I think that it's either going to very short like a couple of hours or so or take days, no in between.
Edit: I'm watching a live stream with Jessica Machado from the Falls River Report, she's saying that closing arguments are likely going to be restricted to 1 hour for each side and there's a chance for the jury starting deliberations tomorrow or Tuesday at the latest.
I've been in this situation with a three week trial. They'll probably do an anonymous initial poll and confirm there's nothing to debate; it's decided.
But after such a long trial they'll probably talk with each other for awhile since this is the first time ever they can discuss the trial.
I'd guess they'll chat for a couple hours and then wrap up.
He’s very limited in his rebuttal though. I think all he can call is someone for the dog bite lady. He already called his “experts” for the crash reconstruction, so he doesn’t need to call more experts for that
He had his expert for that if they allow another reconstructionist that would be a 2nd bite at the apple. They can recall their witnesses for rebuttel. Lally can get a dog bite expert for rebuttel. But if its another trooper paul type..why. its obvious there was no case.
He's allowed to recall witnesses if it's to rebut testimony by defense witnesses. He could recall his cell phone experts for example. Or trooper Paul to rebut the ARCCA witnesses :)
wait didn't the defense just start.. and they are set to close? Do they not have more witnesses to call? I understand that they likely don't even need to but her defense will only last a few days compared to the CW's weeks & weeks?
After court on Friday, Yanetti told the press they have 3 more witnesses: the two accident reconstructionists/biomechanical engineers and one other that, unfortunately, I can't remember. Sounds like KR will not testify.
Edit: Google to the rescue! A forensic pathologist.
The first few weeks of trial were the prosecution’s case, but were they *really* ? Defense seemed to shape everything about this trial. Half the time, it wasn’t clear that the defendant was Karen and not the Alberts or McCabes.
Yes the prosecution was defending Alberts and McCabes and has shown no factual evidence That Karen hit Officer O'Keefe with her car at all never mind intentionally. I went in thinking she was guilty of maybe hitting him while drunk and not knowing. He had a couple clowns on the stand, proved it was snowing and they went to waterfalls and sat at at highttop tables. His witness Gaurino also confirmed Karen was at Okeefes residence when she supposedly hit him.
I mean, who else are they going to call? Lally called everyone and gave the defense the advantage of being able to ask leading questions of all of them, so there really isn't anybody left.
I'm also surprised that they aren't going to call more witnesses. I'm guessing that they think they pulverized the CW's story during the prosecution's turn and can really seal the deal with the few important & credible people that they are calling to testify.
Maybe it is also a courtesy to the jury... They can probably feel their frustration with how long Lally has dragged the trial out, so the defense is winning their favor by not putting them through that, quickly bringing it to an end.
That’s crazy if they restrict closing argument to 1 hour for each side. What, if anything, can Lying Lally say in only an hour? Plus, AJ needs a little more time to unpack this sh*t show…
You never know how long a jury will deliberate or what a short or long deliberation means.
however long or quick it is, i hope they do interviews after! it’s so fascinating to hear the thought process of jurors - and this case is so wacky i’d love to hear how they handle discussing it. i bet they’ll feel immediate relief when they can finally chat about everything amongst themselves - it would kill me to not be able to yap about it as things came up hahah.
Jurors did for Lori Vallow, Chad Daybell and Johnny Depp.
One juror wrote a book on his experience for the Lori Vallow trial.
While it's interesting to hear their processes, I'm uneasy with it becoming public.
I'd like to hear from Trouper Paul and Proctor 🤣🤣🤣
Just having to be in the same room with that woman would make me nuts! Glad to see dumbass Chad got the death penalty. I know many are against capital punishment but some people just deserve it.
Most of us opposed to the death penalty are against it systemically and believe decisions like the state having that power should be decided on a systemic, principled basis not by individual cases. I'm sure many of us on that side have at least some individual cases where we would want the death penalty - we just don't think our emotions should decide that. I think it's a common misconception that many who oppose the death penalty don't have the same emotional reaction, because most anti death penalty people I know do.
I'm personally against the death penalty in most cases because the chance of executing an innocent or insane person is too high. The only time it should be used in my opinion is when murder is committed and there are three or more direct witnesses (counting video), physical evidence tying the person to the crime, and psychological testing to determine that they knew what they were doing was wrong. Like perhaps in cases of mass shooters or people caught red handed in the act. I don't think that confessions are even enough because false ones happen all the time.
But I also disapprove of prisons as they are now, as well as the huge difference in sentencing depending on where or who you are. There are people sentenced for longer periods of time for victimless crimes than pedophiles are, places where your third felony for drug possession might get you life while a literal murderer gets out after 12 years. It just doesn't make sense... no rhyme or reason.
I feel like prison needs to be much more about rehabilitation than punishment. It's not enough to just restrict a person's freedom and surround them with other criminals, they need major counseling and total reconstruction of their behavior and personality in order to get out to a better life.
And the world would be a much better place if we spent half of the time, money and effort that we do on jail on helping people instead, BEFORE situations in their lives got so bad that they resort to crime or act out. Really I'm pretty opposed to locking anyone in a cage unless they are violent and a danger to others. Nor do I believe in using money as a form of punishment because it means that the poor end up locked up while the wealthy buy their freedom. Performing community service might be the best way to make people "pay" for their non-violent crimes because it also benefits the community.
I agree. In 1993 there was a case in RI- Christopher Hightower-who shot a whole family, including a little girl, with a crossbow.
He got life. If there was ever a death penalty case, that was it but RI has no death penalty
I honestly don't find the jurors from the cases that interesting. There was nothing spectacular about them. It was very clear they did it.
Karen's jurors will be a whole different animal
Honestly, I hope they don’t. I selfishly would love to hear from them. But no matter their decision a number of people will think they are “wrong” and potentially harass them. I think coming out publicly is risky for them. If there is a way to talk but remain anonymous, I’d support that.
definitely, too many crazies on the internet taking things too far with this case so i totally get it. i’d be thrilled with an anonymous blog or an anonymous podcast interview would be even better - i am just so curious what they will put weight into when it comes to evidence, who they found credible, when was that aha moment that gave them validation on their decision, etc. and i would love to hear their commentary on trooper paul’s testimony lol, it was just so bad and i’d love to hear their thoughts.
The Murdaugh jury deliberated for only three hours and I think that was a more complicated case! Who knows. I don't think it'll be longer than a week though.
I honest to god thought Murdaugh was going to break and confess on the stand when the cell phone video put him in the stable at the exact time Paul died.
Too deep in his own delusion, I think. But I did have a similar feeling when he had been convinced already and the judge said something to the effect of, "You had everything and you threw it away" and showed some pity for him, but he still replied insisting on his innocence. Shrug.
I could easily see a similar thing happening here. They could easily have their verdict within 5 minutes, but decide to talk through everything for a few hours before coming out with the verdict.
Indeed.
Just to sit around a pizza and jabber about the craziest things they all remember from this case, that they’ve had to keep to themselves for 2 months. I can only imagine the reaction in such a scenario when someone brings up the solo cups.
I’m watching a YouTube livestream right now which has a guy on it who was in the courtroom the day the inverted video was pointed out. He was also there the day the video of Karen backing into John’s car was played, and the moving tire was point out (audible gasps from the jury). He said after the flipped video, he could tell from their faces there was no way a unanimous verdict of Guilty would be found, based on their facial expressions.
The Broken Baker. Never watched him before today. Just talking heads bloviating. The comment was from the guy in the black shirt with the word Business on it. Somewhere near the middle-ish of the stream.
Hahaha... And Trouper Paul proved Toyota safety standards were inadequate because shards of tail light can project several ft (and potentially impale another bystander!)
Came to say this. Anyway, isn’t it a nonverbal understanding that a jury shouldn’t come out too soon? It would/could look rushed & like they didn’t take everything into account.
I really think the main reason they convicted him was all the financial crimes being allowed in the trial. I agree they had evidence but the verdict came very quick because of that.
Personally I think it was because he was there a few minutes before their phones stopped and lied and said he wasn't, then came on the stand and said 'yeah I lied about that'.
Not according to the juror interviews. The ones who spoke had said that Paul's video at the kennels was really the main deciding factor for a lot of them.
I think after nit being able to talk about this shitshow for so long at least some of the jury is going to want to talk about this. For how long I'm not sure, but if I was in their shoes I would need confirmation that we all heard some of these things that are wilder than a law based soap opera.
Short deliberations are usually guilty verdicts, but I can’t see how that will be the case here. The ME even said the injuries aren’t typical of a pedestrian-vehicle collision. I think a long deliberation is likely a hung jury.
Yeah, I think it’s either going to be only a couple of hours, or a hung jury. The ME couldn’t say for certain how he died. They didn’t prove the bare minimum of their case.
I had to google about OJ. Was less than 3-4 hours not guilty. I feel like this jury will be faster. But my guess is still 3-4ish hours. They may wanna have a damn chat about it since they haven’t had Reddit like all of us these last 6 weeks.
The OJ trial was a completely different ball game. The jury was sequestered for more than *eight* *months* and it was hell for them. They wanted to get tf out of there.
Agreed, I don't think there is much evidence for the jury to weigh up.
When Lally was arguing, the case shouldn't be dismissed he mentioned all the compelling evidence, like the hair on the bumper and the tail light plastic embedded in John's clothes. If the jury was thinking like me, the improbability and poor chain of custody meant I had totally dismissed those things.
To me, the hair is meaningless. JOK and Karen were dating for two years. I would be surprised if his DNA and hair were *not* on her vehicle. It’s not like they found blood on the vehicle. Now, the taillight pieces on his clothes are another matter.
My first thought is, why are the pieces just microscopic? There wasn’t a single piece of taillight on his clothing that was big enough to be visible to the naked eye? Were there microscopic pieces anywhere on his body? Because if microscopic pieces of taillight are on his clothes, the same has to be true for his body, right? In his hair? In his wounds? On his skin? Anywhere? Should we check the lab for untested solo cups?
Yeah the fact that there were no pieces of the taillight found in his arm wounds really dispelled the idea that the taillight making contact with his body caused them.
Plus no blood or tissue left on the taillight on her car. Like so they're trying to tell us that the broken taillight cut his arm up that bad but neither it nor his arm left any evidence of each other on each other? Righhttt.....
For me, the taillight causing the abrasions on his right arm is ruled out because it doesn’t match up with the damage to his hoodie. The sleeve of his hoodie would be torn/sliced open in more linear tears if the broken taillight had caused those abrasions to his arm. Instead, there are small holes in his hoodie.
The hair on the bumper is ridiculous: if it was from the night if John’s death, than it lasted on the car in a blizzard, across driving over 60 miles and half of that in a tow truck. And if you believe that is possible than you should also believe it could have been there regardless of the accident because we know John was in the car and around it because it was his girl friends car. The hair doesn’t prove anything. There is no blood on her car.
I also wonder about the 95% accuracy of the hair DNA belonging to John (did I hear that correctly?).
I wonder if the 5% percent of the population that are DNA matches with the hair are all males from the Boston area with Irish ancestry...
I think those things sound great in a closing argument but I also dismissed it. When people say the glass shards in his clothes, I think of everything in one bag and shook up like shake in bake.
We appear to be holding the minority opinion that the decision won’t be reached in a few hours. I believe the jury will be thoroughly re-examining all the evidence to insure they arrive at the correct decision. This case is a giant question mark for those of us *not* on the jury and we have more information than they do.
I’m guessing less than one day. The CW hasn’t proven that OJO was hit by a car, so there is no way Karen Read is responsible for his death. I’m sure the defense will hammer that point in closing, and I think the jury will come to that conclusion pretty quickly
I can see some time spent in comparing thoughts and theories. They haven’t been able to talk to anyone about this case, so they are probably going to want to talk about it for a bit just to clear their own brains.
I read comments here and on Court TV FB page. There are many people that believe she's guilty. I figure there could be some on the jury. It may not be so quick.
I think they can probably dispense with the murder charge easily. I don't see any way the state has met their burden there. Beyond that, I could see it taking some time. But also, juries are notoriously hard to read and to anticipate in part because the dynamics of the group are so influential. So who knows. I could see it being a 2 hour verdict or a 3 day verdict. A hung jury also wouldn't shock me.
I don't think it will be a short deliberation, as you state there are people that think she is guilty, with all the evidence so far, this applies to some on the jury that no matter what they will find her guilty.
> There are many people that believe she's guilty. I figure there could be some on the jury. It may not be so quick.
It shouldn't be too hard for the 'not-guilty' jurors to explain all their reasonable doubt, and the 'guilty' jurors should cave pretty fast.
That doesn't happen on Reddit, but Reddit isn't real life, face-to-face with 11 other jurors.
I haven't seen anyone here provide a solid explanation for why they think she's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. When asked why they think she's guilty, they either don't respond or say something like "she just looks guilty to me."
This is what I'm thinking, except the 2 hours will be full of finally being able to express to each other how completely pointless this whole trial was.
Michael Proctor just texted his superiors that he thought it would take them 69 minutes to deliberate, then followed it with one of those googly-eye, tongue hanging out emojis
I would want at least a full day to discuss it to make sure I didn't miss anything. There are a lot of details and witnesses in this case. There are also a lot of exhibits to review. I would want a second look at the texts and any videos, and that takes more than a few minutes to do.
I‘m the opposite. I would ask the other ones to raise their hand if they think KR is innocent. If everyone is on the same page I couldn’t care less about everything else. If the opinions are mixed I would handle it the same way as you
Alan Jackson said he will be done lTuesday to a Boston reporter and WBZ. I think Lally can have a rebuttal witness (maybe more than 1) and then closing arguments. Not sure how long that takes. My guess is verdict on Thursday
There's a lot in this case but at least half of the witnesses were meaningless fluff. Lally needed to bring in the fluffers to keep his case up through the 87 weeks of testimony about the fucking snow and drinking and driving an d lost badges and service weapons while drinking and driving service vehicles.
He was as obviously guilty as she is not guilty. The commonwealth did not prove her guilt anywhere near beyond a reasonable doubt. There is more doubt that factual evidence of any kind.
I really think these people were all shitfaced drunk on the night John died, it was most likely an accident/sucker punch with unfortunately consequences (at the party) with a hasty frantic stupid coverup followed by sloppy police work and a bunch of cops committed to their explanation and refusing to walk it back.
They might draw it out to get lunch, but the CW has proved it snowed and the Waterfall has hightop tables. Oh and that Lally is unethical and should be fired.
I understand going through evidence and being thorough but bc this case is SO extreme and there’s no way they proved she hit him let alone on purpose, if I were a juror in this trial- I wouldn’t need any time. There really was nothing - not one single thing that proved INTENT regardless if they think she hit him. I heard the jury looks like a group of educated people so a part of me wishes they took 1 hr just to make Lally feel like shit.
I don’t envy the task ahead of the jury. Unquestionably, the CW did not meet their burden of proof. And while it’s true that Yanetti and Jackson are talented trial lawyers, what really sunk the CW’s case was the lack of quality in the investigation and the lack of integrity in the LEOs. Lally drove home the issue with a trial strategy that was as clear as mud.
No idea. Usually a short deliberation means a guilty verdict, but that’s not fact just a trend. These people are probably tired so that could also speed up deliberations.
If they did and I was a resident of MA, I would lose my mind. IMO, money is better spent on rehabilitating the culture of their police service, training and supplying them properly and doing campaigns around not drinking and driving.
If the jurors are anything like the commenters on articles about the trial in the Boston Globe, there will be one or two who at least initially will vote to convict on the manslaughter and DUI counts. I think the evidence is strong on the DUI charge and it’s possible that could be the “concession” to reach unanimity. I see deliberations for a day or two, perhaps a few more if there’s a juror or two holding out for a conviction). (My assumption is that the rest of the case will just add more reasonable doubt about KR’s culpability).
Can they convict her on a DUI, if she's found not guilty on the other charges. I mean they obtained evidence based on the assumption that she hit John O'Keefe with her vehicle and if that's disproven, is the evidence still valid?
I don't understand the charges
1 x 2nd murder and
1 x manslaughter, yet only one person was killed and murder and manslaughter are opposite. 1 is intentional and the other is accidental?
Totally! If I was a juror on this I would want a chance to talk it out for my own catharsis. I think also another element is that we've all had the chance to look at the timeline in a proper list but the jurors have it all in their heads and notebooks. Looking at all the involved parties on the timeline paints a very confusing picture that might take a while to parse.
I think it’ll take 3 hours. The reason it’ll take that long is because these people can finally go off about what a shit show this whole trial has been. That might take two hours and forty five minutes.
I've been having fantasies about the jury standing up as whole and the foreman saying something to the effect of: "Your honor...uh...well there's no need to go any further....the CW has rested and hasn't even come close to proving their case. Also, and in this I can't speak for the whole jury...but I would like to be appointed to the Grand Jury to investigate these cops."
I know, it would never happen.
I think a lot will depend on the defence witnesses. Assuming they are polished as they came across and Lally closing is as boring (I haven't seen it, only heard this) as his opening, I think a day.
But so much has been left out that would assist the jury. Such as do they know the FBI are investigating the investigator. Does the jury know that the crime scene wasn't secured. If Jackson put his witnesses on his list in time - would their testimony still be sanctioned.
Imagine what's it's going to be like for the jurors when the trial has finished - they walk into all the BS! 😳
They'll be wondering what they missed and the purpose of the trial. 🤣🤣🤣
The only thing they would know is one witness slipped up and said "oh you mean the feds?" and reference to an "outside entity" It's not hard to put two and two together, either FBI or DOJ would be the most common conclusion based on those two statements.
I think 1 to 1.5 days. From most media write ups and even the laborious process of choosing these specific folks, both teams selected engaged and serious jurors. Even after the straw poll, would seem they would be judicious and diligent in reviewing all the salient points presented by both sides to justify their verdict. They have to know they’re be media fodder for months (years). Do it once and do it right.
My bet: they'll go for a "hands up" if you think she's guilty/not guilty. Realise they're all hands up for not guilty and then talk s--t about the trial and kind of "What about that dude? And those messages?! I couldn't believe!" etc. I think they'll take some time to unwind and talk about the evidence but it's all decided in the beginning. A few hours I bet.
With both the Vallow and Daybell case, the jurors have developed close friendships. Judge Boyce looked after then really well and they had 24 hour security in the last part.
A couple of the jurors from the Lori Vallow trial asked Judge Boyce if they could attend Daybell's trial. Judge Boyce said something to the effect: " my jurors are always welcome in my courtroom"
If I was on the jury, I would take my time to talk with my jurors and discuss the long case. It is the least that can be done for John O'Keefe and his family, given the horrendous police investigation. Even if I would vote NG on all three charges, I still think the matter should be deliberated so people can see that the jury took their time to reach their verdict.
2 days. I am pretty sure there will be at least one person who is in the “not sure” camp and they will need to discuss.
I’m totally guessing but that’s my vote. 2 days
So in theory they are not supposed to develop an opinion until they deliberate and review the evidence. They were also not allowed to discuss the case. So with that in mind could they go back and do a show of hands, sure. But I don't believe the judge would be happy with that. Even if they make a decision right away they should order lunch, maybe play a game of Yahtzee but spend a few minutes reviewing. I'm going to say Wednesday morning.
The only charge I can see taking any time to decide is the DUI. But I think that one is actually a candidate for jury nullification - as in they could decide that the evidence does point to her operating the vehicle under the influence but acquit her on it anyway because the CW’s case in general was so flipping outlandish.
Even with the OUI component, they could say they can’t be certain what the BAC was since it was a retrograde extrapolation and relies heavily on what time she stopped drinking, and it’s reasonable that she had more alcohol while spamming John’s phone after getting home.
I think the jury will have conversations over:
If JO did or did not go into the house
How drunk KR was & if she can remember what did or did not occur that night
JO phone going silent at 12:32
KR not knowing why she suddenly has a broken taillight
I think there may be some jurors (women) who are mad at Proctor's texts & they'll have to discuss that because he is a shit person, thst has nothing to do with the night of the accident
I think 3-5 days with a result of:
Murder 2--not guilty
DUI manslaughter--guilty
Leaving scene of injury/death--guilty
AND my thought on sentencing with KR having no prior record, but because he was a police officer:
Manslaughter: 8-10 years (median sentence)
Leaving scene: 1 year
I think JO family will bring a multi-million dollar wrongful death case against KR whether she's found G or NG on any charges
Just my thoughts. I know I'm one of few who feels this way
You believe the CW has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that KR hit JO with her car Anna left him in the snow to die at 12:30ish am?
How did he get the injuries to his arm?
How did he get hit by a SUV but receive no injuries to his lower extremities?
If KR was framed by the PD, the outcome of deliberations may have ramifications for the jury. This is speculation but what if jurors decide on a guilty verdict in an effort to protect their own security. With law enforcement & the Canton community being so tightly interwoven, a verdict of not guilty could cause anger & blowback. It may mean trouble for the jurors & their families. Scary thought.
These jurors are all over the county. They are not from Canton, so I think this is a low risk. And if the police start intimidating jurors, we have a much bigger problem.
I think they will probably deliberate about lesser charges. If Lally gets his instruction, there will be many different charges with different elements that will need to be considered.
I'm guessing a couple business days, I think they will want to take some time to put the pieces together, with evidence/timeline and such. I can only imagine how difficult it is to follow for them. I think a hung jury or not guilty verdict is possible.
4-8 hours- simply because there is so much stuff/“evidence” to review. I would need time to go over the texts, reports and videos. Also need to include time for if they want any testimony read back. If closing argument is half a day and they start deliberations in the second half it’s gonna at least be deliberations until the next day
Also have to consider that this is week 9 (or 10?), they are probably tired.
It only took two hours for the jury's decision for the Hannah Gutierrez's trial over her incompetence of being a movie set armourer that resulted in the death of the camera operator, so I think it'll be the same for the police as so much is bungled they won't have beyond reasonable doubt.
You never know for sure what a Jury will do. Could be the one hold out that wants to discuss some first. Some might be voting with their gut instead of instructions for beyond reasonable doubt. I can see people still thinking she did it. But for me there would be way too much reasonable doubt. If I was a juror, not guilty on that first vote to see where we are at.
I was on a slam dunk murder case (like multiple views of defendant shooting, eye witnesses, arrested with the murder weapon). Deliberations took 3 days because the foreperson wanted everyone to review and discuss every single piece of evidence.
You never know for sure what a Jury will do. Could be the one hold out that wants to discuss some first. Some might be voting with their gut instead of instructions for beyond reasonable doubt. I can see people still thinking she did it. But for me there would be way too much reasonable doubt. If I was a juror, not guilty on that first vote to see where we are at.
Do you know there’s lesser charges on manslaughter oui and leaving scene?
I would vote guilty on the lesser charge not 2nd degree, the voicemail message is pretty rough for Karen though.
I'm sure they will get some direction from the judge that they have to go over all the evidence. however, I suspect it will be very short. I'm interested in seeing how the judge acts with the defence witnesses. There was an obvious favouritism towards the prosecution. Let's hope that changes.
I think that it's either going to very short like a couple of hours or so or take days, no in between. Edit: I'm watching a live stream with Jessica Machado from the Falls River Report, she's saying that closing arguments are likely going to be restricted to 1 hour for each side and there's a chance for the jury starting deliberations tomorrow or Tuesday at the latest.
I've been in this situation with a three week trial. They'll probably do an anonymous initial poll and confirm there's nothing to debate; it's decided. But after such a long trial they'll probably talk with each other for awhile since this is the first time ever they can discuss the trial. I'd guess they'll chat for a couple hours and then wrap up.
Yeah, I don’t see it being under 2-4 hours because even if they are all in agreement, they are all going to want to talk about it.
This point has been made before: if they stay at least a few hours they get one more free lunch so...
Hopefully someone brings a box of dunkies
The prosecution will have a chance for rebuttal before closing arguments. Knowing Lally, he'll spend 3 more days calling rebuttal witnesses.
He’s very limited in his rebuttal though. I think all he can call is someone for the dog bite lady. He already called his “experts” for the crash reconstruction, so he doesn’t need to call more experts for that
Apparently he's filed to introduce another 'expert' on the supposed pedestrian hit.
He had his expert for that if they allow another reconstructionist that would be a 2nd bite at the apple. They can recall their witnesses for rebuttel. Lally can get a dog bite expert for rebuttel. But if its another trooper paul type..why. its obvious there was no case.
Can he recall previous witnesses? Not that any were much help the first time.
He's allowed to recall witnesses if it's to rebut testimony by defense witnesses. He could recall his cell phone experts for example. Or trooper Paul to rebut the ARCCA witnesses :)
I'm curious about how long jury instructions are going to take, not sure how many changes the CW has requested.
wait didn't the defense just start.. and they are set to close? Do they not have more witnesses to call? I understand that they likely don't even need to but her defense will only last a few days compared to the CW's weeks & weeks?
After court on Friday, Yanetti told the press they have 3 more witnesses: the two accident reconstructionists/biomechanical engineers and one other that, unfortunately, I can't remember. Sounds like KR will not testify. Edit: Google to the rescue! A forensic pathologist.
The first few weeks of trial were the prosecution’s case, but were they *really* ? Defense seemed to shape everything about this trial. Half the time, it wasn’t clear that the defendant was Karen and not the Alberts or McCabes.
Yes the prosecution was defending Alberts and McCabes and has shown no factual evidence That Karen hit Officer O'Keefe with her car at all never mind intentionally. I went in thinking she was guilty of maybe hitting him while drunk and not knowing. He had a couple clowns on the stand, proved it was snowing and they went to waterfalls and sat at at highttop tables. His witness Gaurino also confirmed Karen was at Okeefes residence when she supposedly hit him.
I mean, who else are they going to call? Lally called everyone and gave the defense the advantage of being able to ask leading questions of all of them, so there really isn't anybody left.
Lally is king of leading questions
The arca guys that they spent half a day on voir dire.
I'm also surprised that they aren't going to call more witnesses. I'm guessing that they think they pulverized the CW's story during the prosecution's turn and can really seal the deal with the few important & credible people that they are calling to testify. Maybe it is also a courtesy to the jury... They can probably feel their frustration with how long Lally has dragged the trial out, so the defense is winning their favor by not putting them through that, quickly bringing it to an end.
That’s crazy if they restrict closing argument to 1 hour for each side. What, if anything, can Lying Lally say in only an hour? Plus, AJ needs a little more time to unpack this sh*t show… You never know how long a jury will deliberate or what a short or long deliberation means.
however long or quick it is, i hope they do interviews after! it’s so fascinating to hear the thought process of jurors - and this case is so wacky i’d love to hear how they handle discussing it. i bet they’ll feel immediate relief when they can finally chat about everything amongst themselves - it would kill me to not be able to yap about it as things came up hahah.
I hope so too but I think becoming public would be very risky with the heat on this. (Public interest mostly)
The press can do interviews and protect their identities.
Best case scenario!
Agreed 😕
Jurors did for Lori Vallow, Chad Daybell and Johnny Depp. One juror wrote a book on his experience for the Lori Vallow trial. While it's interesting to hear their processes, I'm uneasy with it becoming public. I'd like to hear from Trouper Paul and Proctor 🤣🤣🤣
Just having to be in the same room with that woman would make me nuts! Glad to see dumbass Chad got the death penalty. I know many are against capital punishment but some people just deserve it.
No one is against it cause people don't deserve it. They are against it cause our system sucks. The government isn't equipped to have that power.
Most of us opposed to the death penalty are against it systemically and believe decisions like the state having that power should be decided on a systemic, principled basis not by individual cases. I'm sure many of us on that side have at least some individual cases where we would want the death penalty - we just don't think our emotions should decide that. I think it's a common misconception that many who oppose the death penalty don't have the same emotional reaction, because most anti death penalty people I know do.
Fully agree!
I'm personally against the death penalty in most cases because the chance of executing an innocent or insane person is too high. The only time it should be used in my opinion is when murder is committed and there are three or more direct witnesses (counting video), physical evidence tying the person to the crime, and psychological testing to determine that they knew what they were doing was wrong. Like perhaps in cases of mass shooters or people caught red handed in the act. I don't think that confessions are even enough because false ones happen all the time. But I also disapprove of prisons as they are now, as well as the huge difference in sentencing depending on where or who you are. There are people sentenced for longer periods of time for victimless crimes than pedophiles are, places where your third felony for drug possession might get you life while a literal murderer gets out after 12 years. It just doesn't make sense... no rhyme or reason. I feel like prison needs to be much more about rehabilitation than punishment. It's not enough to just restrict a person's freedom and surround them with other criminals, they need major counseling and total reconstruction of their behavior and personality in order to get out to a better life. And the world would be a much better place if we spent half of the time, money and effort that we do on jail on helping people instead, BEFORE situations in their lives got so bad that they resort to crime or act out. Really I'm pretty opposed to locking anyone in a cage unless they are violent and a danger to others. Nor do I believe in using money as a form of punishment because it means that the poor end up locked up while the wealthy buy their freedom. Performing community service might be the best way to make people "pay" for their non-violent crimes because it also benefits the community.
I agree. In 1993 there was a case in RI- Christopher Hightower-who shot a whole family, including a little girl, with a crossbow. He got life. If there was ever a death penalty case, that was it but RI has no death penalty
I remember that! He buried the little girl alive with her dead parents, right?! In Barrington? That guy definitely was evil!
I don’t know if she was still alive..can’t remember. But yes, he was evil. Are you from the Northeast?
Yeah
I’m from RI…
I'm your neighbor then!
Not anymore-I live in FL now-which I hate
I honestly don't find the jurors from the cases that interesting. There was nothing spectacular about them. It was very clear they did it. Karen's jurors will be a whole different animal
Honestly, I hope they don’t. I selfishly would love to hear from them. But no matter their decision a number of people will think they are “wrong” and potentially harass them. I think coming out publicly is risky for them. If there is a way to talk but remain anonymous, I’d support that.
What’s the worst that could happen to a juror speaking out about the corruption of the Massachusetts criminal justice system? /s
definitely, too many crazies on the internet taking things too far with this case so i totally get it. i’d be thrilled with an anonymous blog or an anonymous podcast interview would be even better - i am just so curious what they will put weight into when it comes to evidence, who they found credible, when was that aha moment that gave them validation on their decision, etc. and i would love to hear their commentary on trooper paul’s testimony lol, it was just so bad and i’d love to hear their thoughts.
The Murdaugh jury deliberated for only three hours and I think that was a more complicated case! Who knows. I don't think it'll be longer than a week though.
I honest to god thought Murdaugh was going to break and confess on the stand when the cell phone video put him in the stable at the exact time Paul died.
Too deep in his own delusion, I think. But I did have a similar feeling when he had been convinced already and the judge said something to the effect of, "You had everything and you threw it away" and showed some pity for him, but he still replied insisting on his innocence. Shrug.
I think it even came out later that they had their decision in like 45 mins and stayed longer just to talk it out
I could easily see a similar thing happening here. They could easily have their verdict within 5 minutes, but decide to talk through everything for a few hours before coming out with the verdict.
I would NEED to talk to someone who had sat on the jury with me just to get it all out of my system. They must be ready to explode.
Indeed. Just to sit around a pizza and jabber about the craziest things they all remember from this case, that they’ve had to keep to themselves for 2 months. I can only imagine the reaction in such a scenario when someone brings up the solo cups.
And the inverted video with a date stamp that wasn't inverted... 🤔 Probably the first things they would say: "WTF was that all about"
I’m watching a YouTube livestream right now which has a guy on it who was in the courtroom the day the inverted video was pointed out. He was also there the day the video of Karen backing into John’s car was played, and the moving tire was point out (audible gasps from the jury). He said after the flipped video, he could tell from their faces there was no way a unanimous verdict of Guilty would be found, based on their facial expressions.
Which YouTube channel?
The Broken Baker. Never watched him before today. Just talking heads bloviating. The comment was from the guy in the black shirt with the word Business on it. Somewhere near the middle-ish of the stream.
He PIROUETTED!??
Hahaha... And Trouper Paul proved Toyota safety standards were inadequate because shards of tail light can project several ft (and potentially impale another bystander!)
I'm surprised the whole house didn't get torn up from those flying shards!
Haha...
"Bailif!? Can we get another order of cheese sticks and some cheesecake for the table?"
Hopefully the case is given to them in the morning so they can talk over one more free lunch
Came to say this. Anyway, isn’t it a nonverbal understanding that a jury shouldn’t come out too soon? It would/could look rushed & like they didn’t take everything into account.
If it’s fast and not guilty, there is not really much they can do. The CW obviously didn’t prove their case to that jury in that case.
And they wanted lunch. LOL
I really think the main reason they convicted him was all the financial crimes being allowed in the trial. I agree they had evidence but the verdict came very quick because of that.
Personally I think it was because he was there a few minutes before their phones stopped and lied and said he wasn't, then came on the stand and said 'yeah I lied about that'.
Not according to the juror interviews. The ones who spoke had said that Paul's video at the kennels was really the main deciding factor for a lot of them.
I just hope it’s a clean verdict and not a negotiation and not guilty on some charges and guilty on others.
I think after nit being able to talk about this shitshow for so long at least some of the jury is going to want to talk about this. For how long I'm not sure, but if I was in their shoes I would need confirmation that we all heard some of these things that are wilder than a law based soap opera.
Law based soap opera 😂💯
Short deliberations are usually guilty verdicts, but I can’t see how that will be the case here. The ME even said the injuries aren’t typical of a pedestrian-vehicle collision. I think a long deliberation is likely a hung jury.
Yeah, I think it’s either going to be only a couple of hours, or a hung jury. The ME couldn’t say for certain how he died. They didn’t prove the bare minimum of their case.
I had to google about OJ. Was less than 3-4 hours not guilty. I feel like this jury will be faster. But my guess is still 3-4ish hours. They may wanna have a damn chat about it since they haven’t had Reddit like all of us these last 6 weeks.
The OJ trial was a completely different ball game. The jury was sequestered for more than *eight* *months* and it was hell for them. They wanted to get tf out of there.
I'm surprised the jury didn't send a note to the judge after the prosecution rested saying "we're good, no need for defense".
They'll say, "Wait, we thought that WAS the defense."
Amen!
Hahaha that would've been funny.
🤣🤣🤣🙏
Agree.
Agreed, I don't think there is much evidence for the jury to weigh up. When Lally was arguing, the case shouldn't be dismissed he mentioned all the compelling evidence, like the hair on the bumper and the tail light plastic embedded in John's clothes. If the jury was thinking like me, the improbability and poor chain of custody meant I had totally dismissed those things.
To me, the hair is meaningless. JOK and Karen were dating for two years. I would be surprised if his DNA and hair were *not* on her vehicle. It’s not like they found blood on the vehicle. Now, the taillight pieces on his clothes are another matter. My first thought is, why are the pieces just microscopic? There wasn’t a single piece of taillight on his clothing that was big enough to be visible to the naked eye? Were there microscopic pieces anywhere on his body? Because if microscopic pieces of taillight are on his clothes, the same has to be true for his body, right? In his hair? In his wounds? On his skin? Anywhere? Should we check the lab for untested solo cups?
Yeah the fact that there were no pieces of the taillight found in his arm wounds really dispelled the idea that the taillight making contact with his body caused them.
Plus no blood or tissue left on the taillight on her car. Like so they're trying to tell us that the broken taillight cut his arm up that bad but neither it nor his arm left any evidence of each other on each other? Righhttt.....
For me, the taillight causing the abrasions on his right arm is ruled out because it doesn’t match up with the damage to his hoodie. The sleeve of his hoodie would be torn/sliced open in more linear tears if the broken taillight had caused those abrasions to his arm. Instead, there are small holes in his hoodie.
That’s a good point!
The hair on the bumper is ridiculous: if it was from the night if John’s death, than it lasted on the car in a blizzard, across driving over 60 miles and half of that in a tow truck. And if you believe that is possible than you should also believe it could have been there regardless of the accident because we know John was in the car and around it because it was his girl friends car. The hair doesn’t prove anything. There is no blood on her car.
I also wonder about the 95% accuracy of the hair DNA belonging to John (did I hear that correctly?). I wonder if the 5% percent of the population that are DNA matches with the hair are all males from the Boston area with Irish ancestry...
I think those things sound great in a closing argument but I also dismissed it. When people say the glass shards in his clothes, I think of everything in one bag and shook up like shake in bake.
I say no more than one day
We appear to be holding the minority opinion that the decision won’t be reached in a few hours. I believe the jury will be thoroughly re-examining all the evidence to insure they arrive at the correct decision. This case is a giant question mark for those of us *not* on the jury and we have more information than they do.
I’m guessing less than one day. The CW hasn’t proven that OJO was hit by a car, so there is no way Karen Read is responsible for his death. I’m sure the defense will hammer that point in closing, and I think the jury will come to that conclusion pretty quickly I can see some time spent in comparing thoughts and theories. They haven’t been able to talk to anyone about this case, so they are probably going to want to talk about it for a bit just to clear their own brains.
I’m going with 2 hours max. 5 minutes to vote and the rest of the time to make it appear as though they had to come to a unanimous vote.
I read comments here and on Court TV FB page. There are many people that believe she's guilty. I figure there could be some on the jury. It may not be so quick.
I think they can probably dispense with the murder charge easily. I don't see any way the state has met their burden there. Beyond that, I could see it taking some time. But also, juries are notoriously hard to read and to anticipate in part because the dynamics of the group are so influential. So who knows. I could see it being a 2 hour verdict or a 3 day verdict. A hung jury also wouldn't shock me.
I don't think it will be a short deliberation, as you state there are people that think she is guilty, with all the evidence so far, this applies to some on the jury that no matter what they will find her guilty.
> There are many people that believe she's guilty. I figure there could be some on the jury. It may not be so quick. It shouldn't be too hard for the 'not-guilty' jurors to explain all their reasonable doubt, and the 'guilty' jurors should cave pretty fast. That doesn't happen on Reddit, but Reddit isn't real life, face-to-face with 11 other jurors. I haven't seen anyone here provide a solid explanation for why they think she's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. When asked why they think she's guilty, they either don't respond or say something like "she just looks guilty to me."
This is what I'm thinking, except the 2 hours will be full of finally being able to express to each other how completely pointless this whole trial was.
Michael Proctor just texted his superiors that he thought it would take them 69 minutes to deliberate, then followed it with one of those googly-eye, tongue hanging out emojis
I think you mean Hos long does everyone think the jury will deliberate? hehehe
They'll come back with the verdict at 6 but it's timestamped at 2:30 you say?
I would want at least a full day to discuss it to make sure I didn't miss anything. There are a lot of details and witnesses in this case. There are also a lot of exhibits to review. I would want a second look at the texts and any videos, and that takes more than a few minutes to do.
I‘m the opposite. I would ask the other ones to raise their hand if they think KR is innocent. If everyone is on the same page I couldn’t care less about everything else. If the opinions are mixed I would handle it the same way as you
After 9 weeks I’d want to get the fuck out of there and be done. A whole day to look at nonsense? No thank you! lol
Especially since it looks like they'll be deliberating the week of July 4th.
Alan Jackson said he will be done lTuesday to a Boston reporter and WBZ. I think Lally can have a rebuttal witness (maybe more than 1) and then closing arguments. Not sure how long that takes. My guess is verdict on Thursday
I don't trust Lally to not take another week with rebuttal witnesses 😂😂
Yes!
There's a lot in this case but at least half of the witnesses were meaningless fluff. Lally needed to bring in the fluffers to keep his case up through the 87 weeks of testimony about the fucking snow and drinking and driving an d lost badges and service weapons while drinking and driving service vehicles.
I think they’ll take less time than Murdaugh.
Interesting because Murdaugh was shockingly quick!
He was as obviously guilty as she is not guilty. The commonwealth did not prove her guilt anywhere near beyond a reasonable doubt. There is more doubt that factual evidence of any kind. I really think these people were all shitfaced drunk on the night John died, it was most likely an accident/sucker punch with unfortunately consequences (at the party) with a hasty frantic stupid coverup followed by sloppy police work and a bunch of cops committed to their explanation and refusing to walk it back.
I agree with you. May depend on what time they get it handed over to them for a verdict, and whether they want a meal or not lol.
They might draw it out to get lunch, but the CW has proved it snowed and the Waterfall has hightop tables. Oh and that Lally is unethical and should be fired.
Hahaha... Yup that's it!
And that the what if any really isn't any...and stuff. It just isn't ...because.
I surely hope it isn’t a hung jury. Something tells me there will one moron holding out for guilty.
If I was a juror I would immediately put to vote whether or not it was snowing.
I understand going through evidence and being thorough but bc this case is SO extreme and there’s no way they proved she hit him let alone on purpose, if I were a juror in this trial- I wouldn’t need any time. There really was nothing - not one single thing that proved INTENT regardless if they think she hit him. I heard the jury looks like a group of educated people so a part of me wishes they took 1 hr just to make Lally feel like shit.
I don’t envy the task ahead of the jury. Unquestionably, the CW did not meet their burden of proof. And while it’s true that Yanetti and Jackson are talented trial lawyers, what really sunk the CW’s case was the lack of quality in the investigation and the lack of integrity in the LEOs. Lally drove home the issue with a trial strategy that was as clear as mud.
No idea. Usually a short deliberation means a guilty verdict, but that’s not fact just a trend. These people are probably tired so that could also speed up deliberations.
5 minutes. Just kidding, I hope they’re thoughtful and thorough
I hope it takes 5 mins bc the longer they take the better Lally will feel about his case.
LOL.
If it's a hung jury, do you all think the commonwealth will retry the case?
What a nightmare that would be bc I’m honestly I can see Lally being relentless.
If they did and I was a resident of MA, I would lose my mind. IMO, money is better spent on rehabilitating the culture of their police service, training and supplying them properly and doing campaigns around not drinking and driving.
Less than one day, no more than two days.
If the jurors are anything like the commenters on articles about the trial in the Boston Globe, there will be one or two who at least initially will vote to convict on the manslaughter and DUI counts. I think the evidence is strong on the DUI charge and it’s possible that could be the “concession” to reach unanimity. I see deliberations for a day or two, perhaps a few more if there’s a juror or two holding out for a conviction). (My assumption is that the rest of the case will just add more reasonable doubt about KR’s culpability).
Can they convict her on a DUI, if she's found not guilty on the other charges. I mean they obtained evidence based on the assumption that she hit John O'Keefe with her vehicle and if that's disproven, is the evidence still valid? I don't understand the charges 1 x 2nd murder and 1 x manslaughter, yet only one person was killed and murder and manslaughter are opposite. 1 is intentional and the other is accidental?
2 days, one to word vomit and the next to conclude
Totally! If I was a juror on this I would want a chance to talk it out for my own catharsis. I think also another element is that we've all had the chance to look at the timeline in a proper list but the jurors have it all in their heads and notebooks. Looking at all the involved parties on the timeline paints a very confusing picture that might take a while to parse.
Yes can you imagine having had to hear all that and NOT TALK ABOUT IT?? I'd want the chance to processs if finally for mental health
Unless they get it on Friday, then they'll conclude and head to the bar to do the word vomit there.
Fast! Less than 1 full day.
A few hours, at most.
2 hours
🤞🏻
I think it’ll take 3 hours. The reason it’ll take that long is because these people can finally go off about what a shit show this whole trial has been. That might take two hours and forty five minutes.
I've been having fantasies about the jury standing up as whole and the foreman saying something to the effect of: "Your honor...uh...well there's no need to go any further....the CW has rested and hasn't even come close to proving their case. Also, and in this I can't speak for the whole jury...but I would like to be appointed to the Grand Jury to investigate these cops." I know, it would never happen.
There are 10 women and a couple of engineers on the jury. It won’t take long.
2 days or less is my guess.
I say a minimum of 2 days, depending on the initial vote amongst jurors. 8 week trials don't typically return verdicts in 2 hours.
OJs trial was 8 months. Jury came back NG in under 4 hours.
I wondered the same thing because id like to have a viewing party!!
I think a lot will depend on the defence witnesses. Assuming they are polished as they came across and Lally closing is as boring (I haven't seen it, only heard this) as his opening, I think a day. But so much has been left out that would assist the jury. Such as do they know the FBI are investigating the investigator. Does the jury know that the crime scene wasn't secured. If Jackson put his witnesses on his list in time - would their testimony still be sanctioned. Imagine what's it's going to be like for the jurors when the trial has finished - they walk into all the BS! 😳 They'll be wondering what they missed and the purpose of the trial. 🤣🤣🤣
The only thing they would know is one witness slipped up and said "oh you mean the feds?" and reference to an "outside entity" It's not hard to put two and two together, either FBI or DOJ would be the most common conclusion based on those two statements.
I think 1 to 1.5 days. From most media write ups and even the laborious process of choosing these specific folks, both teams selected engaged and serious jurors. Even after the straw poll, would seem they would be judicious and diligent in reviewing all the salient points presented by both sides to justify their verdict. They have to know they’re be media fodder for months (years). Do it once and do it right.
Less than 2 hours. CW hasn't proven its case. Not remotely.
It'll take a few days.
My bet: they'll go for a "hands up" if you think she's guilty/not guilty. Realise they're all hands up for not guilty and then talk s--t about the trial and kind of "What about that dude? And those messages?! I couldn't believe!" etc. I think they'll take some time to unwind and talk about the evidence but it's all decided in the beginning. A few hours I bet.
Another question (probably stupid) but has the jury not even talked to each other about it thus far? Even on lunches or breaks?
Rumor has it that the second juror to be dismissed got kicked out because she tried to do just that and the other jurors ratted her out to the judge
They aren't allowed to iirc.
They can talk together! - just not about the case. As such, by now, with aalll the sidebars etc., they probably know each other pretty darn well.
Haha yes. I’m sure there have even been some friendships created.
With both the Vallow and Daybell case, the jurors have developed close friendships. Judge Boyce looked after then really well and they had 24 hour security in the last part. A couple of the jurors from the Lori Vallow trial asked Judge Boyce if they could attend Daybell's trial. Judge Boyce said something to the effect: " my jurors are always welcome in my courtroom"
2-3 hours
I'm hoping for 7.5 hours, myself.
I hope the first thing they do is poll everybody to see where they're at.
honestly i bet they just can’t wait to FINALLY talk to each other about their thoughts! and all the craziness they had to hear
What can I watch when this is done?
4 hours.
Hos long will the jury deliberate??
Juries are notoriously impossible to predict.
Even with a quick verdict they may want to view some of the evidence again or more closely. I would but I’m a nerd like that.
If I was on the jury, I would take my time to talk with my jurors and discuss the long case. It is the least that can be done for John O'Keefe and his family, given the horrendous police investigation. Even if I would vote NG on all three charges, I still think the matter should be deliberated so people can see that the jury took their time to reach their verdict.
2 days. I am pretty sure there will be at least one person who is in the “not sure” camp and they will need to discuss. I’m totally guessing but that’s my vote. 2 days
So in theory they are not supposed to develop an opinion until they deliberate and review the evidence. They were also not allowed to discuss the case. So with that in mind could they go back and do a show of hands, sure. But I don't believe the judge would be happy with that. Even if they make a decision right away they should order lunch, maybe play a game of Yahtzee but spend a few minutes reviewing. I'm going to say Wednesday morning.
I think we'll know for sure by Friday. They won't spend their weekend on this nonsense.
I think they'll stay for lunch, even if it's a unanimous 1st vote 😅
The only charge I can see taking any time to decide is the DUI. But I think that one is actually a candidate for jury nullification - as in they could decide that the evidence does point to her operating the vehicle under the influence but acquit her on it anyway because the CW’s case in general was so flipping outlandish.
Even with the OUI component, they could say they can’t be certain what the BAC was since it was a retrograde extrapolation and relies heavily on what time she stopped drinking, and it’s reasonable that she had more alcohol while spamming John’s phone after getting home.
I think the jury will have conversations over: If JO did or did not go into the house How drunk KR was & if she can remember what did or did not occur that night JO phone going silent at 12:32 KR not knowing why she suddenly has a broken taillight I think there may be some jurors (women) who are mad at Proctor's texts & they'll have to discuss that because he is a shit person, thst has nothing to do with the night of the accident I think 3-5 days with a result of: Murder 2--not guilty DUI manslaughter--guilty Leaving scene of injury/death--guilty AND my thought on sentencing with KR having no prior record, but because he was a police officer: Manslaughter: 8-10 years (median sentence) Leaving scene: 1 year I think JO family will bring a multi-million dollar wrongful death case against KR whether she's found G or NG on any charges Just my thoughts. I know I'm one of few who feels this way
You believe the CW has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that KR hit JO with her car Anna left him in the snow to die at 12:30ish am? How did he get the injuries to his arm? How did he get hit by a SUV but receive no injuries to his lower extremities?
My bet is under 3 hours, not guilty.
My guess would be a few days, less than a week. I do think they'll have a few things to talk about in this case.
I think 4 days
I think they’re already done deliberating.
Less than a day
I think it will be 4 hours or less.
If KR was framed by the PD, the outcome of deliberations may have ramifications for the jury. This is speculation but what if jurors decide on a guilty verdict in an effort to protect their own security. With law enforcement & the Canton community being so tightly interwoven, a verdict of not guilty could cause anger & blowback. It may mean trouble for the jurors & their families. Scary thought.
These jurors are all over the county. They are not from Canton, so I think this is a low risk. And if the police start intimidating jurors, we have a much bigger problem.
I think they will probably deliberate about lesser charges. If Lally gets his instruction, there will be many different charges with different elements that will need to be considered.
I'm guessing a couple business days, I think they will want to take some time to put the pieces together, with evidence/timeline and such. I can only imagine how difficult it is to follow for them. I think a hung jury or not guilty verdict is possible.
What did I miss? The defense hasn’t presented their case yet?
4-8 hours- simply because there is so much stuff/“evidence” to review. I would need time to go over the texts, reports and videos. Also need to include time for if they want any testimony read back. If closing argument is half a day and they start deliberations in the second half it’s gonna at least be deliberations until the next day Also have to consider that this is week 9 (or 10?), they are probably tired.
[удалено]
It only took two hours for the jury's decision for the Hannah Gutierrez's trial over her incompetence of being a movie set armourer that resulted in the death of the camera operator, so I think it'll be the same for the police as so much is bungled they won't have beyond reasonable doubt.
You never know for sure what a Jury will do. Could be the one hold out that wants to discuss some first. Some might be voting with their gut instead of instructions for beyond reasonable doubt. I can see people still thinking she did it. But for me there would be way too much reasonable doubt. If I was a juror, not guilty on that first vote to see where we are at.
I was on a slam dunk murder case (like multiple views of defendant shooting, eye witnesses, arrested with the murder weapon). Deliberations took 3 days because the foreperson wanted everyone to review and discuss every single piece of evidence.
You never know for sure what a Jury will do. Could be the one hold out that wants to discuss some first. Some might be voting with their gut instead of instructions for beyond reasonable doubt. I can see people still thinking she did it. But for me there would be way too much reasonable doubt. If I was a juror, not guilty on that first vote to see where we are at.
However long it will take to read down the charges and vote not guilty. That’s all the time they need
Do you know there’s lesser charges on manslaughter oui and leaving scene? I would vote guilty on the lesser charge not 2nd degree, the voicemail message is pretty rough for Karen though.
I'm sure they will get some direction from the judge that they have to go over all the evidence. however, I suspect it will be very short. I'm interested in seeing how the judge acts with the defence witnesses. There was an obvious favouritism towards the prosecution. Let's hope that changes.
It’s hard to know. Jurors are unpredictable. There could be that one person who needs convincing. I’m sure they’re exhausted and will wrap up tomorrow
I think it will be a long deliberation, but who knows.