A Mistrial Determination Raises Doubts About Double Jeopardy Safety
Attorneys for Karen Learn argued in court docket filings {that a} hung jury final week unanimously agreed not responsible on two out of three counts and that retrying her on these two prices would violate double jeopardy protections.
The Norfolk County District Lawyer’s Workplace stated they supposed to pursue a retrial of Learn on July 1 after a deadlocked jury led Choose Beverly Cannone to declare a mistrial.
Learn’s attorneys have since filed a movement to dismiss two prices, asserting that three jurors expressly acknowledged the 12-person jury discovered Learn not responsible of second-degree homicide and leaving the scene of a motorcar crash inflicting loss of life. The protection contends that the decide failed to substantiate the jury’s verdict on any of the counts, as required by Massachusetts state regulation.
In response, the protection argued that Choose Cannone uncared for to inquire concerning the jurors’ verdict on any counts earlier than declaring a mistrial.
Prison process guidelines in Massachusetts authorize judges to request verdicts on agreed-upon prices and oversee their correct recording.
Jurors communicated to Choose Cannone their stark division and their perception that additional deliberation can be futile. Regrettably, they didn’t point out settlement on any of the counts, nor did they submit verdict slips marked “not responsible” on any prices.
MassLive has been unable to independently confirm the protection attorneys’ declare in regards to the unanimous not responsible settlement from the jury.
Choose Disagrees with Double Jeopardy Argument
MassLive spoke with Jack Lu, an adjunct college member at UMass Lowell, New England Legislation Boston, and Boston School Legislation College, who served as an affiliate justice in Massachusetts’ superior courts for 16 years. Lu dismissed the protection’s double jeopardy declare, emphasizing that no verdict had been reached.
Lu rebuffed the protection’s argument that they had been overruled with out the chance to handle the mistrial declaration, pointing to the expertise of protection attorneys Alan Jackson and David Yanetti.
Lu acknowledged, “That strains credulity to me,” suggesting that Jackson or Yanetti might have communicated their want to be heard earlier than bringing within the jury and declaring the mistrial.
Nevertheless, within the protection’s movement, they argue that Choose Cannone didn’t learn the jurors’ word earlier than she made the mistrial announcement, indicating that Jackson and Yanetti couldn’t have foreseen the choice.
Lu steered that it could have been a greater apply for the clerk to share the word with the attorneys earlier than Choose Cannone entered the courtroom.
Potential Influence on Retrial
Authorized skilled Shira Diner, a lecturer at Boston College College of Legislation, highlighted the vary of various approaches judges might use to find out the jury’s stance on numerous counts.
Diner acknowledged that Choose Beverly Cannone, recognized for her accountable and cautious demeanor on the bench, might have employed her personal technique earlier than declaring the mistrial.
Diner acknowledged, “She’s an exceptionally accountable, cautious decide and I simply don’t know what was stated.”
Diner additionally identified that the prosecution holds the discretion to decide on to not pursue all prices in a second trial, suggesting that sharing this new data may affect their decision-making course of.
Learn’s attorneys have additionally raised the opportunity of a listening to the place the unique jury can be referred to as in to attest to whether or not they reached a unanimous settlement on any of the counts.
Diner concluded, “The court docket has lots of leeway and lots of discretion in relation to something involving the jury.”
Extra concerning the Case
