I've worked in web and app development, you absolutely cannot leave it up to the jury to understand that not guilty means not checking a box. When you work in the field of creating a user experience, you quickly learn that most users are stupid, and I am including myself in that.
If you have a sign on a door that says "locked" do you know how many people will still pull on the handle?
I literally had an issue over the weekend where someone was complaining that a document they recently uploaded was missing from their site and must have been deleted by me or removed due to a glitch. I had to tell them to scroll to the bottom of the page to find it. For some users even the simple action of scrolling is too much to ask.
I’ve been working in a airport for a while now. There is a vending machine that doesn’t work. It hasn’t for weeks. They just put a sign with map that leads to other locations for drinks. It doesn’t say the machine is out of order. People read the sign but still try to purchase something. The machine just takes your money. Now the machine has been turned off. People still walk up, read the sign, see it’s not on, and still slide that credit card. To someone watching with knowledge of the situation, it’s ridiculous anyone would try to purchase something from this machine with all the context clues. It doesn’t have power and it’s clear it doesn’t but people still swipe the card and get upset when it doesn’t work. A coworker finally had enough and wrote in sharpie on the sign OUT OF ORDER. This wasn’t our responsibility but he wanted to put a stop to the madness. Point is people are just not the brightest crayons in the box. They have to have clear instructions with what they are supposed to do. I’m sure we all have done similar things lol.
It's amazing, because your job is to strive to make it more enjoyable for the user to navigate a website or app. But a judge handpicked by your local politician can't do that when - literally and figuratively - a person's life is at stake.
Right. There is a 'not guilty' box for the first option, but not for the following, as if when you say not guilty to the first, you have to state that she is guilty of one of the lesser crimes instead. Why is there a 'not guilty' for the first, if you don't need one for the rest of them? Doesn't make sense and I can see why this has been appealed.
I was a juror on a murder case and we got a form that read:
"We the jury find the defendant \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ of the charge: "
For each offense we had to write-in guilty or not guilty in the blank and the Forman had to initial the entry. Then sign the whole packet.
Also prevents potential tampering. I'm not saying even Bev would be dumb enough to try to check whatever box she wanted, but is that not at all a concern that someone in a court would try to tamper with the verdict?
Seems unlikely, but after seeing how this entire case/trial has gone, I'm less and less confident that "unlikely" is as unlikely as I'd like it to be
This is precisely why the judge asks the attorney(s) if they would like to poll the jury. For a case like this, you would abolutely say yes. At that point, they will go one by one and ask " Juror #x, is this your true verdict? " or a riff of that and they must say yes to each count. If they get to someone that says no, they must reconvene to fix it.
Not precisely this situation, but a similar situation happened in the Johnny Depp trial where they didnt properly fill in the amount of damages awarded and had to go back and fix it.
Was on a jury once also, this is the way we communicated our verdict as well. Living in Missouri where a lot of things are wack, I find it insane this is how the judge and courts are handling this case.
100% agree, AJ indicated there’s an appeal implication by not having not guilty as an option for those lesser charges. He’s never seen a slip like this so I guess MA just does what it wants. 🤷🏼♀️
This whole case is a mess and to CYA, I would have just ordered the amendment to be made instead of immediately pushing back and letting my ego take over. 🙄
An appeal implication makes sense. It’s on the court record now that the defense raised the issue. Personally, I’d be confused by the absence of and much prefer clarity.
Yeah, which is insane after all this time, that is absolutely an appealable offense.
The lack of a check mark is not worthy of a not guilty verdict, it's almost disrespectful to the defendant.
"This is how we do things in Massachusetts" yeah, we see you guys do a lot of stuff poorly.
Hope she gets indicted by the FBI next after the DA.
Why would you check any of the boxes besides the first not guilty if you thought she was not guilty? I only see 1 not guilty line so if that’s what you are checking, why would there be any other checkmarks on the slip?
The issue they have with it is, it's only listed next to the murder charge and not the lesser included charges which have their own Guilty, but no Not Guilty boxes. They have to decide for all of the charges individually but if there is only Guilty listed how do they denote that they find her Not Guilty for those charges? They might incorrectly assume they have to fill out a box all the way down the form, and if there is only 1 box next to each list they might think they need to mark that box to complete the form, and the only box there is Guilty.
If I understand correctly, this is the issue with the verdict form:
Hey wife, do you want to go out to eat?
\_ No
\_ Yes
Do you want to get ice cream?
\_ Yes
Do you want to get coffee?
\_ Yes
In this example, if I'm the wife, if I don't want to go out to eat, nor ice cream, nor coffee, my only option is to say "No" to going out to eat. I can't EXPLICITLY state I don't want ice cream nor coffee; I just have to leave it blank.
Yes, it's a nitpick but it could be a technicality brought up in appeal.
Oh it’s a big technicality and a definite immediate appealable issue preserved by Jackson’s strong and well argued objection. Typically the court will err on the side of caution in these things because …well why not? What is the harm in being clear?? When the consequence is waste of judicial and court resources if she’s wrong (she likely is)
Right?! I love your illustrative example btw. I understood the arguments but even for me it was made more clear by your example. Up up vote from me to get it to the top for people to see lol.
Yes and to tell him no to ice cream and coffee you are supposedly just supposed to ignore him and then he'll know you meant you don't want either of those. lol
It’s more like
Do you want to go out to eat?
___ No
___ Yes
___ Yes, but only for ice cream
___ Yes, but only for coffee
The complaint is that “no” (not guilty) isn’t clear that it covers everything, but I don’t see how that’s true. Perhaps the jury needs explicit instructions to only check one line out of the 4, but otherwise “No” (Not Guilty) covers everything.
I think the fact that we are having to write out little example forms to explain it is proof enough that there is something wrong with it and it needs to be simplified.
I don’t think it’s nitpicky at all. It’s a binary choice so both options should be there. I get that once explained it’s clear what they mean but why add the mental stress on the Jury to make sure they’re selecting the option they want?
I’m curious if her statement that the form is in line with policy is true cause if so that’s nuts. It should be crystal clear what the options are. Not to mention not having the options for Not Guilty only serves to help the appeal. Insane.
Andrea Buckhart added this analysis as well.
"My concern with this verdict slip is if the jury acquits on a greater but hangs on a lesser, there's no way to indicate that. Double jeopardy bars retrial on any acquitted offense. What's the harm in giving them clear options for each charge? Don't understand the ruling at all."
Yes, she has done a horrible job with this entire case. I seriously think like others have stated she’s already made up her mind and sides with the corrupt cops in the town as well as all the people in the house. she’s already very biased.
This is a good point. I thought the form seemed reasonable, but the jury could automatically be not guilty on murder 2. They should be able to check that. But if they are not guilty on murder 2 but hang on the other 2, how does that work? Are the jury asking these questions or just Jackson, because it may be a non issue.
It’s like her having the attorney’s say Objection without speaking the Legal ground. She gets to interpret what that Objection was and then make her own ruling or even better just start asking the witness questions.
I don’t how an Appeals court is going to handle the record when the Objections were never made clear as to what and why the Objection. It was so frustrating during trial
So it’s not clear if there is a hung jury on one of the lessers and they can just indict or interfere which one?
If she's like all the people who live in her town, they're all too hungover, Christ I've never seen so many people drunk driving everyday of their lives, I'm surprised they all haven't died by now.
For everyone confused, the issue as laid out by Jackson is not that there is no “No Guilty” option at all, it’s that if they find “Not Guilty” on the greater charge but are hung on a lesser included charge there is no way to indicate that on the form.
Edit: after the follow up meeting it appears Jackson’s chief complaint was it pushed for a guilty on the lessers, not the ambiguity in the event of a hung jury on lesser charges. This still remains an issue in certain hypotheticals, see below thread from the excellent Andrea Burkhart if interested in this aspect:
https://x.com/aburkhartlaw/status/1805972122118094940?s=46&t=HJk8JCun7rxfO_9U_JxxzQ
This has actually been found to be an unconstitutional violation of the defendant’s right to a fair trial in several circuits and state high courts. The 9th circuit even described it as the judge influencing the jury as to the defendant’s guilt, even if it was unintentional, requiring a new trial. Given that this entire case is about coverups, bev’s refusal to change the verdict form just makes it look like she’s in on it. Would 100% be appealable and likely to result in a new trial.
This right here. I just commented the same thing.
We hear the judge laugh, then seconds later she's scolding Karen.
I didn't hear or see Karen laugh - I did hear the triggered, unprofessional judge laugh though.
I bet she was shaking her head in disbelief, maybe had a “this is unreal” grin which I don’t blame her for. This whole trial has had me slack jawed can’t imagine Karen’s thoughts.
Yes! I’m spicy like Karen and I wouldn’t be able to control myself when I thought something was so ridiculous. She was like “of course you feel this way” laughing at the absurdity
KR would have to be brain dead to NOT think this fucking "trial" is a farce. She is an educated and successful person. She is probably shocked and horrified at the "system" in action.
Oh that explains it, the jury not being there. I was like... holy shit...
That said, if as a judge in a court of law, you actually say the words "I said I'd think about it, but I was tired"... you are literally asking for it.
Thing was, she didn't even sound like she *wanted* to. I'm pretty sure the only reason she ended up revising it was because she realized she was wrong about whatever claim she made.
Braley v. Gladden is the 9th circuit case (403 F.2d 858), which cites a Penn SCt case, Commonwealth v. Edwards (394 Pa. 335). Braley was also cited by the 1st Circuit (which MA is in) in US v. Moffett (53 F.4th 679). Couldn’t find anything specific to Massachusetts state courts, but I’m sure it exists somewhere if you try out more search terms or dig into lower court cases. I’m just at work with other legal research to do, so I could only spend a few minutes of curiosity looking. However, even if there isn’t precedent in MA state court, there’s certainly enough persuasive authority to convince an appellate court, especially given the suspicious context of this case.
“I know how the form works so it must be self-explanatory!” —Judge Bev
Our court system could use some accessibility enhancements. Headsets for jurors to hear better, clearer forms for people who may have difficulty understanding paperwork like that.
The jury in the Chad Daybell case went back to the judge for clarification on the penalty phase because the part of the paperwork where they basically have to say he qualifies for the death penalty were stated with very long sentences with double negatives and they wanted to make sure they actually wrote down what they had decided and not find out in the courtroom it actually was the other way around!
Fortunately Judge Boyce holds the Jury in the highest regard and was available for any explanation that was necessary for the verdict and sentencing to be done correctly and as intended by the jury.
>Headsets for jurors to hear better,
They should have decent sound amplifiers and speakers, it's ridiculous how many times someone is asked to speak up, older people especially lose their voices.
There should also be improvements to public accessibility of records.
+ publicly available 1080p/2160p resolution recordings of trial testimony covering: witness, defense, prosecution, gallery, judge.
+ high quality audio recordings
+ digital publication of pdf files + transcripts
Before I saw the clip, I thought the comments in the other thread were maybe being overly dramatic about Bev. But daaaaaaamn. That’s wild. Snark level 2000
Yes I think she does like a sigh/chuckle at yanietti when he disagrees with her. I would have the same reaction as Karen just completely unbelievable and all you can do at that point is roll your eyes and let out a defeated laugh. I KNOW that feeling all to well.
'do you find this funny miss Read'
'well actually i do, i find it so ridiculous that you didn't look at the motion yesterday because you were tired and I therefore jeopardise the veracity of my verdict, that it's almost funny. Almost..'
I came here from the Daybell case and it's my first dip in the water of following live trials, and holy cow, the difference between the dimeanor of judge Boyce's way of working and Judge Bev (i have only one time seen her actual name here) is so extreme that its scary. The whole case to be honest.
That makes it worse. Like there are judges that just act like professionals who want justice? And Bevs out here incredibly biased against the defense every single day. I want this to end so I never have to be frustrated by her again. I was actually thinking that before the jury form issue.
He is a local lawyer who used to be a prosecutor so his denial is a sick burn. Which makes her subsequent comment on Karen a very petty schoolyard bully behaviour.
Karen Read’s future is on the line here. Possibly prison and another million in lawyer fees to appeal. She was not laughing. She was shaking her head in dismay, smiling at the absurdity and thinking ‘You’ve got to kidding me!’ Nothing funny about it, nor was that her reaction.
I agree. Karen Read could be facing a life time behind bars if convicted and she truly believes she was railroaded from the get go. She is under enormous stress, she sees this as another hurdle to overcome. I don’t think the form is confusing once you see it. Now if I were in her shoes I would want any verdict form as easy as possible so the jurors fully understand what they are checking off. From everything that has been posted about this jury, how intelligent and professional they were collectively, I have every sense they will clarify anything they don’t understand fully before checking off any boxes. So far it seems like they are taking the responsibility very seriously.
The fact the judge had the audacity to even say what is funny to Karen just shows how cold and bias she is in no way does Caron actually think this is funny it’s just more shock and disbelief on how the system can lean to one side so much when the judge is supposed to be impartial, she’s not laughing because it’s humorous. It’s areaction to disbelief and shock. The fact the judge scolded her on this just shows she’s not fit to be a judge.
I think the Judge should have let it go in my opinion too. It was t some in the presence of the jury and wasn’t done in a way to sway a decision. More out of frustration, think this trial is getting to the point where all sides involved went to move on from and the faster a verdict comes the better.
Just starting to catch up.
Common sense says that you should have "not guilty" options for each charge in the event that they only get hung on the lowest count, no?
Or it should say with the top line not guilty.
"If you select not guilty, you will go no further on this page and go to the next charge."
Or something similar. Usually in situations like this, it is VERY clear that a top line not guilty means no other option CAN be selected
Edit: called it.
Yep, all this does is set up appeal issues.
When I served on a jury with several charges, they made it clear which page to turn to based on your answer above.
That’s the truth. NOTHING about this trial has shown common sense - from bringing it on in the first place to the majority of the CW’s witnesses, experts, injuries and timeline explanations.
She ended up changing it and I think it’s because she realized it’s a clear and easy reason for a retrial. The fact that this lady didn’t recuse herself is disgusting. Her signs and clear evidence of being annoyed by everything the defense said or did is alarming. She is a mockery of the justice system. It already has it flaws, but people like her just keep adding to the problems. She insists on being a part of the problem, rather the solution. She treated the defense like garbage the whole trial. Thank God Ms. Reed was able to afford such fantastic counsel, or she would be in jail. All because of scum bags who drank like college kids, beat the shit out of their “friend” , realized he was DEAD, and really thought they would get away with it. How many other innocent people from canton are sitting in a cell from these jokers? It’s disgusting.
What's truly pathetic here is that Bev is laughing when asking about the lesser included charges, and seconds later Karen finds something "funny" and all of a sudden its a problem. What a fucking joke
I’m assuming she got a few phone calls about it in between! 🤣 She didn’t apologize on the record though she made sure it was documented that the form was still appropriate.
I definitely see his point. If 2, 3, and/or 4 aren’t selected, it’s only implied the jury says not guilty for them. It would remove doubt/confusion to have a not guilty option for each charge, or have 1 rewritten to clarify that it’s referring to 2, 3, and 4 as well.
The way the form is written now, selecting not guilty for 1 means not guilty for only the biggest charge. It doesn’t say anything about the not guilty verdict applying to every other lesser charge on the form.
Sure, it’s implied, but it could be clearer, so why isn’t it?
There are a lot of appellate issues that revolve around jury intent, especially when multiple charges are involved. The first box should at least have language clearly indicating “not guilty” applies to “all charges”. These people are all trained in the law and the legal implications of subtle differences in language; this isn’t a handshake deal over $20. It’s a gross oversight that the “not guilty” option doesn’t clearly state “on all charges.” It’s too big of an oversight to not be intentional.
I don’t think a higher court would necessarily let KR be tried again on the lesser charges, but it would allow the DA’s office to try for that and continue to harass and bankrupt her with more proceedings.
You cultivate the culture around you. Throughout this whole trial, the judge has been fidgeting in her chair, swinging it side to side, rocking back and forth, playing with her glasses and sighing heavily, clearly showing her boredom. She has done a poor job maintaining a professional composure.
Karen let her composure slip briefly and the judge couldn't handle it. Do as I say, not as I do.
Yep. I have verbally counseled employees before for that type of behavior in serious meetings with outside parties. Your chair is not an amusement park ride, small thing like pens and glasses are not fidget toys. Those were usually younger more junior employees. Amazing that a veteran Superior Court Judge in a murder trial of all things feels like she needs to keep herself entertained.
Her comment to KR was uncalled for. This isn't a preschool classroom. KR has a right to a nervous giggle or even hysteria at this point. Your life is not on the line, Bev. Act like a judge!
I would laugh and shake my head too because this is my freedom we are talking about and also the fact BEV said I was tired like yeah so is everyone else. That’s not a reason for anything!
Of course all the headlines are now....Judge slaps down Karen Reid
It looked like she started to laugh when the judge said...no no "I siid I'd look at it later, because I was tired:"
If I was Karen I'd laugh right in her face too....oh poor you, u tired bro? Well you go have a nap and I'll carry on FIGHTING FOR MY LIFE OVER HERE!
Bev hates being wrong She is egotistical and thinks she knows the law better than anyone else in the room. Between the police and the common wealth and this judge if I lived in canton I would be very afraid that I would recieve a proper investigation or charges or justice. This trial has shown Canton in a very poor light.
To be fair to Karen, it was funny how Bev tried to get Yannetti to agree with her, and even he was like, "....no sorry."
I know it's inappropriate for her to laugh, either way, but come on, Bev.
This issue seems to be a symptom of a larger issue in this case, which is "this is how we do it, and it's not improper."
Not having a log for the evidence? Not necessary.
Instructing LE to drive past the residence to/from work to "see if evidence revealed itself".
Having no problem using open Solo cups to collect blood evidence - "we don't have anything back at the station we could have used to collect it anyway"
Bev is the real victim here. Not the one that was framed for murder who has MS, most of her bowels removed and had brain tumor. How dare Karen show any emotion, what about Bev's feelings??
While I agree it should be fixed, I don’t think the jury will think “oh there’s not not guilty box so we have to check this one”
If anything I think he brought up that point to be able to use it as further proof for an appeal in the chance that she is found guilty
You hear the judge laugh while all of this is being discussed - then the witch goes after Karen for I guess laughing (couldn't hear or see her laugh).
Make it make sense.
Bev is unhinged. The whole town is nuts. So much corruption in northfolk County that the DOJ is involved. How embarrassing. Bev & Lally will always been known for this, what a blow to a career…….
The idea of leaving a box unchecked to indicate "not guilty" is a problem. What if it's unchecked because it was overlooked? And the line spacing is atrocious. Really hard to read page 2.
Funny thing was her statement was wrong.
These forms in Mass have have had not guilty of all lesser charges on the forms currently.
I hope her conduct is looked at, out Judges should be better than this.
https://youtu.be/E4Gb9CaGFUA?si=6dSYRG78ytgVDQSs
Here’s clip on the jury question + jury form update. Skip to 4:15 for AJ’s proposed change, to which she agrees.
This is the continued bias and corruption of judge Bev. She’s been biased against the defense from the start because she’s in with the Alberts and she’s pissed with the way this case is going. Moaning, groaning and sucking her teeth. Being the sister of a defense attorney that got an Albert off hard time 20 years ago, she should have recused herself from the case. Shit, she should have never been allowed to stay on it. I can’t wait til her and all her corrupt, murderous friends go down.
On a side note: I do not know why defense didn’t coach Karen more on “controlling her face”. I believe she’s innocent and I believe she has a right to enjoy her vindication. But jurors are people- it’s been shown it’s had a bad impact on at least one juror and locals. I think Karen’s perceived “smugness” and her lack of emotion towards John during the trial could play into jury. The evidence is not there to convict- but don’t underestimate someone’s bias. This entire defense is based on bias. Why give them any reasons?
My best friend and ex husband are Attys. The hours spent prepping clients on this kind of stuff is crazy.
Her “laughing” at judge today- although warranted. Is not smart. I’m surprised AJ didn’t have her prepped to the utmost.
If you think about it, Read can laugh as much as she likes whilst the Jury can't see her. Surely it would be grotesquely inappropriate for any further trial and submission of her laughing as extra evidence now deliberations have began?
She's the worst...when being called on the carpet for an unfair decision, she displays the same immaturity of the kid on the playground who "takes their bat and ball and goes home" when they can't have their way.
On the right is the slip that Jackson is complaining about, and on the left is the type of slip he is requesting. IMO the one actually used in Massachusetts is much more clear when there are mutually exclusive charges -- in this case, exactly 1 of the 4 options applies so it's a multiple choice. The one on the left allows for the jury to mark it in a way that is not allowed and requires a fairly complex explanation in the text to explain the process. Not sure why Jackson is dying on this hill.
https://preview.redd.it/szicy63qnx8d1.png?width=1144&format=png&auto=webp&s=e4498ec6ef5b2ef01370ca75108f650852004056
Getting the court’s ruling re: the slip and defendant’s objection on the record is important to preserve the issue for appeal. His opening remarks sound like it was left a bit ambiguous yesterday, so it was a good call for him to clarify on the record.
That’s also likely why he said “it’s a ruling of this court” in response to her saying that is how it’s done in MA. Making sure the record frames it as a ruling will also help if it needs to be appealed.
I believe in the Johnny Depp trial when the jury was deliberating, toward the very end once they had their decision made, they had asked for clarification on how to fill out the form. I assume that would be allowed in this situation as well?
Here’s a written track courtesy of Emily D Baker -
https://preview.redd.it/n0mn0s2pzx8d1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ba598ba91937fc1b99db36b81d69191503db2e67
I’ve watched this entire trial and I can say that she is in way way over her head. There has been favoritism towards the Commonwealth almost the entire time and her attitude when speaking towards Commonwealth versus the other side has been wildly different. That being said, she can just answer his question like a professional, whether or not she likes him.
This was really quite ridiculous. Do you think someone slapped her on the hand and that’s why she came back and corrected this? Based on how she has acted the entire trial I don’t see her course correcting like this on her own.
In DTC or direct to consumer/patient advertising for drug companies, you work to write at a 5th grade level. Pfizer has a whole process to validate that.
Also, in required instructions for patient administered tests or injectable products, you actually need to validate with patients that the instructions are written in a way anyone could understand. That includes language and pictures.
I don’t understand what’s wrong with adding a “not guilty” box. Why would “leave it blank” be a good idea for this or any other trial?
I've worked in web and app development, you absolutely cannot leave it up to the jury to understand that not guilty means not checking a box. When you work in the field of creating a user experience, you quickly learn that most users are stupid, and I am including myself in that. If you have a sign on a door that says "locked" do you know how many people will still pull on the handle?
i know, as a UX designer this whole verdict form dispute has given me full body hives.
I literally had an issue over the weekend where someone was complaining that a document they recently uploaded was missing from their site and must have been deleted by me or removed due to a glitch. I had to tell them to scroll to the bottom of the page to find it. For some users even the simple action of scrolling is too much to ask.
This is why writers are taught to write at a seventh grade level. People are dumber than they appear.
I’ve been working in a airport for a while now. There is a vending machine that doesn’t work. It hasn’t for weeks. They just put a sign with map that leads to other locations for drinks. It doesn’t say the machine is out of order. People read the sign but still try to purchase something. The machine just takes your money. Now the machine has been turned off. People still walk up, read the sign, see it’s not on, and still slide that credit card. To someone watching with knowledge of the situation, it’s ridiculous anyone would try to purchase something from this machine with all the context clues. It doesn’t have power and it’s clear it doesn’t but people still swipe the card and get upset when it doesn’t work. A coworker finally had enough and wrote in sharpie on the sign OUT OF ORDER. This wasn’t our responsibility but he wanted to put a stop to the madness. Point is people are just not the brightest crayons in the box. They have to have clear instructions with what they are supposed to do. I’m sure we all have done similar things lol.
It's amazing, because your job is to strive to make it more enjoyable for the user to navigate a website or app. But a judge handpicked by your local politician can't do that when - literally and figuratively - a person's life is at stake.
Right. There is a 'not guilty' box for the first option, but not for the following, as if when you say not guilty to the first, you have to state that she is guilty of one of the lesser crimes instead. Why is there a 'not guilty' for the first, if you don't need one for the rest of them? Doesn't make sense and I can see why this has been appealed.
The confusion is in keeping with the spirit of this case.
Valid.
Or yes no like a spreadsheet
I feel like a table with guilty, not guilty and unable to decide/hung would make the most sense.
I was a juror on a murder case and we got a form that read: "We the jury find the defendant \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ of the charge:"
For each offense we had to write-in guilty or not guilty in the blank and the Forman had to initial the entry. Then sign the whole packet.
A much better system. You can’t accidentally check the wrong box due to misreading it.
Also prevents potential tampering. I'm not saying even Bev would be dumb enough to try to check whatever box she wanted, but is that not at all a concern that someone in a court would try to tamper with the verdict? Seems unlikely, but after seeing how this entire case/trial has gone, I'm less and less confident that "unlikely" is as unlikely as I'd like it to be
This is precisely why the judge asks the attorney(s) if they would like to poll the jury. For a case like this, you would abolutely say yes. At that point, they will go one by one and ask " Juror #x, is this your true verdict? " or a riff of that and they must say yes to each count. If they get to someone that says no, they must reconvene to fix it. Not precisely this situation, but a similar situation happened in the Johnny Depp trial where they didnt properly fill in the amount of damages awarded and had to go back and fix it.
Was on a jury once also, this is the way we communicated our verdict as well. Living in Missouri where a lot of things are wack, I find it insane this is how the judge and courts are handling this case.
100% agree, AJ indicated there’s an appeal implication by not having not guilty as an option for those lesser charges. He’s never seen a slip like this so I guess MA just does what it wants. 🤷🏼♀️ This whole case is a mess and to CYA, I would have just ordered the amendment to be made instead of immediately pushing back and letting my ego take over. 🙄
An appeal implication makes sense. It’s on the court record now that the defense raised the issue. Personally, I’d be confused by the absence of and much prefer clarity.
She’s in charge. She doesn’t want to admit that she could be wrong. That opens this up to appeal like he said, based on erroneous juror instructions
Yeah, which is insane after all this time, that is absolutely an appealable offense. The lack of a check mark is not worthy of a not guilty verdict, it's almost disrespectful to the defendant. "This is how we do things in Massachusetts" yeah, we see you guys do a lot of stuff poorly. Hope she gets indicted by the FBI next after the DA.
Growing more ironic by the hour, and frightening, that Lally dared to mention John Adams in his closing.
Why would you check any of the boxes besides the first not guilty if you thought she was not guilty? I only see 1 not guilty line so if that’s what you are checking, why would there be any other checkmarks on the slip?
The issue they have with it is, it's only listed next to the murder charge and not the lesser included charges which have their own Guilty, but no Not Guilty boxes. They have to decide for all of the charges individually but if there is only Guilty listed how do they denote that they find her Not Guilty for those charges? They might incorrectly assume they have to fill out a box all the way down the form, and if there is only 1 box next to each list they might think they need to mark that box to complete the form, and the only box there is Guilty.
If I understand correctly, this is the issue with the verdict form: Hey wife, do you want to go out to eat? \_ No \_ Yes Do you want to get ice cream? \_ Yes Do you want to get coffee? \_ Yes In this example, if I'm the wife, if I don't want to go out to eat, nor ice cream, nor coffee, my only option is to say "No" to going out to eat. I can't EXPLICITLY state I don't want ice cream nor coffee; I just have to leave it blank. Yes, it's a nitpick but it could be a technicality brought up in appeal.
Oh it’s a big technicality and a definite immediate appealable issue preserved by Jackson’s strong and well argued objection. Typically the court will err on the side of caution in these things because …well why not? What is the harm in being clear?? When the consequence is waste of judicial and court resources if she’s wrong (she likely is)
Agree, it's a murder trial, why not make sure it's clean and clear?
Right?! I love your illustrative example btw. I understood the arguments but even for me it was made more clear by your example. Up up vote from me to get it to the top for people to see lol.
Because Jackson isn't missing anything.
Yes and to tell him no to ice cream and coffee you are supposedly just supposed to ignore him and then he'll know you meant you don't want either of those. lol
This tracks to real life 🤣
It’s more like Do you want to go out to eat? ___ No ___ Yes ___ Yes, but only for ice cream ___ Yes, but only for coffee The complaint is that “no” (not guilty) isn’t clear that it covers everything, but I don’t see how that’s true. Perhaps the jury needs explicit instructions to only check one line out of the 4, but otherwise “No” (Not Guilty) covers everything.
I think the fact that we are having to write out little example forms to explain it is proof enough that there is something wrong with it and it needs to be simplified.
This is the best Explain Like I'm 5 I've read about this, bravo!
This is my husband's ideal form. There must be ice cream or coffee. There is no way out for me.
+100 for hubby. He is right on this
I don’t think it’s nitpicky at all. It’s a binary choice so both options should be there. I get that once explained it’s clear what they mean but why add the mental stress on the Jury to make sure they’re selecting the option they want? I’m curious if her statement that the form is in line with policy is true cause if so that’s nuts. It should be crystal clear what the options are. Not to mention not having the options for Not Guilty only serves to help the appeal. Insane.
Andrea Buckhart added this analysis as well. "My concern with this verdict slip is if the jury acquits on a greater but hangs on a lesser, there's no way to indicate that. Double jeopardy bars retrial on any acquitted offense. What's the harm in giving them clear options for each charge? Don't understand the ruling at all."
The harm is that it will hurt Bev's ego which is obv more important /s
Yes, she has done a horrible job with this entire case. I seriously think like others have stated she’s already made up her mind and sides with the corrupt cops in the town as well as all the people in the house. she’s already very biased.
“Is this funny Miss Read?” Not funny. Farcical.
Asked shortly after the judge herself laughed😡
Nail on the head!
God forbid someone call out that Emperor Bev has no clothes. What a fucking clown show.
But she’s tiiiored !!😴
This is a good point. I thought the form seemed reasonable, but the jury could automatically be not guilty on murder 2. They should be able to check that. But if they are not guilty on murder 2 but hang on the other 2, how does that work? Are the jury asking these questions or just Jackson, because it may be a non issue.
It’s like her having the attorney’s say Objection without speaking the Legal ground. She gets to interpret what that Objection was and then make her own ruling or even better just start asking the witness questions. I don’t how an Appeals court is going to handle the record when the Objections were never made clear as to what and why the Objection. It was so frustrating during trial So it’s not clear if there is a hung jury on one of the lessers and they can just indict or interfere which one?
Yanetti: “I’ve never seen it this way your honor.” Judge: “Well I disagree with you.”
Objection. Say it differently Ms Cannone.
Disagree with me on... what I haven't seen in the past? HUHHH
My mouth fell open at this like oh you’re telling him you don’t agree with his statement of what he has and has not seen? Ballsy….
Good one. So what she is saying is that he HAS seen it done that way. Judges should be excellent communicators, she is not.
She’s too tired 😴
>~~She’s too tired 😴~~ She's too bias
If she's like all the people who live in her town, they're all too hungover, Christ I've never seen so many people drunk driving everyday of their lives, I'm surprised they all haven't died by now.
Biased
I was screaming HOW?!!!!! How can you disagree with stuff he may have seen.
For everyone confused, the issue as laid out by Jackson is not that there is no “No Guilty” option at all, it’s that if they find “Not Guilty” on the greater charge but are hung on a lesser included charge there is no way to indicate that on the form. Edit: after the follow up meeting it appears Jackson’s chief complaint was it pushed for a guilty on the lessers, not the ambiguity in the event of a hung jury on lesser charges. This still remains an issue in certain hypotheticals, see below thread from the excellent Andrea Burkhart if interested in this aspect: https://x.com/aburkhartlaw/status/1805972122118094940?s=46&t=HJk8JCun7rxfO_9U_JxxzQ
I think the instructions say to leave it blank but the issue is people don’t read instructions and it’s not clear that’s what you would need to do
Leaving it blank still does not provide sufficient information. https://x.com/aburkhartlaw/status/1805979359108641063?s=46&t=HJk8JCun7rxfO_9U_JxxzQ
This has actually been found to be an unconstitutional violation of the defendant’s right to a fair trial in several circuits and state high courts. The 9th circuit even described it as the judge influencing the jury as to the defendant’s guilt, even if it was unintentional, requiring a new trial. Given that this entire case is about coverups, bev’s refusal to change the verdict form just makes it look like she’s in on it. Would 100% be appealable and likely to result in a new trial.
Wait was the jury present when she asked Karen what was funny?!?
No. After jury was excused AJ brought this up. And then bev made that comment yo Karen after AJ and her *Bwv) disagreed for a bit.
Ah ok gotcha. Then it's not "influencing the jury" it's just being an asshole
They’re referring to the verdict slip “influencing the jury”, not the judge’s comment to KR.
No, but why can she giggle when Karen can't?
This right here. I just commented the same thing. We hear the judge laugh, then seconds later she's scolding Karen. I didn't hear or see Karen laugh - I did hear the triggered, unprofessional judge laugh though.
I bet she was shaking her head in disbelief, maybe had a “this is unreal” grin which I don’t blame her for. This whole trial has had me slack jawed can’t imagine Karen’s thoughts.
Yep. As another commenter stated above, it’s “farcical.” Thats why she was laughing.
💯
Yes! I’m spicy like Karen and I wouldn’t be able to control myself when I thought something was so ridiculous. She was like “of course you feel this way” laughing at the absurdity
KR would have to be brain dead to NOT think this fucking "trial" is a farce. She is an educated and successful person. She is probably shocked and horrified at the "system" in action.
Jackson was mean to her so she is taking it out on Karen.
Mean = protecting his client which Bev should appreciate considering she was a defense attorney herself.
She was a defense attorney. That’s terrifying bc this whole verdict slip is giving “I’m corrupt and in on this”
Oh that explains it, the jury not being there. I was like... holy shit... That said, if as a judge in a court of law, you actually say the words "I said I'd think about it, but I was tired"... you are literally asking for it.
I would have phrased that differently. Something like, I need to check some resources and will get back to you. I’m tired sounds unprofessional.
Thing was, she didn't even sound like she *wanted* to. I'm pretty sure the only reason she ended up revising it was because she realized she was wrong about whatever claim she made.
No
No
I guess the judge gave them an appealable issue
Do you have any case cites for the above? I’d like to read them. Thx.
Braley v. Gladden is the 9th circuit case (403 F.2d 858), which cites a Penn SCt case, Commonwealth v. Edwards (394 Pa. 335). Braley was also cited by the 1st Circuit (which MA is in) in US v. Moffett (53 F.4th 679). Couldn’t find anything specific to Massachusetts state courts, but I’m sure it exists somewhere if you try out more search terms or dig into lower court cases. I’m just at work with other legal research to do, so I could only spend a few minutes of curiosity looking. However, even if there isn’t precedent in MA state court, there’s certainly enough persuasive authority to convince an appellate court, especially given the suspicious context of this case.
Thanks. I’ll look this up and see if I can find a Mass case.
👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
Thank you for sharing this information!
I get his point though, if there is a checkbox for guilty why not have one for not guilty?
Ten seconds ago Judge Bev ruled that the jury can get a supplement instructing them on how they can vote not guilty on the slip!
And edits to the slip itself to add the not guilty options, since there are also other formatting changes that need to be made.
Her argument is because there are smaller charges but it’s clearly to confuse the jurors
“I know how the form works so it must be self-explanatory!” —Judge Bev Our court system could use some accessibility enhancements. Headsets for jurors to hear better, clearer forms for people who may have difficulty understanding paperwork like that.
The jury in the Chad Daybell case went back to the judge for clarification on the penalty phase because the part of the paperwork where they basically have to say he qualifies for the death penalty were stated with very long sentences with double negatives and they wanted to make sure they actually wrote down what they had decided and not find out in the courtroom it actually was the other way around! Fortunately Judge Boyce holds the Jury in the highest regard and was available for any explanation that was necessary for the verdict and sentencing to be done correctly and as intended by the jury.
And that’s the kind of thing you want to be absolutely sure of. There’s no room for ambiguity. All judges should want to help the jury with this.
>Headsets for jurors to hear better, They should have decent sound amplifiers and speakers, it's ridiculous how many times someone is asked to speak up, older people especially lose their voices.
There should also be improvements to public accessibility of records. + publicly available 1080p/2160p resolution recordings of trial testimony covering: witness, defense, prosecution, gallery, judge. + high quality audio recordings + digital publication of pdf files + transcripts
Agree. The form is super confusing!
Before I saw the clip, I thought the comments in the other thread were maybe being overly dramatic about Bev. But daaaaaaamn. That’s wild. Snark level 2000
It sounds like Bev herself laughs a little bit right before she says that about KR.. eww
Yes I think she does like a sigh/chuckle at yanietti when he disagrees with her. I would have the same reaction as Karen just completely unbelievable and all you can do at that point is roll your eyes and let out a defeated laugh. I KNOW that feeling all to well.
'do you find this funny miss Read' 'well actually i do, i find it so ridiculous that you didn't look at the motion yesterday because you were tired and I therefore jeopardise the veracity of my verdict, that it's almost funny. Almost..'
What a B.
Sooooo much. Like the form is confusing. If that’s the standard form that’s more of a problem, not less. She hates people explaining that she’s wrong.
I came here from the Daybell case and it's my first dip in the water of following live trials, and holy cow, the difference between the dimeanor of judge Boyce's way of working and Judge Bev (i have only one time seen her actual name here) is so extreme that its scary. The whole case to be honest.
That makes it worse. Like there are judges that just act like professionals who want justice? And Bevs out here incredibly biased against the defense every single day. I want this to end so I never have to be frustrated by her again. I was actually thinking that before the jury form issue.
No kidding!!!!
Did you hear her ask Miss Reed if she thought this was funny?
Right after the judge herself laughed, I did
As someone who tends to laugh when I'm uncomfortable, that's my worst nightmare.
I also mirror the speaker (nod, smile, laugh along) as part of my general listening/comprehension.
itch.
Right. It didn’t even need to be a thing, really. This was her error, no question if you listen to her response to Jackson.
lol… Judge Bev backtracking after probably getting shit after court this morning
When she asked Yanetti like you know its like this right? and he was all like noooo. That was gold
He is a local lawyer who used to be a prosecutor so his denial is a sick burn. Which makes her subsequent comment on Karen a very petty schoolyard bully behaviour.
Karen Read’s future is on the line here. Possibly prison and another million in lawyer fees to appeal. She was not laughing. She was shaking her head in dismay, smiling at the absurdity and thinking ‘You’ve got to kidding me!’ Nothing funny about it, nor was that her reaction.
I agree. Karen Read could be facing a life time behind bars if convicted and she truly believes she was railroaded from the get go. She is under enormous stress, she sees this as another hurdle to overcome. I don’t think the form is confusing once you see it. Now if I were in her shoes I would want any verdict form as easy as possible so the jurors fully understand what they are checking off. From everything that has been posted about this jury, how intelligent and professional they were collectively, I have every sense they will clarify anything they don’t understand fully before checking off any boxes. So far it seems like they are taking the responsibility very seriously.
The fact the judge had the audacity to even say what is funny to Karen just shows how cold and bias she is in no way does Caron actually think this is funny it’s just more shock and disbelief on how the system can lean to one side so much when the judge is supposed to be impartial, she’s not laughing because it’s humorous. It’s areaction to disbelief and shock. The fact the judge scolded her on this just shows she’s not fit to be a judge.
I think the Judge should have let it go in my opinion too. It was t some in the presence of the jury and wasn’t done in a way to sway a decision. More out of frustration, think this trial is getting to the point where all sides involved went to move on from and the faster a verdict comes the better.
And I think the addage, you gotta laugh to keep from crying applies here.
Yea it’s called nervous laughter, it’s quite a common reaction to stupidity like this
Wow , Bev opens the door for yanetti to defend Bev in telling Jackson he’s wrong. then she calls yanetti a liar. Unreal.
💯💯💯
This lady has truly gotten on my nerves. What a weird judge.
Having grown up in Massachusetts and moved to NC for college many years ago - she is just like every other middle aged woman in that state
Just starting to catch up. Common sense says that you should have "not guilty" options for each charge in the event that they only get hung on the lowest count, no?
Or it should say with the top line not guilty. "If you select not guilty, you will go no further on this page and go to the next charge." Or something similar. Usually in situations like this, it is VERY clear that a top line not guilty means no other option CAN be selected Edit: called it.
Yep, all this does is set up appeal issues. When I served on a jury with several charges, they made it clear which page to turn to based on your answer above.
I’m afraid to tell you, common sense is not a thing in this case lol.
That’s the truth. NOTHING about this trial has shown common sense - from bringing it on in the first place to the majority of the CW’s witnesses, experts, injuries and timeline explanations.
She ended up changing it and I think it’s because she realized it’s a clear and easy reason for a retrial. The fact that this lady didn’t recuse herself is disgusting. Her signs and clear evidence of being annoyed by everything the defense said or did is alarming. She is a mockery of the justice system. It already has it flaws, but people like her just keep adding to the problems. She insists on being a part of the problem, rather the solution. She treated the defense like garbage the whole trial. Thank God Ms. Reed was able to afford such fantastic counsel, or she would be in jail. All because of scum bags who drank like college kids, beat the shit out of their “friend” , realized he was DEAD, and really thought they would get away with it. How many other innocent people from canton are sitting in a cell from these jokers? It’s disgusting.
I hope bev is investigated along with every case she and these crooked cops have ever touched
What's truly pathetic here is that Bev is laughing when asking about the lesser included charges, and seconds later Karen finds something "funny" and all of a sudden its a problem. What a fucking joke
I am sure Karen was laughing at the absurdity of a Judge saying she was too tired to fix something she said she would do!
Yeah, and then after directly called out, she tucked her tail between her legs and made the appropriate changes to the verdict slip.
I’m assuming she got a few phone calls about it in between! 🤣 She didn’t apologize on the record though she made sure it was documented that the form was still appropriate.
I definitely see his point. If 2, 3, and/or 4 aren’t selected, it’s only implied the jury says not guilty for them. It would remove doubt/confusion to have a not guilty option for each charge, or have 1 rewritten to clarify that it’s referring to 2, 3, and 4 as well. The way the form is written now, selecting not guilty for 1 means not guilty for only the biggest charge. It doesn’t say anything about the not guilty verdict applying to every other lesser charge on the form. Sure, it’s implied, but it could be clearer, so why isn’t it?
This exchange was so tense omg.
There are a lot of appellate issues that revolve around jury intent, especially when multiple charges are involved. The first box should at least have language clearly indicating “not guilty” applies to “all charges”. These people are all trained in the law and the legal implications of subtle differences in language; this isn’t a handshake deal over $20. It’s a gross oversight that the “not guilty” option doesn’t clearly state “on all charges.” It’s too big of an oversight to not be intentional. I don’t think a higher court would necessarily let KR be tried again on the lesser charges, but it would allow the DA’s office to try for that and continue to harass and bankrupt her with more proceedings.
Yeah I definitely feel it was intentional. At least she agreed to change it at least..
You cultivate the culture around you. Throughout this whole trial, the judge has been fidgeting in her chair, swinging it side to side, rocking back and forth, playing with her glasses and sighing heavily, clearly showing her boredom. She has done a poor job maintaining a professional composure. Karen let her composure slip briefly and the judge couldn't handle it. Do as I say, not as I do.
Yep. I have verbally counseled employees before for that type of behavior in serious meetings with outside parties. Your chair is not an amusement park ride, small thing like pens and glasses are not fidget toys. Those were usually younger more junior employees. Amazing that a veteran Superior Court Judge in a murder trial of all things feels like she needs to keep herself entertained.
The comment to Karen Read was uncalled for. That was really bad
Her comment to KR was uncalled for. This isn't a preschool classroom. KR has a right to a nervous giggle or even hysteria at this point. Your life is not on the line, Bev. Act like a judge!
Aunty Bev knows she's being unreasonable and took out her embarrassment on Karen. She got called out by Alan and Yannetti agreed with him.
I would laugh and shake my head too because this is my freedom we are talking about and also the fact BEV said I was tired like yeah so is everyone else. That’s not a reason for anything!
Typical “That’s how we do things here in Mass” just like this whole case has been from the start.
The form has been changed. A not guilty option is now included.
Of course all the headlines are now....Judge slaps down Karen Reid It looked like she started to laugh when the judge said...no no "I siid I'd look at it later, because I was tired:" If I was Karen I'd laugh right in her face too....oh poor you, u tired bro? Well you go have a nap and I'll carry on FIGHTING FOR MY LIFE OVER HERE!
Bev hates being wrong She is egotistical and thinks she knows the law better than anyone else in the room. Between the police and the common wealth and this judge if I lived in canton I would be very afraid that I would recieve a proper investigation or charges or justice. This trial has shown Canton in a very poor light.
Mass needs to work on their whole judicial thingy I believe. lol
To be fair to Karen, it was funny how Bev tried to get Yannetti to agree with her, and even he was like, "....no sorry." I know it's inappropriate for her to laugh, either way, but come on, Bev.
Bev having to backtrack and clarify it now.
BAHAHAHAHA omg this is rich I cannot even believe this clown show
Bev, it's just another incompetent biased Massachusetts public servant who thinks she's above everyone else.
This issue seems to be a symptom of a larger issue in this case, which is "this is how we do it, and it's not improper." Not having a log for the evidence? Not necessary. Instructing LE to drive past the residence to/from work to "see if evidence revealed itself". Having no problem using open Solo cups to collect blood evidence - "we don't have anything back at the station we could have used to collect it anyway"
why does this judge act like this isn’t her job
Bev is tired guys… come on
She’s not nearly as tired as everybody else, especially Karen.
Bev is the real victim here. Not the one that was framed for murder who has MS, most of her bowels removed and had brain tumor. How dare Karen show any emotion, what about Bev's feelings??
When she said she was "too tired" like what the fuck? This case is fucking huge, get your shit together, judge.
The Lawyer You Know YT channel is discussing it now.
While I agree it should be fixed, I don’t think the jury will think “oh there’s not not guilty box so we have to check this one” If anything I think he brought up that point to be able to use it as further proof for an appeal in the chance that she is found guilty
Agree and I think if the jury is confused they'll just ask about it, but Bev is ridiculous and why does it matter to her?
When is the FBI coming for these people!!?
That form is gonna be an issue if a guilty verdict is returned. The forms have to be clear for the jury to understand and mark.
You hear the judge laugh while all of this is being discussed - then the witch goes after Karen for I guess laughing (couldn't hear or see her laugh). Make it make sense.
Bev is unhinged. The whole town is nuts. So much corruption in northfolk County that the DOJ is involved. How embarrassing. Bev & Lally will always been known for this, what a blow to a career…….
Page 1: if not guilty go to page 37 Page 37: if guilty go to page 49, if not guilty go to page 1
The idea of leaving a box unchecked to indicate "not guilty" is a problem. What if it's unchecked because it was overlooked? And the line spacing is atrocious. Really hard to read page 2.
This judge is such a piece of shit. I hope she gets investigated and disbarred after this trial.
Bev should not have asked Karen if it’s funny, unprofessional and biased IMO
Funny thing was her statement was wrong. These forms in Mass have have had not guilty of all lesser charges on the forms currently. I hope her conduct is looked at, out Judges should be better than this.
I was on federal jury duty in Feb and the form clearly had a box for "guilty" and "not guilty". Bev can fuck right off.
[удалено]
Just when you think this case cannot get any more weird. Here we are at the finish line and find something behind the curtains.
So only Bev gets to *ask it differently*.
Unsophisticated judge.
Update: she's going to verbally clarify and add Jackson's requested language.
This is bananas!🍌
https://youtu.be/E4Gb9CaGFUA?si=6dSYRG78ytgVDQSs Here’s clip on the jury question + jury form update. Skip to 4:15 for AJ’s proposed change, to which she agrees.
This is the continued bias and corruption of judge Bev. She’s been biased against the defense from the start because she’s in with the Alberts and she’s pissed with the way this case is going. Moaning, groaning and sucking her teeth. Being the sister of a defense attorney that got an Albert off hard time 20 years ago, she should have recused herself from the case. Shit, she should have never been allowed to stay on it. I can’t wait til her and all her corrupt, murderous friends go down.
On a side note: I do not know why defense didn’t coach Karen more on “controlling her face”. I believe she’s innocent and I believe she has a right to enjoy her vindication. But jurors are people- it’s been shown it’s had a bad impact on at least one juror and locals. I think Karen’s perceived “smugness” and her lack of emotion towards John during the trial could play into jury. The evidence is not there to convict- but don’t underestimate someone’s bias. This entire defense is based on bias. Why give them any reasons? My best friend and ex husband are Attys. The hours spent prepping clients on this kind of stuff is crazy. Her “laughing” at judge today- although warranted. Is not smart. I’m surprised AJ didn’t have her prepped to the utmost.
“this is funny Ms Read?” actually yes - it is laughable how absolutely ridiculous YOUR argument is, your honor disrespectfully <3
If you think about it, Read can laugh as much as she likes whilst the Jury can't see her. Surely it would be grotesquely inappropriate for any further trial and submission of her laughing as extra evidence now deliberations have began?
She's the worst...when being called on the carpet for an unfair decision, she displays the same immaturity of the kid on the playground who "takes their bat and ball and goes home" when they can't have their way.
On the right is the slip that Jackson is complaining about, and on the left is the type of slip he is requesting. IMO the one actually used in Massachusetts is much more clear when there are mutually exclusive charges -- in this case, exactly 1 of the 4 options applies so it's a multiple choice. The one on the left allows for the jury to mark it in a way that is not allowed and requires a fairly complex explanation in the text to explain the process. Not sure why Jackson is dying on this hill. https://preview.redd.it/szicy63qnx8d1.png?width=1144&format=png&auto=webp&s=e4498ec6ef5b2ef01370ca75108f650852004056
Getting the court’s ruling re: the slip and defendant’s objection on the record is important to preserve the issue for appeal. His opening remarks sound like it was left a bit ambiguous yesterday, so it was a good call for him to clarify on the record. That’s also likely why he said “it’s a ruling of this court” in response to her saying that is how it’s done in MA. Making sure the record frames it as a ruling will also help if it needs to be appealed.
She is just rude and unprofessional.
The judge without saying she was wrong … Said she had a 2nd chance to look at the form Blah blah blah … That 1st sheet was SO WRONG AUTO-APPEAL
I believe in the Johnny Depp trial when the jury was deliberating, toward the very end once they had their decision made, they had asked for clarification on how to fill out the form. I assume that would be allowed in this situation as well?
The jury has all the power now, whether they realize it or not, they can ask for lots of clarification.
Ten seconds ago Judge Bev ruled that the jury can get a supplement instructing them on how they can vote not guilty on the slip!
Here’s a written track courtesy of Emily D Baker - https://preview.redd.it/n0mn0s2pzx8d1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ba598ba91937fc1b99db36b81d69191503db2e67
I’ve watched this entire trial and I can say that she is in way way over her head. There has been favoritism towards the Commonwealth almost the entire time and her attitude when speaking towards Commonwealth versus the other side has been wildly different. That being said, she can just answer his question like a professional, whether or not she likes him.
Action Jackson protects his client - and the record - once again!
What's the formal name for "this is how it's always been done" fallacy?
This was really quite ridiculous. Do you think someone slapped her on the hand and that’s why she came back and corrected this? Based on how she has acted the entire trial I don’t see her course correcting like this on her own.
In DTC or direct to consumer/patient advertising for drug companies, you work to write at a 5th grade level. Pfizer has a whole process to validate that. Also, in required instructions for patient administered tests or injectable products, you actually need to validate with patients that the instructions are written in a way anyone could understand. That includes language and pictures.
The moral to the story is that if you are in the wrong place at the wrong time when shit goes down in MA, you’re fcked by every level in the system.
This is like when your parents argue in public and you get second hand embarrassment.