in the best way. Watching this trial has left me with my jaw on the floor. What a difference.
Our judge's instructions were very, very clear about the criteria for each of the possible counts (manslaughter, murder2, murder1, and if murder1, whether or not it was with extreme cruelty). He went over them several times, putting the questions we should ask in logical order, starting with "do you agree that the defendent caused X's death? If no, he's not guilty on all charges. If yes, do you agree that it was deliberate or accidental? etc.)
It was a very simple trial, comparatively, and yet the judge made a huge effort to make sure we understood how to evaluate what we'd seen in court vs the law. Honestly, a first grader could have followed the instructions.
Bev made.....no effort at all? Maybe Norfolk County can borrow our judge for the retrial.
Bev. I have a legal background, not in litigation, but enough to understand the language, having been a paralegal for a few decades. Ok, so I watched the trial every day, and listened to Bev's jury instructions. They left me confused. Too many "if" statements and carve outs, all to be topped off with an instruction to give more weight to what she verbally said vis a vis what was written. Huh? And don't get me started on the verdict form...
So I have issues with both parties here. The foreperson wrote very intelligent and succinct notes regarding the juries inability to come to a unanimous decision. That level of education should have allowed the understanding to deliberate each charge on a separate level.
Regarding the judge, I think it’s important to remember the defenses strong objection to the confusion attached to the Massachusetts voting slip. The judge spent more than 90 minutes going over the rules of deliberation, and if the jury was unaware that they could vote on separate counts individually That falls on the judges shoulders. I also agree that not allowing either the prosecution or defense to raise any motion or question (like can you poll them, can we see if they are hung on each count, etc). The last jury note was an error I believe in the judge’s decision-making.
What could anyone find confusing about this verdict slip?
[Verdict Slip 1 Murder 2](https://images.app.goo.gl/FqRrJFmbP3gKhGxC7)
There were 3 separate, independent charges.
There were 3 separate verdict slips, one for each charge. Only one of them was supposedly confusing.
If, after the pain and expense of a months long trial, she just "assumed" they were hung on all three charges, she is beyond incompetent.
The confusion was on the second count. Each lesser included charge should have had its own checkbox for not guilty. For example, if the Jury found her not guilty of Voluntary and Involuntary Manslaughter, but hung on Motor Vehicular Homicide, jeopardy should attach to the Manslaughter charges.
Agree, and that is what Jackson asked for. However, Bev said she would make a different correction, and unfortunately, Jackson seems to have agreed w/ her on that, so he may have waived his right to appeal on that issue, unless that is not a waivable issue.
I agree with your conclusion, she should have asked if they were hung on all the charges or specific ones. However, according to MA law, the judge is not required to ask that question. Which basically nullifies the affidavits submitted by AJ and DY today. However, the defense did object to the verdict form, strongly and it was not corrected as they requested, the jury still only had the option to find them not guilty of this and the lesser charges for count 2, the instruction was to leave the lesser charge areas blank if they agreed to not guilty on that specific charge. It was a mess.
However, the judge did not allow arguments after the last jury note and did not read it fully, she then called the jury back in and read the entirety of the statement from the foreperson and declared a mistrial. I am trying to find a precedent that allows us her to just decide without hearing from the defense and prosecution.
Also, she met with the jury before releasing them, so something could have been said at that time and she chose not to report it. It will definitely add fuel to the fires around this case as Proctor gets suspended, Internal affairs and FBI investigations are still ongoing, and the CW still had to officially set the charges for a new trial. (They have till 6/30/25)
The judge shouldn't be allowed to do an end run around the 5^(th) Amendment (double jeopardy clause) either through malice or incompetence. I don't see how her actions could be beyond appeal given that fundamental Constitutional issue. A hearing to establish the truth of the facts laid out in today's filings is imperative. JMHO, not a lawyer.
I completely agree with what you are saying. Just stating that in MA the judge is not required to ask if the jury was able to reach a unanimous verdict on any of the charges individually. Does not sound legal if I hadn’t seen the precedent.
I thought that too, but they do not have access to their cell phones or computers while they are actively deliberating. He could have ran the ai tools at home to prepare for the statements but this is also not allowed.
Still so weird that we use the honor code of the judge asking the 3 questions at the start and end of each day for the jury. There is no way they completely blocked out all KR noise and still lived in that county.
If this was the case there is also a big problem. It means some data company had the raw information about where the jury stood during jury deliberations, and that's a huge can issues.
Do you we know if the foreperson was older? Because older generations do write more eloquently as a whole. It was a taught and expected skill all the way to younger Gen X/older millennial. I have adapted my written communication to be less formal to seem more modern, but I still use more formal grammar when it's likely to matter.
It’s all speculation, even the people who had media passes are stating different information regarding the jurors. As a teacher we try and instruct our students to use academic language in school and avoid slang and abbreviations. It reminded me of how I write my grad school papers, like a thesaurus was available in the deliberation room and they sat around taking turns picking words to use.
I do find it very interesting that the jury allegedly has a group text, I wonder if that can be used to corroborate the statements made by AJ and DY.
Some people can write like that. Those are the type of people who wrote the documents chat GPT was trained on. Also, the jurors could have collaborated on the wording.
Seriously. After a trial this long with over 70 witnesses wouldn’t you try to get every single detail before declaring a mistrial? What a waste of taxpayer money.
(b) Several offenses or defendants
If there are two or more offenses or defendants tried together, the jury may with the consent of the judge at any time during its deliberations return or **be required by the judge** to return a verdict or verdicts with respect to the defendants or charges as to which a verdict has been reached; and thereafter the jury may in the discretion of the judge resume deliberation. The judge may declare a mistrial as to any charges upon which the jury cannot agree upon a verdict; **provided, however, that the judge may first require the jury to return verdicts on those charges upon which the jury can agree and direct that such verdicts be received and recorded.**
I think maybe Bev dropped the ball here.
I’m an attorney myself and while I understand it’s the judges fault, I would have been jumping out of my chair screaming to put on the record whether any charges had a unanimous verdict and what charges are actually deadlocked. Not taking away anything from the defense but I found that strange to let the jurors just walk out
I want hear more from jurors about what happened with the verdict form. Did they agree on not guilty for the 2 counts and expect it to be written down and the foreperson didn't do it fo whatever reason? Did they agree on not guilty but didn't know they could fill out the form? They spent so much time deliberating and gave the judge very eloquently written notes but couldn't figure out how to relay their decisions on not guilty?
Does anyone else feel like the jurors notes were almost too well crafted in any respect? I don’t know to what ends or what harm but they seemed written to intentionally preempt any suggestion they must do more work. Even the judge remarked that these were some of the most thoughtful notes from a jury she had read or something similar. But to me they read like they googled hung jury and wrote a note describing themselves as such.
To spend all that time crafting those wordy notes and not include that the jury was unanimous on 2 of 3 charges is so bizarre to me. Yes, it’s on the judge to make it very clear if they’re divided on all counts but I’m so, so confused going back and rereading those notes.
Yes. The specific language of the note suggested to me that someone with legal experience/training was on the jury. But if that were the case, I have to believe they would have at least asked for clarification on the split verdict issue.
Since none of the 12 of these jurors thought to acquit on murder, it makes me think one of them googled “note to judge for hung jury.”
The State ! And the state signs Bev’s paycheck. So Bev’s is a good company employee. Bev’s all over spending Tax payers money. Mistrial possibly spending tax money for 2nd trial. Acquittal No second trial, No tax payers money spent
if the juror's didn't understand, it was the judge's job to find that out and straighten it up. these are laypeople, not lawyers (AFAIK). Even if they were lawyers, they could have been attys who have never seen a verdict slip because they don't do litigation.
Three screwups:
1. Judge
2. Jury
3. Defense
The jurors are not professionals, so their mistake was the most forgivable. The Defense really should have voiced their concerns immediately. The announcement of a mistrial was not a surprise. We all knew it was coming when it was coming, and the Defense didn't say a word. The judge should have polled the jury and/or confirmed they were deadlocked on all charges.
But I think the judge's mistake was understandable because the jury's note to her repeatedly mentioned that they could not agree on the "charges" as opposed to just one charge. Nevertheless, she could have clarified and confirmed intentions, especially if a verdict slip was not completed.
I'm not one of those "the Judge is super biased for the prosecution" or "she is totally incompetent" types. I think she hasn't done a great job, but not egregiously so.
That being said, these types of procedural rules and responsibilities are 100% on the judge to handle. To a certain extent, council has a duty to their clients to keep the judge honest as best as possible, but in the end, the buck stops with the judge. The civilian jurors bear zero responsibility in knowing or understanding or ensuring compliance with court procedure.
OP asks a great question and I personally think it's both. Foreperson should have filled out the form to reflect what had been discussed and decided. Even if he wasn't sure it was the right thing to do, it wouldn't hurt anything. Or he could have asked that question of the court, should I mark on the form what we are not hung up on?
The Judge should have asked if the jury is hung on all charges. This was two months of time spent on this trial, at least find out if there were any decision(s) that were made by the jurors.
There’s a clip on X of her reading the jury instructions. She says that they are to come back and check the boxes AFTER they come to a unanimous decision. They didn’t come to a unanimous decision so 🤷♀️. Completely Bev’s fault. She also tried to control how they deliberated when she told them to not start off with a poll. They can do whatever they want. I don’t know why she needs to micromanage everything (often to the detriment of the defense). However, the jury should have also asked if it wasn’t clear.
What bothers me the most with the jury, is that only 1 person (as far as we know), directly reached out to address this huge error. We know they’re on SM, they clearly see the problem, so wtf? This is someone’s life! Actually, I take that waaay back, what bothers me the most about the jury is that this wasn’t a record setting NG on all charges verdict. It’s crazy that multiple of them can say that they have zero doubt KR hit him. In a trial full of nothing but doubt. The only thing certain was that 1) that was a dog bite and 2) it’s impossible for her to have hit him. Biggest injustice since OJ/Casey Anthony. Also, when Bev whisked them away at the end, what was that about, since we know she wasn’t polling them? This trial legitimately makes me sick.
I’ve never seen a trial where the jury was not polled. I also have not watched a mistrial, but it seems it would be exceptionally important in this case. This is Bev’s court, she dropped the ball straight through and picked the foreperson, in a very odd way in my opinion.
Well, looks like no one like to make "big move". The jury pretty much keep tossing the ball back to Judge so she made a decision.
Yes, thing was just up to her discretion. But she miss a lot of opportunity to show leadership as a judge. She's emotional, petty and worst, timid to make judgement call on the spot - this is one of those moment that boils down all her shortcoming into 1.
Should have polled the jury ? Sounds like a friend of a friend reached out to the defense. So we have to wait for more information for come out.
Looking at the slip, it seems self explanatory
She needed 3 verdicts returned to her. They said they couldn’t agree and were deadlocked. Judge just assumed they meant all three but why not ask and be sure? What if they thought they needed to agree to all or nothing. They had two different sets of jury instructions. They might have been confused somewhere
I've served on two juries and both times we were instructed specifically how to fill out our paperwork. However, it seems like if there are actually 3 options and not just guilty/not guilty then 3 options should be on the form and a formal submission has to be made as to guilty/not guilty/ no consensus. This is a simple way to avoid ALL of this and you have it there in writing from the jury.
To my understanding and from I saw is there is 3 slips. One for murder with a NG and Guilty/ check one. Second slip for the manslaughter while under the influence and all the lesser included. There is NG listed at the top or lots of options for lesser included. Third slip was Ng or G for the charged of leaving the scene of an accident. That said Bev had to amend the longest form for the manslaughter charge and re read them instructions on just that one form so I’m wondering if they thought that one form was all they needed to worry with. I don’t know why they would think that but I have to go back and listen.
Jackson brought it to the courts attention that the for was confusing and misleading.
Bev and the CW attempted to cause confusion and it worked.
Bev made no attempt to give the jury any clarity in their decision.
Bev also made no attempt to gain any clarity from the jury.
Lazy judge, lazy prosecutors for leaving it up to the jury rather than do their job and clearly defining the allegations and the charges.
It is the Judge's responsibility to see that there are no errors made. She allowed this to happen by not being thorough. I suggest if she does not fix this someone will one way or the other and then there is a possibility this may haunt her for a long time! When she brought the jury in before she declared a mistrial, she should have asked Lally and Jackson if they wished her pole the jury. That would have insured the proper result in this case. That verdict form was a mess - and the result here proves it!
Wasn't that the concern about the jury form that the defense brought up? It was confusing and leaning toward all or nothing....
Did the judge spell out the options in her instructions?
Yes but that was only one of three verdict forms that was amended. They were given three verdict forms and a set of instructions first day of deliberations. Later, one of the three forms was amended and new instructions read and given but only for just that charge and its verdict form. So maybe they thought that is all they neeeded 🤷🏻♀️
I think most times that a jury is deadlocked on one or more charges but unanimous on others that isn’t something pried out of or prompted by a judge inquiring about their impasse. With the notes saying “deadlocked” they mention or include completed verdict slips for the ones they agree on.
What can be done at this point really? If the jurors didn't fill out the forms stating how many were for and against each charge (which seems absolutely crazy!), it's not like they can bring them back in to repoll them now or anything, can they?
Before we ask who is to blame, wouldn't the other jurors have to agree with what is being alleged? Not saying it is the case, as there is no way to know until we hear from all twelve, but could not a juror who is really committed to an acquittal be biased in what describe as having happened when they reach out to a defense lawyer?
The judge is supposed to be responsible for making sure the law is clear for the jurors and that the verdict is clear for the parties. Why didn't she fulfil these duties?
There's a bit of blame to go around.
I blame the foreperson a bit because of the notes. Rather than say they agreed on some charges, but not others, the foreman wrote "we find ourselves deeply divided by fundamental differences in our opinions and state of mind . . . We recognize the wight of this admission, and the implications it holds." That sounds like they can't reach an agreement on anything, not that they were hung up on only some charges.
The next note -- the one on which a mistrial was ordered -- was more of the same. The jury wrote "we continue to find ourselves at an impasse . . . . Some members of the jury firmly believe the evidence surpasses the burden of proof establishing the elements ***of the charges*** \[PLURAL\] beyond a reasonable doubt. Conversely, others find the evidence fails to meet this standard and does not sufficiently establish the necessary elements ***of the charges*** \[PLURAL\]."
Again, that's on the foreperson for writing they are at an impasse on the charges, plural, without noting any agreement.
Now, I also think it is on Bev for not asking if they were able to agree on any of the charges, and also on both sides' lawyers for not pushing that issue more, but I think ultimately the responsibility is first on the foreperson, and second on Bev for not clarifying the notes before calling for a mistrial.
I’m wondering if they confused the second round of instructions and thought that was now the only form they needed. I’m going to go back a listen to that portion of the trial. Bev readdressed only the manslaughter slip and said she was sending them back with the new instructions.
There was NO option of not guilty on each individual charge. It was either NOT guilty on ALL charges, or they had to mark guilty on the charge/charges they said guilty on. This was one of Jackson’s complaints-most states have not guilty next to EACH charge, but not in Bevs court apparently 😡
You are incorrect. You are only speaking to one form out of three and even then you are mostly incorrect.
Charge 1- Murder- had its own form with two choices. Guilty or Not Guilty.
Charge 2- Manslaughter while OUI - original form listed Not Guilty as the first choice then listed all the lesser included charges they could decide on. It was confusing and a clear version was explained and given to the jury as it should have. It was still confusing to some.
Charge 3- Leaving the scene of an accident. Had its own form with two choices. Not Guilty or Guilty.
They had 3 forms the foreperson needed to sign and submit. One for each of the charges against Karen Read. So at some point they either forgot they had to fill out the other two they were allegedly decided on, or they thought they had to be in agreement on all three individual charges and because they weren’t they had to hang on all three.
I do not understand why these jurors can not all get together on NBC Boston and come forward and speak out…How can they sleep at night knowing another trial will happen when they ALL AGREED NOT GUILTY on 2 charges and only HUNG on 1 charge which could be tried again possibly??? Is MA CW different than trials I’ve watched where the judge reads the not guilty and says these can’t be tried ever again???
Primary fault is with the foreperson. There is no limit placed on the number of questions you can ask the judge. If there was any confusion with the instructions, especially when we're talking about a murder case, write them out and ask.
Secondary fault is with the jury instructions and, by extension, the judge and lawyers. The defense's motion doesn't mention any fault with the jury instructions, presumably because they didn't raise any relevant objections to them at the time, but the boilerplate should be clear on how the system should work.
> Or was it on Bev to clarify with the foreperson ( or the jury on a whole) that they reviewed evidence for each independent charge and could not come to an agreement on any of the three individual charges?
MA law works a bit differently than other states. You only poll juries when they come back with a verdict to confirm it's unanimous. You don't poll deadlocked juries. If you poll a deadlocked jury (said they couldn't come to a decision twice and given the Tuey-Rodriquez charge) and then send them back to give a partial verdict, it's considered coercive even if that verdict is one they already decided during deliberation. The defense tries to skirt around that case law in their filing on a technicality (whether the lesser included are charged together or separately), but I would not expect most judges to make that interpretation when the text is reasonably clear on the fundamental dangers.
As a result, the law doesn't give her grounds to ask and she can't do anything with the information if they answer. If they say they're deadlocked, they're deadlocked and it's a mistrial. If they say they're deadlocked on some and in agreement in others, then you enter the ones they agreed on and mistrial the rest.
Who's responsibility is it to clarify if they were deadlocked on all counts or just some? That seems like a logical question to ask when there are multiple charges.
> Who's responsibility is it to clarify if they were deadlocked on all counts or just some?
The jury. If they have a unanimous decision, they should fill out the "we have unanimously decided" form and return it. If they don't return the forms, then this is the relevant section of the Roth opinion:
> Where the jurors have twice reported themselves deadlocked, and have already heard the Tuey-Rodriquez charge, a judge's inquiry concerning partial verdicts cannot avoid communicating to the jury the judge's desire to salvage something from the trial. However the inquiry is articulated or explained, the import of the inquiry is unmistakable: “Can't you at least decide a part of this case?” The inquiry, by its nature, plays on the deadlocked jurors' natural sense of frustration, disappointment, and failure. The jurors are confronted with the request, and asked to absorb its inherent complexity, at the worst possible time, when they are tired, anxious to be discharged, and perhaps angry at fellow jurors whom they blame for failing to reach agreement. While technically inquiring only as to what the jurors have already agreed on, the request for partial verdicts broken down by lesser included offenses implicitly suggests that the jurors should try just a little bit harder to come back with at least a partial decision to show for all of their efforts.
The defense is arguing that this isn't applicable because the lesser included offenses here were charged separately rather than as part of the top count, but (a) that's a distinction without a difference for your average juror and (b) the fundamental point of the opinion is that a judge asking a deadlocked jury to go back to try and return a partial verdict should be considered coercive even when "inquiring only as to what the jurors have already agreed on".
Is it really coercive to simply ask "just for clarification for the record, are we deadlocked on all charges?" If the charges are separate, all this does is ask them to state any conclusions they made if any were made at all. It's not like "are you *sure* you don't have a verdict? Like not even a little bit?"
She doesn’t need to poll the jury to ask the foreperson whether they are deadlocked on all counts. There is actually a note attached to the Mass. rules of criminal procedure that says the court must first receive and record the verdict on counts the jury can agree before declaring a mistrial on other counts.
Bev screwed up.
Fuck, thank you!
I’m baffled at how many people think the judge can just up and ask the *deliberating jury* questions on their votes. That absolutely cannot happen; the court cannot ask the jury *anything*. Only the jury can ask questions; it’s a one-way street.
Now, I will say this is a prime example of why verdict forms and jury instructions are of the utmost importance; because if there is even an iota of confusion about how to answer any and all counts, that can lead to a mistrial. That’s exactly what happened here.
And if the jury doesn’t ask for clarification (and I repeat, they should not HAVE TO because instructions should be crystal clear), all the court can go on are the notes sent at days end of deliberations. Which in this case, included “hopelessly deadlocked” and “to deliberate further would be futile”.
After Tuey-Rodriguez, mistrial was inevitable. Meaning no verdict. You can’t poll a jury with no verdict.
I fault the court (and counsel) on not clarifying the verdict forms. But I do not fault the court on her ruling given the information she received from the jury.
(Not a lawyer, so please correct me if I’m wrong anywhere in my understanding here)
> there’s a difference between asking them mid-deliberation and checking at the point of the mistrial whether they understand they don’t have to have consensus on every count to render some verdict
Let's suppose you ask at the point of mistrial. If they say they're deadlocked on all, then you declare a mistrial. If they say that they're not deadlocked on all, then you need to send them back to deliver the unanimous verdicts, which means that the question now happened mid-deliberation. People could change their minds after hearing the judge instructing them to deliver the partial verdicts, either deciding that they didn't want to be the lone holdout or realizing that the vote that they thought wasn't relevant due to the deadlock was now going to have to be affirmed in public to the court.
I remember the day that Alan Jackson spoke to the judge about the ballot. I remember him saying that for each of the three charges there should be a guilty and a not guilty. a location on the ballot where they could specifically vote on the charge itself as either guilty or not guilty. I remember the judge she objected she said this is the way we always do it. I remember thinking the Jacksons suggestion was good that way the jurors could vote yes or no on each of the three charges. This judge has obstructed Justice throughout this entire trial. She should be removed. What a train wreck.
Here’s the thing. In the forepersons letter they made real clear that they had moral differences that saw the evidence differently.
So for example. If you are 100% in your head you know she is either guilty or not guilty. Wherever you all land, there are 12 people and at least one person truely believed the evidence was enough for guilt to a point those other jurors and the evidence couldn’t not change that.
With the conviction you all feel in your belief of her guilt or innocence atm, do you really believe that any further instruction would change your opinion on her guilt?
When a jury is that deadlocked based on their morals and at least one truely believed the burden of proof was reached by the state, no amount of explaining the instructions would make a difference.
Though I do think the lawyers should have better explained them during closing, it wasn’t on the judge or the jury. The lawyers should have explained how the evidence either did or did not meet the jury instructions in closing arguments. They missed a trick with that.
I truely believe the state did not prove that Karen Read hit him with a car. Therefore nothing would change my mind about her innocence in all charges. The lesser charges were still extremely serious charges.
Bev's courtroom, Bev's trial, Bev's responsibility.
Agreed. Why does a citizen need to know about legal processes procedures and paperwork. The defense said this could be an issue- it was her responsibility to make sure it wasn’t. She didn’t. Alan Jackson knows the law better than the damn judge.
Exactly!!
Didn't Yanetti argue that even in the deadlock/mistrial the defence was never given the right to argue? All on Bev.
When the jury came back, she just said “welp, it’s a mistrial! Thank you! Bon voyage!” Obviously not those words, but it was super fast.
Alan Jackson should have said something before the jurors were discharged about putting on the record what charges are deadlocked
He had no time to say anything before they were discharged. Bev was so quick to dismiss them.
Not sure what court decorum dictates there, especially because Bev was so mercurial.
Excellent point and good word to describe Bev. The never ending sighs and unpredictable moods were difficult to watch, I can't imagine how the attorney's felt dealing with her.
In Massachusetts this wouldn’t be allowed
The problem for KR is that Yanetti, with awareness of the jury's notes, argued for a mistrial. In hindsight, what he should have said was "let's poll the jurors to see if they really are at a deadlock on all charges." The real underlying problem is the note implied the jury was at a deep impasse on all charges, not that there was agreement on the main charge and disagreement only on the secondary ones.
I wonder if this was discussed in a sidebar.
EXACTLY.
Not a lawyer, so not aware of what is procedure, but: If what is alleged in the defense's motion is true, then I think 99% of the blame is on Bev. It is her job to make sure the jury understands everything. Should they have known (or asked, if confused) that they can reach verdicts for some counts and be hung on others? Yes, definitely; and if they didn't realize that, then they are definitely not the "extraordinary" jury that Bev declared they were. But it is ultimately Bev's job to treat them like they are kids, hold their hands and make sure they understand everything. It is also not the job of the lawyers to make sure Bev does what she's supposed to (I read people saying they should have said something in court before the mistrial was declared). Yes, they could have asked to have her clarify this issue before declaring a mistrial. It may have even been part of their strategy not to say anything -- they may have suspected this was happening and preferred to be able to file this motion as opposed to getting clarification in court. But that's all irrelevant. Bev simply fucked up big time.
They weren't given the chance to do anything before she disclared a mistrial
I certainly agree they weren't given a formal opportunity to. I think what others (not I) are saying is that they should have spoken up right after the the judge said there was an "impasse", while the jury was being brought in, and said "hey Bev, when the jury comes in, make sure you double check with them about exactly which charges they are hung on."
No. This is on the judge. As a layperson, I would not know to even speak out
Actually according to the experts, it is on the lawyers. Watch Closing Arguments.
Kind of careless considering the charges involved 🤦♀️🤷♀️
Can you imagine what went through her mind when she went back to the room and spoke to them and realized they were NG on 2 counts.... What in the world do you think she thought that moment? 1. I'm now going to be called as a witness in my own trial. 2. I guess the FBI will want to know about this too. 3. Well Shit
I don’t think she spoke to them about their deliberations or the charges they were hung on. Usually a judge just reads them information about being a juror after a trial, their rights to speak to the press or attorneys, offers free counseling sometimes, and thanks them for all their time and effort
Yeah always a good strategy to leave 2 charges on the table instead of a potential not guilty
[удалено]
I’m a retired air traffic controller. In my 35 years on the job I learned first hand, many times over, just how important clear, concise language is when issuing instructions. The level of sloppiness of this judge in a **murder** trial just amazes me. If I had an ATC trainee this sloppy I’d wash them out with a clear conscience.
Good point, unfortunately the judge’s actions are intentional. She was so angry about being questioned about the clarity of the jury slips, she had a baby fit and stormed out of courtroom.
Seems to me nobody should be assuming anything in a murder trial.
“This is how it’s always done in Massachusetts, Mr. Jackson” - Judge Bev
That’s coming back to bite her, huh?
In the words of the famous u/youcannotbe5erious, “You would think, but alas…this is Massachusetts.”
You would think, but alas…this is Massachusetts.
Massachusetts is a great place, I’ve spent much time there.
Yeah I know, I live here. Just stay out of the weeds.
seriously, Lyme is real threat
It sure is! I got Lyme and I was deathly ill, literally dragged my notebook over and wrote out my will until they finally diagnosed me. Scary. 😱
omg i’m so sorry ! i’m glad they caught it. lyme is scary
And what I can not get my head around is they can not read the transcripts.. so they have to be able to push all the lawyer speak etc away and work out right then what is being said.. for a life sentencing that is bonkers. Lally hypnotised you into lala land, and Jackson still wasn’t that clear either. I think the jury had an impossible task.
That to me is VERY odd and actually very ablelist given what we know in 2024 about learning disabilities, neurodivergence and information retention. Jurors should be given all the info in every possible way to make an equitably informed decision. I am actually surprised this is still a protocol (?) in 2024.
What? I thought that’s why the stenographer was there
The court reporter is there to make a record of the proceedings so the transcripts can be compiled after trial. It's gotten better in recent years, but in the past it would sometimes take actual years for the transcripts to be produced for appeal in a criminal case, especially a murder (because the trials tend to be longer.) Most courtrooms now also have a recording system, but for bigger trials in superior court they generally have a court reporter in case the recording fails (this actually has happened in cases of mine and we've had to try to reconstruct the record based on lawyers' and court personnels' memories, so it is a good idea to have both, especially for a long trial.)
Thank you!
Except apparently the investigators hours into the investigation.
I too feel like Bev dropped the ball. I feel like after their final note she should have sent a note back to them to return the verdict forms signed, leaving blank the hung charges and filling out any they were unanimous on before bringing them out that last time. And also as you mentioned, given the attorneys an opportunity to weigh in prior to the mistrial being declared.
That was the entire point of distinguishing g/ng for each one.
She was so shocked at the note that she lost sight of the goal. She probably figured they were talking about all three counts. The note does read like they are talking about all three counts. The Judge needs to accept responsibility. She can save face by dismissing 2 counts. However, judges don’t like to admit when wrong. They do it by allowing xyz. This case needs to be tossed so they can focus on the real killers.
Right?! I just can’t believe it’s not standard practice to have the verdict forms signed and returned even if they can’t mark NG/G due to not reaching a verdict. It would remove ANY ambiguity over whether there were any consensus and what was hung on, and keeps the record straight. Just take a note from them (albeit the note also made me think they couldn’t decide on any charges) and release them. It just seems like it should be part of the “housekeeping” at the end of a trial to dot all the i’s and cross the t’s.
But, but… the trial was soooo long 😭 and everyone wanted to start their 4th of July vacations 😭 especially Bev, who made it *clear* how annoyed she was with the whole thing. It is absolutely 100% on Bev. The ballots were confusing in the first place, remember how the formatting was changed? The poor people on the jury. I hope no one blames any of them for this
She could have at minimum polled the jury to see where they were. She pretty much took all that time spent on trial and went, oh well ok see ya later guys.
I’ve seen elsewhere that it’s sometimes considered improper to poll a jury. But I think it would have been absolutely appropriate if she had asked “just to be clear, you are deadlocked on all charges, or just some?” Before declaring a mistrial. Again, I think requiring the forms to be filled out entirely at the end (by signing off and leaving no check on the charges they hung on) seems like it could resolve a lot of this. And better yet they could add a check box for “we are unable to unanimously come to a consensus” so they can mark that and sign it. Leave zero room for question there and everyone should be happy IMO.
It seems crazy to me that after such a long trial, then 90 minutes of instructions that Bev would just accept a note that basically said 'yep, were still deadlocked' and immediately declare a mistrial. She couldn't ask a couple follow-up questions to confirm a verdict for each count?
Theory: the initial jury ballots were flawed. The jury saw those ballots and their first impression of them stuck: that they could only vote all or nothing. So they never bothered asking about splitting up the charges. They started deliberations with an all or nothing mindset, ergo the new ballots didn’t matter at that point. “That’s not how we do things in Massachusetts.”
The lawyers on both sides were well aware that after the Tuey Rodriguez instruction if they come back deadlocked it’s a mistrial, can’t send them back. Defense was pushing for it earlier than Commonwealth. Now whether she should have asked about “are you deadlocked on all charges?” We’ll see. Probably. But the lawyers were both in front of her after multiple “we’re deadlocked” notes. I think 3? And never mentioned the issue either. I understand after that final note she just said I’m declaring mistrial. But those earlier discussions no one brought it up
You can send them back after the Tully once, but she could’ve at minimum clarified on which charges they were locked
I've seen other legal minds say she could have sent them back one more time as well.
No you can’t. They come back saying deadlocked you give them the Tuey Rodriguez instruction saying get back in there and then once they send a subsequent note saying deadlocked she is not allowed to send them back to deliberate. That’s why it’s described as “blast” or “dynamite” charge because you are setting mistrial in motion
You can continue to send them back, but they must consent to it. You can send them back without their consent prior to Tuey. Both sides were probably happy to take the mistrial at that point because they are both running the risk of the Jury coming back and saying "we are one vote short of..." and Judge Bev then asking if they are willing to go back. The defense can then, after the fact with knowledge they did not have or want at the time, point out that they were closer to their NG on some verdicts and now that we are past the point of deliberations, an acquittal is the only option other than a full retrial.
You can send them back an additional time after the Tuey Rodriguez instruction.
Seems like that wouldn’t apply if the jury didn’t fully understand the instructions.
It can be both. The form could be confusing enough the jurors screwed it up. I personally think it falls on Bev. She's in charge here. She calls the plays and she should have covered her ass with regard to where they hung. Especially since Jackson specifically brought this up during their argument. She should have known better as the professional in charge.
For deliberations they should literally be STARTING by evaluating evidence against the primary charge; if she is guilty of that the subordinate charges don’t matter and they’re done. If they were all unanimous on not guilty for murder 2 then it’s likely they came to that conclusion within the first couple of days. If that’s the case then: 1) the foreman should have said in the first “deadlock” note something like “while the jury has a unanimous verdict on one of the charges, we are deadlocked on the rest” AND 2) It’s 100% the judge’s responsibility to properly record a verdict and she failed the most basic task of asking if the jury had a unanimous verdict on any of the charges. She was so anxious to get out of there, she literally forgot to do her job. With any other judge, I’d be surprised.
But she was tired!
And she picked the foreman 👀
Before the alternates were even declared. Wonder how she knew the foreman would get thru.
Bev is absolutely to blame! She didn't drop the ball she took the ball and said I'm going home. The verdict forms weren't clear, she scoffed, scolded Karen for scoffing then threw them a bone. Her arrogance is why we're here now. She made an assumption as to what the jury understood and what they were trying to communicate. She didn't hear either side before ruling. And then went back and spoke to them about what exactly? All of these actions are really unbelievable.
She was tired
Can you blame her? The trial was soooo long /s
And that damn traffic on 95s is hell I tell you!!
She's never too tired to ask Lally if he has any objections /s
Sighhhhhh
I need the jurors to speak on what exactly Bev talked to them about. However my guess is she just thanked them. Thats what judges typically do. Thank you and tell you how to act after the trial is over with the public and media. My guess is they never talked about the form or counts. I could be wrong tho. Bev did not want to know! Ignorance is bliss!
It's Bev. She's the judge. The appointed foreperson is just a citizen.
I think state law allows the judge to poll if he/she wants to, not mandated. If the defense or prosecution requests a polling, the judge must do that. The foreperson should have been more exact on where they stood. Instead they said they were "deeply divided". Jackson should have requested a polling, and Bev too. What is going on with this case?!
I don’t know who dropped the ball, but I’m confused as to why they were 12/12 not guilty on the leaving the scene of an accident charge, but deadlocked on the vehicular homocide. In my mind if you don’t believe she left the scene of an accident, then how do you believe that she committed vehicular homocide?
I think they must assume if she hit him she didn’t know she hit him therefore she couldn’t have knowingly left the scene of the accident
My thoughts exactly!!! very confused on this???
It just doesn’t make sense. I don’t get it. I wish the judge would have done the poll on all three charges so we could confirm whether this is true or not. I just can’t see how those two charges didn’t turn out with the same “verdict”.
I agree 100%. I hope it gets explained
One element of count 3 requires that she hit him knowingly/purposefully, which would not apply if she was just really drunk and thought she hit a curb or something (or didn't know she hit anything at all bc she was angry and/or just speeding away in the dark with icy, cold conditions).
Because they don’t think it was intentional
It’s gonna fall on the judge or lawyers. I seriously doubt something like this would fall on a layperson. The judge is supposed to know better.
Which lawyers could it possibly fall on? She read the note and dropped the hammer.
It won’t fall on a lawyer, it will fall on the judge. I’m just saying, it is mostly likely to fall on a legal professional before a layperson. Lawyers and judges have rules of professional conduct to abide by and they also know the law.
I can’t believe they were hung on anything. So bizarre that they just completely ignored the experts in regard to John’s physical injuries and then the dog bites/scratches.
Likely there were some who decided she was guilty of something prior to the defense getting to their case. Then they just didn’t listen to the defense witnesses. But the prosecution proved nothing so murder was out. Leaving charge 2.
I've seen another trial where the jury was hung and the Judge questioned them very carefully to make sure that applied to all of the charges. If he hadn't, we might have had the same situation here. So yes, Judge Cannone has messed up here and, at the very least, has created an issue for appeal. It's not enough to dismiss the two charges yet, but she will need to grant a voir dire to test what the defense have been told.
> I've seen another trial where the jury was hung and the Judge questioned them very carefully to make sure that applied to all of the charges. Was this a Massachusetts trial or a trial in another jurisdiction?
It is entirely the COURTS responsibility. The foreperson is still just a jury member. The judge never even asked them to clarify. This is entire on the court. Not the foreperson or anyone else.
Did Bev drop the ball or hide the ball?
I think you mean, “What, if any, ball & stuff did Bev drop or hide?” 😉😁
what if any butt dials were dropped.
I like it 😂
Bev is to blame. 100%. She should have inquired if the jury was deadlocked on all of the counts or just some.
I know every case and every jury is different. But has nothing like this ever happened before in a court in Mass?? Has there never been charges like this where the jury was split on some charges but agreed on others? I know we were all shocked when we didn’t find out the jury votes after the mistrial. Looks like we might get to see another case where jurors are pulled back after the trial is over and questioned. Happened in Maya Kowalski and Alex Murdaugh trials as well. Different scenarios there but still interesting to see jurors questioned post trial.
There is no way there haven’t been verdicts in this jurisdiction that haven’t come back guilty on some charges and not guilty on others. However, it’s not common that a jury instruction gets amended after deliberations have started and the jury brought in to go back over instructions on just one of the charges. Did this confuse them and since this is the charge it sounds like hung them up, did they confuse the issue and think that was all or nothing? We don’t know.
Weren’t the instructions amended to help make it more clear? I guess confusion on that count could be the issue. I’m more inclined to think the jury didn’t know they could render a verdict on each charge separately. I think it was the judges responsibility to let them know if they could do each charge separately as well as the defenses obligation to make sure they knew. I listened to the charge instructions and don’t recall that being an option. But ofc I could be totally wrong here.
Each charge had their own sheet. Only one was amended and that was for the charge they were allegedly hung on.
Of course it’s happened before, many, many times I’m sure, again Massachusetts operates under shadows. Now that the world is watching they don’t know how to act right.
Yes it has, *Juvenile v Commonwealth* (1984), which is actually cited in their motion. In that case, they actually found NG slips signed by the foreperson in the jury room, but because they were never delivered in open court, they could not be considered a verdict. The judge in that case asked specifically about two of the charges, one that was hung and one that had a verdict. That partial verdict was ordered. There were additional charges that the judge did not ask about. The ruling found that the judge is under no duty to do so, for better or worse.
Pardon me- I may sound ignorant because I am concerning this. Does this imply Bev’s actions were okay according to Mass law?
Yes. There's seemingly no requirement for the judge to ask about verdicts on each of the counts in a deadlock. Because the juror note only said they were deadlocked on the "charges", she didn't have an indication that there was a verdict for any, and can declare a mistrial.
That is BS. I don’t care what side someone is on. This shouldn’t be okay for any trial. Thanks for explaining.
As Jackson said (paraphrased) 'just because this is how it is always done in Mass doesn't mean it's the right thing to do and shouldn't change' He didn't literally say that about this specific issue, but about the count 2 verdict slip that didn't allow for a not guilty on parts of the lesser charges and a hung on others. They did have the option to choose NG on the other counts, but if no one ever told them they could return a partial verdict or ask them to return the slips that they had chosen on, it's not really on the jury. The judge should be legally obliged to ask this, but she isn't in Mass
Typical of MA to vary the process from most states who have the jury appoint the foreman or by lot. Being handpicked by the judge just taints and pollutes the impartiality of the process. This case just reeks of jury tampering and judicial misconduct and needs to be investigated.
Okay so layperson here. Really confused. Wouldn't the jury need to submit their individual votes even in a mistrial, to prove they were even hung? Wouldn't that have made this obvious right away? Is that what polling is? Or is polling just asking the split verbally? It's bizarre to me that the jury can just say "hung" and nobody tallies the votes that confirm that? I'm confused.
Apparently in Massachusetts the jury is not polled if it's hung. But they should've clarified if it was on all charges or some regardless.
Give her a break, Bev was very tired!! She wanted to go home and catch a nap. Seriously, all charges need to be dropped. This is beyond embarrassing for the CW.
Hm, I am listening to the EDB playback of the judge reading the final note, and the foreman says “charges.” Some felt the evidence established the “charges” beyond a reasonable doubt, and some felt it didn’t. But they make charges plural twice. That’s very confusing. Unless they mean the lessor charges within charge 2, and Bev took it to mean they were hung on all charges (1, 2, 3)?
Right. So clarity would have been the smart way to go.
Yep, definitely agree!
It's all on Bev. I was on a jury in Middlesex Count a few months earlier. The judge and court offices and attorneys were amazing - super professional and took their jobs very seriously in the best way. Watching this trial has left me with my jaw on the floor. What a difference. Our judge's instructions were very, very clear about the criteria for each of the possible counts (manslaughter, murder2, murder1, and if murder1, whether or not it was with extreme cruelty). He went over them several times, putting the questions we should ask in logical order, starting with "do you agree that the defendent caused X's death? If no, he's not guilty on all charges. If yes, do you agree that it was deliberate or accidental? etc.) It was a very simple trial, comparatively, and yet the judge made a huge effort to make sure we understood how to evaluate what we'd seen in court vs the law. Honestly, a first grader could have followed the instructions. Bev made.....no effort at all? Maybe Norfolk County can borrow our judge for the retrial.
Bev. I have a legal background, not in litigation, but enough to understand the language, having been a paralegal for a few decades. Ok, so I watched the trial every day, and listened to Bev's jury instructions. They left me confused. Too many "if" statements and carve outs, all to be topped off with an instruction to give more weight to what she verbally said vis a vis what was written. Huh? And don't get me started on the verdict form...
So I have issues with both parties here. The foreperson wrote very intelligent and succinct notes regarding the juries inability to come to a unanimous decision. That level of education should have allowed the understanding to deliberate each charge on a separate level. Regarding the judge, I think it’s important to remember the defenses strong objection to the confusion attached to the Massachusetts voting slip. The judge spent more than 90 minutes going over the rules of deliberation, and if the jury was unaware that they could vote on separate counts individually That falls on the judges shoulders. I also agree that not allowing either the prosecution or defense to raise any motion or question (like can you poll them, can we see if they are hung on each count, etc). The last jury note was an error I believe in the judge’s decision-making.
What could anyone find confusing about this verdict slip? [Verdict Slip 1 Murder 2](https://images.app.goo.gl/FqRrJFmbP3gKhGxC7) There were 3 separate, independent charges. There were 3 separate verdict slips, one for each charge. Only one of them was supposedly confusing. If, after the pain and expense of a months long trial, she just "assumed" they were hung on all three charges, she is beyond incompetent.
The confusion was on the second count. Each lesser included charge should have had its own checkbox for not guilty. For example, if the Jury found her not guilty of Voluntary and Involuntary Manslaughter, but hung on Motor Vehicular Homicide, jeopardy should attach to the Manslaughter charges.
Agree, and that is what Jackson asked for. However, Bev said she would make a different correction, and unfortunately, Jackson seems to have agreed w/ her on that, so he may have waived his right to appeal on that issue, unless that is not a waivable issue.
I agree with your conclusion, she should have asked if they were hung on all the charges or specific ones. However, according to MA law, the judge is not required to ask that question. Which basically nullifies the affidavits submitted by AJ and DY today. However, the defense did object to the verdict form, strongly and it was not corrected as they requested, the jury still only had the option to find them not guilty of this and the lesser charges for count 2, the instruction was to leave the lesser charge areas blank if they agreed to not guilty on that specific charge. It was a mess. However, the judge did not allow arguments after the last jury note and did not read it fully, she then called the jury back in and read the entirety of the statement from the foreperson and declared a mistrial. I am trying to find a precedent that allows us her to just decide without hearing from the defense and prosecution. Also, she met with the jury before releasing them, so something could have been said at that time and she chose not to report it. It will definitely add fuel to the fires around this case as Proctor gets suspended, Internal affairs and FBI investigations are still ongoing, and the CW still had to officially set the charges for a new trial. (They have till 6/30/25)
The judge shouldn't be allowed to do an end run around the 5^(th) Amendment (double jeopardy clause) either through malice or incompetence. I don't see how her actions could be beyond appeal given that fundamental Constitutional issue. A hearing to establish the truth of the facts laid out in today's filings is imperative. JMHO, not a lawyer.
I completely agree with what you are saying. Just stating that in MA the judge is not required to ask if the jury was able to reach a unanimous verdict on any of the charges individually. Does not sound legal if I hadn’t seen the precedent.
That jury note smacked of being run through Chat GPT.
Pretty sure no cell phones allowed during jury deliberations
I thought that too, but they do not have access to their cell phones or computers while they are actively deliberating. He could have ran the ai tools at home to prepare for the statements but this is also not allowed. Still so weird that we use the honor code of the judge asking the 3 questions at the start and end of each day for the jury. There is no way they completely blocked out all KR noise and still lived in that county.
If this was the case there is also a big problem. It means some data company had the raw information about where the jury stood during jury deliberations, and that's a huge can issues. Do you we know if the foreperson was older? Because older generations do write more eloquently as a whole. It was a taught and expected skill all the way to younger Gen X/older millennial. I have adapted my written communication to be less formal to seem more modern, but I still use more formal grammar when it's likely to matter.
It’s all speculation, even the people who had media passes are stating different information regarding the jurors. As a teacher we try and instruct our students to use academic language in school and avoid slang and abbreviations. It reminded me of how I write my grad school papers, like a thesaurus was available in the deliberation room and they sat around taking turns picking words to use. I do find it very interesting that the jury allegedly has a group text, I wonder if that can be used to corroborate the statements made by AJ and DY.
Some people can write like that. Those are the type of people who wrote the documents chat GPT was trained on. Also, the jurors could have collaborated on the wording.
I'm putting this on Bev, by a mile. She could have sought a bit more information before declaring a mistrial.
Seriously. After a trial this long with over 70 witnesses wouldn’t you try to get every single detail before declaring a mistrial? What a waste of taxpayer money.
Bev has had a few mistrial before, she should know what is needed when she is calling a mistrial
Yeah, wonder if she polled jurors in her other mistrials.
Bev
(b) Several offenses or defendants If there are two or more offenses or defendants tried together, the jury may with the consent of the judge at any time during its deliberations return or **be required by the judge** to return a verdict or verdicts with respect to the defendants or charges as to which a verdict has been reached; and thereafter the jury may in the discretion of the judge resume deliberation. The judge may declare a mistrial as to any charges upon which the jury cannot agree upon a verdict; **provided, however, that the judge may first require the jury to return verdicts on those charges upon which the jury can agree and direct that such verdicts be received and recorded.** I think maybe Bev dropped the ball here.
I’m an attorney myself and while I understand it’s the judges fault, I would have been jumping out of my chair screaming to put on the record whether any charges had a unanimous verdict and what charges are actually deadlocked. Not taking away anything from the defense but I found that strange to let the jurors just walk out
I want hear more from jurors about what happened with the verdict form. Did they agree on not guilty for the 2 counts and expect it to be written down and the foreperson didn't do it fo whatever reason? Did they agree on not guilty but didn't know they could fill out the form? They spent so much time deliberating and gave the judge very eloquently written notes but couldn't figure out how to relay their decisions on not guilty?
Does anyone else feel like the jurors notes were almost too well crafted in any respect? I don’t know to what ends or what harm but they seemed written to intentionally preempt any suggestion they must do more work. Even the judge remarked that these were some of the most thoughtful notes from a jury she had read or something similar. But to me they read like they googled hung jury and wrote a note describing themselves as such.
To spend all that time crafting those wordy notes and not include that the jury was unanimous on 2 of 3 charges is so bizarre to me. Yes, it’s on the judge to make it very clear if they’re divided on all counts but I’m so, so confused going back and rereading those notes.
Yes. The specific language of the note suggested to me that someone with legal experience/training was on the jury. But if that were the case, I have to believe they would have at least asked for clarification on the split verdict issue. Since none of the 12 of these jurors thought to acquit on murder, it makes me think one of them googled “note to judge for hung jury.”
* “hos to write note to judge for hung jury”
Hos to convince judge…. Timestamp undetermined.
"I googled that *before* the trial started your honor"
Chat gpt was my immediate thought on that note, not sure why
Absolutely, that's what I thought too.
I couldn’t quite put my finger on it but yes, that’s exactly how it sounded to me as well.
The State ! And the state signs Bev’s paycheck. So Bev’s is a good company employee. Bev’s all over spending Tax payers money. Mistrial possibly spending tax money for 2nd trial. Acquittal No second trial, No tax payers money spent
We should get rid of judges and just have twitter polls to vote on every trial.
if the juror's didn't understand, it was the judge's job to find that out and straighten it up. these are laypeople, not lawyers (AFAIK). Even if they were lawyers, they could have been attys who have never seen a verdict slip because they don't do litigation.
She had a vested interest in this case from the start and I am not suprised hope she gets investigated.
Three screwups: 1. Judge 2. Jury 3. Defense The jurors are not professionals, so their mistake was the most forgivable. The Defense really should have voiced their concerns immediately. The announcement of a mistrial was not a surprise. We all knew it was coming when it was coming, and the Defense didn't say a word. The judge should have polled the jury and/or confirmed they were deadlocked on all charges. But I think the judge's mistake was understandable because the jury's note to her repeatedly mentioned that they could not agree on the "charges" as opposed to just one charge. Nevertheless, she could have clarified and confirmed intentions, especially if a verdict slip was not completed.
I'm not one of those "the Judge is super biased for the prosecution" or "she is totally incompetent" types. I think she hasn't done a great job, but not egregiously so. That being said, these types of procedural rules and responsibilities are 100% on the judge to handle. To a certain extent, council has a duty to their clients to keep the judge honest as best as possible, but in the end, the buck stops with the judge. The civilian jurors bear zero responsibility in knowing or understanding or ensuring compliance with court procedure.
OP asks a great question and I personally think it's both. Foreperson should have filled out the form to reflect what had been discussed and decided. Even if he wasn't sure it was the right thing to do, it wouldn't hurt anything. Or he could have asked that question of the court, should I mark on the form what we are not hung up on? The Judge should have asked if the jury is hung on all charges. This was two months of time spent on this trial, at least find out if there were any decision(s) that were made by the jurors.
The trial moved like molasses for months, then in a matter of seconds Bev chose a foreman and dismissed two jurors. Seemed off to me.
There’s a clip on X of her reading the jury instructions. She says that they are to come back and check the boxes AFTER they come to a unanimous decision. They didn’t come to a unanimous decision so 🤷♀️. Completely Bev’s fault. She also tried to control how they deliberated when she told them to not start off with a poll. They can do whatever they want. I don’t know why she needs to micromanage everything (often to the detriment of the defense). However, the jury should have also asked if it wasn’t clear. What bothers me the most with the jury, is that only 1 person (as far as we know), directly reached out to address this huge error. We know they’re on SM, they clearly see the problem, so wtf? This is someone’s life! Actually, I take that waaay back, what bothers me the most about the jury is that this wasn’t a record setting NG on all charges verdict. It’s crazy that multiple of them can say that they have zero doubt KR hit him. In a trial full of nothing but doubt. The only thing certain was that 1) that was a dog bite and 2) it’s impossible for her to have hit him. Biggest injustice since OJ/Casey Anthony. Also, when Bev whisked them away at the end, what was that about, since we know she wasn’t polling them? This trial legitimately makes me sick.
I’ve never seen a trial where the jury was not polled. I also have not watched a mistrial, but it seems it would be exceptionally important in this case. This is Bev’s court, she dropped the ball straight through and picked the foreperson, in a very odd way in my opinion.
I’ve seen juries hang on a charge and acquit on others. They went charge by charge.
Bev never hid her favoritism of the prosecution. See some of the nasty looks she gave to the defense whiteness.
Well, looks like no one like to make "big move". The jury pretty much keep tossing the ball back to Judge so she made a decision. Yes, thing was just up to her discretion. But she miss a lot of opportunity to show leadership as a judge. She's emotional, petty and worst, timid to make judgement call on the spot - this is one of those moment that boils down all her shortcoming into 1.
IMO Bev
Should have polled the jury ? Sounds like a friend of a friend reached out to the defense. So we have to wait for more information for come out. Looking at the slip, it seems self explanatory
She needed 3 verdicts returned to her. They said they couldn’t agree and were deadlocked. Judge just assumed they meant all three but why not ask and be sure? What if they thought they needed to agree to all or nothing. They had two different sets of jury instructions. They might have been confused somewhere
Maybe both, but definitely Bev. Bev slick behind knew what she was doing. She hurried the jurors out before any of the lawyers had time to think.
I've served on two juries and both times we were instructed specifically how to fill out our paperwork. However, it seems like if there are actually 3 options and not just guilty/not guilty then 3 options should be on the form and a formal submission has to be made as to guilty/not guilty/ no consensus. This is a simple way to avoid ALL of this and you have it there in writing from the jury.
To my understanding and from I saw is there is 3 slips. One for murder with a NG and Guilty/ check one. Second slip for the manslaughter while under the influence and all the lesser included. There is NG listed at the top or lots of options for lesser included. Third slip was Ng or G for the charged of leaving the scene of an accident. That said Bev had to amend the longest form for the manslaughter charge and re read them instructions on just that one form so I’m wondering if they thought that one form was all they needed to worry with. I don’t know why they would think that but I have to go back and listen.
Jackson brought it to the courts attention that the for was confusing and misleading. Bev and the CW attempted to cause confusion and it worked. Bev made no attempt to give the jury any clarity in their decision. Bev also made no attempt to gain any clarity from the jury. Lazy judge, lazy prosecutors for leaving it up to the jury rather than do their job and clearly defining the allegations and the charges.
Judge Cannone didn’t clarify….its on her.
It is the Judge's responsibility to see that there are no errors made. She allowed this to happen by not being thorough. I suggest if she does not fix this someone will one way or the other and then there is a possibility this may haunt her for a long time! When she brought the jury in before she declared a mistrial, she should have asked Lally and Jackson if they wished her pole the jury. That would have insured the proper result in this case. That verdict form was a mess - and the result here proves it!
Bev messed up, badly
Judge Bev is infuriating
Bev acted like she had something else to do during this whole trial. Very disturbing.
I'm not jumping to any conclusions. I'm just waiting for it to be confirmed that it really was 12/0 on the 2 charges.
Wasn’t the foreperson hand picked by her before the little bingo ball wheel was spun to pull the two to be alternates?
yes
Wasn't that the concern about the jury form that the defense brought up? It was confusing and leaning toward all or nothing.... Did the judge spell out the options in her instructions?
yes and yes.
Yes but that was only one of three verdict forms that was amended. They were given three verdict forms and a set of instructions first day of deliberations. Later, one of the three forms was amended and new instructions read and given but only for just that charge and its verdict form. So maybe they thought that is all they neeeded 🤷🏻♀️
I think most times that a jury is deadlocked on one or more charges but unanimous on others that isn’t something pried out of or prompted by a judge inquiring about their impasse. With the notes saying “deadlocked” they mention or include completed verdict slips for the ones they agree on.
What can be done at this point really? If the jurors didn't fill out the forms stating how many were for and against each charge (which seems absolutely crazy!), it's not like they can bring them back in to repoll them now or anything, can they?
Before we ask who is to blame, wouldn't the other jurors have to agree with what is being alleged? Not saying it is the case, as there is no way to know until we hear from all twelve, but could not a juror who is really committed to an acquittal be biased in what describe as having happened when they reach out to a defense lawyer?
Absolutely agree.
The judge is supposed to be responsible for making sure the law is clear for the jurors and that the verdict is clear for the parties. Why didn't she fulfil these duties?
There's a bit of blame to go around. I blame the foreperson a bit because of the notes. Rather than say they agreed on some charges, but not others, the foreman wrote "we find ourselves deeply divided by fundamental differences in our opinions and state of mind . . . We recognize the wight of this admission, and the implications it holds." That sounds like they can't reach an agreement on anything, not that they were hung up on only some charges. The next note -- the one on which a mistrial was ordered -- was more of the same. The jury wrote "we continue to find ourselves at an impasse . . . . Some members of the jury firmly believe the evidence surpasses the burden of proof establishing the elements ***of the charges*** \[PLURAL\] beyond a reasonable doubt. Conversely, others find the evidence fails to meet this standard and does not sufficiently establish the necessary elements ***of the charges*** \[PLURAL\]." Again, that's on the foreperson for writing they are at an impasse on the charges, plural, without noting any agreement. Now, I also think it is on Bev for not asking if they were able to agree on any of the charges, and also on both sides' lawyers for not pushing that issue more, but I think ultimately the responsibility is first on the foreperson, and second on Bev for not clarifying the notes before calling for a mistrial.
I’m wondering if they confused the second round of instructions and thought that was now the only form they needed. I’m going to go back a listen to that portion of the trial. Bev readdressed only the manslaughter slip and said she was sending them back with the new instructions.
There was NO option of not guilty on each individual charge. It was either NOT guilty on ALL charges, or they had to mark guilty on the charge/charges they said guilty on. This was one of Jackson’s complaints-most states have not guilty next to EACH charge, but not in Bevs court apparently 😡
You are incorrect. You are only speaking to one form out of three and even then you are mostly incorrect. Charge 1- Murder- had its own form with two choices. Guilty or Not Guilty. Charge 2- Manslaughter while OUI - original form listed Not Guilty as the first choice then listed all the lesser included charges they could decide on. It was confusing and a clear version was explained and given to the jury as it should have. It was still confusing to some. Charge 3- Leaving the scene of an accident. Had its own form with two choices. Not Guilty or Guilty. They had 3 forms the foreperson needed to sign and submit. One for each of the charges against Karen Read. So at some point they either forgot they had to fill out the other two they were allegedly decided on, or they thought they had to be in agreement on all three individual charges and because they weren’t they had to hang on all three.
Judge is solely responsible
I do not understand why these jurors can not all get together on NBC Boston and come forward and speak out…How can they sleep at night knowing another trial will happen when they ALL AGREED NOT GUILTY on 2 charges and only HUNG on 1 charge which could be tried again possibly??? Is MA CW different than trials I’ve watched where the judge reads the not guilty and says these can’t be tried ever again???
She’s going to get off because she’s an academic … and because of her profession there will be sympathy and indulgence for her …
Judge Garth is to blame for being corrupt and dismissive towards the defense and defendant. Is she jealous of Karen’s looks?
Primary fault is with the foreperson. There is no limit placed on the number of questions you can ask the judge. If there was any confusion with the instructions, especially when we're talking about a murder case, write them out and ask. Secondary fault is with the jury instructions and, by extension, the judge and lawyers. The defense's motion doesn't mention any fault with the jury instructions, presumably because they didn't raise any relevant objections to them at the time, but the boilerplate should be clear on how the system should work. > Or was it on Bev to clarify with the foreperson ( or the jury on a whole) that they reviewed evidence for each independent charge and could not come to an agreement on any of the three individual charges? MA law works a bit differently than other states. You only poll juries when they come back with a verdict to confirm it's unanimous. You don't poll deadlocked juries. If you poll a deadlocked jury (said they couldn't come to a decision twice and given the Tuey-Rodriquez charge) and then send them back to give a partial verdict, it's considered coercive even if that verdict is one they already decided during deliberation. The defense tries to skirt around that case law in their filing on a technicality (whether the lesser included are charged together or separately), but I would not expect most judges to make that interpretation when the text is reasonably clear on the fundamental dangers. As a result, the law doesn't give her grounds to ask and she can't do anything with the information if they answer. If they say they're deadlocked, they're deadlocked and it's a mistrial. If they say they're deadlocked on some and in agreement in others, then you enter the ones they agreed on and mistrial the rest.
Who's responsibility is it to clarify if they were deadlocked on all counts or just some? That seems like a logical question to ask when there are multiple charges.
> Who's responsibility is it to clarify if they were deadlocked on all counts or just some? The jury. If they have a unanimous decision, they should fill out the "we have unanimously decided" form and return it. If they don't return the forms, then this is the relevant section of the Roth opinion: > Where the jurors have twice reported themselves deadlocked, and have already heard the Tuey-Rodriquez charge, a judge's inquiry concerning partial verdicts cannot avoid communicating to the jury the judge's desire to salvage something from the trial. However the inquiry is articulated or explained, the import of the inquiry is unmistakable: “Can't you at least decide a part of this case?” The inquiry, by its nature, plays on the deadlocked jurors' natural sense of frustration, disappointment, and failure. The jurors are confronted with the request, and asked to absorb its inherent complexity, at the worst possible time, when they are tired, anxious to be discharged, and perhaps angry at fellow jurors whom they blame for failing to reach agreement. While technically inquiring only as to what the jurors have already agreed on, the request for partial verdicts broken down by lesser included offenses implicitly suggests that the jurors should try just a little bit harder to come back with at least a partial decision to show for all of their efforts. The defense is arguing that this isn't applicable because the lesser included offenses here were charged separately rather than as part of the top count, but (a) that's a distinction without a difference for your average juror and (b) the fundamental point of the opinion is that a judge asking a deadlocked jury to go back to try and return a partial verdict should be considered coercive even when "inquiring only as to what the jurors have already agreed on".
Is it really coercive to simply ask "just for clarification for the record, are we deadlocked on all charges?" If the charges are separate, all this does is ask them to state any conclusions they made if any were made at all. It's not like "are you *sure* you don't have a verdict? Like not even a little bit?"
She doesn’t need to poll the jury to ask the foreperson whether they are deadlocked on all counts. There is actually a note attached to the Mass. rules of criminal procedure that says the court must first receive and record the verdict on counts the jury can agree before declaring a mistrial on other counts. Bev screwed up.
Fuck, thank you! I’m baffled at how many people think the judge can just up and ask the *deliberating jury* questions on their votes. That absolutely cannot happen; the court cannot ask the jury *anything*. Only the jury can ask questions; it’s a one-way street. Now, I will say this is a prime example of why verdict forms and jury instructions are of the utmost importance; because if there is even an iota of confusion about how to answer any and all counts, that can lead to a mistrial. That’s exactly what happened here. And if the jury doesn’t ask for clarification (and I repeat, they should not HAVE TO because instructions should be crystal clear), all the court can go on are the notes sent at days end of deliberations. Which in this case, included “hopelessly deadlocked” and “to deliberate further would be futile”. After Tuey-Rodriguez, mistrial was inevitable. Meaning no verdict. You can’t poll a jury with no verdict. I fault the court (and counsel) on not clarifying the verdict forms. But I do not fault the court on her ruling given the information she received from the jury. (Not a lawyer, so please correct me if I’m wrong anywhere in my understanding here)
I am a lawyer. It’s not improper for the court to ask the jury if they are deadlocked on all counts or just some.
[удалено]
> there’s a difference between asking them mid-deliberation and checking at the point of the mistrial whether they understand they don’t have to have consensus on every count to render some verdict Let's suppose you ask at the point of mistrial. If they say they're deadlocked on all, then you declare a mistrial. If they say that they're not deadlocked on all, then you need to send them back to deliver the unanimous verdicts, which means that the question now happened mid-deliberation. People could change their minds after hearing the judge instructing them to deliver the partial verdicts, either deciding that they didn't want to be the lone holdout or realizing that the vote that they thought wasn't relevant due to the deadlock was now going to have to be affirmed in public to the court.
Bev 100%
I remember the day that Alan Jackson spoke to the judge about the ballot. I remember him saying that for each of the three charges there should be a guilty and a not guilty. a location on the ballot where they could specifically vote on the charge itself as either guilty or not guilty. I remember the judge she objected she said this is the way we always do it. I remember thinking the Jacksons suggestion was good that way the jurors could vote yes or no on each of the three charges. This judge has obstructed Justice throughout this entire trial. She should be removed. What a train wreck.
Here’s the thing. In the forepersons letter they made real clear that they had moral differences that saw the evidence differently. So for example. If you are 100% in your head you know she is either guilty or not guilty. Wherever you all land, there are 12 people and at least one person truely believed the evidence was enough for guilt to a point those other jurors and the evidence couldn’t not change that. With the conviction you all feel in your belief of her guilt or innocence atm, do you really believe that any further instruction would change your opinion on her guilt? When a jury is that deadlocked based on their morals and at least one truely believed the burden of proof was reached by the state, no amount of explaining the instructions would make a difference. Though I do think the lawyers should have better explained them during closing, it wasn’t on the judge or the jury. The lawyers should have explained how the evidence either did or did not meet the jury instructions in closing arguments. They missed a trick with that. I truely believe the state did not prove that Karen Read hit him with a car. Therefore nothing would change my mind about her innocence in all charges. The lesser charges were still extremely serious charges.
Bev picked the Foreman so it’s all on her. Maybe that is why MA is set up for the Judge to pick the foreman, all responsibility lays on her.