Commonwealth v. Read — Trial ArchiveDeliberation - Day 4
58 linesP R O C E E D I N G S July 1, 2024
(Court in session.)
(Defendant present. Jury present.)
COURT 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, in and for the County of Norfolk, draw near, give your attendance and you shall be heard. God save the Commonwealth and this honorable court. Court is now in session.
COURT CLERK: 22-117, Commonwealth versus Karen Read.
JUDGE CANNONE: Good morning, counsel. Good morning, Ms. Read. Good morning, jurors. Welcome back. We will 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" and nodded 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 nodded affirmatively. Did anyone happen to see, hear or read anything about this case since we left here on Friday? All right. So, Mr. Foreman, we are going to send you folks back out. Thank you.
(Whereupon, the jury exits the courtroom to resume deliberations.)
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Thank you, everybody.
(Whereupon, there was a brief recess.)
(Court resumes.)
(Defendant present. Jury not present.)
COURT CLERK: We are back on the record on Karen Read, Your Honor. We have 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 that, Your Honor.
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. The reasons for that, Your Honor, is 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, to each of the days of testimony that they've heard. So while they have been at it for a while, I would submit that based on the evidence and testimony and 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 a Tuey-Rodriguez, Your Honor. They have come back now twice, indicating essentially that they are 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 we have, 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 of 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'd ask the Court to give it.
JUDGE CANNONE: 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, is due and thorough deliberations. So I am going to give Tuey- Rodriguez. So are they ready to come in? So why don't I take a recess. Nancy, you need this.
COURT REPORTER: Communication from the jury is "YYY" for Identification.
(Whereupon, communication from the jury was entered and marked Exhibit "YYY" for Identification.)
(Whereupon, there was as brief recess taken.)
(Court resumes.)
(Defendant present. Jury present.)
COURT OFFICER: Please rise for the jury. 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. 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 12 minds to a unanimous result, you must examine the issues you have to decide with candor and with a 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 source as any future jury would be selected. There is no reason to suppose that this case will ever be submitted to 12 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 in 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 on that indictment. In conferring together, you are 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. They should ask themselves whether they should distrust the weight or sufficiency of the evidence if it has failed 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?
COURT REPORTER: Yes, Your Honor.
(Whereupon, communication from the jury was entered and marked Exhibit "ZZZ" for Identification.)
JUDGE CANNONE: We will send you folks back out to deliberate.
(Whereupon, the jury exits the courtroom to resume deliberations, and a brief recess was taken.)
(Court resumes.)
(Defendant present. Jury not present.)
COURT OFFICER: Please be seated. Court is in session.
COURT CLERK: 22-117, Commonwealth versus Karen Read.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. The jury is at an impasse.
COURT OFFICER: Please rise for the jury.
(Whereupon, the jury enters the courtroom.)
COURT OFFICER: This court is in session. Please be seated.
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 am not going to do that to you, folks. Your service is complete. I am declaring a mistrial in this case. I will be in to see you privately in a few minutes, and thank you so much for your service.
(Whereupon, the jury exits the courtroom and is discharged.)
COURT REPORTER: "AAAA" for Identification.
(Whereupon, communication from the jury was entered and marked Exhibit "AAAA" for Identification.)
JUDGE CANNONE: 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? THE LALLY: That's fine.
MR. YANNETTI: Your Honor, I'm just looking at my calendar. Could we do the 22nd at 2:00 p.m., Your Honor? And I would appear for my client.
JUDGE CANNONE: Is there another day that week? Could you do the 25th or 26th?
MR. YANNETTI: Unfortunately, I think I am supposed to leave for vacation on the 25th.
JUDGE CANNONE: The 22nd and the 24th are not great dates.
MR. YANNETTI: What about the 19th at nine? Is that whole week not good?
JUDGE CANNONE: No. That week is not good. I'm teaching and I cannot get out of it.
MR. YANNETTI: Can we do August 7th, 8th, 9th, any of those days?
JUDGE CANNONE: No. We'll do the 22nd. We'll go back to the 22nd.
MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, so the Court knows, Ms. Little and I are not available on the 22nd. We have a hearing in Los Angeles on the 22nd. We would be proposing to appear remotely, anyway.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: But, for a status conference, I don't want the Court to think it's disrespectful to the Court, but Ms. Little and I probably will not appear.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. So you and your client will be here in person, Mr. Yannetti?
MR. YANNETTI: Yes.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Thank you. We'll see you then.
(Whereupon, the Court adjourned.)