Reply to Anybody following the Karen Read trial in Boston?

Forum Index » Off-Topic

Reply to "Anybody following the Karen Read trial in Boston?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]If she did something, the commonwealth has no idea what and has failed to give the jury a theory not directly contradicted by the evidence. [b]The body didn’t sustain injuries consistent with a vehicle strike[/b], yet their entire case is based on the allegation that she hit him with her car. I’ll be floored if the jury returns a guilty verdict given the posture of the case.[/quote]

that's enough for me.

not guilty.

who the heck knows what happened, but the prosecution surely doesn't.[/quote]

Does anyone know if there were given any instructions on what is permissible as an inference? For instance if it is undisputed (I know you can poke holes in expert testimony, just assume for the purposes of this question it's true) that Karen backed her car up around the same time that John's phone stopped working, even if there is no actual evidence of collision, can the jury infer that a collision occurred?

I would throw out the taillight stuff as corroborating evidence in support of the inference, because of the photo and video evidence presented, plus Dever's bizarre testimony. I think you'll probably have a couple jurors who would refuse to accept that as evidence.

That may leave jurors looking at the evidence and possibly not even disagreeing about it (Karen backed up; John's phone stopped), with some of them inferring a collision (assuming that's permissible) but others not (similarly assuming such inference is not mandatory).[/quote]

Standard jury instructions in a criminal case say something to the effect of "you can draw any reasonable conclusion from the evidence that you believe is justified by common sense and your experiences."  The instructions will never provide a more granular explanation than that.

There's also no such thing as a mandatory inference in a criminal case.  There are permissible inferences (for example, if a defendant is found in recent possession of stolen property, the jury can infer he stole it), but mandatory inferences violate the right to trial by jury.  [/quote]

That's helpful thanks. I am curious, putting everything else aside, based on the 2 above pieces of evidence, what people here think:
1. The only reasonable inference is that Karen's car hit John
2. While you understand that someone could reasonably infer that Karen's car hit John, you yourself do not draw that conclusion from the evidence; or
3. It would be unreasonable to infer that Karen's car hit John

[/quote]

My conclusion is that she probably hit him with her car, but I’m not persuaded BARD that that’s what happened.  I’d acquit.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics