Court TV says jury has another question.

Further, the judge reconsidered her position on the verdict form that the defense objected to this morning. She'll address it with a supplemental instruction explaining the should only go to the lesser includeds if they find not guilty on the major charge in Count Two.

Since the jury has a question and she was already working on this, she'll call the jury in, answer their question and then deliver the amended instruction, and then adjust the verdict form accordingly.

aggiehawg said:

---

Further, the judge reconsidered her position on the verdict form that the defense objected to this morning. She'll address it with a supplemental instruction explaining the should only go to the lesser includeds if they find not guilty on the major charge in Count Two.

Since the jury has a question and she was already working on this, she'll call the jury in, answer their question and then deliver the amended instruction, and then adjust the verdict form accordingly.

---

Is it common for a judge to provide alternate instructions in the middle of jury deliberation?

SwigAg11 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Further, the judge reconsidered her position on the verdict form that the defense objected to this morning. She'll address it with a supplemental instruction explaining the should only go to the lesser includeds if they find not guilty on the major charge in Count Two.

Since the jury has a question and she was already working on this, she'll call the jury in, answer their question and then deliver the amended instruction, and then adjust the verdict form accordingly.

---

Is it common for a judge to provide alternate instructions in the middle of jury deliberation?

---

Only when they screw it up the first time.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Is it common for there not to be an objection during closing arguments

---

Objections during opening and closing statements are considered to be a matter of decorum between professionals. Some judges don't like them for that reason and frown upon them. Obviously, they are allowable but generally, are reserved for egregious behavior to preserve the record.

Having listened to both closings twice now, there could have been some objections to statements made by both defense and the state in my view. Defense did not object to the state's misstating evidence because their closing had been very very strong they didn't feel the need to do so.

At the end of the day, both sides are watching the jury's reactions and making judgment calls.

One last point directly related to this trial. The judge was holding each side to a strict time limit which she enforced with time left warnings. So making repeated objections would interfere with the timing, which the judge would not have appreciated. Judgment call there on the part of the attorneys. It has been quite a long trial. They are all exhausted, attorneys, jury and judge just want it to be over.

---

The states closing was cut off with three pages left to go.

It was awesome and awkward

Quote:

---

The states closing was cut off with three pages left to go.

It was awesome and awkward

---

And dumb. When judge gives a lawyer a time limit, they time it and then edit accordingly to fall within it.

I have often said the best way to prepare for trial is start with the closing, then work one's way back to ensure evidence is introduced on all elements required, all the way to opening remarks.

After listening to the prosecution's opening, I could tell they had not prepared in that manner. They had no narrative with a corresponding timeline to follow through the trial.

I hope the jury was not too thrown off by the ambiguity in the original instructions and on the original verdict form. Her supplemental should have cleared that up.

Law and Crime saying a verdict is in? Need to confirm.

ETA: False alarm. Jury is off to lunch.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

The states closing was cut off with three pages left to go.

It was awesome and awkward

---

And dumb. When judge gives a lawyer a time limit, they time it and then edit accordingly to fall within it.

I have often said the best way to prepare for trial is start with the closing, then work one's way back to ensure evidence is introduced on all elements required, all the way to opening remarks.

After listening to the prosecution's opening, I could tell they had not prepared in that manner. They had no narrative with a corresponding timeline to follow through the trial.

I hope the jury was not too thrown off by the ambiguity in the original instructions and on the original verdict form. Her supplemental should have cleared that up.

Law and Crime saying a verdict is in? Need to confirm.

ETA: False alarm. Jury is off to lunch.

---

Had my hopes up

FYI, the judge has instructed the jury no verdict will be allowed between 1 until 2PM, Eastern so the judge, parties and counsel can have lunch in peace without having to rush back.

So even if the jury has reached a verdict, the judge will not entertain it during that hour. Which is now about to expire.

So, if the jury doesn't think she hit him, then is it not guilty on all charges? I'm real confused with each charge.

Oh, I tried to go in reverse at 24 mph, like the CW "expert" witness said she did. Could barely get to 10 mph on a clear, dry day in Texas.

At first, I thought she hit him, and was so drunk didn't realize she did. Now after I heard how drunk HE was, I think he fell and hit his head. If he was moving trying to get out of her way and fell, is there anything in the charges for that?

Also where did scratches come from?

MsDoubleD81 said:

---

At first, I thought she hit him, and was so drunk didn't realize she did. Now after I heard how drunk HE was, I think he fell and hit his head. If he was moving trying to get out of her way and fell, is there anything in the charges for that?

Also where did scratches come from?

---

Problem is they say she hit him hard enough to fly 30 feet, yet the impact was only his arm and no bones were broken. If a 200lbs person gets hit in an 11lbs arm with enough force to send a body airborn for 30 ft, it'd probably rip the arm off.

Lacerations, not scratches. Prosecution says from broken taillight. Defense says it's the homeowner's German Shepard that was conveniently rehomed shortly after the incident. Defense brought up some fairly credible experts that testified that they resembled a dog attack, not a shattered taillight.

MsDoubleD81 said:

---

So, if the jury doesn't think she hit him, then is it not guilty on all charges? I'm real confused with each charge.

Oh, I tried to go in reverse at 24 mph, like the CW "expert" witness said she did. Could barely get to 10 mph on a clear, dry day in Texas.

At first, I thought she hit him, and was so drunk didn't realize she did. Now after I heard how drunk HE was, I think he fell and hit his head. If he was moving trying to get out of her way and fell, is there anything in the charges for that?

Also where did scratches come from?

---

Many of them were parallel, resembling a dog's paw scratched his arm. Further, althought some o O'Keffe's DNA was found on the pieces of tailight, it was not DNA from a blood source. No blood. So if the pieces had caused the lacerations, one would expect to have pieces still in the arm or find traces of blood.

Also the timeline did not track between the phones and GPS locations.

Lastly, there was surveillance video of Read's car hours later with a cracked tailight but was still intact and on the vehicle.

And didn't his shirt test positive for pig DNA? John either had bacon for dinner or Chloe a pigs ear.

MsDoubleD81 said:

---

And didn't his shirt test positive for pig DNA? John either had bacon for dinner or Chloe a pigs ear.

---

I didn't actually hear that testimony but if true, more corroboration it was the dog. Said dog, Chloe, was "rehomed" right after O'Keefe's death, likely to the Rainbow Bridge for pets.

The involvement of the dog leads me to believe O'Keefe died inside the house or was unconscious at the very least at the time of the dog attack as the lacerations were antemortem. He was still alive.

I can't imagine what is taking this jury so long to reach a verdict here. State presented a crap case, even if she did it, they didn't prove it.

It was one of the early prosecution witnesses who said there was no canine DNA, but positive for pig DNA. I'll see if I can find which one.

Also, Lawyer You Know has said he'd vote not guilty.

We are rapidly approaching the 4PM cut off as requested by a juror this morning to make a longstanding appointment. Unsure there is enough time left, even if they have reached a verdict to get everyone assembled and announce it today.

Here's the "expert" who testified about pig DNA. I shouted pigs ear at the TV and my dog came running. LOL

https://turnto10.com/news/local/witnesses-continue-to-add-their-recollections-in-the-karen-read-murder-trial-testimony-john-okeefe-may-15-2024

Per juror's request, jury has now been dismissed for the day.

They said earlier today that the juror said they had to catch a 4 pm bus due to a prior commitment.

Hawg, what is your opinion on why it's taking so long? Would the first question the jury answer is "who thinks she hit him"?

Also, on another subject, Donna Adelson trial starts in September!!!

MsDoubleD81 said:

---

They said earlier today that the juror said they had to catch a 4 pm bus due to a prior commitment.

Hawg, what is your opinion on why it's taking so long? Would the first question the jury answer is "who thinks she hit him"?

---

I honestly don't know other than some jury confusion due to the poor wording on the verdict form. I would have expected that the judge's supplemental instruction and corrected verdict form would have been sufficient to clear up that particular confusion.

Lawyers tend to shy away from guessing jury verdicts because juries can be cray-cray and you never know what they get hooked onto. But there's also anecdotal info here.

Among the lawtubers watching this trial, there is not always unanimity in assessing how a jury should or would go. But of all of the comments I have seen, the lawtubers are aligned that the state's case stunk on ice and if the jury does convict on whichever charge, the judge could easily grant a motion for a judgment notwithstanding that verdict.

Will she? Separate question. She has to live in that community, too. If these people were willing to go to this extreme to frame Read, they could do the same to anyone else.

There's always a significant chance of having a few dumb people on a jury. There's a chance that when the defense goes this hard and a juror does not buy some argument the defense makes they just reflexively want to vote for the prosecutor and make it more of a fifty-fifty thing instead of beyond reasonable doubt. There are also jurors who will, despite instruction, still assume guilt and want defense to prove innocence.

There are also some jurors who will simply not like Karen Read and her appearance. She has resting b face.

My hope in this case and in any case where it's abundantly clear that a not guilty verdict should happen is that there will be enough jurors who will refuse to convict and refuse to horse trade for lesser. That's what eventually won out in Rittenhouse.

I'm reminded of the juror in one of the first cases that went to trial over the murder of Dan Markel.

She held out and refused to negotiate or convict despite overwhelming evidence because the woman on trial for conspiracy to commit murder was a single mother and juror didn't want to be the cause of her being away from her kid. They had to redo the entire trial.

In considering all of the tomfoolery going on in this town, it's possible some of these key players have gotten to some of the jury. There are powerful people facing potential sanctions and jail time over this investigation. They need this conviction.

Quote:

---

There are also some jurors who will simply not like Karen Read and her appearance. She has resting b face.

---

Six men, six women are on this jury. I can see how Read would be off-putting to women with her cursing voice mails and 53 calls/texts the night he disappeared. That's a lot. She seems to be a controlling b****. And some may be (impermissibly) holding her failure to testify against her.

Everything else about this case is screwy but with the family being somewhat prominent within the community, can't rule out some jury intimidation possibly happening. Notice how weird the courtroom layout is.

O'Keefe's family is seated directly opposite of the jury box. Stare downs are inevitable with that set up.

Peter breaks down what was going on with the verdict form this morning.

And then McCabe and Albert's there this morning.

MsDoubleD81 said:

---

And then McCabe and Albert's there this morning.

---

Yeah. Watch Peter's stream. Read reacted to what the judge was saying about the verdict form (original) was the norm in Mass but then judge asked the proseutor to back her up on that and he had to decline as he had not seen such a verdict form without a not guilty option on the lesser includeds. Read reacts again and the judge calls her out and abruptly leaves the bench!

I understand that everybody is tired, including the judge but that exchange with defense counsel Jackson this morning was just wrong. This judge says things such as, "I see your point and will take that into consideration."

Many attorneys would take that as the judge being receptive to making that requested change. State had no objection to that either.

Did her corrective action this afternoon cure that defect? (Very appealable in case of a conviction, BTW) and render it harmless error? IDK.

I broke down and paid for YouTube premium after a 3 month free trial. So worth it!!

Peter just broke down the double jeopardy argument presented by the judge's original verdict form. If they found not guilty for the main charge but then guilty (for lack of an option of not guilty) any retrial could not include the major charge and could only be on the lessers.

And even then, I don't think the state can prove such a case.

Could the jury be taking so long because they think she hit him and are trying to decide which count/charge(s) apply? I'm not as confident as the legal eagles that she'll be found not guilty.

The 'scratches' on the arm they say came from a car strike.

What says y'all?

https://www.youtube.com/live/Wn-zRc8_czY?si=0N_3QpjsPF3ONySs

Jury started deliberating day 3 shortly after 9AM Eastern this morning. All quiet otherwise. Just waiting on them to reach a decision or tell the judge they are deadlocked.

Do you find it interesting that the only thing jury has asked for was the SERT report?

Also saw this posted.....interesting.

Quote:

---

Do you find it interesting that the only thing jury has asked for was the SERT report?

---

IIRC, there really was not a written report, just testimony about it? And that testimony was that officers standing nearly shoulder to shoulder searched the area where the body was found but they never saw any of the red or clear pieces of the broken tailight. Those were found subsequent to that search.

So to me, the jury is at least considering the police frame up theory of the defense, IOW, reasonable doubt about the so-called "evidence."

The way the judge phrased her answer only willing to say the jury "has all of the evidence" instead of telling them they have that report and give the exhibit number for them to more easily find it, means it isn't there.

I think Proctor and O'Harra both testified that they found plastic pieces of taillight.

https://www.thesunchronicle.com/news/local_news/state-police-lead-investigator-testifies-about-taillight-pieces-texts-at-karen-read-murder-trial/article_58683bd5-8ca1-55fc-9dcc-42da220c3228.html