Podcasts about daubert

Nancy La Vigne is the Dean of the Rutgers School of Criminal Justice, based at the campus in Newark, New Jersey. In this episode of Crime and the Courtroom, John Collins and Dr. La Vigne discuss her new responsibilities at Rutgers, as well as contemporary priorities in criminal justice research, technology, and education. Dr. La Vigne also shares her experiences as the former director of the National Institute of Justice, and what it's been like for her to return home to her alma mater, where she now leads the same school where she received her doctorate degree in 1996.    Season:  5 Episode:  89 Duration: 45:04 YOUTUBE CHANNELS Main Podcast Channel Highlights Channel FROM OUR SPONSOR Learn About the Innovators at Promega International Symposium on Human Identification REFERENCED RESOURCES Rutgers School of Criminal Justice ABOUT YOUR HOST John Morrey Collins is a leadership and expertise coach specializing in working with clients in authoritative, high-stakes occupations, but with a primary emphasis on serving leaders, professionals, and organizations that support our complicated systems of criminal and civil justice. John started his private practice, Critical Victories, in 2013 after retiring his award-winning, 20-year career as a forensic laboratory scientist and executive administrator, having served as the Director of Forensic Science for the State of Michigan. His forensic technical expertise was in the examination and testing of firearms and firearm-related evidence, having provided expert courtroom testimony in approximately 130 criminal trials, including death penalty cases and Daubert hearings. John is also the author of three books on forensic science and criminal justice reform. In 2022, he released his fourth book, “The New Superior – A Better Way to Be the One in Charge,” which is available in print and audio. John's many career highlights include his part in the forensic investigation of the Atlanta serial bombings, which included the bombing of the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, as well as his 2013 participation in a historic meeting with the US Attorney General and other firearm experts to discuss the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. John has a master's degree in organizational management and is formally certified as a Senior HR Professional by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). In 2012, John was trained as a professional coach by the College of Executive Coaching, and he became certified as a Gallup Strengths Coach in 2022. He lives and works near Detroit, Michigan. For more books and other information, please visit www.criticalvictories.com.

In this episode, John Collins builds on the themes and recommendations covered in episode 87, with regards to forensic laboratory accreditation and its strengths and limitations. Seven policy priorities are discussed to help forensic science laboratories, their parent agencies, and their jurisdictions prevent instances of catastrophic misconduct before they happen. Season:  5 Episode:  88 Duration: 1:00:18 YOUTUBE CHANNELS Main Podcast Channel Highlights Channel FROM OUR SPONSOR Learn About the Innovators at Promega International Symposium on Human Identification REFERENCED RESOURCES Article: A Reality Check on Crime Lab Backlogs ABOUT YOUR HOST John Morrey Collins is a leadership and expertise coach specializing in working with clients in authoritative, high-stakes occupations, but with a primary emphasis on serving leaders, professionals, and organizations that support our complicated systems of criminal and civil justice. John started his private practice, Critical Victories, in 2013 after retiring his award-winning, 20-year career as a forensic laboratory scientist and executive administrator, having served as the Director of Forensic Science for the State of Michigan. His forensic technical expertise was in the examination and testing of firearms and firearm-related evidence, having provided expert courtroom testimony in approximately 130 criminal trials, including death penalty cases and Daubert hearings. John is also the author of three books on forensic science and criminal justice reform. In 2022, he released his fourth book, “The New Superior – A Better Way to Be the One in Charge,” which is available in print and audio. John's many career highlights include his part in the forensic investigation of the Atlanta serial bombings, which included the bombing of the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, as well as his 2013 participation in a historic meeting with the US Attorney General and other firearm experts to discuss the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. John has a master's degree in organizational management and is formally certified as a Senior HR Professional by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). In 2012, John was trained as a professional coach by the College of Executive Coaching, and he became certified as a Gallup Strengths Coach in 2022. He lives and works near Detroit, Michigan. For more books and other information, please visit www.criticalvictories.com.

In State of Idaho v. Bryan Kohberger (Case Number CR01-24-31665), Motion in Limine #2 seeks to exclude vague and undisclosed expert testimony from being used at trial. Kohberger's defense argues that the prosecution has not properly disclosed the identities, qualifications, or specific opinions of their expert witnesses, violating established discovery rules. The defense contends that admitting broad, undefined, or last-minute expert testimony would place them at a severe disadvantage by preventing effective cross-examination and rebuttal preparation. They emphasize that expert testimony should meet the Daubert standard, ensuring that all scientific or technical evidence presented in court is reliable, relevant, and based on a sound methodology. Without proper disclosure, the defense fears that the prosecution may introduce unvetted or speculative testimony, which could unfairly sway the jury.Additionally, the defense raises concerns about ambiguous or generalized expert conclusions that lack a clear factual foundation. They argue that the court must preclude any expert testimony that was not properly disclosed or that fails to meet the necessary scientific and legal standards. The motion highlights the risk of unverified forensic interpretations or psychological assessments being introduced without proper vetting, potentially leading to misleading conclusions. The defense urges the court to enforce strict evidentiary standards by limiting expert testimony only to properly disclosed, scientifically validated opinions. This motion is a critical part of the defense's strategy to prevent prejudicial, speculative, or unreliable forensic evidence from influencing the jury in one of the most high-profile cases in Idaho's history.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:022425-Defense-Motion-inLimine-2-RE-Vague-Undisclosed-Expert-Testimony.pdf

In State of Idaho v. Bryan Kohberger (Case Number CR01-24-31665), Motion in Limine #2 seeks to exclude vague and undisclosed expert testimony from being used at trial. Kohberger's defense argues that the prosecution has not properly disclosed the identities, qualifications, or specific opinions of their expert witnesses, violating established discovery rules. The defense contends that admitting broad, undefined, or last-minute expert testimony would place them at a severe disadvantage by preventing effective cross-examination and rebuttal preparation. They emphasize that expert testimony should meet the Daubert standard, ensuring that all scientific or technical evidence presented in court is reliable, relevant, and based on a sound methodology. Without proper disclosure, the defense fears that the prosecution may introduce unvetted or speculative testimony, which could unfairly sway the jury.Additionally, the defense raises concerns about ambiguous or generalized expert conclusions that lack a clear factual foundation. They argue that the court must preclude any expert testimony that was not properly disclosed or that fails to meet the necessary scientific and legal standards. The motion highlights the risk of unverified forensic interpretations or psychological assessments being introduced without proper vetting, potentially leading to misleading conclusions. The defense urges the court to enforce strict evidentiary standards by limiting expert testimony only to properly disclosed, scientifically validated opinions. This motion is a critical part of the defense's strategy to prevent prejudicial, speculative, or unreliable forensic evidence from influencing the jury in one of the most high-profile cases in Idaho's history.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:022425-Defense-Motion-inLimine-2-RE-Vague-Undisclosed-Expert-Testimony.pdf

In State of Idaho v. Bryan Kohberger (Case Number CR01-24-31665), Motion in Limine #2 seeks to exclude vague and undisclosed expert testimony from being used at trial. Kohberger's defense argues that the prosecution has not properly disclosed the identities, qualifications, or specific opinions of their expert witnesses, violating established discovery rules. The defense contends that admitting broad, undefined, or last-minute expert testimony would place them at a severe disadvantage by preventing effective cross-examination and rebuttal preparation. They emphasize that expert testimony should meet the Daubert standard, ensuring that all scientific or technical evidence presented in court is reliable, relevant, and based on a sound methodology. Without proper disclosure, the defense fears that the prosecution may introduce unvetted or speculative testimony, which could unfairly sway the jury.Additionally, the defense raises concerns about ambiguous or generalized expert conclusions that lack a clear factual foundation. They argue that the court must preclude any expert testimony that was not properly disclosed or that fails to meet the necessary scientific and legal standards. The motion highlights the risk of unverified forensic interpretations or psychological assessments being introduced without proper vetting, potentially leading to misleading conclusions. The defense urges the court to enforce strict evidentiary standards by limiting expert testimony only to properly disclosed, scientifically validated opinions. This motion is a critical part of the defense's strategy to prevent prejudicial, speculative, or unreliable forensic evidence from influencing the jury in one of the most high-profile cases in Idaho's history.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:022425-Defense-Motion-inLimine-2-RE-Vague-Undisclosed-Expert-Testimony.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In State of Idaho v. Bryan Kohberger (Case Number CR01-24-31665), Motion in Limine #2 seeks to exclude vague and undisclosed expert testimony from being used at trial. Kohberger's defense argues that the prosecution has not properly disclosed the identities, qualifications, or specific opinions of their expert witnesses, violating established discovery rules. The defense contends that admitting broad, undefined, or last-minute expert testimony would place them at a severe disadvantage by preventing effective cross-examination and rebuttal preparation. They emphasize that expert testimony should meet the Daubert standard, ensuring that all scientific or technical evidence presented in court is reliable, relevant, and based on a sound methodology. Without proper disclosure, the defense fears that the prosecution may introduce unvetted or speculative testimony, which could unfairly sway the jury.Additionally, the defense raises concerns about ambiguous or generalized expert conclusions that lack a clear factual foundation. They argue that the court must preclude any expert testimony that was not properly disclosed or that fails to meet the necessary scientific and legal standards. The motion highlights the risk of unverified forensic interpretations or psychological assessments being introduced without proper vetting, potentially leading to misleading conclusions. The defense urges the court to enforce strict evidentiary standards by limiting expert testimony only to properly disclosed, scientifically validated opinions. This motion is a critical part of the defense's strategy to prevent prejudicial, speculative, or unreliable forensic evidence from influencing the jury in one of the most high-profile cases in Idaho's history.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:022425-Defense-Motion-inLimine-2-RE-Vague-Undisclosed-Expert-Testimony.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

John Collins answers an email from an audience member who wonders: What's the point of accreditation if a catastrophic failure or major act of misconduct can still happen under the radar. Season:  5 Episode:  87 Duration: 35:57 YOUTUBE CHANNELSMain Podcast Channel Highlights Channel   FROM OUR SPONSORLearn About the Innovators at Promega International Symposium on Human Identification   REFERENCED RESOURCES CBS News News Report on Yvonne Woods Book: HR Management in the Forensic Science Laboratory Article: The Wrongful Conviction of Forensic Science   ABOUT YOUR HOST John Morrey Collins is a leadership and expertise coach specializing in working with clients in authoritative, high-stakes occupations, but with a primary emphasis on serving leaders, professionals, and organizations that support our complicated systems of criminal and civil justice. John started his private practice, Critical Victories, in 2013 after retiring his award-winning, 20-year career as a forensic laboratory scientist and executive administrator, having served as the Director of Forensic Science for the State of Michigan. His forensic technical expertise was in the examination and testing of firearms and firearm-related evidence, having provided expert courtroom testimony in approximately 130 criminal trials, including death penalty cases and Daubert hearings. John is also the author of three books on forensic science and criminal justice reform. In 2022, he released his fourth book, “The New Superior – A Better Way to Be the One in Charge,” which is available in print and audio. John's many career highlights include his part in the forensic investigation of the Atlanta serial bombings, which included the bombing of the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, as well as his 2013 participation in a historic meeting with the US Attorney General and other firearm experts to discuss the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. John has a master's degree in organizational management and is formally certified as a Senior HR Professional by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). In 2012, John was trained as a professional coach by the College of Executive Coaching, and he became certified as a Gallup Strengths Coach in 2022. He lives and works near Detroit, Michigan.   For more books and other information, please visit www.criticalvictories.com.

In State of Idaho v. Bryan Kohberger (Case Number CR01-24-31665), Motion in Limine #2 seeks to exclude vague and undisclosed expert testimony from being used at trial. Kohberger's defense argues that the prosecution has not properly disclosed the identities, qualifications, or specific opinions of their expert witnesses, violating established discovery rules. The defense contends that admitting broad, undefined, or last-minute expert testimony would place them at a severe disadvantage by preventing effective cross-examination and rebuttal preparation. They emphasize that expert testimony should meet the Daubert standard, ensuring that all scientific or technical evidence presented in court is reliable, relevant, and based on a sound methodology. Without proper disclosure, the defense fears that the prosecution may introduce unvetted or speculative testimony, which could unfairly sway the jury.Additionally, the defense raises concerns about ambiguous or generalized expert conclusions that lack a clear factual foundation. They argue that the court must preclude any expert testimony that was not properly disclosed or that fails to meet the necessary scientific and legal standards. The motion highlights the risk of unverified forensic interpretations or psychological assessments being introduced without proper vetting, potentially leading to misleading conclusions. The defense urges the court to enforce strict evidentiary standards by limiting expert testimony only to properly disclosed, scientifically validated opinions. This motion is a critical part of the defense's strategy to prevent prejudicial, speculative, or unreliable forensic evidence from influencing the jury in one of the most high-profile cases in Idaho's history.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:022425-Defense-Motion-inLimine-2-RE-Vague-Undisclosed-Expert-Testimony.pdf

In State of Idaho v. Bryan Kohberger (Case Number CR01-24-31665), Motion in Limine #2 seeks to exclude vague and undisclosed expert testimony from being used at trial. Kohberger's defense argues that the prosecution has not properly disclosed the identities, qualifications, or specific opinions of their expert witnesses, violating established discovery rules. The defense contends that admitting broad, undefined, or last-minute expert testimony would place them at a severe disadvantage by preventing effective cross-examination and rebuttal preparation. They emphasize that expert testimony should meet the Daubert standard, ensuring that all scientific or technical evidence presented in court is reliable, relevant, and based on a sound methodology. Without proper disclosure, the defense fears that the prosecution may introduce unvetted or speculative testimony, which could unfairly sway the jury.Additionally, the defense raises concerns about ambiguous or generalized expert conclusions that lack a clear factual foundation. They argue that the court must preclude any expert testimony that was not properly disclosed or that fails to meet the necessary scientific and legal standards. The motion highlights the risk of unverified forensic interpretations or psychological assessments being introduced without proper vetting, potentially leading to misleading conclusions. The defense urges the court to enforce strict evidentiary standards by limiting expert testimony only to properly disclosed, scientifically validated opinions. This motion is a critical part of the defense's strategy to prevent prejudicial, speculative, or unreliable forensic evidence from influencing the jury in one of the most high-profile cases in Idaho's history.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:022425-Defense-Motion-inLimine-2-RE-Vague-Undisclosed-Expert-Testimony.pdf

Why Are Insurance Premiums Increasing with Ryan Daubert - #230 If you enjoyed this podcast we would appreciate a positive review... https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/real-estate-reserve-podcast/id1507982777  

Caitlin Burchill is an investigative reporter with NBC Connecticut and a proud member of the production team that created the documentary, Traces of Doubt: The Forensics of Dr. Henry Lee, which is now available in its entirety on YouTube. Caitlin speaks with John Collins about her life and career as an investigative reporter, and sheds light on her investigation of famed but now controversial forensic expert, Dr. Henry Lee. Season:   5 Episode:  86 Duration: 40:30 YOUTUBE CHANNELS Main Podcast Channel Highlights Channel FROM OUR SPONSOR Learn About the Innovators at Promega International Symposium on Human Identification   REFERENCED RESOURCES Traces of Doubt: The Forensics of Dr. Henry Lee Caitlin Burchill at NBC Connecticut ABOUT YOUR HOSTJohn Morrey Collins is a leadership and expertise coach specializing in working with clients in authoritative, high-stakes occupations, but with a primary emphasis on serving leaders, professionals, and organizations that support our complicated systems of criminal and civil justice. John started his private practice, Critical Victories, in 2013 after retiring his award-winning, 20-year career as a forensic laboratory scientist and executive administrator, having served as the Director of Forensic Science for the State of Michigan. His forensic technical expertise was in the examination and testing of firearms and firearm-related evidence, having provided expert courtroom testimony in approximately 130 criminal trials, including death penalty cases and Daubert hearings. John is also the author of three books on forensic science and criminal justice reform. In 2022, he released his fourth book, “The New Superior – A Better Way to Be the One in Charge,” which is available in print and audio. John's many career highlights include his part in the forensic investigation of the Atlanta serial bombings, which included the bombing of the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, as well as his 2013 participation in a historic meeting with the US Attorney General and other firearm experts to discuss the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. John has a master's degree in organizational management and is formally certified as a Senior HR Professional by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). In 2012, John was trained as a professional coach by the College of Executive Coaching, and he became certified as a Gallup Strengths Coach in 2022. He lives and works near Detroit, Michigan. For more information and resources, please visit www.criticalvictories.com

Send us a textThree things you'd have to believe to find Karen Read guilty of murder!Have you ever wondered how in excess of 8 people, drove directly past the spot where the Commonwealth said John O'Keefe was lying in the snow? Brian Higgins a highly trained ATF, testified he pulled out and his jeeps's lights would have fully illuminated that very area, yet no body? C'mon.Jen Mcabe's infamous 2:27am "Hos long to die in the cold" google search. During a Daubert hearing, Richard Green revealed that cell phone forensics found that Jen had made 4,560 google searches over the life of the phone, yet only one search had ever been deleted, the "hos long to die in cold" search. Read that again, that search happened and it happened at 2:27am. This is issue settled.In order to find Karen guilty of 2nd degree murder you'd have to believe that Jen Mcabe did "Butt Dial" John 7 times with none of the calls going to voicemail. You'd also have to believe Boston Police Sgt. Brian Albert "Butt Dialed" ATF agent Brian Higgins AND Higgins "Butt Dialed" back!! All the infamous butt dials occurred within an hour of John's homicide. You'd have to ask what are the odds of this happening? The defense expert covered that in recent court documents. The odds of all those butt dials occurring within an hour of the murder and none of the calls going to voicemail is equivalent to winning the Powerball lottery three times in a row!!C'mom man!NBC News 10-https://bit.ly/434XcsNBoston Herald-Howie Carr- https://bit.ly/3EI9P2DAtty. Melanie Little-https://bit.ly/3QlP8Mx

Dr. Sarah Chu is the Director of Policy and Reform at the Perlmutter Center for Legal Justice at the Cordoza School of Law in New York. In her role at the center, she applies her own extensive background in science and public policy to take an active lead on advancing our criminal justice system's efforts to utilize forensic evidence with maximum effectiveness and integrity. In this episode, Dr. Chu speaks with John Collins about her work at the Perlmutter Center, some of the more pressing issues related to the contemporary application of forensic evidence in criminal trials, and specific efforts that jurisdictions can prioritize to minimize the chance of erroneous convictions. Season:   5 Episode:  85 Duration: 59:02 YOUTUBE CHANNELS Main Podcast Channel Highlights Channel FROM OUR SPONSOR Learn About the Innovators at Promega International Symposium on Human Identification   REFERENCED RESOURCES Perlmutter Center for Legal Justice ABOUT YOUR HOSTJohn Morrey Collins is a leadership and expertise coach specializing in working with clients in authoritative, high-stakes occupations, but with a primary emphasis on serving leaders, professionals, and organizations that support our complicated systems of criminal and civil justice. John started his private practice, Critical Victories, in 2013 after retiring his award-winning, 20-year career as a forensic laboratory scientist and executive administrator, having served as the Director of Forensic Science for the State of Michigan. His forensic technical expertise was in the examination and testing of firearms and firearm-related evidence, having provided expert courtroom testimony in approximately 130 criminal trials, including death penalty cases and Daubert hearings. John is also the author of three books on forensic science and criminal justice reform. In 2022, he released his fourth book, “The New Superior – A Better Way to Be the One in Charge,” which is available in print and audio. John's many career highlights include his part in the forensic investigation of the Atlanta serial bombings, which included the bombing of the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, as well as his 2013 participation in a historic meeting with the US Attorney General and other firearm experts to discuss the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. John has a master's degree in organizational management and is formally certified as a Senior HR Professional by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). In 2012, John was trained as a professional coach by the College of Executive Coaching, and he became certified as a Gallup Strengths Coach in 2022. He lives and works near Detroit, Michigan. For more information and resources, please visit www.criticalvictories.com

In Episode 84 of Crime and the Courtroom, John Collins explores why forensic science is distinct from traditional sciences and often misunderstood. He examines how forensic methods—such as fingerprint and bullet comparisons—are rooted in stochastics, the study of randomness and unique patterns. Addressing past criticisms, Collins argues that forensic science is a leading preventer of wrongful convictions, not a cause of them. He calls for forensic professionals to uphold ethical standards and embrace their field's scientific legitimacy. This episode provides crucial insights for those interested in forensic evidence, justice, and the evolving role of expert testimony. Season:   5 Episode:  84 Duration: 43:22 YOUTUBE CHANNELS Main Podcast Channel Highlights Channel REFERENCED RESOURCES Stochastics (Journal By Taylor & Francis) Modern Stochastics: Theory and Application (Journal) ABOUT YOUR HOSTJohn Morrey Collins is a leadership and expertise coach specializing in working with clients in authoritative, high-stakes occupations, but with a primary emphasis on serving leaders, professionals, and organizations that support our complicated systems of criminal and civil justice. John started his private practice, Critical Victories, in 2013 after retiring his award-winning, 20-year career as a forensic laboratory scientist and executive administrator, having served as the Director of Forensic Science for the State of Michigan. His forensic technical expertise was in the examination and testing of firearms and firearm-related evidence, having provided expert courtroom testimony in approximately 130 criminal trials, including death penalty cases and Daubert hearings. John is also the author of three books on forensic science and criminal justice reform. In 2022, he released his fourth book, “The New Superior – A Better Way to Be the One in Charge,” which is available in print and audio. John's many career highlights include his part in the forensic investigation of the Atlanta serial bombings, which included the bombing of the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, as well as his 2013 participation in a historic meeting with the US Attorney General and other firearm experts to discuss the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. John has a master's degree in organizational management and is formally certified as a Senior HR Professional by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). In 2012, John was trained as a professional coach by the College of Executive Coaching, and he became certified as a Gallup Strengths Coach in 2022. He lives and works near Detroit, Michigan. For more information and resources, please visit www.criticalvictories.com

On January 31st, 2025, the Karen Read case continues with a hearing focused on motions and discovery. The defense argues over expert witness fees due to unavailable evidence, while the prosecution provides updates on new experts and witness interviews. The judge also indicated that a Daubert hearing regarding the defense's expert, Mr. Green, was unlikely and that they would issue an order by Monday. The defense requested more time to file a motion to dismiss, while the prosecution stated that they were still providing discovery to the defense. There's still upcoming motions in limine and motions to suppress, and the need for all discovery to be turned over ahead of the re-trial.Watch the full coverage: https://youtube.com/live/ze-mWajMd2gRESOURCESTuesday's live stream - https://www.youtube.com/live/7dNN7AE5mekThe Alec Baldwin Rust Trial - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gJRVvIIF9jT5PfqCzlSMiibThis podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Spotify Ad Analytics - https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/ad-analytics-privacy-policy/Podscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacy

The profession of forensic science has lost one its greatest thinkers and pioneers. His name is John Murdock, and his body of work contributed to the professionalization and trustworthiness of the evidentiary analyses performed by forensic science laboratories all over the world. In this update, your host John Collins commemorates the life and career of John Murdock, recalling how his own career and ways of thinking about the reliability of forensic science continues to impact his work to this day.  Season:   5 Episode:  83 Duration: 26:16 REFERENCED RESOURCES Research by John Murdock and Al Biasotti ABOUT YOUR HOSTJohn Morrey Collins is a leadership and expertise coach specializing in working with clients in authoritative, high-stakes occupations, but with a primary emphasis on serving leaders, professionals, and organizations that support our complicated systems of criminal and civil justice. John started his private practice, Critical Victories, in 2013 after retiring his award-winning, 20-year career as a forensic laboratory scientist and executive administrator, having served as the Director of Forensic Science for the State of Michigan. His forensic technical expertise was in the examination and testing of firearms and firearm-related evidence, having provided expert courtroom testimony in approximately 130 criminal trials, including death penalty cases and Daubert hearings. John is also the author of three books on forensic science and criminal justice reform. In 2022, he released his fourth book, “The New Superior – A Better Way to Be the One in Charge,” which is available in print and audio. John's many career highlights include his part in the forensic investigation of the Atlanta serial bombings, which included the bombing of the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, as well as his 2013 participation in a historic meeting with the US Attorney General and other firearm experts to discuss the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. John has a master's degree in organizational management and is formally certified as a Senior HR Professional by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). In 2012, John was trained as a professional coach by the College of Executive Coaching, and he became certified as a Gallup Strengths Coach in 2022. He lives and works near Detroit, Michigan.  

In this inaugural episode of Crime and the Coutroom, John Collins shares what he describes as "the craziest case I ever experienced in a forensic science laboratory." As he explains, sometime in late 1995 or early 1996, John conducted what started as a routine forensic analysis of a firearm used by a police officer in a shooting invovling an armed suspect. As it turned out, nothing about the case was routine, and the experience helped to galvanize John's perspectives on the risks of policing and the greater risks of dysfucntional police culture. John closes with some encouragement for police organizations doing their best to enable healthy, productive, supportive, and efficient organizational environments for their sworn and civilian team members, as well as the communities they serve. Season:   5 Episode:  82 Duration: 34:24 REFERENCED RESOURCES Book: The New Superior - By John M. Collins (2023) ABOUT YOUR HOSTJohn Morrey Collins is a leadership and expertise coach specializing in working with clients in authoritative, high-stakes occupations, but with a primary emphasis on serving leaders, professionals, and organizations that support our complicated systems of criminal and civil justice. John started his private practice, Critical Victories, in 2013 after retiring his award-winning, 20-year career as a forensic laboratory scientist and executive administrator, having served as the Director of Forensic Science for the State of Michigan. His forensic technical expertise was in the examination and testing of firearms and firearm-related evidence, having provided expert courtroom testimony in approximately 130 criminal trials, including death penalty cases and Daubert hearings. John is also the author of three books on forensic science and criminal justice reform. In 2022, he released his fourth book, “The New Superior – A Better Way to Be the One in Charge,” which is available in print and audio. John's many career highlights include his part in the forensic investigation of the Atlanta serial bombings, which included the bombing of the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, as well as his 2013 participation in a historic meeting with the US Attorney General and other firearm experts to discuss the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. John has a master's degree in organizational management and is formally certified as a Senior HR Professional by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). In 2012, John was trained as a professional coach by the College of Executive Coaching, and he became certified as a Gallup Strengths Coach in 2022. He lives and works near Detroit, Michigan. For more information and resources, please visit www.criticalvictories.com

Karen Read wins in a new pre-trial decision but is it a really a loss? Also, Michael Proctor has a discipline hearing tomorrow. We examine some overlocked details found on Karen Read's phone. Show Notes: Innocence Fraud Watch “Affadavit of Richard Green…” - https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2025/01/14/affidavit-of-richard-green-in-support-of-defendants-motion-for-order-pursuant-to-mass-r-crim-p-17-directed-to-brian-albert-verizon-and-att-copy/ OoBarking from the Wooftops "Ep 10 Dog Aggression & Forensic Expert Jim Crosby" -https://youtu.be/ijR3UeqLHbQ?si=yBok2jDfYG4Ltln0Vinnie Politan :"Prosecutorial Madness - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJEm6z-PNSECourt TV "Tipping the Scales" Jan 8th 2025 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfBt6XFqIUw Daubert Standard - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard Innocence Fraud Watch Blog - https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2025/01/10/killer-karen-read-retrial-why-didnt-flying-monkey-mary-bagwell-factor-in-murderers-lawyer-jack-diamond/ Ruling on Marie Russell - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mgbAmOOo4oojbnUYpZ2ByeqHxQU8trrT/viewThank you Patrons!Joan Mahon, Marcie Denton, Rosanne Aponte, Tammie, Hanna, Johnny Jay, Spaceydove, Jude Barnes, JenTheRN, Susan, Victoria Devenish, Jeri Falk, Kimberly Lovelace, Penni Miller, Jil, Janet Gardner, Jayne Wallace (JaynesWhirled), Pat Brooks, Jennifer Klearman, Judy Brown Linda Lazzaro, Suzanne Kniffin, Susan Hicks, Jeff Meadors, D Samlam, Pat Brooks, Kathy Chapin, Cythnia, Bonnie Schoeneman-Dilley, Diane Larsen, Mary, Kimberly Philipson, Stephanie Damilano, Cat Stewart, Cindy Pochesci, Kevin Crecy, Renee Chavez, Melba Pourteau, Julie K Thomas, Riverdale Pilates, Mia Wallace, Stark Stuff,Yvette Jocklin, Kayce Taylor, Alice, JenTile, Dean, GiGi5, Jennifer Crum, Dana Natale, Marie Patriagnnani, Bewildered Beauty, Pepper, Joan Chakonas, Blythe, Pat Dell, Lorraine Reid, Sandra Guse Van Zeeland, Isa, T.B., Kitties1993, Regan Johnson, Melissa, Victoria Gray Bross, Kay Be, Toni Woodland, Danbrit, Kenny Haines, Maureen P and Toni NatalieGet access to exclusive content & support the podcast by becoming a Patron today! https://patreon.com/robertaglasstruecrimereportThrow a tip in the tip jar! https://buymeacoffee.com/robertaglassSupport Roberta by sending a donation via Venmo. https://venmo.com/robertaglass

You're a powerhouse in the courtroom, but does anyone beyond your county know it? In this episode of Personal Injury Mastermind, Don Worley reveals how being transparent with referral partners helped him scale from 2,000 to 40,000 cases without traditional marketing. Dominate your market today. Grab a copy of Chris' latest book, Personal Injury Lawyer Marketing: From Good to GOAT.  Don Worley runs one of the nation's largest mass tort practices, with over 400 law firms sending him cases. But he's never bought a TV ad or danced on TikTok. Instead, he built his empire through radical transparency - sending monthly case updates that most firms are too afraid to share. In this episode, Don explains why letting go of ego and embracing accountability has been the key to his success. We discuss: Why great trial lawyers often struggle with self-promotion How monthly case updates transformed referral relationships The entertainment factor: Making lawyer events actually fun Leveraging comedy background for courtroom adaptability Why you should choose between being an advertising firm or a handling firm Smart strategies for entering mass torts without losing money When to wait for Daubert before investing in mass torts The real reason Wall Street's interest in mass torts has cooled Guest Details Don Worley built a nationwide mass tort practice handling over 40,000 cases through referral partnerships. His stand-up comedy background and commitment to transparency helped him create one of the most successful referral networks in the industry. Don Worley: LinkedIn,  McDonald Worly:  Website, Instagram, Facebook,  Chris Dreyer and Rankings Details Chris Dreyer is the CEO and founder of Rankings.io, the elite legal digital marketing agency.  Rankings: Website, Instagram, Twitter Chris Dreyer: Website, Instagram Newsletters: The Dreyer Sheet  Books: Personal Injury Lawyer Marketing: From Good to GOAT; Niching Up: The Narrower the Market, the Bigger the Prize Work with Rankings: Connect Time Stamps 00:00 Intro  00:29 The marketing lawyer vs trial lawyer divide  01:17 Don's unique approach to growth  02:14 Relationship building through entertainment  04:08 Comedy background and courtroom skills  07:03 Building a referral network of 400+ firms  08:24 Mass torts: Investment strategies and pitfalls  13:43 Keys to sustainable growth in personal injury  15:30 The power of transparency Additional Episodes You Might Enjoy 80. Mike Papantonio, Levin, Papantonio, & Rafferty — Doing Well by Doing Good 84. Glen Lerner, Lerner and Rowe – A Steady Hand in a Shifting Industry 101. Pratik Shah, EsquireTek — Discovering the Power of Automation 134. Darryl Isaacs, Isaacs & Isaacs — The Hammer: Insights from a Marketing Legend 104. Taly Goody, Goody Law Group — Finding PI Clients on TikTok 63. Joe Fried, Fried Goldberg LLC — How To Become An Expert And Revolutionize Your PI Niche 96. Brian Dean, Backlinko — Becoming a Linkable Source 83. Seth Godin — Differentiation: How to Make Your Law Firm a Purple Cow 73. Neil Patel, Neil Patel — Digital A New Approach to Content and Emerging Marketing Channels

Karen Read and her legal team are back in court for the second day of the Daubert Hearing. They are evaluating the Defense 'dog bite expert' to determine what testimony will be permitted in the re-trial and the scope of Dr. Russell's testimony.We also learned that the prosecution actually went and found the dog, Chloe, and did measurements on her claws and paws and did molds of her jaws and bites as well.Karen Read is scheduled to go back to court for Oral Arguments with another Daubert Hearing regarding the Digital Defense Expert, Rule 14 Discovery Motions with regard to the ARCA Experts on January 31st, 2025 at 9am ET. Based on how that goes, then possibly we will have an Evidentiary Hearing on February 6th, 2025, at 9am ET that could run into the 7th.Watch the full coverage: https://youtube.com/live/mqwz88FkNm8RESOURCESCatch up on Day 1 Quickly - https://youtu.be/587k95WaryI?si=l7QZKWLVnXmBz1mO Day 1 Full Court Day - https://youtube.com/live/MjU4nGT3TSsThis podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Spotify Ad Analytics - https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/ad-analytics-privacy-policy/Podscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacy

Karen Read is returning to court Tuesday for a motions hearing ahead of her retrial on second-degree murder charges in the death of her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe. The case has captured widespread attention, marked by allegations of foul play, contentious expert testimony, and a mistrial last summer. Prosecutors allege that Read, 43, drove drunk after a night out and struck O'Keefe, 46, with her car before leaving him to die in a snowbank near his Canton home. Read's defense, however, claims she is being framed by investigators, casting doubt on the credibility of the case against her. “We have evidence of a rushed and incomplete investigation,” said Read's attorney. “Karen Read is innocent, and we intend to prove this in court.” The upcoming Daubert hearing, a critical step in the pretrial process, will examine the admissibility of expert testimony. One key witness is Dr. Marie Russell, who previously testified about injuries O'Keefe sustained, including dog bites, raising questions about the timeline and circumstances of his death. During the first trial, Dr. Russell's analysis of wounds on O'Keefe's body played a pivotal role in the defense's argument that the injuries may not have been caused by Read's vehicle. Prosecutors, however, counter that the evidence overwhelmingly supports their theory of the crime. “The evidence shows a tragic but clear sequence of events: Karen Read struck John O'Keefe with her vehicle and left him in the snow,” said a representative for the Commonwealth. The case has been mired in controversy since the beginning. Critics have questioned the investigation's integrity, while supporters of both O'Keefe and Read have expressed frustration over delays and legal wrangling. The mistrial declared in July 2024, stemming from undisclosed issues during jury deliberations, added another layer of complexity. Despite the contentious nature of the case, Read maintains her innocence. “This has been a nightmare, but I believe the truth will come out,” Read stated in a previous court appearance. The motions hearing is expected to address procedural matters and the scope of evidence admissible in the retrial, which is scheduled for later this year. Both the prosecution and defense are preparing for a high-stakes trial that could ultimately hinge on expert testimony, forensic evidence, and competing narratives. As the legal battle continues, the case remains a focal point of public and media interest, drawing attention to issues of justice, law enforcement, and accountability. #KarenRead #JohnOKeefe #BostonNews #CourtUpdates #TrueCrime #JusticeSystem #Massachusetts Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Karen Read is returning to court Tuesday for a motions hearing ahead of her retrial on second-degree murder charges in the death of her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe. The case has captured widespread attention, marked by allegations of foul play, contentious expert testimony, and a mistrial last summer. Prosecutors allege that Read, 43, drove drunk after a night out and struck O'Keefe, 46, with her car before leaving him to die in a snowbank near his Canton home. Read's defense, however, claims she is being framed by investigators, casting doubt on the credibility of the case against her. “We have evidence of a rushed and incomplete investigation,” said Read's attorney. “Karen Read is innocent, and we intend to prove this in court.” The upcoming Daubert hearing, a critical step in the pretrial process, will examine the admissibility of expert testimony. One key witness is Dr. Marie Russell, who previously testified about injuries O'Keefe sustained, including dog bites, raising questions about the timeline and circumstances of his death. During the first trial, Dr. Russell's analysis of wounds on O'Keefe's body played a pivotal role in the defense's argument that the injuries may not have been caused by Read's vehicle. Prosecutors, however, counter that the evidence overwhelmingly supports their theory of the crime. “The evidence shows a tragic but clear sequence of events: Karen Read struck John O'Keefe with her vehicle and left him in the snow,” said a representative for the Commonwealth. The case has been mired in controversy since the beginning. Critics have questioned the investigation's integrity, while supporters of both O'Keefe and Read have expressed frustration over delays and legal wrangling. The mistrial declared in July 2024, stemming from undisclosed issues during jury deliberations, added another layer of complexity. Despite the contentious nature of the case, Read maintains her innocence. “This has been a nightmare, but I believe the truth will come out,” Read stated in a previous court appearance. The motions hearing is expected to address procedural matters and the scope of evidence admissible in the retrial, which is scheduled for later this year. Both the prosecution and defense are preparing for a high-stakes trial that could ultimately hinge on expert testimony, forensic evidence, and competing narratives. As the legal battle continues, the case remains a focal point of public and media interest, drawing attention to issues of justice, law enforcement, and accountability. #KarenRead #JohnOKeefe #BostonNews #CourtUpdates #TrueCrime #JusticeSystem #Massachusetts Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Karen Read is returning to court Tuesday for a motions hearing ahead of her retrial on second-degree murder charges in the death of her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe. The case has captured widespread attention, marked by allegations of foul play, contentious expert testimony, and a mistrial last summer. Prosecutors allege that Read, 43, drove drunk after a night out and struck O'Keefe, 46, with her car before leaving him to die in a snowbank near his Canton home. Read's defense, however, claims she is being framed by investigators, casting doubt on the credibility of the case against her. “We have evidence of a rushed and incomplete investigation,” said Read's attorney. “Karen Read is innocent, and we intend to prove this in court.” The upcoming Daubert hearing, a critical step in the pretrial process, will examine the admissibility of expert testimony. One key witness is Dr. Marie Russell, who previously testified about injuries O'Keefe sustained, including dog bites, raising questions about the timeline and circumstances of his death. During the first trial, Dr. Russell's analysis of wounds on O'Keefe's body played a pivotal role in the defense's argument that the injuries may not have been caused by Read's vehicle. Prosecutors, however, counter that the evidence overwhelmingly supports their theory of the crime. “The evidence shows a tragic but clear sequence of events: Karen Read struck John O'Keefe with her vehicle and left him in the snow,” said a representative for the Commonwealth. The case has been mired in controversy since the beginning. Critics have questioned the investigation's integrity, while supporters of both O'Keefe and Read have expressed frustration over delays and legal wrangling. The mistrial declared in July 2024, stemming from undisclosed issues during jury deliberations, added another layer of complexity. Despite the contentious nature of the case, Read maintains her innocence. “This has been a nightmare, but I believe the truth will come out,” Read stated in a previous court appearance. The motions hearing is expected to address procedural matters and the scope of evidence admissible in the retrial, which is scheduled for later this year. Both the prosecution and defense are preparing for a high-stakes trial that could ultimately hinge on expert testimony, forensic evidence, and competing narratives. As the legal battle continues, the case remains a focal point of public and media interest, drawing attention to issues of justice, law enforcement, and accountability. #KarenRead #JohnOKeefe #BostonNews #CourtUpdates #TrueCrime #JusticeSystem #Massachusetts Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Karen Read is returning to court Tuesday for a motions hearing ahead of her retrial on second-degree murder charges in the death of her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe. The case has captured widespread attention, marked by allegations of foul play, contentious expert testimony, and a mistrial last summer. Prosecutors allege that Read, 43, drove drunk after a night out and struck O'Keefe, 46, with her car before leaving him to die in a snowbank near his Canton home. Read's defense, however, claims she is being framed by investigators, casting doubt on the credibility of the case against her. “We have evidence of a rushed and incomplete investigation,” said Read's attorney. “Karen Read is innocent, and we intend to prove this in court.” The upcoming Daubert hearing, a critical step in the pretrial process, will examine the admissibility of expert testimony. One key witness is Dr. Marie Russell, who previously testified about injuries O'Keefe sustained, including dog bites, raising questions about the timeline and circumstances of his death. During the first trial, Dr. Russell's analysis of wounds on O'Keefe's body played a pivotal role in the defense's argument that the injuries may not have been caused by Read's vehicle. Prosecutors, however, counter that the evidence overwhelmingly supports their theory of the crime. “The evidence shows a tragic but clear sequence of events: Karen Read struck John O'Keefe with her vehicle and left him in the snow,” said a representative for the Commonwealth. The case has been mired in controversy since the beginning. Critics have questioned the investigation's integrity, while supporters of both O'Keefe and Read have expressed frustration over delays and legal wrangling. The mistrial declared in July 2024, stemming from undisclosed issues during jury deliberations, added another layer of complexity. Despite the contentious nature of the case, Read maintains her innocence. “This has been a nightmare, but I believe the truth will come out,” Read stated in a previous court appearance. The motions hearing is expected to address procedural matters and the scope of evidence admissible in the retrial, which is scheduled for later this year. Both the prosecution and defense are preparing for a high-stakes trial that could ultimately hinge on expert testimony, forensic evidence, and competing narratives. As the legal battle continues, the case remains a focal point of public and media interest, drawing attention to issues of justice, law enforcement, and accountability. #KarenRead #JohnOKeefe #BostonNews #CourtUpdates #TrueCrime #JusticeSystem #Massachusetts Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Karen Read returned to court Tuesday for a motions hearing ahead of her retrial on second-degree murder charges in the death of her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe. The case has captured widespread attention, marked by allegations of foul play, contentious expert testimony, and a mistrial last summer. Prosecutors allege that Read, 43, drove drunk after a night out and struck O'Keefe, 46, with her car before leaving him to die in a snowbank near his Canton home. Read's defense, however, claims she is being framed by investigators, casting doubt on the credibility of the case against her. “We have evidence of a rushed and incomplete investigation,” said Read's attorney. “Karen Read is innocent, and we intend to prove this in court.” The upcoming Daubert hearing, a critical step in the pretrial process, will examine the admissibility of expert testimony. One key witness is Dr. Marie Russell, who previously testified about injuries O'Keefe sustained, including dog bites, raising questions about the timeline and circumstances of his death. During the first trial, Dr. Russell's analysis of wounds on O'Keefe's body played a pivotal role in the defense's argument that the injuries may not have been caused by Read's vehicle. Prosecutors, however, counter that the evidence overwhelmingly supports their theory of the crime. “The evidence shows a tragic but clear sequence of events: Karen Read struck John O'Keefe with her vehicle and left him in the snow,” said a representative for the Commonwealth. The case has been mired in controversy since the beginning. Critics have questioned the investigation's integrity, while supporters of both O'Keefe and Read have expressed frustration over delays and legal wrangling. The mistrial declared in July 2024, stemming from undisclosed issues during jury deliberations, added another layer of complexity. Despite the contentious nature of the case, Read maintains her innocence. “This has been a nightmare, but I believe the truth will come out,” Read stated in a previous court appearance. The motions hearing is expected to address procedural matters and the scope of evidence admissible in the retrial, which is scheduled for later this year. Both the prosecution and defense are preparing for a high-stakes trial that could ultimately hinge on expert testimony, forensic evidence, and competing narratives. As the legal battle continues, the case remains a focal point of public and media interest, drawing attention to issues of justice, law enforcement, and accountability. #KarenRead #JohnOKeefe #BostonNews #CourtUpdates #TrueCrime #JusticeSystem #Massachusetts Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Karen Read returned to court Tuesday for a motions hearing ahead of her retrial on second-degree murder charges in the death of her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe. The case has captured widespread attention, marked by allegations of foul play, contentious expert testimony, and a mistrial last summer. Prosecutors allege that Read, 43, drove drunk after a night out and struck O'Keefe, 46, with her car before leaving him to die in a snowbank near his Canton home. Read's defense, however, claims she is being framed by investigators, casting doubt on the credibility of the case against her. “We have evidence of a rushed and incomplete investigation,” said Read's attorney. “Karen Read is innocent, and we intend to prove this in court.” The upcoming Daubert hearing, a critical step in the pretrial process, will examine the admissibility of expert testimony. One key witness is Dr. Marie Russell, who previously testified about injuries O'Keefe sustained, including dog bites, raising questions about the timeline and circumstances of his death. During the first trial, Dr. Russell's analysis of wounds on O'Keefe's body played a pivotal role in the defense's argument that the injuries may not have been caused by Read's vehicle. Prosecutors, however, counter that the evidence overwhelmingly supports their theory of the crime. “The evidence shows a tragic but clear sequence of events: Karen Read struck John O'Keefe with her vehicle and left him in the snow,” said a representative for the Commonwealth. The case has been mired in controversy since the beginning. Critics have questioned the investigation's integrity, while supporters of both O'Keefe and Read have expressed frustration over delays and legal wrangling. The mistrial declared in July 2024, stemming from undisclosed issues during jury deliberations, added another layer of complexity. Despite the contentious nature of the case, Read maintains her innocence. “This has been a nightmare, but I believe the truth will come out,” Read stated in a previous court appearance. The motions hearing is expected to address procedural matters and the scope of evidence admissible in the retrial, which is scheduled for later this year. Both the prosecution and defense are preparing for a high-stakes trial that could ultimately hinge on expert testimony, forensic evidence, and competing narratives. As the legal battle continues, the case remains a focal point of public and media interest, drawing attention to issues of justice, law enforcement, and accountability. #KarenRead #JohnOKeefe #BostonNews #CourtUpdates #TrueCrime #JusticeSystem #Massachusetts Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Karen Read is returning to court Tuesday for a motions hearing ahead of her retrial on second-degree murder charges in the death of her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe. The case has captured widespread attention, marked by allegations of foul play, contentious expert testimony, and a mistrial last summer. Prosecutors allege that Read, 43, drove drunk after a night out and struck O'Keefe, 46, with her car before leaving him to die in a snowbank near his Canton home. Read's defense, however, claims she is being framed by investigators, casting doubt on the credibility of the case against her. “We have evidence of a rushed and incomplete investigation,” said Read's attorney. “Karen Read is innocent, and we intend to prove this in court.” The upcoming Daubert hearing, a critical step in the pretrial process, will examine the admissibility of expert testimony. One key witness is Dr. Marie Russell, who previously testified about injuries O'Keefe sustained, including dog bites, raising questions about the timeline and circumstances of his death. During the first trial, Dr. Russell's analysis of wounds on O'Keefe's body played a pivotal role in the defense's argument that the injuries may not have been caused by Read's vehicle. Prosecutors, however, counter that the evidence overwhelmingly supports their theory of the crime. “The evidence shows a tragic but clear sequence of events: Karen Read struck John O'Keefe with her vehicle and left him in the snow,” said a representative for the Commonwealth. The case has been mired in controversy since the beginning. Critics have questioned the investigation's integrity, while supporters of both O'Keefe and Read have expressed frustration over delays and legal wrangling. The mistrial declared in July 2024, stemming from undisclosed issues during jury deliberations, added another layer of complexity. Despite the contentious nature of the case, Read maintains her innocence. “This has been a nightmare, but I believe the truth will come out,” Read stated in a previous court appearance. The motions hearing is expected to address procedural matters and the scope of evidence admissible in the retrial, which is scheduled for later this year. Both the prosecution and defense are preparing for a high-stakes trial that could ultimately hinge on expert testimony, forensic evidence, and competing narratives. As the legal battle continues, the case remains a focal point of public and media interest, drawing attention to issues of justice, law enforcement, and accountability. #KarenRead #JohnOKeefe #BostonNews #CourtUpdates #TrueCrime #JusticeSystem #Massachusetts Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Karen Read is returning to court Tuesday for a motions hearing ahead of her retrial on second-degree murder charges in the death of her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe. The case has captured widespread attention, marked by allegations of foul play, contentious expert testimony, and a mistrial last summer. Prosecutors allege that Read, 43, drove drunk after a night out and struck O'Keefe, 46, with her car before leaving him to die in a snowbank near his Canton home. Read's defense, however, claims she is being framed by investigators, casting doubt on the credibility of the case against her. “We have evidence of a rushed and incomplete investigation,” said Read's attorney. “Karen Read is innocent, and we intend to prove this in court.” The upcoming Daubert hearing, a critical step in the pretrial process, will examine the admissibility of expert testimony. One key witness is Dr. Marie Russell, who previously testified about injuries O'Keefe sustained, including dog bites, raising questions about the timeline and circumstances of his death. During the first trial, Dr. Russell's analysis of wounds on O'Keefe's body played a pivotal role in the defense's argument that the injuries may not have been caused by Read's vehicle. Prosecutors, however, counter that the evidence overwhelmingly supports their theory of the crime. “The evidence shows a tragic but clear sequence of events: Karen Read struck John O'Keefe with her vehicle and left him in the snow,” said a representative for the Commonwealth. The case has been mired in controversy since the beginning. Critics have questioned the investigation's integrity, while supporters of both O'Keefe and Read have expressed frustration over delays and legal wrangling. The mistrial declared in July 2024, stemming from undisclosed issues during jury deliberations, added another layer of complexity. Despite the contentious nature of the case, Read maintains her innocence. “This has been a nightmare, but I believe the truth will come out,” Read stated in a previous court appearance. The motions hearing is expected to address procedural matters and the scope of evidence admissible in the retrial, which is scheduled for later this year. Both the prosecution and defense are preparing for a high-stakes trial that could ultimately hinge on expert testimony, forensic evidence, and competing narratives. As the legal battle continues, the case remains a focal point of public and media interest, drawing attention to issues of justice, law enforcement, and accountability. #KarenRead #JohnOKeefe #BostonNews #CourtUpdates #TrueCrime #JusticeSystem #Massachusetts Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Karen Read is returning to court Tuesday for a motions hearing ahead of her retrial on second-degree murder charges in the death of her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe. The case has captured widespread attention, marked by allegations of foul play, contentious expert testimony, and a mistrial last summer. Prosecutors allege that Read, 43, drove drunk after a night out and struck O'Keefe, 46, with her car before leaving him to die in a snowbank near his Canton home. Read's defense, however, claims she is being framed by investigators, casting doubt on the credibility of the case against her. “We have evidence of a rushed and incomplete investigation,” said Read's attorney. “Karen Read is innocent, and we intend to prove this in court.” The upcoming Daubert hearing, a critical step in the pretrial process, will examine the admissibility of expert testimony. One key witness is Dr. Marie Russell, who previously testified about injuries O'Keefe sustained, including dog bites, raising questions about the timeline and circumstances of his death. During the first trial, Dr. Russell's analysis of wounds on O'Keefe's body played a pivotal role in the defense's argument that the injuries may not have been caused by Read's vehicle. Prosecutors, however, counter that the evidence overwhelmingly supports their theory of the crime. “The evidence shows a tragic but clear sequence of events: Karen Read struck John O'Keefe with her vehicle and left him in the snow,” said a representative for the Commonwealth. The case has been mired in controversy since the beginning. Critics have questioned the investigation's integrity, while supporters of both O'Keefe and Read have expressed frustration over delays and legal wrangling. The mistrial declared in July 2024, stemming from undisclosed issues during jury deliberations, added another layer of complexity. Despite the contentious nature of the case, Read maintains her innocence. “This has been a nightmare, but I believe the truth will come out,” Read stated in a previous court appearance. The motions hearing is expected to address procedural matters and the scope of evidence admissible in the retrial, which is scheduled for later this year. Both the prosecution and defense are preparing for a high-stakes trial that could ultimately hinge on expert testimony, forensic evidence, and competing narratives. As the legal battle continues, the case remains a focal point of public and media interest, drawing attention to issues of justice, law enforcement, and accountability. #KarenRead #JohnOKeefe #BostonNews #CourtUpdates #TrueCrime #JusticeSystem #Massachusetts Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Karen Read is returning to court Tuesday for a motions hearing ahead of her retrial on second-degree murder charges in the death of her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe. The case has captured widespread attention, marked by allegations of foul play, contentious expert testimony, and a mistrial last summer. Prosecutors allege that Read, 43, drove drunk after a night out and struck O'Keefe, 46, with her car before leaving him to die in a snowbank near his Canton home. Read's defense, however, claims she is being framed by investigators, casting doubt on the credibility of the case against her. “We have evidence of a rushed and incomplete investigation,” said Read's attorney. “Karen Read is innocent, and we intend to prove this in court.” The upcoming Daubert hearing, a critical step in the pretrial process, will examine the admissibility of expert testimony. One key witness is Dr. Marie Russell, who previously testified about injuries O'Keefe sustained, including dog bites, raising questions about the timeline and circumstances of his death. During the first trial, Dr. Russell's analysis of wounds on O'Keefe's body played a pivotal role in the defense's argument that the injuries may not have been caused by Read's vehicle. Prosecutors, however, counter that the evidence overwhelmingly supports their theory of the crime. “The evidence shows a tragic but clear sequence of events: Karen Read struck John O'Keefe with her vehicle and left him in the snow,” said a representative for the Commonwealth. The case has been mired in controversy since the beginning. Critics have questioned the investigation's integrity, while supporters of both O'Keefe and Read have expressed frustration over delays and legal wrangling. The mistrial declared in July 2024, stemming from undisclosed issues during jury deliberations, added another layer of complexity. Despite the contentious nature of the case, Read maintains her innocence. “This has been a nightmare, but I believe the truth will come out,” Read stated in a previous court appearance. The motions hearing is expected to address procedural matters and the scope of evidence admissible in the retrial, which is scheduled for later this year. Both the prosecution and defense are preparing for a high-stakes trial that could ultimately hinge on expert testimony, forensic evidence, and competing narratives. As the legal battle continues, the case remains a focal point of public and media interest, drawing attention to issues of justice, law enforcement, and accountability. #KarenRead #JohnOKeefe #BostonNews #CourtUpdates #TrueCrime #JusticeSystem #Massachusetts Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Karen Read is returning to court Tuesday for a motions hearing ahead of her retrial on second-degree murder charges in the death of her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe. The case has captured widespread attention, marked by allegations of foul play, contentious expert testimony, and a mistrial last summer. Prosecutors allege that Read, 43, drove drunk after a night out and struck O'Keefe, 46, with her car before leaving him to die in a snowbank near his Canton home. Read's defense, however, claims she is being framed by investigators, casting doubt on the credibility of the case against her. “We have evidence of a rushed and incomplete investigation,” said Read's attorney. “Karen Read is innocent, and we intend to prove this in court.” The upcoming Daubert hearing, a critical step in the pretrial process, will examine the admissibility of expert testimony. One key witness is Dr. Marie Russell, who previously testified about injuries O'Keefe sustained, including dog bites, raising questions about the timeline and circumstances of his death. During the first trial, Dr. Russell's analysis of wounds on O'Keefe's body played a pivotal role in the defense's argument that the injuries may not have been caused by Read's vehicle. Prosecutors, however, counter that the evidence overwhelmingly supports their theory of the crime. “The evidence shows a tragic but clear sequence of events: Karen Read struck John O'Keefe with her vehicle and left him in the snow,” said a representative for the Commonwealth. The case has been mired in controversy since the beginning. Critics have questioned the investigation's integrity, while supporters of both O'Keefe and Read have expressed frustration over delays and legal wrangling. The mistrial declared in July 2024, stemming from undisclosed issues during jury deliberations, added another layer of complexity. Despite the contentious nature of the case, Read maintains her innocence. “This has been a nightmare, but I believe the truth will come out,” Read stated in a previous court appearance. The motions hearing is expected to address procedural matters and the scope of evidence admissible in the retrial, which is scheduled for later this year. Both the prosecution and defense are preparing for a high-stakes trial that could ultimately hinge on expert testimony, forensic evidence, and competing narratives. As the legal battle continues, the case remains a focal point of public and media interest, drawing attention to issues of justice, law enforcement, and accountability. #KarenRead #JohnOKeefe #BostonNews #CourtUpdates #TrueCrime #JusticeSystem #Massachusetts Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Karen Read is returning to court Tuesday for a motions hearing ahead of her retrial on second-degree murder charges in the death of her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe. The case has captured widespread attention, marked by allegations of foul play, contentious expert testimony, and a mistrial last summer. Prosecutors allege that Read, 43, drove drunk after a night out and struck O'Keefe, 46, with her car before leaving him to die in a snowbank near his Canton home. Read's defense, however, claims she is being framed by investigators, casting doubt on the credibility of the case against her. “We have evidence of a rushed and incomplete investigation,” said Read's attorney. “Karen Read is innocent, and we intend to prove this in court.” The upcoming Daubert hearing, a critical step in the pretrial process, will examine the admissibility of expert testimony. One key witness is Dr. Marie Russell, who previously testified about injuries O'Keefe sustained, including dog bites, raising questions about the timeline and circumstances of his death. During the first trial, Dr. Russell's analysis of wounds on O'Keefe's body played a pivotal role in the defense's argument that the injuries may not have been caused by Read's vehicle. Prosecutors, however, counter that the evidence overwhelmingly supports their theory of the crime. “The evidence shows a tragic but clear sequence of events: Karen Read struck John O'Keefe with her vehicle and left him in the snow,” said a representative for the Commonwealth. The case has been mired in controversy since the beginning. Critics have questioned the investigation's integrity, while supporters of both O'Keefe and Read have expressed frustration over delays and legal wrangling. The mistrial declared in July 2024, stemming from undisclosed issues during jury deliberations, added another layer of complexity. Despite the contentious nature of the case, Read maintains her innocence. “This has been a nightmare, but I believe the truth will come out,” Read stated in a previous court appearance. The motions hearing is expected to address procedural matters and the scope of evidence admissible in the retrial, which is scheduled for later this year. Both the prosecution and defense are preparing for a high-stakes trial that could ultimately hinge on expert testimony, forensic evidence, and competing narratives. As the legal battle continues, the case remains a focal point of public and media interest, drawing attention to issues of justice, law enforcement, and accountability. #KarenRead #JohnOKeefe #BostonNews #CourtUpdates #TrueCrime #JusticeSystem #Massachusetts Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Karen Read is returning to court Tuesday for a motions hearing ahead of her retrial on second-degree murder charges in the death of her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe. The case has captured widespread attention, marked by allegations of foul play, contentious expert testimony, and a mistrial last summer. Prosecutors allege that Read, 43, drove drunk after a night out and struck O'Keefe, 46, with her car before leaving him to die in a snowbank near his Canton home. Read's defense, however, claims she is being framed by investigators, casting doubt on the credibility of the case against her. “We have evidence of a rushed and incomplete investigation,” said Read's attorney. “Karen Read is innocent, and we intend to prove this in court.” The upcoming Daubert hearing, a critical step in the pretrial process, will examine the admissibility of expert testimony. One key witness is Dr. Marie Russell, who previously testified about injuries O'Keefe sustained, including dog bites, raising questions about the timeline and circumstances of his death. During the first trial, Dr. Russell's analysis of wounds on O'Keefe's body played a pivotal role in the defense's argument that the injuries may not have been caused by Read's vehicle. Prosecutors, however, counter that the evidence overwhelmingly supports their theory of the crime. “The evidence shows a tragic but clear sequence of events: Karen Read struck John O'Keefe with her vehicle and left him in the snow,” said a representative for the Commonwealth. The case has been mired in controversy since the beginning. Critics have questioned the investigation's integrity, while supporters of both O'Keefe and Read have expressed frustration over delays and legal wrangling. The mistrial declared in July 2024, stemming from undisclosed issues during jury deliberations, added another layer of complexity. Despite the contentious nature of the case, Read maintains her innocence. “This has been a nightmare, but I believe the truth will come out,” Read stated in a previous court appearance. The motions hearing is expected to address procedural matters and the scope of evidence admissible in the retrial, which is scheduled for later this year. Both the prosecution and defense are preparing for a high-stakes trial that could ultimately hinge on expert testimony, forensic evidence, and competing narratives. As the legal battle continues, the case remains a focal point of public and media interest, drawing attention to issues of justice, law enforcement, and accountability. #KarenRead #JohnOKeefe #BostonNews #CourtUpdates #TrueCrime #JusticeSystem #Massachusetts Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Karen Read is returning to court Tuesday for a motions hearing ahead of her retrial on second-degree murder charges in the death of her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe. The case has captured widespread attention, marked by allegations of foul play, contentious expert testimony, and a mistrial last summer. Prosecutors allege that Read, 43, drove drunk after a night out and struck O'Keefe, 46, with her car before leaving him to die in a snowbank near his Canton home. Read's defense, however, claims she is being framed by investigators, casting doubt on the credibility of the case against her. “We have evidence of a rushed and incomplete investigation,” said Read's attorney. “Karen Read is innocent, and we intend to prove this in court.” The upcoming Daubert hearing, a critical step in the pretrial process, will examine the admissibility of expert testimony. One key witness is Dr. Marie Russell, who previously testified about injuries O'Keefe sustained, including dog bites, raising questions about the timeline and circumstances of his death. During the first trial, Dr. Russell's analysis of wounds on O'Keefe's body played a pivotal role in the defense's argument that the injuries may not have been caused by Read's vehicle. Prosecutors, however, counter that the evidence overwhelmingly supports their theory of the crime. “The evidence shows a tragic but clear sequence of events: Karen Read struck John O'Keefe with her vehicle and left him in the snow,” said a representative for the Commonwealth. The case has been mired in controversy since the beginning. Critics have questioned the investigation's integrity, while supporters of both O'Keefe and Read have expressed frustration over delays and legal wrangling. The mistrial declared in July 2024, stemming from undisclosed issues during jury deliberations, added another layer of complexity. Despite the contentious nature of the case, Read maintains her innocence. “This has been a nightmare, but I believe the truth will come out,” Read stated in a previous court appearance. The motions hearing is expected to address procedural matters and the scope of evidence admissible in the retrial, which is scheduled for later this year. Both the prosecution and defense are preparing for a high-stakes trial that could ultimately hinge on expert testimony, forensic evidence, and competing narratives. As the legal battle continues, the case remains a focal point of public and media interest, drawing attention to issues of justice, law enforcement, and accountability. #KarenRead #JohnOKeefe #BostonNews #CourtUpdates #TrueCrime #JusticeSystem #Massachusetts Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Karen Read returned to court Tuesday for a motions hearing ahead of her retrial on second-degree murder charges in the death of her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe. The case has captured widespread attention, marked by allegations of foul play, contentious expert testimony, and a mistrial last summer. Prosecutors allege that Read, 43, drove drunk after a night out and struck O'Keefe, 46, with her car before leaving him to die in a snowbank near his Canton home. Read's defense, however, claims she is being framed by investigators, casting doubt on the credibility of the case against her. “We have evidence of a rushed and incomplete investigation,” said Read's attorney. “Karen Read is innocent, and we intend to prove this in court.” The upcoming Daubert hearing, a critical step in the pretrial process, will examine the admissibility of expert testimony. One key witness is Dr. Marie Russell, who previously testified about injuries O'Keefe sustained, including dog bites, raising questions about the timeline and circumstances of his death. During the first trial, Dr. Russell's analysis of wounds on O'Keefe's body played a pivotal role in the defense's argument that the injuries may not have been caused by Read's vehicle. Prosecutors, however, counter that the evidence overwhelmingly supports their theory of the crime. “The evidence shows a tragic but clear sequence of events: Karen Read struck John O'Keefe with her vehicle and left him in the snow,” said a representative for the Commonwealth. The case has been mired in controversy since the beginning. Critics have questioned the investigation's integrity, while supporters of both O'Keefe and Read have expressed frustration over delays and legal wrangling. The mistrial declared in July 2024, stemming from undisclosed issues during jury deliberations, added another layer of complexity. Despite the contentious nature of the case, Read maintains her innocence. “This has been a nightmare, but I believe the truth will come out,” Read stated in a previous court appearance. The motions hearing is expected to address procedural matters and the scope of evidence admissible in the retrial, which is scheduled for later this year. Both the prosecution and defense are preparing for a high-stakes trial that could ultimately hinge on expert testimony, forensic evidence, and competing narratives. As the legal battle continues, the case remains a focal point of public and media interest, drawing attention to issues of justice, law enforcement, and accountability. #KarenRead #JohnOKeefe #BostonNews #CourtUpdates #TrueCrime #JusticeSystem #Massachusetts Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Karen Read is back in court for a Daubert Hearing. Dr. Russell is the Defense Expert Witness and is being questioned by both the Defense and the Prosecution to see if the testimony should come into the Re-Trial. Dr. Russell explained why she thinks the marks on John O'Keefe are specifically from a dog attack which is different than what she said on the stand in the first trial when she said it might be from a dog bite. The Prosecution was not done questioning Dr. Russell but it was time for court to end. It is scheduled to resume on Jan 7th, 2025, at 9am ET.A Daubert Hearing is used to challenge an expert witness. The Judge acts as the gatekeeper of the evidence when determining if there is sufficient reliability for admissibility under FRE 702. The court can examine the methodology and reasoning behind the expert's opinion.Watch the full coverage: https://youtube.com/live/MjU4nGT3TSsRESOURCESPrevious Voir Dire of Dr. Russell - https://youtube.com/live/Wzt0SgXLa7k Previous Testimony of Dr. Russell - https://youtube.com/live/-y57V1lkXeUThis podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Spotify Ad Analytics - https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/ad-analytics-privacy-policy/Podscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacy

The retrial of Karen Read, accused of killing her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe, has been delayed following a joint motion from both the defense and prosecution. The delay, granted by Judge Beverly Cannone, allows additional time for both sides to prepare as they navigate disputes over key evidence and expert testimony. Read, 44, is charged with second-degree murder and related offenses in connection with the January 2022 death of O'Keefe. His body was discovered in the snow outside a Canton home after a night of drinking. Prosecutors allege that Read struck O'Keefe with her SUV and left him to die, while her defense argues she is the victim of a cover-up involving law enforcement and others. The retrial was initially scheduled to begin in January 2025. Both parties, however, requested the delay, proposing an April 1, 2025, start date. In their motion, attorneys cited the need for "adequate time" to prepare due to new evidence and expert analysis that will be presented. Judge Cannone approved the motion and indicated that final scheduling details would be discussed at a Dec. 12 hearing. This hearing will also address the defense's attempt to introduce testimony from Dr. Marie Russell, a veterinarian who testified in the first trial. Dr. Russell has argued that O'Keefe's injuries could be attributed to dog bites rather than being struck by a vehicle. Prosecutors are challenging her qualifications as an expert witness, with a Daubert hearing set to assess whether her testimony meets the legal standards for relevance and reliability. Read's defense continues to assert her innocence, alleging she has been framed in a conspiracy involving law enforcement and others. Her attorney, David Yannetti, has pointed to perceived irregularities in the investigation, including inconsistencies in how damage to Read's SUV was documented. “There is overwhelming evidence that Karen Read is the victim of a miscarriage of justice,” Yannetti said. “We are confident the retrial will expose the truth.” The first trial, which ended in a mistrial in July 2024, saw jurors deadlocked on a manslaughter charge but reportedly leaning toward acquittal on more serious counts. Read's legal team has since appealed to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to dismiss some of the charges, arguing that the jury's findings in the first trial support her claims of innocence. Prosecutors maintain that Read acted with reckless disregard for O'Keefe's safety. They contend that she struck him with her SUV and failed to seek help, leaving him to succumb to the elements. Efforts to strengthen their case in the retrial have included requests for additional forensic testing of Read's SUV and obtaining recordings from interviews involving Read and her family. Judge Cannone recently denied a prosecution request to access phone records from Read's parents but approved their request to analyze unedited interview recordings. Complicating matters further is a civil lawsuit filed by O'Keefe's family against Read and the establishments where the couple had been drinking before his death. A judge has paused depositions and discovery in the civil case until the conclusion of the criminal retrial. As both sides prepare for the upcoming trial, the Dec. 12 hearing will play a crucial role in determining the scope of evidence and testimony that can be presented. The retrial remains a focal point for those closely watching the legal battle, which has raised questions about the intersection of law enforcement, justice, and personal relationships. #KarenRead #JohnOKeefe #Retrial #JusticeSystem #LegalNews #MassachusettsCrime #CourtUpdates Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com 

The retrial of Karen Read, accused of killing her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe, has been delayed following a joint motion from both the defense and prosecution. The delay, granted by Judge Beverly Cannone, allows additional time for both sides to prepare as they navigate disputes over key evidence and expert testimony. Read, 44, is charged with second-degree murder and related offenses in connection with the January 2022 death of O'Keefe. His body was discovered in the snow outside a Canton home after a night of drinking. Prosecutors allege that Read struck O'Keefe with her SUV and left him to die, while her defense argues she is the victim of a cover-up involving law enforcement and others. The retrial was initially scheduled to begin in January 2025. Both parties, however, requested the delay, proposing an April 1, 2025, start date. In their motion, attorneys cited the need for "adequate time" to prepare due to new evidence and expert analysis that will be presented. Judge Cannone approved the motion and indicated that final scheduling details would be discussed at a Dec. 12 hearing. This hearing will also address the defense's attempt to introduce testimony from Dr. Marie Russell, a veterinarian who testified in the first trial. Dr. Russell has argued that O'Keefe's injuries could be attributed to dog bites rather than being struck by a vehicle. Prosecutors are challenging her qualifications as an expert witness, with a Daubert hearing set to assess whether her testimony meets the legal standards for relevance and reliability. Read's defense continues to assert her innocence, alleging she has been framed in a conspiracy involving law enforcement and others. Her attorney, David Yannetti, has pointed to perceived irregularities in the investigation, including inconsistencies in how damage to Read's SUV was documented. “There is overwhelming evidence that Karen Read is the victim of a miscarriage of justice,” Yannetti said. “We are confident the retrial will expose the truth.” The first trial, which ended in a mistrial in July 2024, saw jurors deadlocked on a manslaughter charge but reportedly leaning toward acquittal on more serious counts. Read's legal team has since appealed to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to dismiss some of the charges, arguing that the jury's findings in the first trial support her claims of innocence. Prosecutors maintain that Read acted with reckless disregard for O'Keefe's safety. They contend that she struck him with her SUV and failed to seek help, leaving him to succumb to the elements. Efforts to strengthen their case in the retrial have included requests for additional forensic testing of Read's SUV and obtaining recordings from interviews involving Read and her family. Judge Cannone recently denied a prosecution request to access phone records from Read's parents but approved their request to analyze unedited interview recordings. Complicating matters further is a civil lawsuit filed by O'Keefe's family against Read and the establishments where the couple had been drinking before his death. A judge has paused depositions and discovery in the civil case until the conclusion of the criminal retrial. As both sides prepare for the upcoming trial, the Dec. 12 hearing will play a crucial role in determining the scope of evidence and testimony that can be presented. The retrial remains a focal point for those closely watching the legal battle, which has raised questions about the intersection of law enforcement, justice, and personal relationships. #KarenRead #JohnOKeefe #Retrial #JusticeSystem #LegalNews #MassachusettsCrime #CourtUpdates Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

The retrial of Karen Read, accused of killing her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe, has been delayed following a joint motion from both the defense and prosecution. The delay, granted by Judge Beverly Cannone, allows additional time for both sides to prepare as they navigate disputes over key evidence and expert testimony. Read, 44, is charged with second-degree murder and related offenses in connection with the January 2022 death of O'Keefe. His body was discovered in the snow outside a Canton home after a night of drinking. Prosecutors allege that Read struck O'Keefe with her SUV and left him to die, while her defense argues she is the victim of a cover-up involving law enforcement and others. The retrial was initially scheduled to begin in January 2025. Both parties, however, requested the delay, proposing an April 1, 2025, start date. In their motion, attorneys cited the need for "adequate time" to prepare due to new evidence and expert analysis that will be presented. Judge Cannone approved the motion and indicated that final scheduling details would be discussed at a Dec. 12 hearing. This hearing will also address the defense's attempt to introduce testimony from Dr. Marie Russell, a veterinarian who testified in the first trial. Dr. Russell has argued that O'Keefe's injuries could be attributed to dog bites rather than being struck by a vehicle. Prosecutors are challenging her qualifications as an expert witness, with a Daubert hearing set to assess whether her testimony meets the legal standards for relevance and reliability. Read's defense continues to assert her innocence, alleging she has been framed in a conspiracy involving law enforcement and others. Her attorney, David Yannetti, has pointed to perceived irregularities in the investigation, including inconsistencies in how damage to Read's SUV was documented. “There is overwhelming evidence that Karen Read is the victim of a miscarriage of justice,” Yannetti said. “We are confident the retrial will expose the truth.” The first trial, which ended in a mistrial in July 2024, saw jurors deadlocked on a manslaughter charge but reportedly leaning toward acquittal on more serious counts. Read's legal team has since appealed to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to dismiss some of the charges, arguing that the jury's findings in the first trial support her claims of innocence. Prosecutors maintain that Read acted with reckless disregard for O'Keefe's safety. They contend that she struck him with her SUV and failed to seek help, leaving him to succumb to the elements. Efforts to strengthen their case in the retrial have included requests for additional forensic testing of Read's SUV and obtaining recordings from interviews involving Read and her family. Judge Cannone recently denied a prosecution request to access phone records from Read's parents but approved their request to analyze unedited interview recordings. Complicating matters further is a civil lawsuit filed by O'Keefe's family against Read and the establishments where the couple had been drinking before his death. A judge has paused depositions and discovery in the civil case until the conclusion of the criminal retrial. As both sides prepare for the upcoming trial, the Dec. 12 hearing will play a crucial role in determining the scope of evidence and testimony that can be presented. The retrial remains a focal point for those closely watching the legal battle, which has raised questions about the intersection of law enforcement, justice, and personal relationships. #KarenRead #JohnOKeefe #Retrial #JusticeSystem #LegalNews #MassachusettsCrime #CourtUpdates Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

The case number 1:22-cv-10904-JSR involves a memorandum filed by the Government of the United States Virgin Islands (USVI) to exclude expert opinions provided by Kimberly Mehlman-Orozco, Joseph Fonseca, and Carlyn Irwin. Here's a summary of the key points from the memorandum:OverviewThe USVI government filed a motion to exclude the testimony and opinions of three experts retained by the defendants. The motion argues that the expert opinions should not be admitted due to issues related to their relevance, reliability, and qualifications under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the standards set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Arguments for ExclusionKimberly Mehlman-Orozco:Lack of Relevance and Fit: The USVI government argues that Mehlman-Orozco's opinions are not relevant to the facts of the case. Her testimony focuses on human trafficking but does not directly connect to the specific issues at hand in this litigation.Methodological Flaws: The memorandum contends that Mehlman-Orozco's methods lack the scientific rigor required for expert testimony, questioning the reliability of her conclusions.Joseph Fonseca:Qualifications and Relevance: Fonseca is challenged on the basis of his qualifications, with the USVI government arguing that his expertise is not directly applicable to the matters of the case. His opinions are also argued to be speculative and lacking a sufficient factual basis.Methodological Issues: Similar to Mehlman-Orozco, the USVI government asserts that Fonseca's methodologies are unreliable and do not meet the standards for admissible expert testimony.Carlyn Irwin:Lack of Expertise: The memorandum questions Irwin's qualifications, stating that her experience and background do not sufficiently establish her as an expert in the specific issues being litigated.Speculative Opinions: Irwin's opinions are claimed to be speculative and not grounded in a reliable methodology, making them inappropriate for consideration by the court.(commercial at 9:36)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.289.0_2.pdf (courtlistener.com)

The case number 1:22-cv-10904-JSR involves a memorandum filed by the Government of the United States Virgin Islands (USVI) to exclude expert opinions provided by Kimberly Mehlman-Orozco, Joseph Fonseca, and Carlyn Irwin. Here's a summary of the key points from the memorandum:OverviewThe USVI government filed a motion to exclude the testimony and opinions of three experts retained by the defendants. The motion argues that the expert opinions should not be admitted due to issues related to their relevance, reliability, and qualifications under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the standards set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Arguments for ExclusionKimberly Mehlman-Orozco:Lack of Relevance and Fit: The USVI government argues that Mehlman-Orozco's opinions are not relevant to the facts of the case. Her testimony focuses on human trafficking but does not directly connect to the specific issues at hand in this litigation.Methodological Flaws: The memorandum contends that Mehlman-Orozco's methods lack the scientific rigor required for expert testimony, questioning the reliability of her conclusions.Joseph Fonseca:Qualifications and Relevance: Fonseca is challenged on the basis of his qualifications, with the USVI government arguing that his expertise is not directly applicable to the matters of the case. His opinions are also argued to be speculative and lacking a sufficient factual basis.Methodological Issues: Similar to Mehlman-Orozco, the USVI government asserts that Fonseca's methodologies are unreliable and do not meet the standards for admissible expert testimony.Carlyn Irwin:Lack of Expertise: The memorandum questions Irwin's qualifications, stating that her experience and background do not sufficiently establish her as an expert in the specific issues being litigated.Speculative Opinions: Irwin's opinions are claimed to be speculative and not grounded in a reliable methodology, making them inappropriate for consideration by the court.(commercial at 8:10)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.289.0_2.pdf (courtlistener.com)

The case number 1:22-cv-10904-JSR involves a memorandum filed by the Government of the United States Virgin Islands (USVI) to exclude expert opinions provided by Kimberly Mehlman-Orozco, Joseph Fonseca, and Carlyn Irwin. Here's a summary of the key points from the memorandum:OverviewThe USVI government filed a motion to exclude the testimony and opinions of three experts retained by the defendants. The motion argues that the expert opinions should not be admitted due to issues related to their relevance, reliability, and qualifications under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the standards set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Arguments for ExclusionKimberly Mehlman-Orozco:Lack of Relevance and Fit: The USVI government argues that Mehlman-Orozco's opinions are not relevant to the facts of the case. Her testimony focuses on human trafficking but does not directly connect to the specific issues at hand in this litigation.Methodological Flaws: The memorandum contends that Mehlman-Orozco's methods lack the scientific rigor required for expert testimony, questioning the reliability of her conclusions.Joseph Fonseca:Qualifications and Relevance: Fonseca is challenged on the basis of his qualifications, with the USVI government arguing that his expertise is not directly applicable to the matters of the case. His opinions are also argued to be speculative and lacking a sufficient factual basis.Methodological Issues: Similar to Mehlman-Orozco, the USVI government asserts that Fonseca's methodologies are unreliable and do not meet the standards for admissible expert testimony.Carlyn Irwin:Lack of Expertise: The memorandum questions Irwin's qualifications, stating that her experience and background do not sufficiently establish her as an expert in the specific issues being litigated.Speculative Opinions: Irwin's opinions are claimed to be speculative and not grounded in a reliable methodology, making them inappropriate for consideration by the court.(commercial at 8:10)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.289.0_2.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The case number 1:22-cv-10904-JSR involves a memorandum filed by the Government of the United States Virgin Islands (USVI) to exclude expert opinions provided by Kimberly Mehlman-Orozco, Joseph Fonseca, and Carlyn Irwin. Here's a summary of the key points from the memorandum:OverviewThe USVI government filed a motion to exclude the testimony and opinions of three experts retained by the defendants. The motion argues that the expert opinions should not be admitted due to issues related to their relevance, reliability, and qualifications under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the standards set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Arguments for ExclusionKimberly Mehlman-Orozco:Lack of Relevance and Fit: The USVI government argues that Mehlman-Orozco's opinions are not relevant to the facts of the case. Her testimony focuses on human trafficking but does not directly connect to the specific issues at hand in this litigation.Methodological Flaws: The memorandum contends that Mehlman-Orozco's methods lack the scientific rigor required for expert testimony, questioning the reliability of her conclusions.Joseph Fonseca:Qualifications and Relevance: Fonseca is challenged on the basis of his qualifications, with the USVI government arguing that his expertise is not directly applicable to the matters of the case. His opinions are also argued to be speculative and lacking a sufficient factual basis.Methodological Issues: Similar to Mehlman-Orozco, the USVI government asserts that Fonseca's methodologies are unreliable and do not meet the standards for admissible expert testimony.Carlyn Irwin:Lack of Expertise: The memorandum questions Irwin's qualifications, stating that her experience and background do not sufficiently establish her as an expert in the specific issues being litigated.Speculative Opinions: Irwin's opinions are claimed to be speculative and not grounded in a reliable methodology, making them inappropriate for consideration by the court.(commercial at 9:27)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.289.0_2.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The case number 1:22-cv-10904-JSR involves a memorandum filed by the Government of the United States Virgin Islands (USVI) to exclude expert opinions provided by Kimberly Mehlman-Orozco, Joseph Fonseca, and Carlyn Irwin. Here's a summary of the key points from the memorandum:OverviewThe USVI government filed a motion to exclude the testimony and opinions of three experts retained by the defendants. The motion argues that the expert opinions should not be admitted due to issues related to their relevance, reliability, and qualifications under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the standards set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Arguments for ExclusionKimberly Mehlman-Orozco:Lack of Relevance and Fit: The USVI government argues that Mehlman-Orozco's opinions are not relevant to the facts of the case. Her testimony focuses on human trafficking but does not directly connect to the specific issues at hand in this litigation.Methodological Flaws: The memorandum contends that Mehlman-Orozco's methods lack the scientific rigor required for expert testimony, questioning the reliability of her conclusions.Joseph Fonseca:Qualifications and Relevance: Fonseca is challenged on the basis of his qualifications, with the USVI government arguing that his expertise is not directly applicable to the matters of the case. His opinions are also argued to be speculative and lacking a sufficient factual basis.Methodological Issues: Similar to Mehlman-Orozco, the USVI government asserts that Fonseca's methodologies are unreliable and do not meet the standards for admissible expert testimony.Carlyn Irwin:Lack of Expertise: The memorandum questions Irwin's qualifications, stating that her experience and background do not sufficiently establish her as an expert in the specific issues being litigated.Speculative Opinions: Irwin's opinions are claimed to be speculative and not grounded in a reliable methodology, making them inappropriate for consideration by the court.(commercial at 9:35)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.289.0_2.pdf (courtlistener.com)

The case number 1:22-cv-10904-JSR involves a memorandum filed by the Government of the United States Virgin Islands (USVI) to exclude expert opinions provided by Kimberly Mehlman-Orozco, Joseph Fonseca, and Carlyn Irwin. Here's a summary of the key points from the memorandum:OverviewThe USVI government filed a motion to exclude the testimony and opinions of three experts retained by the defendants. The motion argues that the expert opinions should not be admitted due to issues related to their relevance, reliability, and qualifications under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the standards set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Arguments for ExclusionKimberly Mehlman-Orozco:Lack of Relevance and Fit: The USVI government argues that Mehlman-Orozco's opinions are not relevant to the facts of the case. Her testimony focuses on human trafficking but does not directly connect to the specific issues at hand in this litigation.Methodological Flaws: The memorandum contends that Mehlman-Orozco's methods lack the scientific rigor required for expert testimony, questioning the reliability of her conclusions.Joseph Fonseca:Qualifications and Relevance: Fonseca is challenged on the basis of his qualifications, with the USVI government arguing that his expertise is not directly applicable to the matters of the case. His opinions are also argued to be speculative and lacking a sufficient factual basis.Methodological Issues: Similar to Mehlman-Orozco, the USVI government asserts that Fonseca's methodologies are unreliable and do not meet the standards for admissible expert testimony.Carlyn Irwin:Lack of Expertise: The memorandum questions Irwin's qualifications, stating that her experience and background do not sufficiently establish her as an expert in the specific issues being litigated.Speculative Opinions: Irwin's opinions are claimed to be speculative and not grounded in a reliable methodology, making them inappropriate for consideration by the court.(commercial at 7:01)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.289.0_2.pdf (courtlistener.com)

The case number 1:22-cv-10904-JSR involves a memorandum filed by the Government of the United States Virgin Islands (USVI) to exclude expert opinions provided by Kimberly Mehlman-Orozco, Joseph Fonseca, and Carlyn Irwin. Here's a summary of the key points from the memorandum:OverviewThe USVI government filed a motion to exclude the testimony and opinions of three experts retained by the defendants. The motion argues that the expert opinions should not be admitted due to issues related to their relevance, reliability, and qualifications under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the standards set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Arguments for ExclusionKimberly Mehlman-Orozco:Lack of Relevance and Fit: The USVI government argues that Mehlman-Orozco's opinions are not relevant to the facts of the case. Her testimony focuses on human trafficking but does not directly connect to the specific issues at hand in this litigation.Methodological Flaws: The memorandum contends that Mehlman-Orozco's methods lack the scientific rigor required for expert testimony, questioning the reliability of her conclusions.Joseph Fonseca:Qualifications and Relevance: Fonseca is challenged on the basis of his qualifications, with the USVI government arguing that his expertise is not directly applicable to the matters of the case. His opinions are also argued to be speculative and lacking a sufficient factual basis.Methodological Issues: Similar to Mehlman-Orozco, the USVI government asserts that Fonseca's methodologies are unreliable and do not meet the standards for admissible expert testimony.Carlyn Irwin:Lack of Expertise: The memorandum questions Irwin's qualifications, stating that her experience and background do not sufficiently establish her as an expert in the specific issues being litigated.Speculative Opinions: Irwin's opinions are claimed to be speculative and not grounded in a reliable methodology, making them inappropriate for consideration by the court.(commercial at 9:07)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.289.0_2.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The case number 1:22-cv-10904-JSR involves a memorandum filed by the Government of the United States Virgin Islands (USVI) to exclude expert opinions provided by Kimberly Mehlman-Orozco, Joseph Fonseca, and Carlyn Irwin. Here's a summary of the key points from the memorandum:OverviewThe USVI government filed a motion to exclude the testimony and opinions of three experts retained by the defendants. The motion argues that the expert opinions should not be admitted due to issues related to their relevance, reliability, and qualifications under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the standards set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Arguments for ExclusionKimberly Mehlman-Orozco:Lack of Relevance and Fit: The USVI government argues that Mehlman-Orozco's opinions are not relevant to the facts of the case. Her testimony focuses on human trafficking but does not directly connect to the specific issues at hand in this litigation.Methodological Flaws: The memorandum contends that Mehlman-Orozco's methods lack the scientific rigor required for expert testimony, questioning the reliability of her conclusions.Joseph Fonseca:Qualifications and Relevance: Fonseca is challenged on the basis of his qualifications, with the USVI government arguing that his expertise is not directly applicable to the matters of the case. His opinions are also argued to be speculative and lacking a sufficient factual basis.Methodological Issues: Similar to Mehlman-Orozco, the USVI government asserts that Fonseca's methodologies are unreliable and do not meet the standards for admissible expert testimony.Carlyn Irwin:Lack of Expertise: The memorandum questions Irwin's qualifications, stating that her experience and background do not sufficiently establish her as an expert in the specific issues being litigated.Speculative Opinions: Irwin's opinions are claimed to be speculative and not grounded in a reliable methodology, making them inappropriate for consideration by the court.(commercial at 7:01)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.289.0_2.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Summary of Case Number: 1:22-cv-10904-JSR - Third-Party Defendant James Staley's Brief in Support of His Motion to Exclude JPMorgan Chase Bank's Proffered Expert OpinionsIn this case, James Staley, a third-party defendant, has filed a brief supporting his motion to exclude expert opinions presented by JPMorgan Chase Bank. The core arguments of Staley's brief are:Lack of Relevance and Reliability: Staley argues that the expert opinions submitted by JPMorgan Chase Bank do not meet the legal standards of relevance and reliability required under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the Daubert standard. He contends that the opinions are speculative, not based on sufficient facts or data, and do not employ reliable principles and methods.Failure to Establish a Sufficient Basis for Opinions: Staley claims that the experts have not provided a proper factual foundation for their opinions. He argues that the expert reports lack direct connection to the specific facts of the case and fail to address how the opinions would help the court understand the evidence or determine facts in issue.Prejudice and Confusion: The brief also highlights concerns that allowing these expert opinions could cause unfair prejudice against Staley and confuse the jury. Staley argues that the expert opinions could lead the jury to rely on unsubstantiated and misleading conclusions, which would be unfair and unjust.Request for Exclusion: Based on these arguments, Staley requests the court to exclude the expert testimonies and opinions presented by JPMorgan Chase Bank in their entirety, asserting that their inclusion would violate legal standards and potentially harm the integrity of the judicial process.Overall, Staley's motion aims to prevent the introduction of what he considers to be flawed and unhelpful expert opinions that could negatively influence the outcome of the case.(commercial at 7:39)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.342.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)

Summary of Case Number: 1:22-cv-10904-JSR - Third-Party Defendant James Staley's Brief in Support of His Motion to Exclude JPMorgan Chase Bank's Proffered Expert OpinionsIn this case, James Staley, a third-party defendant, has filed a brief supporting his motion to exclude expert opinions presented by JPMorgan Chase Bank. The core arguments of Staley's brief are:Lack of Relevance and Reliability: Staley argues that the expert opinions submitted by JPMorgan Chase Bank do not meet the legal standards of relevance and reliability required under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the Daubert standard. He contends that the opinions are speculative, not based on sufficient facts or data, and do not employ reliable principles and methods.Failure to Establish a Sufficient Basis for Opinions: Staley claims that the experts have not provided a proper factual foundation for their opinions. He argues that the expert reports lack direct connection to the specific facts of the case and fail to address how the opinions would help the court understand the evidence or determine facts in issue.Prejudice and Confusion: The brief also highlights concerns that allowing these expert opinions could cause unfair prejudice against Staley and confuse the jury. Staley argues that the expert opinions could lead the jury to rely on unsubstantiated and misleading conclusions, which would be unfair and unjust.Request for Exclusion: Based on these arguments, Staley requests the court to exclude the expert testimonies and opinions presented by JPMorgan Chase Bank in their entirety, asserting that their inclusion would violate legal standards and potentially harm the integrity of the judicial process.Overall, Staley's motion aims to prevent the introduction of what he considers to be flawed and unhelpful expert opinions that could negatively influence the outcome of the case.(commercial at 7:39)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.342.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)

Summary of Case Number: 1:22-cv-10904-JSR - Third-Party Defendant James Staley's Brief in Support of His Motion to Exclude JPMorgan Chase Bank's Proffered Expert OpinionsIn this case, James Staley, a third-party defendant, has filed a brief supporting his motion to exclude expert opinions presented by JPMorgan Chase Bank. The core arguments of Staley's brief are:Lack of Relevance and Reliability: Staley argues that the expert opinions submitted by JPMorgan Chase Bank do not meet the legal standards of relevance and reliability required under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the Daubert standard. He contends that the opinions are speculative, not based on sufficient facts or data, and do not employ reliable principles and methods.Failure to Establish a Sufficient Basis for Opinions: Staley claims that the experts have not provided a proper factual foundation for their opinions. He argues that the expert reports lack direct connection to the specific facts of the case and fail to address how the opinions would help the court understand the evidence or determine facts in issue.Prejudice and Confusion: The brief also highlights concerns that allowing these expert opinions could cause unfair prejudice against Staley and confuse the jury. Staley argues that the expert opinions could lead the jury to rely on unsubstantiated and misleading conclusions, which would be unfair and unjust.Request for Exclusion: Based on these arguments, Staley requests the court to exclude the expert testimonies and opinions presented by JPMorgan Chase Bank in their entirety, asserting that their inclusion would violate legal standards and potentially harm the integrity of the judicial process.Overall, Staley's motion aims to prevent the introduction of what he considers to be flawed and unhelpful expert opinions that could negatively influence the outcome of the case.(commercial at 7:39)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.342.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.