Karen Read Appeals Supreme Judicial Court's Ruling: Double Jeopardy Argument & New Case Law Cited!
The Emily Show
Baker Media, LLC.
4.9 • 2.1K Ratings
🗓️ 20 February 2025
⏱️ 15 minutes
🧾️ Download transcript
Summary
Transcript
Click on a timestamp to play from that location
| 0:00.0 | Welcome back. It's time for a quick bit clip. The full episode will be linked in the description, |
| 0:05.7 | but this is the quick bit clip to keep you in the loop for everything that's happening on the live stream channel. |
| 0:12.3 | Let's get into it. |
| 0:14.4 | So, you will remember that recently the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled against Karen Reed. And we went over |
| 0:22.6 | the Supreme Judicial Court ruling, which said there is no verdict. Therefore, there is no |
| 0:28.9 | double jeopardy. Even if the court allowed all of the jurors to come in and say, yes, we rendered |
| 0:36.9 | verdicts for Karen Reed of acquittal on |
| 0:40.7 | counts one and counts three, which are the most serious counts in this case. There is still |
| 0:46.9 | nothing that can be done. The jury has been dismissed. They cannot be reconvened now to render a verdict. The only thing that |
| 0:57.2 | could come from that is, A, the defense could glean more information about what the jurors thought |
| 1:01.2 | was important or not. And B, I mean, they can do that if the jurors come forward, which some have. |
| 1:08.1 | And B, it might pressure the Commonwealth to dismiss those counts, which seems real |
| 1:12.2 | unlikely to me. But they can't reconvene a dismiss jury. A mistrial has been declared, and there's |
| 1:22.2 | no way to undo that. It's why we also saw the defense arguing that the judge did not need to declare |
| 1:29.8 | a mistrial, because that's really the only way to get around this. And even then, even then, |
| 1:37.0 | if the defense won, the result is you get a new trial. That's where we're at. We're at you got a new trial. So there isn't a |
| 1:46.9 | remedy under the law for the circumstance we find ourselves in. So no person shall be subject to the |
| 1:53.4 | same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. The underlying idea, one that is deeply |
| 2:00.0 | ingrained in at least the Anglo-American system of |
| 2:02.5 | jurisprudence, is that the state, with all its resources and power, should not be allowed to make |
| 2:08.2 | repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense. Even if the first trial is not |
| 2:13.5 | completed, a second prosecution may be grossly unfair. It increases the financial and emotional |
... |
Please login to see the full transcript.
Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Baker Media, LLC., and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.
Generated transcripts are the property of Baker Media, LLC. and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.
Copyright © Tapesearch 2026.

