Commonwealth v. Read — Trial ArchiveDeliberation - Day 4
29 linesCOURT OFFICER: Hear ye. Hear ye. Hear ye. All parties having anything to do before the Honorable First Justice Beverly Cannone, now sitting in the Dedham Superior Court within the court of the County of Norfolk, draw near, give your attendance, you shall be heard. God save the Commonwealth and this good court.
JUDGE CANNONE: Thank you. Proceed. Court in session. Twenty-two one one seven. The Commonwealth versus Karen Read.
COURT CLERK: Aye.
JUDGE CANNONE: Good morning, counsel. Good morning, Miss Read. Good morning, jurors. Welcome back. We'll ask you those same three questions. Was everyone able to follow the instructions and refrain from discussing this case with anyone since we left here Friday? Everyone said yes or not affirmatively. Were you also able to follow the instructions and refrain from doing any independent research or investigation into this case? Everyone said yes or not affirmatively. Did anyone happen to see, hear, or read anything about this case since we left here? All right. So, Mr. Fuller, we're going to send you folks all back out. All right. So, the court please. Jurors, follow me. All right. Thank you, everybody. : Good question. [You are unmuted.]
COURT CLERK: We're back on the record on the Karen Read matter, Your Honor. We've got a question from the jury.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So, Mr. Lally, I'd like to hear from the Commonwealth first about due and thorough deliberations.
MR. LALLY: I'm sorry. I didn't hear the last one.
JUDGE CANNONE: I'd like to hear from the Commonwealth first about your view on whether the jury has conducted due and thorough deliberations.
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, while I understand that they have been at this for a while, I would submit that they have not, and I would ask the court not to make such a finding. Reasons for that, Your Honor: this jury heard, I believe, about 29 days or so of testimony, 657 different exhibits marked as evidence, 74 different witnesses who testified before them. And while I believe they've been out for somewhere in the vicinity of 22 or 23 hours, what I would submit to the court, based on all of that as well as the complexity of the issues presented to them — they really haven't even had one hour of deliberation equivalent to one day of testimony for each of the days of testimony that they've heard.
MR. LALLY: So while they have been at it for a while, I would submit that based on the evidence and testimony, witnesses, and the complexity of issues in this case, I would submit that they have not done a thorough deliberation up to this point.
JUDGE CANNONE: Mr. Yannetti.
MR. YANNETTI: Our view is that it's time for Tuey-Rodriguez to run. They've come back now twice indicating essentially that they're hopelessly deadlocked. The content of this latest message is that they have been over all the evidence. The previous message said they did an exhaustive review. This time they said that they have fundamental disagreements about what the evidence means, and it's a matter of opinion — it's not a matter of lack of understanding. This court, when you sent the jury out, encouraged them not to take a straw vote, encouraged them to go over all the evidence in a very methodical manner. I think all indications are that they've done that. And this is what Tuey-Rodriguez is for. We ask the court to give it.
JUDGE CANNONE: Yeah. All right. I think this has been an extraordinary jury. I've never seen a note like this reporting to be at an impasse. I do find that they are now — with the additional time that they went out without coming back Friday saying that they were deadlocked — due in thorough deliberation. So, I'm going to give Tuey-Rodriguez. So, are they ready to come in, Jody?
COURT CLERK: Thank you.
COURT OFFICER: Come with us on the second part.
JUDGE CANNONE: So why don't I take a recess? Take a recess please. All rise. Nancy.
COURT OFFICER: Court is in session. Please be seated.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So, jurors, I am in receipt of your note. "Judge Cannone, despite our commitment to the duty entrusted to us, we find ourselves deeply divided by fundamental differences in our opinions and state of mind. The divergence in our views are not rooted in a lack of understanding or effort, but deeply held convictions that each of us carry, ultimately leading to a point where consensus is unattainable. We recognize the weight of this admission and the implications it holds." So, Mr. Foreman and members of the jury, I have an instruction for you. Our Constitution and laws provide that in a criminal case, the principal method for deciding questions of fact is the verdict of a jury.
JUDGE CANNONE: In most cases, and perhaps strictly speaking in all cases, absolute certainty cannot be attained, nor is it expected. The verdict to which each juror agrees must, of course, be his or her own verdict, the result of his or her own convictions, and not merely an acquiescence in the conclusions of the other jurors. Still, in order to bring twelve minds to a unanimous result, you must examine the issues you have to decide with candor and with proper regard and respect for each other's opinions. You should consider that it is desirable that this case be decided. You have been selected in the same manner and from the same sources any future jury would be selected.
JUDGE CANNONE: There is no reason to suppose that this case will ever be submitted to twelve persons who are more intelligent, more impartial, or more competent to decide it than you are, or that more or clearer evidence will be produced at another trial. With all this in mind, it is your duty to decide this case, if you can do so conscientiously. In order to make a decision more attainable, the law always imposes the burden of proof on the Commonwealth to establish every essential element of each indictment beyond a reasonable doubt. If you are left with a reasonable doubt as to any essential element of any indictment, then the defendant is entitled to the benefit of that doubt and must be found not guilty.
JUDGE CANNONE: In conferring together, you ought to give proper respect to each other's opinions and listen with an open mind to each other's arguments. Where there is disagreement, those jurors who would find the defendant not guilty should consider whether the doubt in their own minds is a reasonable one, if it makes no impression upon the minds of the other jurors who are equally honest and equally intelligent, who have heard the same evidence with the same attention, who have an equal desire to arrive at the truth, and who have taken the same oath as jurors. At the same time, those jurors who would find the defendant guilty ought seriously to ask themselves whether they may not reasonably doubt the correctness of their judgment if it is not shared by other members of the jury.
JUDGE CANNONE: They should ask themselves whether they should distrust the weight or sufficiency of the evidence to convince the minds of their fellow jurors beyond a reasonable doubt. I will now ask you, Mr. Foreman and members of the jury, to return to your deliberations with these instructions in mind, and as with my final instructions and the supplemental instructions I sent in, I will send in a copy of this charge as well. All right. So may that be marked. Madam Court Reporter, please. All right. Thank you. We'll send you folks back out to deliberate.
COURT OFFICER: All rise for the court please. Are muted. [You are unmuted.] Sustained.
JUDGE CANNONE: Thank you. Be seated. Court is in session. Twenty-two one-one-seven, Commonwealth versus Karen Read. All right. The jury is at an impasse. So we'll bring them in.
COURT OFFICER: Court is in session, proceed.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Mr. Foreman, I am in receipt of your note. "Judge Cannone, despite our rigorous efforts, we continue to find ourselves at an impasse. Our perspectives on the evidence are starkly divided. Some members of the jury firmly believe that the evidence surpasses the burden of proof, establishing the elements of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Conversely, others find the evidence fails to meet this standard and does not sufficiently establish the necessary elements of the charges. The deep division is not due to a lack of effort or diligence, but rather a sincere adherence to our individual principles and moral convictions. To continue to deliberate would be futile and only serve to force us to compromise these deeply held beliefs." I'm not going to do that to you folks.
JUDGE CANNONE: Your service is complete. I'm declaring a mistrial in this case. I'll be in to see you privately in a few minutes. So thank you so much for your service. All rise for the court, please. Be seated. Court is still in session. All right. I'd like to pick a status date to find out what our next move is. So I'd like to come back sometime, maybe the end of July. I understand people have vacation schedules. Can we come in the week of the 21st? No, I was just looking at my thumb. Could we do the 27th at 2 p.m., Your Honor? And I will need to hear from my client. Is there another day that week? Could you do the 25th or 26th? Unfortunately, I think I'm supposed to be on vacation. Okay. The 22nd and the 24th are not great dates. So. The 19th of March. Is that whole week? No, that week's not good.
JUDGE CANNONE: Teaching that I cannot get out of. No. We'll do the 22nd. We'll go back to the 22nd at 2. I can't let it go that long. Okay. Okay. Okay. So you and your client will be here in person, Mr. Yannetti.
MR. YANNETTI: Thank you. We'll see you then.