Karen Learn’s crew put their authorized arguments to have her homicide cost dropped in her second trial to the check below questioning from the justices of Massachusetts’ highest court docket on Wednesday.
Learn, 44, of Mansfield, is accused of mowing down her boyfriend of two years, Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe, along with her SUV after which leaving him to freeze and die on a Canton entrance yard in late January 2022.
A trial held earlier this yr on her fees of second-degree homicide (Depend 1), motorized vehicle manslaughter (Depend 2) and leaving the scene of a collision inflicting loss of life (Depend 3) ended with a hung jury and was declared a mistrial.
Her attorneys have since argued first to Norfolk Superior Court docket trial Decide Beverly J. Cannone and now to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court docket that Cannone erred in declaring a mistrial with out first permitting the protection a chance to argue in opposition to it — and, extra importantly, that 5 jurors got here ahead to say the jury would have unanimously acquitted on Counts 1 and three and have been solely held on Depend 2, and thus in any future trial it will be a violation of Learn’s rights to attempt her once more on these fees.
On Wednesday, the seven SJC justices peppered each Learn’s appellate lawyer, Martin Weinberg, and the lawyer from the Norfolk District Lawyer’s workplace, Caleb Schillinger, on the finer factors of their arguments — which have already been argued completely in filings to the court docket.
The protection
Weinberg’s case hinges on the concept that Cannone ought to convey the jurors again in, one after the other, for questioning to see in the event that they have been actually able to acquit — an argument he made in individual to Cannone earlier than she denied his movement to dismiss — and in the event that they have been certainly unanimous on Counts 1 and three, then these fees shouldn’t be tried within the subsequent go-around.
“If this was a Sixth Amendment issue, the jurisprudence of the court would compel a post jury inquiry. The Fifth Amendment values are just as important,” Weinberg stated. “Questions can be designed, whether it’s final or was it ever reconsidered, that would demonstrate what we contend: these were final votes; this was the end of Count 1 and 3.”
Justice Scott L. Kafker stated that Weinberg is arguing for interpretation of constitutional legal guidelines and so requested if Weinberg had a federal case that might again up his argument. Weinberg cited each Mississippi and Arkansas state circumstances however didn’t ship a federal precedent.
Justice Serge Georges Jr. took a extra philosophical line of questioning, asking Weinberg whether or not the jury’s purported unanimous choice have been really “fixed” and would stay that approach in the event that they have been compelled to proceed deliberations on Depend 2, the motorized vehicle manslaughter cost on which they have been reportedly hung.
“The deliberations weren’t finished, they weren’t finalized and you keep using that term, but there’s still opportunity for folks to change their positions in the context of the continuing deliberations on Count Two,” Georges instructed Weinberg.
Weinberg countered that the jurors who spoke up stated that no one within the jury room believed Learn had deliberately killed anybody, so a change of thoughts on the homicide cost could be impossible.
Justices Kafker, Frank M. Gaziano and Dalila Argaez Wendlandt additionally questioned Weinberg on whether or not questioning the jurors on their choices on every rely earlier than declaring a mistrial would have been a judicial conduct no-no by “interjecting” herself into the method. The jury despatched three notes indicating an deadlock earlier than the trial ended.
“You’ve got an exhausted jury writing this very eloquent message saying, ‘We’ve done our best, we haven’t been able to reach a verdict on the charges,’” Kafker stated. “There’s no inkling in that they’ve reached verdicts on charges or that this only relates to the second charge. Right?”
The Commonwealth
Assistant District Lawyer Schillinger argued that the protection’s arguments that Cannone erred in declaring a mistrial with out discussing it with attorneys first belies the protection’s personal actions within the courtroom.
He stated the protection’s push for the Tuey-Rodriguez instruction — which is a message a choose reads to jurors in a final push to spur them into efficient deliberative motion — confirmed they understood which approach the trial would find yourself.
“The jury has twice already returned deadlocked. The defendant has argued strenuously that they are deadlocked, they’ve been given Tuey-Rodriguez and now the judge informs counsel, they’re at an impasse,” Schillinger stated. “At that point, counsel couldn’t credibly believe that the result here was going to be anything other than a mistrial.”
Whereas Weinberg argued that the 30 seconds or so it took the jury to file in earlier than Cannone declared a mistrial was not sufficient for the protection to intervene, Schillinger countered that it will take solely a second for the attorneys to request a sidebar as they’d all through the trial.
Schillinger additionally stated that Weinberg’s request for a post-verdict inquiry of the jurors is not like the conditions offered in recognized case regulation and quantities to one thing totally different that isn’t allowed.
“It’s one thing, your Honor, to bring a jury back and inquire as to extraneous influences to determine whether a verdict that was returned and affirmed may have been the product of other than a fair and impartial jury,” Schillinger stated. “It’s quite another to bring a jury back to essentially construct a verdict.”
