re: Karen Read murder trial - Not guilty on main - guilty of OUI(DUI) only

quote:

---

They shouldn't be fricked because the remedy to that is cross in the 2nd trial. Bev probably isn't going to boot them but she isn't going to allow them to provide any new reports/info based on the Commonwealth's expert - that didn't even provide all of his info to the defense until the end of March.

---

If they lied about planning to pay or paying these experts, they would be a big trouble and she could kick them off the case, which would create a total cluster frick.

I don't think they did, they ended up paying them after the trial when the Feds said they need to.

quote:

---

If they lied about planning to pay or paying these experts, they would be a big trouble and she could kick them off the case, which would create a total cluster frick.

---

If this would happen, would the judge declare a mistrial?

quote:

---

If they lied about planning to pay or paying these experts, they would be a big trouble and she could kick them off the case, which would create a total cluster frick.

I don't think they did, they ended up paying them after the trial when the Feds said they need to.

---

Right but the Commonwealth knows about the payment now and about ARCCA being retained for the 2nd trial so they can ask about that. It had no bearing on the outcome of the first trial. If anything, based on a juror interview from the first trial, them not having paid ARCCA prior to the end of the first trial hurt the defense because the jurors speculated they were hired by the insurance company and had a vested interest in saying Karen didn't hit John.

Bev can boot whatever witness she wants for basically any reason she wants. A judge is a god in the courtroom and while she may be overturned on an appeal and Karen get a new trial if she boots ARCCA and she's convicted that's not anything close to a foregone conclusion.

The payment disclosure is harmless error and the remedy is the commonwealth getting to cross ARCCA about payments during their testimony. It's certainly less harmful than the commonwealth "discovering" inverted video of the sallyport in the middle of the trial and not disclosing it was inverted. Something the defense remedied through cross.

quote:

---

She can remove them for that.

---

Has that ever happened? Seems like extreme prejudice. Are writs sought during a criminal trial ever? Stay issued?

quote:

---

Bev can boot whatever witness she wants for basically any reason she wants. A judge is a god in the courtroom and while she may be overturned on an appeal and Karen get a new trial if she boots ARCCA and she's convicted that's not anything close to a foregone conclusion.

---

I don't think he's talking about Bev booting ARCCA. I think he's talking about her booting Read's lawyers.

quote:

---

Seems the family is likely to try to sue her over anything after the trials. I think they've said something to the effect already.

---

This might be me overthinking, but when I heard or read this I thought it was them playing to public opinion.. Putting it out there and people would think "well if they are going to file a civil suit then they must know something that will win their case in civil court". Maybe not, but I took that statement with a grain of salt.

Ummm is right.

Biased Bev has to address this immediately. We need to verify the statements attested to in this affidavit.

And some people need to charged with charges.

Oh and drop this sham against Karen Read.

I agree this needs to be investigated immediately. I am pretty skeptical of some of these claims though.

quote:

---

Kate Peter is a vile person!

---

Who is she?