The families involved in this are well know. It wouldn't surprise me if they had someone on the jury that already had their mind made up

itsyourboypookie said:

---

The families involved in this are well know. It wouldn't surprise me if they had someone on the jury that already had their mind made up

---

Is this another example of a trial that probably should have been moved to a different jurisdiction due to how hard it would be to get jury impartiality?

itsyourboypookie said:

---

The families involved in this are well know. It wouldn't surprise me if they had someone on the jury that already had their mind made up

---

Not a surprise as much unconfirmed in my view. I'll allow this jury some grace after sitting there for nearly eleven weeks for this trial.

SwigAg11 said:

---

itsyourboypookie said:

---

The families involved in this are well know. It wouldn't surprise me if they had someone on the jury that already had their mind made up

---

Is this another example of a trial that probably should have been moved to a different jurisdiction due to how hard it would be to get jury impartiality?

---

Possibly. I never paid attention to the pretrial motions so don't know if that was a contentious issue.

I'm wondering if the jury really abides by no social media?

MsDoubleD81 said:

---

I'm wondering if the jury really abides by no social media?

---

I think the vast majority of jurors try to do that. But with a high profile trial that lasts this long? Nearly impossible to not see or hear something even if just by accident.

In fact the judge told the jury that this afternoon before she dismissed them for the weekend. If they accidentally see or hear something about the case, they need to dismiss it from their minds and not take it back into the deliberation room on Monday.

Doesn't the judge usually ask the defendant if they want to testify? And if they say no, doesn't the judge tell the jury that can't be held against them? I don't recall that happening? Is it different in Massachusetts?

MsDoubleD81 said:

---

Doesn't the judge usually ask the defendant if they want to testify? And if they say no, doesn't the judge tell the jury that can't be held against them? I don't recall that happening? Is it different in Massachusetts?

---

Yes. It is called the colloquy. Judge has to ask the defendant if they, not their counsel, wishes to waive such a constitutional right. Part of the fallout from the Miranda decision back in the 60s. Doesn't have to always be in open court as the record can still be preserved in an in chambers conversation outside of the jury's presence.

But that instruction to the jury about not being able to take that into consideration is always given when a defendant does not take the stand. very standard instruction.

Pro-tip: Want to get out of jury duty in a criminal case? Say you will hold it against them if they don't testify. The Hubs has used that one a few times. (Of course, I had no coaching advice to him to escape jury duty idea. That really was his own idea and I actually yelled at him for doing it. End of the day, that is really what he believed so that became a whatever argument and we left it at that.)

Melanie Little just replayed jury instructions while waiting. The jurors do have notes in deliberations. They are just taken each night and locked up each night, then destroyed at end of trial. Said they can use them to supplement their memory of testimony, but not shared with other jurors.

Also, she's discussing no transcript or read back of testimony.

Jury just came back with "Despite our commitment to the duty entrusted to us, we find ourselves deeply divided by fundamental differences in our opinions and state of mind."

Judge read Tuey-Rodriguez and sent them back to jury room.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/01/us/karen-read-murder-trial-deliberations/index.html

Have not been able to confirm this, but chats on the youtube channels are saying there is a retired police officer on the jury.

It's also amazing to me that at least one of the jurors heard the medical examiner and other prosecution witnesses say multiple things were possible in O'Keefe's death, including things that were not criminal, and yet still not have reasonable doubt as to the commonwealth's theory. Their own witnesses cast doubt on the theory.

At least one person on that jury has an axe to grind or is incredibly stupid.

One of my main concerns at the start of the trial was that jurors would decide they didn't like the defendant because of the look of her face. She has RBF. There's nothing she can do to change that. She looks like someone who would hit her boyfriend with her car and her name is Karen. Some people out there in public really are that petty and dumb.

AtticusMatlock said:

---

Have not been able to confirm this, but chats on the youtube channels are saying there is a retired police officer on the jury.

---

I have read that as well but he worked for another jurisdiction and did not know any of the officers involved with this case.

That could work both ways. On one level, I might expect him to ally a bit with his a profession and give benefit of doubt.

But at the same time, if he's a good cop he may know how screwed up this investigation is and hold them to an even higher level of accountability.

AtticusMatlock said:

---

That could work both ways. On one level, I might expect him to ally a bit with his a profession and give benefit of doubt.

But at the same time, if he's a good cop he may know how screwed up this investigation is and hold them to an even higher level of accountability.

---

Same as having attorneys on a jury. Can cut both ways depending on how professional that individual lawyer is.

When questioned...I usually managed to evade selection by stating something to the effect..."I have not been impressed with the Judicial System ever since it moved away from its 'Judeo-Christian' roots'".

UH OH, religious wacko...NEXT!

On a very basic/light read up on this, something tells me that the cops testifying are a part of some murder cover up.

Odds are good someone on that jury has been had by the locals.

Have you seen her dad? She has his mouth.

These instructions are heavy on reasonable doubt

I've heard an attorney too, and the way the last note was written makes me think that is true.

The judge selected the foreperson. Would be interesting if she picked the attorney.

However, anyone could have contributed to the language of the note and not just the foreperson. I've never been on a jury but I assume they discussed the language of the note as a group before they send it to the judge.

From Sue O'Connell, reporter in NBC Boston X

The judge delivers the instruction.
All but 2 jurors are looking at her.
One of those jurors rarely makes eye contact with anyone.
Another juror is looking toward the Read section, the OKeefe section, and is now looking down.

Only reason it could take this long is one of 3 scenarios:
1. A juror who just doesn't understand the concept that "reasonable doubt" benefits the defense and not the prosecution.
2. A juror who takes any police statement as gospel, and ignores everything else.
3. Influence by outside parties. While there's been the appearance of a lot of shadiness in this trial, I'd think this one is too risky getting caught, and it's probably #1 or #2.

The fourth option is they just don't like her, have a gut feeling she did it, and don't want to change their mind. Perhaps a true crime enthusiast who thinks they know better than everyone else, including the attorneys and the police. They've solved the case in their own mind.

On Lawyer You Know, a chat said they are not guilty in the first charge, but split on the others. Said it was on the note on Friday but not made public.

1:27 (2:27 eastern) pm jury sent another note.

Jury at an impasse. Ridiculous

Judge has declared a mistrial.

What a mess!

Yep, another well-written note. Definitely an attorney.

So now the question is whether the prosecutor pursues again. A lot of the defense experts were last minute additions the defense didn't have a lot of time to prep for or with. Seems like it could only help them in getting more time and deeper analysis with those experts.

mickeyrig06sq3 said:

---

So now the question is whether the prosecutor pursues again. A lot of the defense experts were last minute additions the defense didn't have a lot of time to prep for or with. Seems like it could only help them in getting more time and deeper analysis with those experts.

---

And there is also a federal investigation going on over what happened.

SwigAg11 said:

---

mickeyrig06sq3 said:

---

So now the question is whether the prosecutor pursues again. A lot of the defense experts were last minute additions the defense didn't have a lot of time to prep for or with. Seems like it could only help them in getting more time and deeper analysis with those experts.

---

And there is also a federal investigation going on over what happened.

---

I know they used a few people already involved, but if the DoJ hasn't concluded their work, can the defense subpoena records of an ongoing investigation?

Interesting, Alan Jackson is from Texas. Got his BA from tu.