It's nice side with Dan Ray on WBSY constance video.
Well, the Karen Reid murder case is back in the headlines. I think anyone who has lived in Massachusetts and hasn't lived under a rock for the last couple of years is familiar with the Karen Reid case, in which she is accused of backing her automobile into her boyfriend back in January of twenty twenty two on a very snowy night,
causing his death. She was charged with not only a murder in the second degree, which is the most serious charge, but also manslaughter and leaving the scene of an accident, and her trial concluded on July first, this past summer. It was a long trial, very highly publicized trial. It almost came to the level of an Oj Simpson trial nationally.
A lot of national coverage with it as well. The boyfriend who died that night was a Boston police officer named John O'Keefe, and there's a lot of side stories on it. But we're going to focus tonight on what was argued in front of the State Supreme Court yesterday, and the lawyers for Karen Reid are basically claiming that the jury had come to decisions on two of the counts, the murder count and the leading the scene of an accident, to acquit her. They agreed unanimously, although they could not
agree to a decision on the manslaugh of charge. And so an issue has went up before the State Supreme Court yesterday, which was whether or not the judge in the case, the trial judge, should have inquired of the jurors if they were hung on all three counts, or if there were any counts that they may have actually reached unanimity on, and those questions were never asked and the jury never responded. A mistrial, hung jury was what was declared by the judge, and she scheduled to go
back on trial on all three charges in April. And he her lawyers say, look, jurors came to us and to the prosecutors after the the mistrial was declared, and apparently the jury is claiming or that many of the jurors are claiming they had agreed to acquit her on the charge of murder and on the leaving the scene of an accident. That brings us to Phil Tracy, a veteran criminal defense lawyer, this is a case an issue
that there's no precedent here in Massachusettsville. It's very interesting, interesting situation that the judges are being asked to sort of second guess the actions of the trial court. Judge, I know that you're very familiar with the case. What's what's your what's your sense of this case? I mean, this is interesting issue.
Prevent that you're correct in saying there is no precedent for this type of inquiry. That didn't happen. Now from here on out, all judges will be asking, in multiple charges, have you reached a verdict on any one of the charges? And that way a partial verdict Sometimes, as in the past, has come down the Supreme Court may order that this is part of the institutional part of trials that in multiple count cases that you have to check with the
jury if they're hung on all of the cases. Now, I will say this, the judge is a tremendous judge and she's been you know, she's done a great job in a lot of cases over the years. There's no criticism of her. But the jurors never said, you know, anything that would indicate other than the fact that they were deadlocked and the defense they could have brought it up they could have said, well, are they deadlocked on
all three charges? They didn't do that, So I think the Supreme Court was very skeptical of bringing the jurors back. But on the other hand, I think they'll set a president a precedent that will say you've got to examine those jurors before you declare a mistrial. And I don't know if they can bring them back now. I think
it's an undue burden on the jurors. They'll be exposed to some sort of publicity, I think, and that's something that the courts try their very hardest to keep the jurors anonymous throughout the process, especially in the case like this.
Understanding is that some of the jurors have actually gone to the defense lawyers into the prosecutors. So the court has to balance here phil the the sanctity of deliberations. Uh, And that you know, once a jury either announces a verdict or chooses not to announce a verdict, and the jury is dismissed, in theory, the jury now has been dissolved.
Uh.
Do you think that the court might order Judge Canoni to bring the court knows who the jurors are, bring the juris back and enclosed behind closed doors in cameras, as we would say, uh, question those jurors. I mean, if one juror says no, no, no, I was ready to vote to to convict, then as long as that's on the record, then then no harm, no foul.
But but well.
What are the interests of Karen Reid, you know, to have It's the argument that Marty Weinberg, her appellate attorney's making, is that she's now going to suffer double jeopardy, that in effects, she's she's faced one trial with where verdict was reached and and and you know she has an interest here as well. It's a tough balance.
I think, well, it's a tough balance. But the reality is there was never a verdict. So it isn't double jeopardy. What it is is whether or not, as so much time has gone by, now, whether you bring jurors back
to question them. Now, let's say you question them and you say they all say we were going to quit her on two counts, but on account where she was charged with manslaughter drinking, you know, drinking heavily and then hitting him by accident, you know, I mean, they obviously were didn't come to a verdict on that charge one way or the other. They said, we're deadlocked. They told the judge, we are deadlock. We cannot go any further, we can't help. We've tried our best.
But if the judge, if the judge had asked the question of the jurors and had said, are you telling me? Are you telling the court that you're deadlocked on each of three these three counts, If that was just a simple question the judge asked, and if the jurors are telling the truth, she should have They would have then said, well, no, we're deadlocked on count two, but we do have a
verdict on count one and three. And at that point the judge would have simply said, well, please go back to the to the to the jury room, fill out the verdicts, slip on count one and count three, and come back, and everything would have been done perfectly.
That was the right move to make.
But it is not a requirement of the judge to do that. There's always the issue of the judge not interfering with the jury delivery deliberations or coaxing them one way or the other to find a verdict. Now, the famous charge called the two were Rodriguez charge, in which they the defense asked that that be brought to the jurors attention and read to the jurors as a way
of breaking the deadlock. So I think that, you know, in most cases a murder case like that, the defense, when they have a hung jury, they consider that a victory because their client has not been convicted, you know.
So my question is this, I think earlier you said that you thought that the court might come back with an instruction. Then going forward, judges in the same set of circumstances with a multi count indictment, they have to get clarification from the jury if they are at an impasse on all the counts or unjust some of the counts. And if that is what I understood you to say, and the Supreme Court, you know, gives this guidance or
requirement in future cases. In effect, Karen Reid's case, she's been sort of the guinea pig here on the case. And if they come down with that instruction going forward, how do they not apply it to her case?
Well, you know, it's such a difficult question from all different sides, from the judicial side, the judges side, the prosecution side, and the defense side, they're ramping up for a trial on all all three counts, and they're seeking new evidence. They have a new prosecutor, so they're going full steam ahead and ignoring the claim of double jeopardy.
They don't the prosecution doesn't buy it. On the other hand, the defense is saying, you know, we know that they could have come into the courtroom and said she's not guilty on one and three, and we can't make a decision on two.
Yeah. Yeah, I think I think it's gonna be a fascinating decision.
And well, you know, I mean, like anything else the court system, it tries to move in a deliberate and fast way, but this is this case is draggedon for a long time. Now we're facing the situation where if the Supreme Court makes a decision, how does that affect the upcome trial. I think clearly both sides are looking to postpone from January to April, so hopefully the Suprene Court will have a concrete decision on this matter and then they'll proceed from there.
Well it's going to be interesting, Phil, that's that's for sure, And we'll be following it and we'll have.
You back when down on.
My pleasure, Phil Tracy, thanks so much, is always my friend. Will Okay, thanks Phil, right now, Thanks Bell. What I want to do is, I would like to ask all of you. I think Phil has basically put the issues out there pretty clearly. My feeling, to be really honest with you, and I am not nearly the experienced criminal
defense lawyer that Phil Tracy is. My feeling is that the court should order the judge to bring the jury back and talk with them and find out if indeed the jury had reached a verdict and because of a misunderstanding, they were under the impression that they had to return a verdict on all three counts, and even though if they were indeed in agreement that on two of the counts they had come to a verdict, but on the second count they were hung up. They were at an impasse.
All the judge had to do was to have simply inquired. Now again, a long trial, very expensive, extraordinarily expensive. I think that you got to look at this from the perspective of the defendant. She still has a trial upcoming on manslaughter no matter what. But I think that this is an important issue. It's an important issue because it could be you or me who are in the dock and facing a second trial. Phil Tracy was absolutely correct because there was no verdict, no verdict slip handed to
the clerk who hands it to the judge. Technically there's no verdict. However, if they had agreed and because of miscommunication that had not been communicated properly, how much of a burden is upon the judge to make sure that she got everything out of that jury possible, just in terms of also just the economy of the case. I mean, this case, if it is reduced to one charge, it would go a lot more quickly than with three. So I'm going to open it up and I'm going to
let all of my legal eagles here. Whether you're a lawyer or not, you know the facts of the case. How do you think how would you like to see the State Supreme Court rule on this one? I'm fascinated by it. It's not often that the court the judge did nothing wrong here, but it was an oversight and maybe eight out of ten judges would have handled it
the same way. But if they're going to issue a recommendation, they're going forward on multiple count indictments that judges clearly find out for the jury if when they come back and say that they are at an impass, are they at an impass on all the indictments or just some of the indictments six one, seven, two, five, four, ten, thirty six one seven, nine, three, one, ten thirty. We're going to talk about this until at ten, and then at ten we're going to switch to politics again. Joe Biden.
Did President Biden spoke today, and I spoke pretty eloquently. I thought we'll get to all of that right after the ten But for now, for the next thirty four minutes, thirty five minutes, I'd love to hear from you on this one. The conversation coming right back on Nightside.
Now, back to Dan Ray live from the Window World night Side Studios. I'm DUMBZ News Radio.
I think the case is a fascinating case, and that's why I want to talk about it again. We will deal with this now until ten o'clock. I know that there's a lot of emotions on it, but I think if you cut to the core of this and you look at it from a point of view of just, you know, fairness, is it fair to this defendant that you would face retrial on two charges, the murder charge and the leaving the scene of an accident if the
jury had come to a conclusion. Now again, I think that that in terms of fairness, there's a lot to be said here. Let's go first off to Bill and Charlton Massachusetts out there in central Massachusetts. Bill, you are first as our nights. I appreciate you calling in your thoughts.
Hi, Dan, first time caller, long time collar.
Well all right, that's a class of our virtual studio audience. Go right ahead.
Not to hear what you have to listen to Larry Click on my nine hole transit the radio back in the sixties and early seventies.
Well, well I did as well. I want you to know I was listening to Larry back then too.
Go ahead, my thoughts on the Karen Reid case. I'm sure you can walk up. The days of verdict was red or the days at the case with the clear declared mins trial.
Yeah, I think it was that day first, Yes, go.
Ahead, Okay, what's coming up for a nice long weekend for everybody?
Fourth of July?
Yeah, I guess it was the July and everybody just wanted to get out of the courthouse.
Yeah.
My theory well, they didn't consider everything.
Well, it's tough to get into the mind of the jury in many times when you approach a weekend like the fourth of July, if it's eleven to one or ten to two in the jury room, juries have been known to all of a sudden see the wisdom of reaching a verdict in advance of the holiday, which I think is what you're saying, but.
In effect, but it affected everybody in the courtroom moving anxious begin a long weekend.
Including a judge.
Everybody has their families and want to get going With's a weekend, great, great weekend.
Yeah. The question here is she's still facing one charge, so there's no doubt there'll be a second trial U And the prosecution has brought in an experienced criminal defense lawyer, a guy named Hank Brennan, who's really veryccomplished defense lawyer, to be a special prosecutor in the case, which is an interesting move by the district attorney down in Norfolk County. My sense is that the court should provide some guidance.
At a minimum, there should be guidance to judges to say, look, in these situations, you have to before you dismiss a jury at least inquire briefly on a multi multi count case, is there have you reached a conclusion on any of the counts or are you hopelessly at an impasse on all in this case, all three counts, And I think that go ahead.
I'm sorry, I do agree with you that I do agree with you that this should be an example and from here forward that should be the protocol.
But by the way, the court a lot of these cases, if you go back to the Miranda case, when Miranda did not get the proper warnings and evidence of comments that he had made was excluded, and police learned from that case to be obligated to require warnings given to prisoners once they're under arrest, that they have a right to remain silent. Anything that they say can and will be used against them. Do they want to contact a lawyer once they get the warning? If the guy says, hey,
look I did it. I was really upset. I'm sorry, but I did it, that then can be brought into evidence. But they got to give them the warning first. Same way here, do you instruct judges in future cases to do it that way without providing some consideration to this defendant and force her to face trial in all three charges. That's where I think that the judgment by the court gets really dicey at this point, because if they come back and they say, no, we're going to deny the motion,
We're going to support what the judge did. I think a lot of people are going to say, well, why would they not at least issue an instruction going forward that this should be part of the normal practice that any judge would engage in, particularly in a trial like this. This is not a quick two day trial where you know, there's not a lot of expense involved, so we'll see. Hey, Bill, I really appreciate the fact that you take a time
to call in. Always good. You're a veteran listener. Now you're a veteran caller, so I look forward to your second.
Call coming up terrific. I'm more compward to play singer the well good job Dan, thank you, great job too.
Takes It takes takes some coverage to pick that phone up, folks for the first time, But believe me, I'm not going to bite your hat off. I really enjoy talking to different people and getting different perspectives and enlarging the pool of callers as well as of course in enlarging the pool of listeners. Now we will continue. There's only one well, that line just filled up. The only lines that are open right now, six one seven, two lines there,
six one seven. Let me know what you think, Okay, I think it's I think it's a very close call.
Uh.
And we have what's considered to be a fairly forward looking Supreme Court, you might call it a progressive Supreme Court in the good sense, uh, and that this might be an opportunity for them to uh make justice a little swifter and a little fairer here in Massachusetts. We'll be back on nightside right after the break. At the bottom of the hour, here comes the news.
It's night Side with Boston's news Radio.
All right, let's get back to the calls. We are going to go to I Marie in Bridgewater. In Marie in Bridgewater, You're next on nightside in Marie.
Hey, Dan, how are you?
I'm doing just great? Right, go right ahead.
I have first to comment. I guess I'm not one hundred per convinced she had savvy lawyers that they didn't know what they were doing when they chose not to pull the jury. But setting that aside, I'm wondering what you think under your scenario of you know, pulling the jury. What if they had come up that they were guilty on two counts, do you think she would have been ready to deal with that or do you think she would have wanted another bite at the apple on all three charges?
Well, I think I agree with you in a large part. Let me tell you why I agree. First of all, the lawyers are thinking to themselves, Okay, we got a hung jury on all three counts, and we're not going to stand up and complicate things here. And they didn't. The defense lawyers didn't. That was the tactical decision they had to make. Most defense lawyers would tell you in a case like that, hey, we've gone through the prosecution has taken the best shot they can at our client,
and we have defended her. And now we know what they're coming at, what evidence they have, The defense will have an advantage on a second turn. However, however, the prosecution didn't say, your hona, could you inquire of the jury chairperson? If this impasse is on all counts, all three counts are on just one or more of the counts, neither one of them ask for that and the judge
did not inquire. What would have happened if the judge on her own said, are you telling me that you have you're at an impasse on all three counts?
Right?
I think both parties would have had to have agreed and then have to agree to accept whichever way it went. So that's why I don't believe. I don't believe if I would respect he was going to be guilty on the first two, if she's going to be okay, I'll accept that guilt, and then she's going to want another bite at the apple and all three. You just can't have it both ways.
So no, that's fine. I'm just saying with you, either the prosecution or the defense lawyers would have asked the judge to make further inquiry, however.
Right, and the tactically didn't. But you can't say you think you heard something from somebody.
Ye.
Let me finish my point if I could. There's nothing in the in the practice that would prevent a judge from saying to the jury, four person, is it your position, mister four person happened to be a guy here that your your jury is deadlocked on all three counts? Or have has the jury come to an agreement on one or more of the counts. So that is what the judge could have asked. That's and so the question is that maybe the State Supreme Court will instruct superior court
judges going forward. I mean we're talking about, you know, fairness to the defendant if you put yourself in her position. Uh, she's not a lawyer, she's she obviously has defense lawyers with her. It's a question of will the will the Supreme Court say to judges look going forward on a multi count indictment, if they come back and say they're hung, you got to make sure they hung on all three because a partial verdict is is very.
Acceptable, right, So what if it's partially guilt. That's what you'd have to have parties agree. They would have to agree that we're going to accept it no matter what. Yep, they have a no no no, no, no, no, no no, because no.
The question that the judge should ask is a is what I would consider to be a threshold question. If she asked and said, yes, we have no, your honor, we are where we are stuck on one of the counts, on two of the counts, we do have agreement. The judge at that point is going to say, go back to the jury room, fill out the jury the verdict slipped on the counts upon which you agree, and come back here and give us the verdicts the verdict slip.
She is not going to at that point say to the lawyer, to the prosecutor and the defense lawyers, well, as you can see, they have two verdicts here, what do you want me to do? I mean, that's that's It's not a game show where you're saying do you want door number one or door knob?
Oh.
I understand that, but I don't think people would want to go for that with the risk of it being a guilt is a question.
No, it would. They would never have the option. The question would be they could have asked the judge, you're on it. Could you ask the jury if they're if they are guilt, if they are at an impass on offering. They could have asked the judge to do it. The judge then might have said I don't want to do it, or she might have said, okay, I will ask. But even though neither one of them asked the judge, the
judges runs the court room. She could have turned to the to the jury for person and said what I just said, have you reached the verdict on any of the counts? Oh? Yes, on and we do have a verdict on two outs. We've reached the agreement on twoke outs. At that point she's going to say, well, please go back to the jury room, fill out those verdict slips and bring them back to me. There's also this was a long trial.
Uh.
It tied up courtrooms for three for a courtroom for three months. We'll see what the is.
I just don't know how you get around if that had been guilt now she's potentially.
Doesn't matter if they reached it.
Now you are on those two counts. I don't think people are going to want to go for that.
Fair enough, Okay, I've tried to you know, appreciate I appreciate the opportunity to uh that you would call. Thank you very much, Ann, Marie, thank you so much. Take a break coming back here on Nightside. Thanks. If you'd like to jump on board, feel free. I've tried to explain my position as best I can. I hope, I hope you understand it. We'll be back on Nightside after this.
Now back to Dan Ray Mine from the Window World Nightside Studios on WBZ News Radio.
Okay, let's keep rolling. They're going to go to Paul and Need and Paul, I'm going to sit back and listen to what you have to say, because I think I've made my position pretty clear.
Go right ahead, Paul, Yes, good evening. Again. I've talked to some police officers and some lawyers, and they tell me that a lot of superior court judges do pull the jury when there's multiple charges. So some of the previous callers in conversation seems to think that this is standard practice that they don't pull the jury, but a lot of from what I'm told, a lot of well what they do.
Yeah, let me just let me clarify that they do pull the jury sometimes when a verdict has been rendered, particularly if it's a guilty verdict. You'll see that in high profile guilty cases where the defense lawyers will that the jury be pulled to make sure that all twelve of the defense lawyers, all twelve of the jurors are asked, is your is you're a number ten? Is your verdict guilty or not guilty? Guilty? And they they want to make sure that there's no doubt and there's no equivocation,
but they do not pull the jury. Uh when when the jury is in a hung position, where they're at an impasse, they would not do that. And she she assumed, I guess this judge assumed that these these jurors were at an impass on all three counts, not.
Just it's a pretty bad assumption.
Well, I think I can judge, in all due respect, if if her decision not to inquire any further, what harm would have been done if she said, so, mister fourth person, you were telling me that, uh, there's you're the jurors are hung, are hung on all three counts? Is that what I'm to understand?
And if he said up to me, simple question, that sounds to me like it's the common sense thing to do.
Well, And that is I think the strongest argument that they have, and maybe the court will say this is this has to be the practice. The court will set the precedent. Phil Tracy said there's no such precedent, and he's right, But there was no such precedent for the miranda warning either. At some point. For a lot of times, when when when courts, supreme courts and state supreme courts, UH issue a ruling that that sets a new standard of practice. So that's what we're talking about.
Paul.
Let me just say one other thing. I read where her legal bills are in excess of five million dollars miss reads outstanding. Yeah, five million dollars in outstanding legal bills.
So yeah, but again that is going to be irrelevant to what the Supreme Court decides here, and they're not going to say, well, because she's got big legel bills, as she hired high powered lawyers, were going to treat her more favorably. This should be a standard of practice I think that the judges should use to basically maximize
the time of the court. You have courtrooms, and you have judges, and you have so many cases, and you try generally on many cases to try to get to a plea agreement, so you avoid tying up court rooms. But this is going to this is going to be another long trial, particularly if it's three counts. Thanks Paul, appreciate the call. Thank you so much. All right, good night. Let me go to Sue and Milford. Sue you went next on night side. I want to get two more in SUGA.
Right ahead, I Dan, So I'm shocked in a pall that we are where we are with this, Why was the jury not given explicit instruction on how to deliver deliberate Yeah, I just I don't understand it. Like this is not the first case in the world that's had multiple charges, I presume, and not the first case that has had a hung jury. And I don't know. I'm just I cannot wrap.
I don't know if. I don't know if in the charge of the jury in a situation like this. Frankly, I've been in court rooms where there were multiple indictments, uh, And I don't know that when the jury is charged that the judge would say, now, look, if you agree upon one or more of the indictments, feel free to bring back a split verdict. I don't know that that's
ever addressed. And if it had been addressed in this case, I suspect that that would have been brought up by the prosecution as they as they attempt to defend themselves, they would have said, this jury was given an explicit instruction which they chose not to follow. So I think
that's right. But I wasn't in the court for the instructions and right right if there were such an instructions like that given before the jury started to deliberate, that would be that would suggest that that that the judge
did her job perfectly. But if those instructions were not given, or if they weren't given, and when the jury came back and said we're hung, she didn't ask the simple question, are you telling the court that you were at an impasse on all three counts or have you reached some partial verdict?
Right?
And also too, then why do we know that they did reach a verdict on two of the country.
Were members, there were members of the jury. There were members of the jury who presented themselves.
And it's rhetorical, it's almost rhetorical. And I know that that happened. But normal, under normal circumstances, we wouldn't have known that, right, I mean unless.
The Yeah, it's a high profile case though, and obviously there were some jurors. I guess there was a number of number of five jurors who have gone to some combination on the defense lawyer and the prosecutors got to get two more in so I share your progress, perplexity. Thank you, goodnight. Let me go to Betty on the boat. Betty, did I see you on TV tonight being interviewed by one of the local television stations.
You did, and I'm just being escorted.
You've had quite a cat, had quite a day, Betty. What do you think the court should do here?
Uh?
I think that I'm not a fan of the judicial system. I've seen too many inequities. I think I saw a critter that I think that the jury should have been pulled.
Well, they wouldn't be pulled if they only are polled once a verdict is rendered, and then, as I explained to one of the other callers, they pulled to recommit the firm that they've all come to the unanimous decision. The question is whether or not the judge should have said to them when when when the fourth person came back and said, we're hung on, we're at an impasse, the judge king should have asked and said, are you
at an impass on all counts? And if the if the four person said yes, we're in an impass on all three counts, then then it's over. But if the if the fourth person said, well, we're on and we have got agreement on a couple of accounts, but we're at an impass on one count, then she could have taken she could have allowed for a partial verdict.
Correct.
One more. I want to sneak in here, Betty. You sound like you're you're working on the boat here.
No, you know, with the doc failure, I have to get the cat. I have to get her to get her out of here.
Well, you go ahead and take care of the cat. Okay, and we'll talk again.
Thanks, Betty, Bye bye bye.
Let me get filling boss to feel I can give you about a minute here, go ahead.
When in the jury, originally when the jury was to put the panel or whatever take him back on the sheet, there was no there was no not guilty on the sheet, and they got the defense lawyer said when there's no choice here for something not guilty, and and the judge apparently said, no, that's all we do things in Massachusetts. And then eventually it was flipped around whether the bell was changed where it was guilty or not guilty. But the point I'm going to confused situations, I'm guessing.
We couldn't know there was there was that, there was that element of confusion. I was not in court yesterday whether or not that was disgust in front of the inter State Supreme Court, Phil, you called in late, and I'm running out of time, so I gotta let you go. But you raised, you raised the point that was an important one. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. We came back on to talk about Joe Biden's statement at
the White House, which I thought was very respectful. And maybe we are going to somehow pull this off and have a smooth transition of power on January twentieth. Wouldn't that be nice. We'll be back, we'll talk about it in the ten o'clock hour.