The Emily Show

• Juror Insights: Understanding The Karen Read Verdict | Case Brief

  Watch the full coverage of the live stream on The Emily D Baker YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/live/6U-T0fjM5MMThe post-verdict statements from jurors in the Karen Read Retrial, emphasizing the importance of juror transparency and their reasoning for the "not guilty" verdict. The jurors were described as serious, conscientious, and respectful in their deliberations, focusing on the evidence and defining each charge. There are concerns that threats and harassment against jurors could discourage future citizens from serving, suggesting that juror lists should be sealed by default to protect their privacy unless they choose to come forward.The initial, withdrawn verdict was due to one male juror having doubts at lunch, asking if he could take back his vote, but later confirming "Okay, guilty of OUI."Juror #1 aka The Foreperson, stated there was no single moment that solidified guilt, and the evidence presented was "paper-thin," failing to bring comfort to the victim's family. He highlighted the struggle to reconcile sympathy for the victim's family with the lack of sufficient evidence for a conviction. He worked really hard to make sure that all of the jurors felt heard and confident with their decision.Juror #11, addressed accusations from "internet trolls," clarifying she is an attorney in Brazil but not the US, and her interest in true crime was focused on Brazilian cases, hence her unfamiliarity with the Read case before jury duty. She expressed happiness that Karen Read would not go to jail for something she didn't do, but also anger that John O'Keefe's fate remains unknown. She also confirmed they were largely unaware of the large crowds and chanting outside the courthouse due to precautions taken by jury officers and entering through the back. This reinforces that external pressure did not influence their deliberations.Juror #12 initially leaned towards "guilty" but changed her mind after reviewing the evidence, not finding a specific piece of information she was looking for. She wouldn't share what that evidence was.An anonymous juror spoke with the media and mentioned that during deliberations, they started making more progress when they got "huge poster board paper." They then worked with other members of the jury to write down the definition of every charge on the poster board, essentially workshopping the jury instructions.Despite the challenges, jurors' willingness to speak out fosters transparency and highlights that jurors genuinely strive to make the right decisions based on the evidence presented.RESOURCESJune 24 Live Stream - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7IdKgUQoDUThe Ghislane Maxwell Case - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gL31tnzpu6Du3wLHoQRaIq8Foreperson on w/ Today Show - https://youtu.be/nE-a9MR1oUMJuror #12 on WCVB - https://youtu.be/-Tfoc0OvOf0Anonymous Juror on NBC 10 - https://youtu.be/Vi8bkGvciaIJuror #11 on WBZ - https://youtu.be/Qx9KONKG6REThis podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Spotify Ad Analytics - https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/ad-analytics-privacy-policy/Podscribe -...

  --------  

  21:34
• Karen Read's Attorney Fires Back at Brennan's Statements To The Media | Case Brief

  Watch the full coverage of the live stream on The Emily D Baker YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/live/i7IdKgUQoDUAfter Karen Read was acquitted of the Murder charges on June 18, 2025, DA Michael Morrissey, & Special Prosecutor, Hank Brennan gave statements to the media that prompted Alan Jackson counter."The jury has spoken," DA Michael Morrissey simply states.Hank Brennan expresses disappointment in the verdict and states that his independent review, along with a closed federal investigation, led him to conclude that only one person was responsible for John O'Keefe's death, and no other suspects were identified. If Brennan believed only one person was responsible, a prosecutor's job is to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, which was not achieved. He also condemns a "campaign of intimidation and abuse" against witnesses. That sentiment is agreeable but incomplete because he doesn't also condemn it also against the witness, jurors and other participates. Jackson blasts Brennan for an "egregious breach of prosecutorial ethics" by attempting to publicly shame and discredit the jury and supplant his personal views for that of the jury. Jackson argues that Brennan's claims of a thorough investigation are false, given the defense uncovered hidden exculpatory evidence, lies, and perjury by the Commonwealth's own witnesses, cops covering for other cops, a biased and corrupt lead investigator with personal ties to witnesses, and inculpatory and suspicious conduct by a myriad of witnesses. Jackson asserts that the prosecution's effort was a personal vendetta against Karen Read, not a pursuit of justice for John O'Keefe, and that the case never should have gone to trial in the first place. He directly accuses DA Michael Morrissey of having no interest in actually seeking justice for John O'Keefe.RESOURCESDA Michael Morrissey's Statement - https://www.boston25news.com/news/local/norfolk-da-michael-morrissey-gives-statement-karen-read-verdict/6N6N23YM25AQPMEXRLR6HAOTOM/Hank Brennan's Statement - https://x.com/TedDanielnews/status/1937134441505096022Alan Jackson's Statement - https://www.boston25news.com/news/local/karen-read-attorney-alan-jackson-blasts-special-prosecutor-new-statement/NY7R26CSFJETXGFLIEKHRQE6Y4/This podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Spotify Ad Analytics - https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/ad-analytics-privacy-policy/Podscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacy

  --------  

  18:02
• Post Verdict Interviews with Michael Proctor, The Alberts & McCabes | Case Brief

  Watch the full coverage of the live stream on The Emily D Baker YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/live/i7IdKgUQoDUAfter Karen Read was acquitted of the Murder charges on June 18, 2025, Michael Proctor, The Alberts & McCabes attended video interviews.Michael Proctor was Interviewed by 20/20. He addresses his strong negative feelings and derogatory comments about Karen Read, stating they developed as the case progressed, but admits they were regrettable. Proctor denies planting evidence, calling it a ridiculous accusation. He believes the negative perception from the public is a "loud minority" and maintains he would do nothing differently in the investigation, attributing any issues to the "crazy crazy so-called conspiracy" online rather than acknowledging any potential flaws in his own work. There was a lack of remorse from Proctor for potentially tainting the investigation and no apology to Karen Read. He believes he was unfairly fired for personal texts and that his union rep took his uniforms.Brian, Nicole and Chris Albert were interviewed together with Jen and Matt McCabe by ABC's Nightline. Brian Albert's lack of curiosity and inaction given the situation, especially as a Boston police officer, despite not being Canton PD. Brian's response essentially was, "Why would I go out there?" Brian Albert also describes Jen McCabe barging into his room early in the morning but there was no mention in their recounting of the morning about wrangling the dog. Ultimately, the families felt like they were not protect by the judicial process and told the audience to think twice before becoming a witness in a trial. That is not sound advice as there are consequences for not cooperating with a subpoena. There was a lot of frustration with the clipped nature of the interviews and the perceived lack of accountability or self-reflection from the interviewees. The witnesses seem to be focusing on the "straw man" of public conspiracy theories rather than addressing odd behavior or a poor investigation, leading to unanswered questions.RESOURCESThe Alberts & McCabes Interview from ABC Nightline – https://youtu.be/yIrVOSbx9gMDid Proctor Plant Evidence? https://youtu.be/qZDx1lCJFZY Michael Proctor Wouldn't Change Anything - https://youtu.be/oiuKayU6UQoThis podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Spotify Ad Analytics - https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/ad-analytics-privacy-policy/Podscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacy

  --------  

  11:55
• VERDICT IS IN! Karen Read NOT GUILTY of Murder Charges. What Comes Next? | Case Brief

  Watch the full coverage of the live stream on The Emily D Baker YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/live/JaBePBtlqQADay 36 of the Karen Read Retrial happened on June 18, 2025 and a Verdict was reached! After 4 days of deliberation, the jury in the Karen Read murder retrial delivered their verdicts. Karen Read was found not guilty of second-degree murder (Count 1) and leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death (Count 3). She was found guilty only on the lesser included charge of operating under the influence (OUI) with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 or greater (Count 2), which is a misdemeanor.Immediately after the verdict, Karen Read was sentenced to one year of probation and a 24D program, which is a standard first-time OUI offer.Outside the courthouse, Karen Read addressed the crowd while standing next to her defense team, David Yannetti, Alan Jackson, and Elizabeth Little, and Robert Alessi. Karen Read thanked her supporters and stated that no one has fought harder for justice for John O'Keefe than she and her team. Her father also acknowledged the strength of Karen and the support of their extended family and the legal team.There was confusion during the reading of the verdicts, likely due to an initial incorrect verdict form. This form was sealed. The Commonwealth cannot appeal the not guilty verdicts. It's unlikely anyone else will be charged in John O'Keefe's death for the same crime, but if there are issues with the investigation itself, those could be charged separately. There is still the civil case against Karen read by the O'Keefe family which I will follow up on in the future but for now, .RESOURCESWhat You Need to Know About the Retrial - https://youtu.be/89Jpa8vz1RQ Karen Read Retrial Playlist - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gKOJlfL__9F027hlETVU-vo Karen Read Trial - 2024 - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gKUeCUzApgsEuQRXu5IXeTSThis podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Spotify Ad Analytics - https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/ad-analytics-privacy-policy/Podscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacy

  --------  

  11:12
• Revealing Jury Questions in Karen Read Retrial! Will they reach a verdict? | Case Brief

  Watch the full coverage of the live stream on The Emily D Baker YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/live/1FQDyZVIbhoDay 35 of the Karen Read Retrial happened on June 17, 2025. We are on the 3rd day of Verdict Watch and the jurors had questions! 1) They asked about the specific time frame for the OUI (Operating Under the Influence) charge, whether it was 12:45 a.m. or 5:00 a.m. The court responded that the jurors have all the evidence and are the sole fact-finders.2) They asked if video clips of Karen Read's interviews were evidence and how they could consider them. The court affirmed that the videos are evidence and should be weighed like any other evidence. However, before considering any such statement, the jury must determine beyond a reasonable doubt that Read made the statement voluntarily, freely, and rationally.3) The jury asked if convicting on a sub-charge (specifically offense two, number five, referring to the OUI) would automatically convict on the overall charges. The court introduced and read an amended verdict slip to clarify the process.Later, the jury sent another question while the court was deliberating on how to answer the first 3 questions. 4) They were asking if finding "not guilty" on two charges but being unable to agree on a third, results in a hung jury on all three or just one. The court's initial inclination was to respond that it was a theoretical question and could not be answered, as jurors are not to be concerned with the consequences of their verdict. The defense objected, arguing that it was a question about how to report a verdict, not its consequences, and that the jury instructions already addressed this. Ultimately, the court decided to respond that it was a theoretical question and thus unanswerable.No Verdict was made at the end of day, we'll see what happens on Day 36.RESOURCESWhat You Need to Know About the Retrial - https://youtu.be/89Jpa8vz1RQ Karen Read Retrial Playlist - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gKOJlfL__9F027hlETVU-vo Karen Read Trial - 2024 - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gKUeCUzApgsEuQRXu5IXeTSThis podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Spotify Ad Analytics - https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/ad-analytics-privacy-policy/Podscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacy

  --------  

  24:39

Más podcasts de Noticias

Podcasts a la moda de Noticias

Acerca de The Emily Show