Podcasts about Supreme Judicial Court

On the evening of May 10, 1988, a passing driver on Howard Street in Brockton, MA, stopped to investigate something unusual on the side of the road. When the driver got closer to what they thought was a bag, they realized it was actually the body of twenty-four-year-old Anthony LoConte, bleeding badly from injuries to his face and head.Initially, investigators believed LoConte was the victim of a hit-and-run accident; however, when the coroner examined the body, he discovered a bullet hole in the back of LoConte's head, indicating that he'd been murdered.It took twelve years for investigators to track down LoConte's killer, but in the winter of 2000, California Highway Patrol arrested Robert Morganti on drug charges and a quick background check connected them to a 1988 warrant for Morganti for the murder of Anthony LoConte. Robert Morganti was extradited back to Massachusetts, where he was tried, convicted, and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for LoConte's murder. However, due to a controversial 2024 law concerning life sentences for young offenders, Robert Morganti could be granted parole in the near future.Consider signing the petition by visiting https://www.change.org/p/help-uncle-tony-uphold-mandatory-life-sentences-in-massachusetts-bill-s942 .Thank you to the Incredible Dave White of Bring Me the Axe Podcast for research and Writing support!ReferencesBoston Globe. 1988. "Police believe drugs are linked to slaying of Brockton man." Boston Globe, May 12: 35.Boyle, Maureen. 2000. "Murder suspect caught in Calif." The Enterprise (Brockton, MA), March 21: 1.Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Robert J. Morganti. 2009. SJC-09830 (Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Plymouth, November 25).Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Robert J. Morganti. 2014. SJC-11281 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, February 12).Peterson, Dave. 2000. "Murder suspect's long flght ends in Modesto." Modesto Bee, March 21: 1.Stern, Amelia. 2025. 'No remorse': Taunton woman devastated by ruling that could free her brother's killer. April 25. Accessed May 04, 2025. https://www.tauntongazette.com/story/news/courts/2025/04/25/taunton-ma-brockton-anthony-loconte-murder-victim-sjc-robert-morganti-parole/83271252007/.Stay in the know - wondery.fm/morbid-wondery.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Karen Read Appealed the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Ruling that stated there was no verdict and therefore no double jeopardy. The defense's arguments for dismissal is based on the lack of "manifest necessity" for a mistrial. A look at the United States v. Tribio Lugo case and its relevance to Karen Read's situation might be an open door to get counts 1 and 3 dismissed. With so much happening in this complex case, it's hard to keep up. I'll guide you through the legal maze and explain what it all means for Karen Read's future.Watch the full coverage: https://youtube.com/live/hQjZkiAIVkcRESOURCESSJC Ruling - https://youtube.com/live/rbYylRyjISkHalted Hearing - https://youtube.com/live/M5p-UrfGKDYCase Law from First District Ruling - https://casetext.com/case/us-v-toribio-lugoBreakdown of Count 2 and Lesser Included - https://youtu.be/zRH39FlfYJIThis 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 Supreme Judicial Court denied Karen Read's motion regarding dismissing counts 1 and 3. Trooper Michael Proctor, the lead investigator, is undergoing disciplinary hearings. These hearings are currently ongoing and Day 3 will continue in March.The Re-trial is scheduled for April 1st. The defense is requesting the court to order the prosecution to produce all video evidence and associated metadata in a forensically sound manner. We are still waiting for the defense to file their Motion to Dismiss and the deadline is Feb 20th.Watch the full coverage: https://youtube.com/live/rbYylRyjISkThis 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 GOP lawmakers said their omnibus legislation would change the Supreme Judicial Court's 2017 Lunn decision, by allowing state courts and law enforcement to honor Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainers in the case of "violent offenders."

Steve and Jenn are joined by State House News Service reporter Alison Kuznitz to break down the drama on Beacon Hill over an audit of the Legislature and calls for transparency. Plus, an exclusive look at the Supreme Judicial Court's ruling on Milton and the MBTA Communities Act.

It's been nearly a year since authorities shut down a brothel ring operating in Cambridge and Watertown. We ask listeners whether they think the names of the Johns should be released by the Supreme Judicial Court. MIT Professors Daron Acemoglu & Simon Johnson discuss their Nobel prize-winning research on global inequality and AI in the workforce.Charlie Sennott of the GroundTruth Project discusses Biden authorizing Ukraine's use of long-range missiles for strikes inside Russia, as Russia launches a major attack on Ukraine's power system.State auditor Diana DiZoglio discusses state legislators moving to have an outside firm conduct the audit that voters approved DiZoglio's office to do.For our text prompt of the day: should Massachusetts follow New York in ditching broker fees, and would that be enough to ease the pain for renters here?Khalil Gibran Muhammad discusses the intersection of academics, race, and politics. He'll discuss how white nationalism partly fueled Trump's election win and threats to the education system under another Trump presidency. Ahead of Black Friday, we ended the show to ask listeners about pros and pitfalls of online returns.

Control Body Odor ANYWHERE with @lumedeodorant and get 15% off with promo code EDBQB at https://LumeDeodorant.com! #lumepod #adSarah Boone wants a new trial. Karen Read's case was heard by the Supreme Judicial Court. Bryan Kohberger had a hearing to go over the Death Penalty Motions. The government is not having it with Tom Girardi. The estate of the show's creator, ER, sued Warner Brothers. There are updates with the Peanut the Squirrel situation. The MA Supreme Judicial Court changed the law of the land that has been standing since the 1960s.RESOURCESThe Viall Files - https://youtu.be/QgYm_KEP1oESo Bad It's Good with Ryan Bailey - https://youtu.be/4cOBcJnL48oThis 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/privacyChartable - https://chartable.com/privacy

Karen Read, charged twice in the death of Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe, has opened up about her ongoing legal battle, strained personal life, and unyielding quest for justice in an interview with *Vanity Fair*. Speaking to reporter Julie Miller, who was granted unrestricted access, Read shared insights into her life since O'Keefe's death and the impact of her highly publicized case. In what Vanity Fair described as a series of candid, in-home interviews, Read, 44, invited Miller to her former Mansfield residence in August. Read opened up about her relationship with O'Keefe, her pending retrial, and the toll her legal battles have taken. Miller reported that Read, who has been staying with family and friends, chose her previous home as the setting for the interviews. She was joined by a volunteer security guard, described by Miller as someone “who looks like John Cena and has a license to carry.” Facing an uncertain future, Read has prepared for the possibility of another arrest, keeping a Ziploc “go bag” on hand with essentials: Advil, melatonin, a toothbrush and toothpaste, a hairbrush, lipstick, and foundation, as well as her lawyer's phone number. “I'm not backing down now,” Read told Vanity Fair, despite the looming prospect of a life sentence if convicted. According to Read, she won't entertain the idea of a plea deal, even under the risk of severe penalties. “As scary as a potential conviction is, I will go to jail for something I didn't do before I plea out. I will never give them that win.” Read, a former Fidelity Investments analyst and Bentley University finance professor, has assembled a team of criminal defense attorneys, but the cost of her legal defense has been steep. She has sold her home to offset expenses and is now living off the remains of her 401(k), accruing more than $5 million in legal fees. “If I can get the entire truth of this case out in the public forum, that, to me, is priceless,” she said. At the core of her defense are allegations that O'Keefe, her boyfriend of two years, was the victim of a violent cover-up involving other Boston police officers. Prosecutors argue that Read deliberately ran him over in her SUV after an evening out on January 29, 2022, a claim her defense refutes, asserting that O'Keefe was beaten by others. In July, her case resulted in a mistrial, and her legal team has appealed to Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court to dismiss two of the charges ahead of a scheduled retrial in January. Reflecting on her relationship with O'Keefe, Read described challenges in their dynamic, with disagreements over his role as a disciplinarian for his niece and nephew, who lived with him. According to Read, O'Keefe struggled to mourn his late sister, the children's mother, and remained hesitant about seeking therapy. “I think that's part of his stock,” Read told Vanity Fair, “this Irish Catholic, south-of-Boston, rub-some-dirt-on-it, drink-through-your-problems mindset.” In detailing the night of O'Keefe's death, Read recalled attending a gathering at the Waterfall Bar & Grille in Canton, after which she and O'Keefe joined others at an afterparty. Feeling uneasy upon arrival, she sent O'Keefe inside, only to leave after he didn't return. She admitted to a fleeting thought that he might be “screwing around,” explaining, “I didn't think he was physically incapacitated.” She left him multiple voicemails before heading home. Prosecutors, who highlight Read's flirty exchanges with O'Keefe's acquaintance Brian Higgins, argue that these interactions hint at motives for the crime. In response, Read openly admitted to seeking validation from Higgins. “I knew Higgins found me attractive,” she said, “It helped me emotionally validate myself, which is embarrassing to admit.” Amid the stress of her case, Read has remained steadfast about her innocence. Addressing rumors that she implicated herself in texts, she explained to Vanity Fair that she and her attorney, David Yannetti, only began communicating after police seized her phone. She said she initially told her parents, “If I did anything in any way, I'll pay my dues. That's how this should work. I want to know the truth — good, bad, ugly.” Read's retrial is set to bring her story back into the public eye, with high stakes and public scrutiny on both her legal and personal lives. 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, charged twice in the death of Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe, has opened up about her ongoing legal battle, strained personal life, and unyielding quest for justice in an interview with *Vanity Fair*. Speaking to reporter Julie Miller, who was granted unrestricted access, Read shared insights into her life since O'Keefe's death and the impact of her highly publicized case. In what Vanity Fair described as a series of candid, in-home interviews, Read, 44, invited Miller to her former Mansfield residence in August. Read opened up about her relationship with O'Keefe, her pending retrial, and the toll her legal battles have taken. Miller reported that Read, who has been staying with family and friends, chose her previous home as the setting for the interviews. She was joined by a volunteer security guard, described by Miller as someone “who looks like John Cena and has a license to carry.” Facing an uncertain future, Read has prepared for the possibility of another arrest, keeping a Ziploc “go bag” on hand with essentials: Advil, melatonin, a toothbrush and toothpaste, a hairbrush, lipstick, and foundation, as well as her lawyer's phone number. “I'm not backing down now,” Read told Vanity Fair, despite the looming prospect of a life sentence if convicted. According to Read, she won't entertain the idea of a plea deal, even under the risk of severe penalties. “As scary as a potential conviction is, I will go to jail for something I didn't do before I plea out. I will never give them that win.” Read, a former Fidelity Investments analyst and Bentley University finance professor, has assembled a team of criminal defense attorneys, but the cost of her legal defense has been steep. She has sold her home to offset expenses and is now living off the remains of her 401(k), accruing more than $5 million in legal fees. “If I can get the entire truth of this case out in the public forum, that, to me, is priceless,” she said. At the core of her defense are allegations that O'Keefe, her boyfriend of two years, was the victim of a violent cover-up involving other Boston police officers. Prosecutors argue that Read deliberately ran him over in her SUV after an evening out on January 29, 2022, a claim her defense refutes, asserting that O'Keefe was beaten by others. In July, her case resulted in a mistrial, and her legal team has appealed to Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court to dismiss two of the charges ahead of a scheduled retrial in January. Reflecting on her relationship with O'Keefe, Read described challenges in their dynamic, with disagreements over his role as a disciplinarian for his niece and nephew, who lived with him. According to Read, O'Keefe struggled to mourn his late sister, the children's mother, and remained hesitant about seeking therapy. “I think that's part of his stock,” Read told Vanity Fair, “this Irish Catholic, south-of-Boston, rub-some-dirt-on-it, drink-through-your-problems mindset.” In detailing the night of O'Keefe's death, Read recalled attending a gathering at the Waterfall Bar & Grille in Canton, after which she and O'Keefe joined others at an afterparty. Feeling uneasy upon arrival, she sent O'Keefe inside, only to leave after he didn't return. She admitted to a fleeting thought that he might be “screwing around,” explaining, “I didn't think he was physically incapacitated.” She left him multiple voicemails before heading home. Prosecutors, who highlight Read's flirty exchanges with O'Keefe's acquaintance Brian Higgins, argue that these interactions hint at motives for the crime. In response, Read openly admitted to seeking validation from Higgins. “I knew Higgins found me attractive,” she said, “It helped me emotionally validate myself, which is embarrassing to admit.” Amid the stress of her case, Read has remained steadfast about her innocence. Addressing rumors that she implicated herself in texts, she explained to Vanity Fair that she and her attorney, David Yannetti, only began communicating after police seized her phone. She said she initially told her parents, “If I did anything in any way, I'll pay my dues. That's how this should work. I want to know the truth — good, bad, ugly.” Read's retrial is set to bring her story back into the public eye, with high stakes and public scrutiny on both her legal and personal lives. 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, charged twice in the death of Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe, has opened up about her ongoing legal battle, strained personal life, and unyielding quest for justice in an interview with *Vanity Fair*. Speaking to reporter Julie Miller, who was granted unrestricted access, Read shared insights into her life since O'Keefe's death and the impact of her highly publicized case. In what Vanity Fair described as a series of candid, in-home interviews, Read, 44, invited Miller to her former Mansfield residence in August. Read opened up about her relationship with O'Keefe, her pending retrial, and the toll her legal battles have taken. Miller reported that Read, who has been staying with family and friends, chose her previous home as the setting for the interviews. She was joined by a volunteer security guard, described by Miller as someone “who looks like John Cena and has a license to carry.” Facing an uncertain future, Read has prepared for the possibility of another arrest, keeping a Ziploc “go bag” on hand with essentials: Advil, melatonin, a toothbrush and toothpaste, a hairbrush, lipstick, and foundation, as well as her lawyer's phone number. “I'm not backing down now,” Read told Vanity Fair, despite the looming prospect of a life sentence if convicted. According to Read, she won't entertain the idea of a plea deal, even under the risk of severe penalties. “As scary as a potential conviction is, I will go to jail for something I didn't do before I plea out. I will never give them that win.” Read, a former Fidelity Investments analyst and Bentley University finance professor, has assembled a team of criminal defense attorneys, but the cost of her legal defense has been steep. She has sold her home to offset expenses and is now living off the remains of her 401(k), accruing more than $5 million in legal fees. “If I can get the entire truth of this case out in the public forum, that, to me, is priceless,” she said. At the core of her defense are allegations that O'Keefe, her boyfriend of two years, was the victim of a violent cover-up involving other Boston police officers. Prosecutors argue that Read deliberately ran him over in her SUV after an evening out on January 29, 2022, a claim her defense refutes, asserting that O'Keefe was beaten by others. In July, her case resulted in a mistrial, and her legal team has appealed to Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court to dismiss two of the charges ahead of a scheduled retrial in January. Reflecting on her relationship with O'Keefe, Read described challenges in their dynamic, with disagreements over his role as a disciplinarian for his niece and nephew, who lived with him. According to Read, O'Keefe struggled to mourn his late sister, the children's mother, and remained hesitant about seeking therapy. “I think that's part of his stock,” Read told Vanity Fair, “this Irish Catholic, south-of-Boston, rub-some-dirt-on-it, drink-through-your-problems mindset.” In detailing the night of O'Keefe's death, Read recalled attending a gathering at the Waterfall Bar & Grille in Canton, after which she and O'Keefe joined others at an afterparty. Feeling uneasy upon arrival, she sent O'Keefe inside, only to leave after he didn't return. She admitted to a fleeting thought that he might be “screwing around,” explaining, “I didn't think he was physically incapacitated.” She left him multiple voicemails before heading home. Prosecutors, who highlight Read's flirty exchanges with O'Keefe's acquaintance Brian Higgins, argue that these interactions hint at motives for the crime. In response, Read openly admitted to seeking validation from Higgins. “I knew Higgins found me attractive,” she said, “It helped me emotionally validate myself, which is embarrassing to admit.” Amid the stress of her case, Read has remained steadfast about her innocence. Addressing rumors that she implicated herself in texts, she explained to Vanity Fair that she and her attorney, David Yannetti, only began communicating after police seized her phone. She said she initially told her parents, “If I did anything in any way, I'll pay my dues. That's how this should work. I want to know the truth — good, bad, ugly.” Read's retrial is set to bring her story back into the public eye, with high stakes and public scrutiny on both her legal and personal lives. 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, charged twice in the death of Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe, has opened up about her ongoing legal battle, strained personal life, and unyielding quest for justice in an interview with *Vanity Fair*. Speaking to reporter Julie Miller, who was granted unrestricted access, Read shared insights into her life since O'Keefe's death and the impact of her highly publicized case. In what Vanity Fair described as a series of candid, in-home interviews, Read, 44, invited Miller to her former Mansfield residence in August. Read opened up about her relationship with O'Keefe, her pending retrial, and the toll her legal battles have taken. Miller reported that Read, who has been staying with family and friends, chose her previous home as the setting for the interviews. She was joined by a volunteer security guard, described by Miller as someone “who looks like John Cena and has a license to carry.” Facing an uncertain future, Read has prepared for the possibility of another arrest, keeping a Ziploc “go bag” on hand with essentials: Advil, melatonin, a toothbrush and toothpaste, a hairbrush, lipstick, and foundation, as well as her lawyer's phone number. “I'm not backing down now,” Read told Vanity Fair, despite the looming prospect of a life sentence if convicted. According to Read, she won't entertain the idea of a plea deal, even under the risk of severe penalties. “As scary as a potential conviction is, I will go to jail for something I didn't do before I plea out. I will never give them that win.” Read, a former Fidelity Investments analyst and Bentley University finance professor, has assembled a team of criminal defense attorneys, but the cost of her legal defense has been steep. She has sold her home to offset expenses and is now living off the remains of her 401(k), accruing more than $5 million in legal fees. “If I can get the entire truth of this case out in the public forum, that, to me, is priceless,” she said. At the core of her defense are allegations that O'Keefe, her boyfriend of two years, was the victim of a violent cover-up involving other Boston police officers. Prosecutors argue that Read deliberately ran him over in her SUV after an evening out on January 29, 2022, a claim her defense refutes, asserting that O'Keefe was beaten by others. In July, her case resulted in a mistrial, and her legal team has appealed to Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court to dismiss two of the charges ahead of a scheduled retrial in January. Reflecting on her relationship with O'Keefe, Read described challenges in their dynamic, with disagreements over his role as a disciplinarian for his niece and nephew, who lived with him. According to Read, O'Keefe struggled to mourn his late sister, the children's mother, and remained hesitant about seeking therapy. “I think that's part of his stock,” Read told Vanity Fair, “this Irish Catholic, south-of-Boston, rub-some-dirt-on-it, drink-through-your-problems mindset.” In detailing the night of O'Keefe's death, Read recalled attending a gathering at the Waterfall Bar & Grille in Canton, after which she and O'Keefe joined others at an afterparty. Feeling uneasy upon arrival, she sent O'Keefe inside, only to leave after he didn't return. She admitted to a fleeting thought that he might be “screwing around,” explaining, “I didn't think he was physically incapacitated.” She left him multiple voicemails before heading home. Prosecutors, who highlight Read's flirty exchanges with O'Keefe's acquaintance Brian Higgins, argue that these interactions hint at motives for the crime. In response, Read openly admitted to seeking validation from Higgins. “I knew Higgins found me attractive,” she said, “It helped me emotionally validate myself, which is embarrassing to admit.” Amid the stress of her case, Read has remained steadfast about her innocence. Addressing rumors that she implicated herself in texts, she explained to Vanity Fair that she and her attorney, David Yannetti, only began communicating after police seized her phone. She said she initially told her parents, “If I did anything in any way, I'll pay my dues. That's how this should work. I want to know the truth — good, bad, ugly.” Read's retrial is set to bring her story back into the public eye, with high stakes and public scrutiny on both her legal and personal lives. 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

It's likely most primary voters did not recognize one of the most contested races on the ballot – the race for Clerk of the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County, which drew big money and high-ranking endorsements. It's also likely that even the informed voters have no idea what Clerks of Courts do or why it is an elected position. So “Under the Radar” decided to go straight to the source – candidates Allison Cartwright, future Clerk of the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County, and John Powers, Suffolk County Clerk of Courts for Civil Business, to learn more.

The American Civil Liberties Union is supporting Karen Read and her appeal to the Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court, arguing that the judge presiding over the case declared a mistrial too quickly and failed to take the appropriate steps to ensure she's protected against double jeopardy. Dan discussed.Ask Alexa to play WBZ NewsRadio on #iHeartRadio and listen to NightSide with Dan Rea Weeknights From 8PM-12AM!

Attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Massachusetts have submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) of Massachusetts in support of Karen Read's ongoing legal battle. Read, a former adjunct professor from Mansfield, is appealing to have two charges dismissed in her murder case. The ACLU's brief was accepted by the court but did not immediately reveal their stance or include a summary of their position. Karen Read faces accusations related to the death of Boston police officer John O'Keefe, who prosecutors claim was struck by Read's SUV and left to die in the snow following a night out in Canton. Read, however, maintains her innocence, contending that O'Keefe was assaulted inside the house of another Boston officer, Brian Albert, before being left outside. Her first trial ended in a mistrial after the jury, comprising six men and six women, reached a deadlock. Some jurors have since come forward, stating they had reached a consensus to acquit her of the charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene. Following the mistrial, Read's defense sought to have these two charges dismissed. Judge Beverly Cannone denied this motion, leading to the appeal now before the SJC. Read's legal team contends that the jury's alleged agreement should constitute an acquittal on these counts and argues that protections against double jeopardy should prevent a retrial on the charges. “The court relied solely upon the lack of an ‘open and public verdict affirmed in open court,'” the defense wrote, referencing Judge Cannone's decision. “This reasoning is rooted in a formalism that has been consistently rejected by the United States Supreme Court and this Court in a string of precedents spanning more than one hundred years.” The defense also believes that the Supreme Judicial Court should allow a post-trial inquiry into the jury's statements, which they argue constitutes an “overt factor” that should prompt further investigation. Additionally, they are questioning Judge Cannone's decision to declare a mistrial when she did, given the alleged consensus from the jurors. District Attorney Michael Morrissey, responding to the appeal, has appointed Attorney Hank Brennan as special prosecutor for Read's case. Brennan, known for his work in other high-profile cases, will lead the prosecution when Read's second trial, currently scheduled for January 27, begins. The Norfolk District Attorney's Office stated that their response to Read's appeal will be submitted by the court's deadline, with Read's attorneys expected to reply shortly after. Should the  Supreme Judicial Court side with Read's defense and dismiss the charges, it would mark a significant development in a case that has drawn extensive public and media attention. If the charges are upheld, Read faces up to life in prison for second-degree murder, as well as significant penalties on charges of manslaughter while operating under the influence and leaving the scene of a personal injury and death. Throughout the trial, prosecutors faced setbacks, including complications with surveillance footage and misconduct among investigators, which has contributed to the intense scrutiny of the case. The defense has also raised these issues in their appeal, seeking to underscore what they argue are critical flaws in the prosecution's case. With oral arguments scheduled to take place before the SJC, Read and her legal team are preparing for a pivotal hearing that could determine the course of the upcoming trial. For now, the court's decision will hinge on whether the defense's arguments regarding jury consensus, double jeopardy, and procedural conduct are persuasive enough to merit the dismissal of charges or, at the very least, a re-evaluation of the trial's conduct. 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, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Massachusetts have submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) of Massachusetts in support of Karen Read's ongoing legal battle. Read, a former adjunct professor from Mansfield, is appealing to have two charges dismissed in her murder case. The ACLU's brief was accepted by the court but did not immediately reveal their stance or include a summary of their position. Karen Read faces accusations related to the death of Boston police officer John O'Keefe, who prosecutors claim was struck by Read's SUV and left to die in the snow following a night out in Canton. Read, however, maintains her innocence, contending that O'Keefe was assaulted inside the house of another Boston officer, Brian Albert, before being left outside. Her first trial ended in a mistrial after the jury, comprising six men and six women, reached a deadlock. Some jurors have since come forward, stating they had reached a consensus to acquit her of the charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene. Following the mistrial, Read's defense sought to have these two charges dismissed. Judge Beverly Cannone denied this motion, leading to the appeal now before the SJC. Read's legal team contends that the jury's alleged agreement should constitute an acquittal on these counts and argues that protections against double jeopardy should prevent a retrial on the charges. “The court relied solely upon the lack of an ‘open and public verdict affirmed in open court,'” the defense wrote, referencing Judge Cannone's decision. “This reasoning is rooted in a formalism that has been consistently rejected by the United States Supreme Court and this Court in a string of precedents spanning more than one hundred years.” The defense also believes that the Supreme Judicial Court should allow a post-trial inquiry into the jury's statements, which they argue constitutes an “overt factor” that should prompt further investigation. Additionally, they are questioning Judge Cannone's decision to declare a mistrial when she did, given the alleged consensus from the jurors. District Attorney Michael Morrissey, responding to the appeal, has appointed Attorney Hank Brennan as special prosecutor for Read's case. Brennan, known for his work in other high-profile cases, will lead the prosecution when Read's second trial, currently scheduled for January 27, begins. The Norfolk District Attorney's Office stated that their response to Read's appeal will be submitted by the court's deadline, with Read's attorneys expected to reply shortly after. Should the  Supreme Judicial Court side with Read's defense and dismiss the charges, it would mark a significant development in a case that has drawn extensive public and media attention. If the charges are upheld, Read faces up to life in prison for second-degree murder, as well as significant penalties on charges of manslaughter while operating under the influence and leaving the scene of a personal injury and death. Throughout the trial, prosecutors faced setbacks, including complications with surveillance footage and misconduct among investigators, which has contributed to the intense scrutiny of the case. The defense has also raised these issues in their appeal, seeking to underscore what they argue are critical flaws in the prosecution's case. With oral arguments scheduled to take place before the SJC, Read and her legal team are preparing for a pivotal hearing that could determine the course of the upcoming trial. For now, the court's decision will hinge on whether the defense's arguments regarding jury consensus, double jeopardy, and procedural conduct are persuasive enough to merit the dismissal of charges or, at the very least, a re-evaluation of the trial's conduct. 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, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Massachusetts have submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) of Massachusetts in support of Karen Read's ongoing legal battle. Read, a former adjunct professor from Mansfield, is appealing to have two charges dismissed in her murder case. The ACLU's brief was accepted by the court but did not immediately reveal their stance or include a summary of their position. Karen Read faces accusations related to the death of Boston police officer John O'Keefe, who prosecutors claim was struck by Read's SUV and left to die in the snow following a night out in Canton. Read, however, maintains her innocence, contending that O'Keefe was assaulted inside the house of another Boston officer, Brian Albert, before being left outside. Her first trial ended in a mistrial after the jury, comprising six men and six women, reached a deadlock. Some jurors have since come forward, stating they had reached a consensus to acquit her of the charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene. Following the mistrial, Read's defense sought to have these two charges dismissed. Judge Beverly Cannone denied this motion, leading to the appeal now before the SJC. Read's legal team contends that the jury's alleged agreement should constitute an acquittal on these counts and argues that protections against double jeopardy should prevent a retrial on the charges. “The court relied solely upon the lack of an ‘open and public verdict affirmed in open court,'” the defense wrote, referencing Judge Cannone's decision. “This reasoning is rooted in a formalism that has been consistently rejected by the United States Supreme Court and this Court in a string of precedents spanning more than one hundred years.” The defense also believes that the Supreme Judicial Court should allow a post-trial inquiry into the jury's statements, which they argue constitutes an “overt factor” that should prompt further investigation. Additionally, they are questioning Judge Cannone's decision to declare a mistrial when she did, given the alleged consensus from the jurors. District Attorney Michael Morrissey, responding to the appeal, has appointed Attorney Hank Brennan as special prosecutor for Read's case. Brennan, known for his work in other high-profile cases, will lead the prosecution when Read's second trial, currently scheduled for January 27, begins. The Norfolk District Attorney's Office stated that their response to Read's appeal will be submitted by the court's deadline, with Read's attorneys expected to reply shortly after. Should the  Supreme Judicial Court side with Read's defense and dismiss the charges, it would mark a significant development in a case that has drawn extensive public and media attention. If the charges are upheld, Read faces up to life in prison for second-degree murder, as well as significant penalties on charges of manslaughter while operating under the influence and leaving the scene of a personal injury and death. Throughout the trial, prosecutors faced setbacks, including complications with surveillance footage and misconduct among investigators, which has contributed to the intense scrutiny of the case. The defense has also raised these issues in their appeal, seeking to underscore what they argue are critical flaws in the prosecution's case. With oral arguments scheduled to take place before the SJC, Read and her legal team are preparing for a pivotal hearing that could determine the course of the upcoming trial. For now, the court's decision will hinge on whether the defense's arguments regarding jury consensus, double jeopardy, and procedural conduct are persuasive enough to merit the dismissal of charges or, at the very least, a re-evaluation of the trial's conduct. 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, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Massachusetts have submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) of Massachusetts in support of Karen Read's ongoing legal battle. Read, a former adjunct professor from Mansfield, is appealing to have two charges dismissed in her murder case. The ACLU's brief was accepted by the court but did not immediately reveal their stance or include a summary of their position. Karen Read faces accusations related to the death of Boston police officer John O'Keefe, who prosecutors claim was struck by Read's SUV and left to die in the snow following a night out in Canton. Read, however, maintains her innocence, contending that O'Keefe was assaulted inside the house of another Boston officer, Brian Albert, before being left outside. Her first trial ended in a mistrial after the jury, comprising six men and six women, reached a deadlock. Some jurors have since come forward, stating they had reached a consensus to acquit her of the charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene. Following the mistrial, Read's defense sought to have these two charges dismissed. Judge Beverly Cannone denied this motion, leading to the appeal now before the SJC. Read's legal team contends that the jury's alleged agreement should constitute an acquittal on these counts and argues that protections against double jeopardy should prevent a retrial on the charges. “The court relied solely upon the lack of an ‘open and public verdict affirmed in open court,'” the defense wrote, referencing Judge Cannone's decision. “This reasoning is rooted in a formalism that has been consistently rejected by the United States Supreme Court and this Court in a string of precedents spanning more than one hundred years.” The defense also believes that the Supreme Judicial Court should allow a post-trial inquiry into the jury's statements, which they argue constitutes an “overt factor” that should prompt further investigation. Additionally, they are questioning Judge Cannone's decision to declare a mistrial when she did, given the alleged consensus from the jurors. District Attorney Michael Morrissey, responding to the appeal, has appointed Attorney Hank Brennan as special prosecutor for Read's case. Brennan, known for his work in other high-profile cases, will lead the prosecution when Read's second trial, currently scheduled for January 27, begins. The Norfolk District Attorney's Office stated that their response to Read's appeal will be submitted by the court's deadline, with Read's attorneys expected to reply shortly after. Should the  Supreme Judicial Court side with Read's defense and dismiss the charges, it would mark a significant development in a case that has drawn extensive public and media attention. If the charges are upheld, Read faces up to life in prison for second-degree murder, as well as significant penalties on charges of manslaughter while operating under the influence and leaving the scene of a personal injury and death. Throughout the trial, prosecutors faced setbacks, including complications with surveillance footage and misconduct among investigators, which has contributed to the intense scrutiny of the case. The defense has also raised these issues in their appeal, seeking to underscore what they argue are critical flaws in the prosecution's case. With oral arguments scheduled to take place before the SJC, Read and her legal team are preparing for a pivotal hearing that could determine the course of the upcoming trial. For now, the court's decision will hinge on whether the defense's arguments regarding jury consensus, double jeopardy, and procedural conduct are persuasive enough to merit the dismissal of charges or, at the very least, a re-evaluation of the trial's conduct. 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, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Use code EmilyBakerClass at https://www.GreenChef.com/emilybaker50 to get 50% off your first box, plus 20% off your next two months!Control Body Odor ANYWHERE with @lumedeodorant and get 15% off with promo code LAWNERD at https://LumeDeodorant.com! #lumepod #adGo to https://shopify.com/lawnerd now to grow your business – no matter what stage you're in.Karen Read's attorneys filed their Opening Briefs to the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts. The prosecution's response is due by October 16th and then Read will have a chance to reply by October 25th. Oral Arguments will most likely be at the end of November 2024 to hopefully get a decision by December 2024. There is a high likelihood that the defense will ask for the retrial to be scheduled further out.The Baby Reindeer Civil Lawsuit has a trial date set for May 2025. Netflix has filed a request for Dismissal and Anti-SLAPP. Netflix provided a Declaration from Richard Gadd including many exhibits proving Fiona Harvey sent Richard Gadd harassing emails, text messages, voice mails, and also accusations of stalking a Member of Parliaments' wife.These exhibits show that Harvey did do the things detailed in the mini series but was not a "beat by beat" recount of what happened. The Judge made a ruling by denying the Anti-SLAPP and dismissed some of the causes of action from Fiona's case; only leaving the Defamation and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. The line in the Netflix show that said, “this is a true story” was false and can imply malice because it can lead the viewer to believe that all of the things that happened in the series were true when that is not the case. It is likely that the case will go to mediation and settle out of court.Netflix is being sued for defamation by John Wilson for the documentary: Operation Varsity Blues - The College Admissions Scandal. John Wilson had almost all of his convictions overturned on appeal and that was not included in the documentary. Netflix lost the motion to dismiss and will be moving forward with discovery.RESOURCESKaren Read - Affidavit of Juror Doe - https://www.youtube.com/live/3VgRq1V7Wb8?t=18884s The $170 Million Baby Reindeer Lawsuit - https://youtu.be/WJrHwK_48d4Buster Murdaugh Sues Netflix - https://youtu.be/Zan5PlYEeJAThis 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/privacyChartable - https://chartable.com/privacy

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has agreed to review Karen Read's murder case, marking a significant development in the ongoing legal battle surrounding the death of Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe. Read, 44, is accused of striking O'Keefe with her SUV on the night of January 29, 2022, and leaving him outside to die in a snowstorm after a night of drinking. Read has consistently denied the allegations, with her defense arguing that O'Keefe was assaulted at a home in Canton, Massachusetts, before being left outside. Supreme Judicial Court Justice Elizabeth Dewar issued a court filing stating, “I hereby reserve and report this case, without decision, for determination by the Supreme Judicial Court for the Commonwealth. The parties shall prepare and file in the full court a comprehensive statement of agreed facts necessary to resolve the issues raised by the petition.” This decision sets the stage for oral arguments in November, with briefs due in September and October. This decision follows an appeal filed by Read's attorney seeking to overturn a ruling by Norfolk Superior Court Judge Beverly Cannone, who denied a motion to dismiss two of the three charges against Read—second-degree murder and leaving the scene of a deadly crash. The appeal focuses on testimony from jurors who claimed they were prepared to acquit Read of these charges during her first trial, which ended in a mistrial after the jury declared themselves hopelessly deadlocked. "After careful consideration, this court concludes that because the defendant was not acquitted on any of the charges and defense counsel consented to the court's declaration of a mistrial, double jeopardy is not implicated by retrial of the defendant," Judge Cannone wrote in her decision. The defense argued that retrying Read would violate double jeopardy protections, given the jury's stance during deliberations. Read's legal team is preparing to submit a principal brief on the case by September 25, with prosecutors required to file their response by October 16. Read's attorneys will have until October 25 to reply to the prosecution's brief, with oral arguments expected to take place in November. The case has garnered significant public attention due to conflicting narratives surrounding O'Keefe's death. Prosecutors allege that Read struck O'Keefe with her vehicle outside the Canton home of fellow Boston Police Officer Brian Albert, leaving him to die in the cold. The defense, however, contends that O'Keefe was dragged outside after being beaten in the basement and bitten by a dog. The mistrial in Read's first trial occurred on July 1, when the jury of six women and six men informed the court that they were deadlocked. The defense immediately requested the dismissal of the charges, citing reports from several jurors who said they were prepared to acquit Read on the charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene. Karen Read's future now hinges on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's decision, with many eagerly awaiting the court's ruling on her appeal. 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, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, 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 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has agreed to review Karen Read's murder case, marking a significant development in the ongoing legal battle surrounding the death of Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe. Read, 44, is accused of striking O'Keefe with her SUV on the night of January 29, 2022, and leaving him outside to die in a snowstorm after a night of drinking. Read has consistently denied the allegations, with her defense arguing that O'Keefe was assaulted at a home in Canton, Massachusetts, before being left outside. Supreme Judicial Court Justice Elizabeth Dewar issued a court filing stating, “I hereby reserve and report this case, without decision, for determination by the Supreme Judicial Court for the Commonwealth. The parties shall prepare and file in the full court a comprehensive statement of agreed facts necessary to resolve the issues raised by the petition.” This decision sets the stage for oral arguments in November, with briefs due in September and October. This decision follows an appeal filed by Read's attorney seeking to overturn a ruling by Norfolk Superior Court Judge Beverly Cannone, who denied a motion to dismiss two of the three charges against Read—second-degree murder and leaving the scene of a deadly crash. The appeal focuses on testimony from jurors who claimed they were prepared to acquit Read of these charges during her first trial, which ended in a mistrial after the jury declared themselves hopelessly deadlocked. "After careful consideration, this court concludes that because the defendant was not acquitted on any of the charges and defense counsel consented to the court's declaration of a mistrial, double jeopardy is not implicated by retrial of the defendant," Judge Cannone wrote in her decision. The defense argued that retrying Read would violate double jeopardy protections, given the jury's stance during deliberations. Read's legal team is preparing to submit a principal brief on the case by September 25, with prosecutors required to file their response by October 16. Read's attorneys will have until October 25 to reply to the prosecution's brief, with oral arguments expected to take place in November. The case has garnered significant public attention due to conflicting narratives surrounding O'Keefe's death. Prosecutors allege that Read struck O'Keefe with her vehicle outside the Canton home of fellow Boston Police Officer Brian Albert, leaving him to die in the cold. The defense, however, contends that O'Keefe was dragged outside after being beaten in the basement and bitten by a dog. The mistrial in Read's first trial occurred on July 1, when the jury of six women and six men informed the court that they were deadlocked. The defense immediately requested the dismissal of the charges, citing reports from several jurors who said they were prepared to acquit Read on the charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene. Karen Read's future now hinges on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's decision, with many eagerly awaiting the court's ruling on her appeal. 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, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, 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 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has agreed to review Karen Read's murder case, marking a significant development in the ongoing legal battle surrounding the death of Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe. Read, 44, is accused of striking O'Keefe with her SUV on the night of January 29, 2022, and leaving him outside to die in a snowstorm after a night of drinking. Read has consistently denied the allegations, with her defense arguing that O'Keefe was assaulted at a home in Canton, Massachusetts, before being left outside. Supreme Judicial Court Justice Elizabeth Dewar issued a court filing stating, “I hereby reserve and report this case, without decision, for determination by the Supreme Judicial Court for the Commonwealth. The parties shall prepare and file in the full court a comprehensive statement of agreed facts necessary to resolve the issues raised by the petition.” This decision sets the stage for oral arguments in November, with briefs due in September and October. This decision follows an appeal filed by Read's attorney seeking to overturn a ruling by Norfolk Superior Court Judge Beverly Cannone, who denied a motion to dismiss two of the three charges against Read—second-degree murder and leaving the scene of a deadly crash. The appeal focuses on testimony from jurors who claimed they were prepared to acquit Read of these charges during her first trial, which ended in a mistrial after the jury declared themselves hopelessly deadlocked. "After careful consideration, this court concludes that because the defendant was not acquitted on any of the charges and defense counsel consented to the court's declaration of a mistrial, double jeopardy is not implicated by retrial of the defendant," Judge Cannone wrote in her decision. The defense argued that retrying Read would violate double jeopardy protections, given the jury's stance during deliberations. Read's legal team is preparing to submit a principal brief on the case by September 25, with prosecutors required to file their response by October 16. Read's attorneys will have until October 25 to reply to the prosecution's brief, with oral arguments expected to take place in November. The case has garnered significant public attention due to conflicting narratives surrounding O'Keefe's death. Prosecutors allege that Read struck O'Keefe with her vehicle outside the Canton home of fellow Boston Police Officer Brian Albert, leaving him to die in the cold. The defense, however, contends that O'Keefe was dragged outside after being beaten in the basement and bitten by a dog. The mistrial in Read's first trial occurred on July 1, when the jury of six women and six men informed the court that they were deadlocked. The defense immediately requested the dismissal of the charges, citing reports from several jurors who said they were prepared to acquit Read on the charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene. Karen Read's future now hinges on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's decision, with many eagerly awaiting the court's ruling on her appeal. 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, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, 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 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has agreed to review Karen Read's murder case, marking a significant development in the ongoing legal battle surrounding the death of Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe. Read, 44, is accused of striking O'Keefe with her SUV on the night of January 29, 2022, and leaving him outside to die in a snowstorm after a night of drinking. Read has consistently denied the allegations, with her defense arguing that O'Keefe was assaulted at a home in Canton, Massachusetts, before being left outside. Supreme Judicial Court Justice Elizabeth Dewar issued a court filing stating, “I hereby reserve and report this case, without decision, for determination by the Supreme Judicial Court for the Commonwealth. The parties shall prepare and file in the full court a comprehensive statement of agreed facts necessary to resolve the issues raised by the petition.” This decision sets the stage for oral arguments in November, with briefs due in September and October. This decision follows an appeal filed by Read's attorney seeking to overturn a ruling by Norfolk Superior Court Judge Beverly Cannone, who denied a motion to dismiss two of the three charges against Read—second-degree murder and leaving the scene of a deadly crash. The appeal focuses on testimony from jurors who claimed they were prepared to acquit Read of these charges during her first trial, which ended in a mistrial after the jury declared themselves hopelessly deadlocked. "After careful consideration, this court concludes that because the defendant was not acquitted on any of the charges and defense counsel consented to the court's declaration of a mistrial, double jeopardy is not implicated by retrial of the defendant," Judge Cannone wrote in her decision. The defense argued that retrying Read would violate double jeopardy protections, given the jury's stance during deliberations. Read's legal team is preparing to submit a principal brief on the case by September 25, with prosecutors required to file their response by October 16. Read's attorneys will have until October 25 to reply to the prosecution's brief, with oral arguments expected to take place in November. The case has garnered significant public attention due to conflicting narratives surrounding O'Keefe's death. Prosecutors allege that Read struck O'Keefe with her vehicle outside the Canton home of fellow Boston Police Officer Brian Albert, leaving him to die in the cold. The defense, however, contends that O'Keefe was dragged outside after being beaten in the basement and bitten by a dog. The mistrial in Read's first trial occurred on July 1, when the jury of six women and six men informed the court that they were deadlocked. The defense immediately requested the dismissal of the charges, citing reports from several jurors who said they were prepared to acquit Read on the charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene. Karen Read's future now hinges on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's decision, with many eagerly awaiting the court's ruling on her appeal. 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, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Rebecca Tushnet, the Frank Stanton Professor of the First Amendment at Harvard Law, joins Radio Boston to discuss the engagement ring case before the Supreme Judicial Court.

Use code EmilyBakerClass at https://www.GreenChef.com/EmilyBakerClass to get 50% off, plus 50 free ClassPass credits!Justin Timberlake pleaded guilty to a traffic infraction driving while ability impaired to resolve his DWI case in the Hamptons. The public safety announcement in front of the Sag Harbor Police Department was part of the plea deal that knocked down the misdemeanor charge he was facing to a non-criminal traffic violation.Karen Read filed an appeal to motion to dismiss counts one and three to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. The defense argues that the jury acquitted Karen of charges one and three even though they didn't mark it on the jury forms. They relitigate that retrying her for counts one and three violates double jeopardy. They are asking for oral arguments.On Thursday, September 12th, 2024, Harvey Weinstein was indicted again in New York. According to Law360 reporting, the indictment will remain sealed until Weinstein is arraigned, which has yet to happen due to his deteriorating health. According to Weinstein's representative he was rushed to the hospital on Sunday, September 8th, 2024, for emergency open heart surgery.In his status conference in Illinois, Girardi wasn't present and prosecutors asked to continue to the pre-trial conferences until December 18th, 2024. They indicated that they may drop the charges against Girardi after his sentencing on December 6th, 2024 in Los Angeles.The Bryan Kohberger trial moves to Ada County's Fourth District located in Boise and gets appointed a new judge, Judge Steven Hippler. This means that trial dates and other deadlines are now subject to change.In the infamous viral clip, Redden is accused of leaping over the bench and attacking a Las Vegas Judge Holthus. He was charged with Attempted Murder of a victim 60 years of age or older. On the second day, after hearing the testimony of Judge Holthus and her law clerk, Redden pleaded Guilty but Mentally Ill. He has a sentencing Hearing on November 7th.This 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/privacyChartable - https://chartable.com/privacy

The Honorable Justice Elspeth B Cypher (Retired) left her appointment on the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts to become the most-interviewed yet least-heard Heterodorx guest. Cypher discusses the Biden administrations attempts to replace sex with gender in Title IX, and the efforts of 20+ states and Moms for Liberty to push back. We also cover women in Afghanistan, the Chevron Doctrine, federal money held over foster care, Tickle vs. Giggle, Tennessee vs Cardona, stays, staying stays, appeals, districts, the MA Supreme Court-to-TERF pipeline, faith in the judicial system, why pi does not equal 3 in Indiana, making unpopular decisions as a judge, retroactively transing Ruth “Theyder” Ginsburg, biological height, masculinity, fighting oppression with more oppression, flexibility vs functionality of law, hijacking compassion, and boobs. Cori gives Elspeth his Trans Blessing but doesn't have enough testosterone to give Nina his Andro-Blessing, proving once again there is no justice.  Links: The Alabama case Cori was talking about: https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202211707.2.pdf scold's bridle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scold%27s_bridle WoLF: https://womensliberationfront.org/ Chevron Doctrine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natural_Resources_Defense_Council,_Inc. https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/us-supreme-court-strikes-down-chevron-doctrine-what-you-need-know Tickle vs. Giggle (Australia): https://quillette.com/2024/08/27/tickle-vs-giggle/ TN vs Cardona: https://adfmedia.org/case/state-tennessee-v-cardona Fight the Bears: https://indamidle.substack.com/p/fight-the-bears Email Judge TERF: elspeth@womensliberationfront.org --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/heterodorx/support

In an otherwise sleepy state primary, the race for Supreme Judicial Court clerk is drawing a rush of money and high-profile political endorsements.

Attorney well-being continues to be a hot topic in the legal community.  While the most severe effects of the pandemic are now behind us, mental health continues to be a significant issue in our profession. But there is a lot being done to address these challenges. To provide some context, several years ago, the Report of the Task Force on Lawyer Well-Being, issued by the American Bar Association, Conference of Chief Judges, and other legal organizations, called well-being an essential element of a lawyer's duty of competence. In Massachusetts, Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers plays a vital role in supporting attorneys, and the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has established a Standing Committee on Lawyer Well-Being to enhance the well-being of lawyers, judges, and law students in the Commonwealth. In this episode, my former colleague, Amy Levine discusses the many initiatives going on in Massachusetts and around the country.  Amy is the Director of Programs and Volunteers at Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers (LCL) of Massachusetts. Amy has over 20 years of experience in the legal industry.  She has worked in in marketing, human resources, and legal recruiting and has a background in social work.   In 2018, Amy was one of the first guests on this podcast where she talked about interviewing. At LCL, Amy creates programs for the Massachusetts legal community and provides customized educational programming for various legal organizations. She also recruits and manages LCL's volunteers, who assist in running recovery groups, provide peer monitoring services, and act as ambassadors for the organization. We discuss the critical role of Lawyers Assistance Programs around the country, the extensive range of services offered by LCL, and the impact these programs have on lawyer well-being.

This Day in Legal History:On May 6, 1882, a pivotal moment in U.S. immigration history occurred with the signing of the Chinese Exclusion Act by President Chester A. Arthur. This federal law marked the first and only time that the United States explicitly barred a specific ethnic or national group from immigrating to the country, specifically targeting Chinese laborers. The Act not only prevented Chinese workers from entering the U.S. but also prohibited them from becoming U.S. citizens, denying them the legal rights and protections afforded to citizens.The enactment of the Chinese Exclusion Act was driven by widespread anti-Chinese sentiment in the Western U.S., where economic competition, racial prejudice, and cultural misunderstandings had stoked public and political pressure against Chinese immigrants. Labor movements, particularly on the Pacific Coast, rallied against Chinese laborers, who were often scapegoated for low wages and economic hardships experienced by white workers.Senator Joseph Hawley of Connecticut stood as a vocal opponent of the Act, predicting its harsh judgment by future generations. His prophetic criticism highlighted the injustice embedded in the legislation, foreseeing its negative historical assessment. Indeed, the Act was seen in hindsight as a significant breach of American ideals regarding immigration and equality.The Chinese Exclusion Act laid the groundwork for subsequent restrictive immigration policies. It was not until December 17, 1943, amid World War II and shifting geopolitical alliances, that the Magnuson Act was passed by Congress at the behest of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. This Act repealed the Chinese Exclusion laws, albeit with limited Chinese immigration still imposed, and allowed Chinese residents in the U.S. to become naturalized citizens, signaling a slow transformation in American immigration policy towards inclusivity. Today, the Chinese Exclusion Act is often studied as a stark example of racially discriminatory legislation, reminding us of the ongoing journey toward broader civil rights and equality in America.The U.S. Labor Department has introduced a new rule to expand overtime protections, which is causing concern among employers about potential legal challenges similar to those experienced in 2016. Previously, an attempt to increase overtime eligibility was halted by federal courts just days before its implementation, causing confusion for businesses that had already adjusted pay and staffing. The current rule aims to increase the salary threshold for overtime eligibility among "white collar" workers under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Starting July 1, employees making less than $43,888 annually will be eligible for overtime, expanding to less than $58,656 by January 1, capturing an additional 4 million workers.Employers face the choice of either raising salaries to maintain exemption or restructuring staffing to manage overtime costs. The new rule represents a significant increase from the current threshold of $35,568, with a projected economic impact including a $1.5 billion annual income shift from employers to workers. This change not only increases wages through overtime but also by encouraging salary raises to keep certain employees exempt. Despite the risk of legal setbacks, businesses are advised to prepare for the changes, assessing their economic and cultural impacts and making necessary adjustments. This rule is also expected to positively affect the workforce by potentially increasing hiring and converting part-time jobs to full-time positions.The substantial changes in salary thresholds affect millions of workers, making it a crucial legal and economic issue.Employers Mull OT Rule Compliance Strategy Despite Legal Déjà VuIn Massachusetts, the practice of using six-person juries in civil cases, initially a necessity during the pandemic, is finding continued favor among litigants, lawyers, and judges due to its efficiency. The state's Supreme Judicial Court had mandated smaller juries as a temporary measure but reverted to the standard twelve-person juries in January. Despite this, the legal community is less insistent on the larger jury size, recognizing the speed and cost-effectiveness of smaller juries, especially given the ongoing backlog of cases caused by court closures during the pandemic.Judges and attorneys have observed that smaller juries expedite the trial process, from jury selection to trial proceedings, as they reduce logistical complications like scheduling conflicts among jurors. For example, Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Peter Krupp noted his positive experiences with juries of six to eight members, highlighting their efficiency in managing cases. Additionally, the flexibility in jury size is seen as a tool to help clear the dockets and maintain the flow of judicial processes.While there is some concern about the potential impact of smaller juries on trial outcomes, with opinions varying depending on whether a party has the burden of proof, the consensus is that smaller juries do not inherently disadvantage either side. They also minimize the risk of a hung jury by reducing the number of jurors who might disagree. Nonetheless, the importance of preserving critical jury selection processes, like peremptory challenges and thorough voir dire, is emphasized to ensure that smaller juries remain fair and unbiased.Overall, the shift towards smaller juries is seen as a practical adaptation that balances judicial efficiency with the need for fairness in the legal process, suggesting that this practice may continue to be utilized to manage the caseload effectively while addressing the constraints of the judicial system.Massachusetts Judges, Trial Bar Embrace Six-Person JuriesBerkshire Hathaway, the conglomerate headed by Warren Buffett, faces significant legal challenges regarding its utility business, particularly with wildfires in Oregon. Greg Abel, recognized as Buffett's likely successor, stated during Berkshire's annual shareholder meeting that all litigation against the utility, specifically targeting PacifiCorp, is baseless and will be contested. This statement follows a recent lawsuit where 1,000 victims claimed $30 billion in damages, alleging PacifiCorp's responsibility for the 2020 Oregon wildfires. This comes in addition to $825 million already paid or owed by PacifiCorp for other related wildfire claims.Abel acknowledged that managing wildfire risks has been a substantial challenge, marking the first time such issues have caused considerable financial strain on one of Berkshire's utilities. Despite methods available to utilities to mitigate wildfire risks—such as insulating wires, managing vegetation, and burying transmission lines—the practice of shutting off power during high-risk scenarios was not initially adopted by PacifiCorp. Abel noted that the cultural focus at Berkshire's utility companies had been on maintaining power supply, especially to critical services like hospitals and fire stations, even during the wildfires.Recently, legislative actions in Utah have allowed utilities to impose surcharges to fund wildfire prevention and limit liability on certain claims, which Abel referred to as the "gold standard." Moving forward, Berkshire is adjusting its policies to shut off power proactively during wildfires and is investing cautiously in its utility operations to enhance their safety and reliability without unnecessary expenditure. Abel emphasized the importance of disciplined investment in this area, reflecting Buffett's philosophy of avoiding further loss by not investing additional resources unwisely.Berkshire executive calls wildfire claims against its utility business unfounded | ReutersThe United Auto Workers (UAW) successfully ratified a new labor agreement with Daimler Truck, continuing its recent series of successful negotiations that began with the Detroit Three automakers last fall. This progress in labor negotiations underscores a significant period of union activity aimed at expanding UAW's influence within the auto industry, especially targeting non-union U.S. factories primarily owned by foreign automakers.A significant milestone was achieved when workers at Volkswagen's Chattanooga plant in Tennessee voted to join the UAW, an effort led by UAW President Shawn Fain to unionize American factories operated by overseas companies. This victory is part of a broader strategy to address worker conditions and wages across the industry, notably as the UAW sets its sights on upcoming union votes, such as the one at the Mercedes assembly plant in Alabama scheduled between May 13 and May 17.The timeline of UAW activities highlights aggressive organizing efforts and strategic negotiations over the past year, marked by notable wage increases across various companies and successful contract negotiations impacting around 150,000 U.S. workers. These efforts are part of a larger UAW campaign to enhance worker rights and compensation in the traditionally non-union sectors of the U.S. auto industry, signaling a potentially transformative period for labor relations in this sector.UAW workers ratify deal with Daimler as focus shifts to voting at Mercedes | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Governor Maura Healey's pick to fill the vacant seat on the state's Supreme Judicial Court could be confirmed as soon as Wednesday. Judge Gabrielle Wolohojian has an impressive judicial record, having served as an appeals court justice for 16 years. However, one piece of her background has been a sticking point through the confirmation process – the fact that she was at one point a long-term romantic partner of Gov. Healey. WBUR State House Reporter Walter Wuthmann joins The Common to discuss Judge Wolohojian's background and if confirmed, what her ties to the governor mean for the state's highest court. Greater Boston's daily podcast where news and culture meet.

The confirmation hearing for Gabrielle R. Wolohojian on Wednesday will be the second Supreme Judicial Court pick by Gov. Maura Healey of a nominee from eastern Mass. The last SJC justice from western Mass, Francis Spina, stepped down in 2016.

This Day in Legal History: Michigan Joins the UnionOn this day, January 26, in 1837, a pivotal moment in United States history unfolded as Michigan was admitted to the Union as the 26th state. This event marked not only a geographic expansion but also a significant legal and political milestone in the nation's history.The journey to statehood was fraught with legal challenges and territorial disputes, notably the Toledo War, a boundary dispute with Ohio. This conflict was rooted in conflicting state and federal legislation and conflicting surveys of the Ohio-Michigan border. The resolution of this dispute was critical to Michigan's path to statehood.The Toledo War sounds like a weird bit of history, so let's take a detour and talk about that for a minute. It was a boundary dispute between the U.S. states of Ohio and the then Michigan Territory, and erupted in 1835 and lasted into 1836. At the heart of the conflict was the city of Toledo, strategically positioned at the western end of Lake Erie, and both jurisdictions claimed it due to conflicting state and federal legislation and surveys. The dispute was characterized more by political maneuvering and posturing than actual combat, with only a few minor skirmishes and no casualties. The resolution came with the passage of the Michigan Enabling Act of 1836, where Michigan agreed to cede its claim to the Toledo Strip in exchange for statehood and the western Upper Peninsula. This resolution highlighted the complex interplay of federal and state politics in early America, and the Toledo War stands as a unique and somewhat peculiar incident in U.S. legal and territorial history.The legal implications of Michigan's admission were profound. The state's constitution, drafted in 1835, was a progressive document for its time. It established a public education system and prohibited imprisonment for debt, reflecting a forward-thinking approach to governance and civil liberties.Michigan's statehood also had a significant impact on federal politics. The balance between free and slave states in the U.S. Senate was a contentious issue, and Michigan's admission as a free state was part of a larger political and legal narrative leading up to the American Civil War.In addition, Michigan's rich natural resources, particularly its vast timber reserves, played a crucial role in its economic development. This led to legal developments in environmental and resource management laws, setting precedents for other states.The state's diverse population, including a significant number of Native Americans, also led to legal developments concerning indigenous rights and land treaties. Michigan's history of negotiation and treaties with Native American tribes was an important part of its early legal landscape.In conclusion, the admission of Michigan into the Union on January 26, 1837, was more than just a change in the political map of the United States. It was a complex legal event that had far-reaching implications in areas such as territorial law, civil rights, natural resource management, and the delicate balance of power regarding the issue of slavery. Today, we remember this day as a key moment in the legal and political history of the United States.The Biden administration has paused new licenses for U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports to assess their impacts on climate change, the economy, and national security. This decision, crucial in the ongoing debate about LNG's role in energy's future, has significant implications for several major projects and billions of dollars in investments. The Energy Department's study, building on prior analyses, will scrutinize each new export proposal on a case-by-case basis, considering public interest—a standard set by federal law. The review is conducted by the department's national labs and is expected to take several months, after which a report will be open for public comment.President Biden emphasized this pause as a recognition of the climate crisis's severity. The decision is seen as a litmus test of his commitment to climate change, especially by environmentalists who view LNG infrastructure as a long-term environmental threat. Politically, this move places Biden in a delicate position, balancing environmental commitments with economic and geopolitical concerns, particularly in light of the upcoming presidential election and global energy dynamics.The pause could impact over a dozen proposals awaiting review, including ventures in Louisiana by Commonwealth LNG and Energy Transfer LP. Environmental groups like Oil Change International view this as a critical step in combating climate change, while critics, including Republicans and LNG advocates, argue it undermines U.S. energy commitments and geopolitical stability, especially regarding European reliance on Russian gas. The decision reflects the complex interplay between environmental, economic, and political factors in shaping the U.S. energy policy.Biden Freezes Approvals to Export Gas, Imperiling Major ProjectsThe U.S. Treasury Department's proposed rules for a new clean hydrogen production tax credit, introduced in December, have sparked debate within the industry. These rules require hydrogen producers to source electricity from new power sources and, by 2028, to align their production with clean power generation hourly. This approach, focusing on three pillars of power sourcing, has been criticized for being overly restrictive and excluding nuclear and hydropower, while favoring intermittent wind and solar energy.Industry experts argue that the guidance may stifle innovation and limit the expansion of the hydrogen market, as seen in the case of companies like Cummins Inc., which is hesitant to invest further without more flexible tax credit regulations. The 45V hydrogen production tax credit, established by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, offers up to $3 per kilogram for hydrogen meeting certain emissions standards, aiming to replace fossil fuels in various industries.However, the Treasury Department decided that using electricity from a grid powered by fossil fuels would contradict the climate law's emissions reduction standards. Some industry consultants suggest that allowing a certain capacity of hydrogen projects to operate beyond 2028 without adhering to these strict rules would be more economically viable. The debate also touches on the potential shift of investments towards hydrogen projects that use natural gas with carbon capture, influenced by the enhanced 45Q carbon capture tax credit.The Treasury is considering some flexibility, like counting a portion of existing clean power towards compliance or reclassifying struggling nuclear or hydroelectric facilities as new power sources. Still, these proposals have met with mixed reactions, with some arguing it could undermine the purpose of the three-pillar approach. The industry continues to lobby for more alignment with other Biden administration policies, like the bipartisan infrastructure law and the Defense Production Act, which support hydrogen initiatives. Public comments on the proposed rule are due by February 26.If any of this is interesting to you, I wrote a column in August of last year predicting this problem. In it, I emphasize the interdependence of clean hydrogen and clean electricity and suggest focusing tax policy on streamlining and funding the clean electricity sector, which is crucial for clean hydrogen production. Ultimately, the need for regulatory alignment and clarity, as seen in the EU's approach to the hydrogen market, is highlighted to foster both the renewable hydrogen industry and the broader clean energy sector.Zero-Carbon Hydrogen Tax Rules Spark Divide Over Grid EmissionsFunding Clean Electricity Will Help Grow the Hydrogen EconomyJustices on Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court are serving shorter terms than in the past, averaging just six years since 2010, the lowest in decades. This trend, emerging since the state implemented a mandatory judicial retirement age of 70 in 1972, is causing unpredictability in court rulings and making it difficult for attorneys to gauge the court's leanings. Factors contributing to this decline include less linear legal career paths, heavy workloads, longer life expectancies, and salaries not keeping pace with the private sector.The frequent turnover affects how law is interpreted and challenges lawyers to constantly adapt to the court's changing dynamics. Attorneys need to familiarize themselves with each new justice's preferences and philosophies, impacting how cases are argued and potentially leading to more decisions that overturn past rulings. However, former Chief Justice Margaret Marshall notes that similar periods of turnover in the past did not significantly disrupt the court's jurisprudence.Recent departures of two justices for outside opportunities before reaching the mandatory retirement age suggest a shift in how legal careers are viewed. Decades ago, a position on the Supreme Judicial Court was seen as a career pinnacle, but longer life spans now allow for significant second careers post-judiciary service. This flexibility, combined with the allure of more lucrative private sector opportunities, is influencing justices' decisions to leave the bench earlier.The SJC's justices earn significantly less than first-year associates at large law firms, contributing to the appeal of private sector opportunities. While each state handles judicial tenure differently, the shorter tenures in Massachusetts raise concerns about the impact on legal stability and the need to investigate factors like pay, workload, and mandatory retirement in retaining justices. Despite these challenges, it remains uncertain if the younger cohort of justices will reverse this trend.Tenure on Massachusetts' Highest Court Plummets to All-Time LowE. Jean Carroll's defamation lawsuit against former U.S. President Donald Trump is nearing its conclusion, with the jury set to decide on damages after Trump's denial of raping Carroll in the 1990s. Carroll is seeking at least $10 million for damages to her reputation caused by Trump's 2019 denial during his presidency. A previous trial in May 2022 already found Trump liable for defamation and sexual abuse, awarding Carroll $5 million. This current trial focuses solely on the extent of damages to Carroll's reputation and the possibility of punitive damages. Trump's defense was limited to standing by his previous deposition, where he labeled Carroll's claims a hoax, as the judge restricted revisiting issues settled in the first trial.Trump, Carroll to wrap up defamation trial | ReutersElon Musk's brain-implant company, Neuralink, was fined by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) for violating hazardous material transport rules. During inspections in February 2023 at Neuralink's facilities in Texas and California, it was discovered that Neuralink had not registered as a transporter of hazardous materials and improperly packaged hazardous waste, including the flammable liquid Xylene, which poses serious health risks. The company was fined $2,480, a reduced amount due to their agreement to rectify the issues. The violations were confirmed by a DOT spokesperson, and the inquiry has now been closed. These details came to light through records obtained by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), which opposes animal testing in medical research. The records, however, did not clarify why Neuralink needed to transport these materials or if any harm resulted from the violations.Exclusive: Musk brain implant company violated US hazardous material transport rules -documents | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Former President Donald Trump, hot off his New Hampshire primary victory, heads to a Manhattan federal court today for the ongoing defamation case with writer E. Jean Carroll. At the heart of the trial, Carroll accuses Trump of defamation following his 2019 remarks about her. Trump's defense team argues that Carroll saw financial gain from her public accusations. The courtroom drama is not his only challenge. His behavior has previously drawn a judge's warning for potential ejection due to misconduct. Simultaneously, Trump's political future faces scrutiny as Maine's Supreme Judicial Court ruled he can stay on the state's primary ballot pending a U.S. Supreme Court decision on a related case. This stems from Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows' attempt to block Trump's candidacy under the 14th Amendment, citing the former president's alleged involvement in the January 6th Capitol attack. As he navigates these legal battles, the implications for Trump's 2024 presidential run are profound, with the Maine primary decision adding another layer of uncertainty to an already tumultuous campaign season. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It's estimated that some 300 people in Massachusetts are serving life without parole sentences for murders committed before they were 21 years old.

Litigators face a variety of intense stressors including tight deadlines, bad behavior by opposing counsel, traumatic issues facing clients, and the competitive nature of litigation. It's a daily battle. What can lawyers do to maintain their own mental and physical well-being, and how can the court system engage, recognize, and help address these problems?  Host Dave Scriven-Young welcomes three professionals actively seeking a better way for lawyers to care for themselves and the legal system and firms to deliver assistance. Guests Shawn Healy, Ph.D., and attorneys Mala Rafik and Gavin Alexander are deeply involved in lawyer well-being programs. In Massachusetts, where Rafik and Alexander work, the Supreme Judicial Court has been a leading voice in the struggle to support those in the legal profession and the profession's struggle with mental illness, anxiety, substance abuse, and suicidal thoughts. Healy's, Alexander's, and Rafik's work has found not only a greater need for mental health support and care for lawyers, but also that many in the field are either unaware of available services or are unwilling to seek help for fear of a stigma.  It is OK to ask for help. You are not alone. Learn about available resources and services. Litigation is a difficult profession. If you or someone you know are struggling, this important episode of Litigation Radio can help.  Mentioned in this Episode: “The Full Weight of the Law: How Legal Professionals Can Recognize and Rebound from Depression,” by Shawn Healy and Jeffrey Fortgang Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Standing Committee on Lawyer Well-Being Lawyer Well-Being Massachusetts Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers American Bar Association, “Well-Being in the Legal Profession” “Mental Health Initiatives Aren't Curbing Lawyer Stress And Anxiety, New Study Shows,” ABA Journal “Making It Back: Bruce Simpson Tried To Take His Own Life, Then He Started Healing,” ABA Journal (ABA membership required) 988 Suicide And Crisis Hotline, Free Confidential Support For People In Crisis American Bar Association American Bar Association Litigation Section

Litigators face a variety of intense stressors including tight deadlines, bad behavior by opposing counsel, traumatic issues facing clients, and the competitive nature of litigation. It's a daily battle. What can lawyers do to maintain their own mental and physical well-being, and how can the court system engage, recognize, and help address these problems?  Host Dave Scriven-Young welcomes three professionals actively seeking a better way for lawyers to care for themselves and the legal system and firms to deliver assistance. Guests Shawn Healy, Ph.D., and attorneys Mala Rafik and Gavin Alexander are deeply involved in lawyer well-being programs. In Massachusetts, where Rafik and Alexander work, the Supreme Judicial Court has been a leading voice in the struggle to support those in the legal profession and the profession's struggle with mental illness, anxiety, substance abuse, and suicidal thoughts. Healy's, Alexander's, and Rafik's work has found not only a greater need for mental health support and care for lawyers, but also that many in the field are either unaware of available services or are unwilling to seek help for fear of a stigma.  It is OK to ask for help. You are not alone. Learn about available resources and services. Litigation is a difficult profession. If you or someone you know are struggling, this important episode of Litigation Radio can help.  Mentioned in this Episode: “The Full Weight of the Law: How Legal Professionals Can Recognize and Rebound from Depression,” by Shawn Healy and Jeffrey Fortgang Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Standing Committee on Lawyer Well-Being Lawyer Well-Being Massachusetts Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers American Bar Association, “Well-Being in the Legal Profession” “Mental Health Initiatives Aren't Curbing Lawyer Stress And Anxiety, New Study Shows,” ABA Journal “Making It Back: Bruce Simpson Tried To Take His Own Life, Then He Started Healing,” ABA Journal (ABA membership required) 988 Suicide And Crisis Hotline, Free Confidential Support For People In Crisis American Bar Association American Bar Association Litigation Section

Saturday marks 20 years since Massachusetts became the first state in the nation to allow same sex couples to marry. Hillary Goodridge, a lead plaintiff in the case decided in 2003 by the Supreme Judicial Court, joins WBUR's Morning Edition to talk about the case and its legacy.

9/14/23: Atty Rebecca Jacobstein on the MA. Supreme Judicial Court & police misconduct; Rabbi Riqi Kosovske on the high holidays; Brian Adams with Ed Hamel & Tim Beaudry of Glendale Ridge Vineyard on winemaking; Schools activists Ali Wicks-Lim, M.J. Schwartz & Maxine Oland (Title IX complainant) on the Amherst controversy.

The UN climate change report was released on Monday and we opened the lines to get listener's reactions to impending climate disasters. NBC Sports Boston anchor/reporter Trenni Casey continues to cover March Madness and the slippery slope of placing online bets. Justin Silverman, executive director of the New England First Amendment Coalition, discusses various transparency issues in the state, including Healey's pledge to be the most transparent governor, and a Supreme Judicial Court ruling in favor of the right to be rude at public meetings. Arlo Guthrie, folk singer-songwriter, joins via zoom ahead of an event at the Shubert Center April 1. GBH's Executive Arts Editor Jared Bowen discusses Don Quixote at the Boston Ballet, and the Gardner celebrates the 33 year anniversary of their heist by closing down over the weekend because of a climate protest. CNN chief national correspondent John King joins via zoom for a politics segment. We closed the show with the discussion of the city's proposal of the ban of nips. We wanted to know if our listeners are pro nip or pro ban on the little bottles.

This week on The Horse Race, three major announcements from the state auditor's office all within the past few days. The Supreme Judicial Court wrestles with wrongful death restrictions in cigarette suits, and we'll look at the dilemma black business owners face after landing a big contract with Boston Globe Development Fellow, Julian Sorapuru.

For Black History Month, we're dropping a classic episode into the feed as a bonus every few days... The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled on Roberts v Boston 170 years ago this month. When five year old Sarah Roberts was turned away from the schoolhouse door in Boston simply because of the color of her skin, her father sued the city in an attempt to force the public schools to desegregate, in compliance with a state law that had been intended to do just that years before. Unfortunately, the suit was unsuccessful. Not only did the Boston schools remain segregated, but the court's decision provided the legal framework of “separate but equal,” which would be used to justify segregated schools across the country for a century to come. Original show notes: http:HUBhistory.com/162/

This Day in Maine Wednesday, February 1, 2023

The 17-month-old vaccination policy allows for religious and medical exemptions. WBZ's Kendall Buhl reports.

The state's Supreme Judicial Court heard arguments in a drunken driving case that legal experts say could have wider implications for tens of thousands of other cases involving evidence possibly tested with unreliable alcohol breath testing machines.

Guarding Against Gruesome Guardianships Get M A D with Chris Graves 11-13-2022 Lisa BelangerLisa Siegel Belanger is a Massachusetts attorney of over 25 years Following in her Dad's footsteps, she's been practicing law in Massachusetts since December 1996. She has focused her practice on constitutional law with an emphasis on appellate work, having argued several cases before the highest court in Massachusetts, and the Supreme Judicial Court.Lisa's legal career in a nutshell: dedication to righting the wrong in both trial and appellate court forums.Lisa is a featured speaker in the documentary: Guardian Inc. (Produced by Alex Gibney of Dirty Money, Season 2, Episode 5) wherein she describes the cautionary tale of a Massachusetts man who left a voicemail* message begging for her legal help because he had been placed under a sham court-appointed guardianship.The Guardian Inc. documentary provides just a glimpse into what is a pervasive nationwide and global crisis of medical abduction facilitated through court-appointed guardianships.U.S. District Court in Massachusetts, Docket No. 1:15-CV-10198-ADBFollow Lisa's journey of enduring retaliation by the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers for being a whistleblower exposing the lawlessness of specified MA Governor Baker's appointees and other attorneys and judges.Lisa is also an author having published articles exposing the lawlessness of judges, attorneys, and other law enforcement officials with regard to court-appointed guardianships.Lisa S. Belanger, J.D. in Karma (@TPCLJ) / Twitterhttps://twitter.com/TPCLJthecourtracket.comhttps://t.co/a8pwMhC74gLisa Siegel Belanger Files Federal Lawsuit Cites ‘Fabricated and Altered Docket Information' Probate Court Whistleblower Continues to Fight Back – Boston Broadside – NEWS, without the liberal spinhttps://www.bostonbroadside.com/guardianship/belangerfight/M5 News - Fight for the Truth, Video Evidence, Mass Media (m5newsgate.com)https://m5newsgate.com/America Unplugged Radio: I Protest with Donald Jeffries - with Lisa Belanger on Apple Podcastshttps://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/i-protest-with-donald-jeffries-with-lisa-belanger/id1569877572?i=1000529185038Guardianship in Massachusetts “Medical Kidnapping” – an Attorney's Accounts and her Subsequent Suspension | LOSTMESSIAH (wordpress.com)https://lostmessiahdotcom.wordpress.com/2021/02/26/guardianship-in-massachusetts-medical-kidnapping-an-attorneys-accounts-and-her-subsequent-suspension/https://www.americaunpluggedradio.com/i-protest-with-donald-jeffries-lisa-belanger-chris-graves-on-alex-jones-judgment/Chris Graves:PayPal:http://paypal.me/SirhcSevargGet Mad Archives:https://ochelli.com/category/get-m-a-d-with-chris-graves/OCHELLI LINKS:If You Appreciate Ochelli.com Radio Chip In and Support us: https://ochelli.com/donate/Ochelli Effect - Uncle - Age of Transitions - T-shirts and MORE: https://theageoftransitions.com/category/support-the-podcasts/Special Audiobook SeriesPayPal & Contact for special arrangements: blindjfkresearcher@gmail.comNETWORK:Rokfin https://rokfin.com/ChuckOchelliBitchute Channel: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/oxL96KiJtQLP/Patreon https://www.patreon.com/ochelliSign-up on Ochelli.comhttps://ochelli.com/membership-account/membership-levels/LIVE LISTENING OPTIONS:OCHELLI.COM https://ochelli.com/listen-live/ RADDIO https://raddio.net/324242-ochellicom/ ZENO https://zeno.fm/radio/ochelli-radio/ TUNEIN http://tun.in/sfxkx

The subject of attorney well-being is a topic of conversation at most major law firms today.  Several years ago, the Report of the Task Force on Lawyer Well-Being was issued by the American Bar Association, Conference of Chief Judges, and other legal organizations.  It called well-being an essential element of a lawyer's duty of competence. More recently, Law.com and ALM Intelligence  conducted a survey of lawyers and staff members, mostly from large firms, has found that anxiety, depression, and isolation remain at concerning levels.  And about 74% of the respondents thought that their work environment  contributed to their mental health issues. When asked about the factors  that had a negative impact on mental health, top concerns were always  being on call, billable hour pressure, client demands, lack of sleep, and lean staffing. In January of 2020, The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts created a Standing Committee on Lawyer Well-Being.  And there are similar initiatives in jurisdictions all over the United States. But what are the core issues that these committees are addressing?  Why are businesses paying attention to the subject? How are these issues playing out in a corporate environment and what can the legal community learn from corporate America. Mari Ryan has thought a lot about well-being in the workplace and while her focus is not the legal community per se, she has worked with companies in many industries to address these issues. Mari Ryan is a workplace well-being strategist, speaker, and award-winning author. Mari works with organizations to create workplaces where both the people and the business thrive. Mari is the author of award-winning book The Thriving Hive: How People-Centric Workplaces Ignite Engagement and Fuel Results. Additional Resources Episode 70-Shailini George on Doing Well and Being Well in the Law Episode 64-Building Your Practice and Your Management Skills with Mindful Communication Episode 33-Mindfulness, Biofeedback and the Practice of Law Massachusetts SJC Standing Committee on Lawyer Well Being (there are a lot of other resources on this site)

What in the world does the Governor's Council do? That's one of the most common questions that a candidate for a seat on this elected body receives. According to attorney Jeff Morneau, candidate for one of those seats, it's the "most important elected office that most people don't know about." And among all public positions that potentially have the greatest potential to make a very dramatic impact on our lives and the lives of family members, it's difficult to think of someone more powerful than a judge. Judges, whether they serve in district court, probate, superior court, or even, the Supreme Judicial Court, are all selected only after being fully vetted by members of the Governor's Council. In this episode, we unpack in more detail the role of the Governor's Council, Jeff's background as an attorney, running a practice, a husband and a Dad, and his passion for employment law and fighting for workers rights and more. I hope you'll enjoy my conversation with Jeff Morneau. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/john-krol/support

7/21/2022-- This week is a scorcher! Jenn and Steve start the show off chatting about this extreme heat. There's talk of water restrictions in the Commonwealth within the next few weeks. Ironically enough, President Biden is in Mass this week talking about climate change. It also doesn't look like T service will be improving anytime soon. A shortage of dispatchers will continue to be a hurdle. State legislators passed a $52 billion budget to Governor Baker's desk on Sunday night. Once again Massachusetts is the only state left with a fiscal year that starts on July 1 where a budget has yet to be finalized. Mike Deehan, co-author at Axios Boston, joins the pod to break down the state budget. He also helps break down Taco Bell's brief roll-out of the Cheez-It Tostada. Later, Boston Globe reporter, Catherine Carlock joins us to discuss what the Supreme Judicial Court concluded last week about Boston's municipal harbor plan and what it could mean for the rest of the state.

Norm is joined in the first hour as he is at the start of every workweek by the co-host and producer of Law and Legitimacy and North Carolina-based attorney at Carolina Craft Legal, W. Michael Boyer.  Last week, Norm and Mike capped off the end of a rapidly crescendoing news week by analyzing the mechanisms and likely impacts of SCOTUS's decisions in New York Pistol and Rifle Association and Dobbs (Second Amendment and Abortion cases respectively). With so much cultural and political fallout from the latter, the two decide to "wade" back into the waters of the Dobbs decision in today's episode, this time focusing on the relationship between abortion and the right to privacy. Why? Norm focuses on an opinion piece penned to the New York Times and which appeared in the Saturday edition, written by none other than Senator Elizabeth Warren. While Senator Warren makes calls for abortion to be recognized as a federal constitutional right, Norm reminds listeners of Senator Warren's parallel preoccupation and support of the emerging public health state.  On the heels of nearly two years of top-down pressure from both state and private corporations coercing individuals to receive coronavirus innoculations, Norm queries whether our current concept of the individual right to privacy is under existential threat.  Mike illustrates his working mental model for the politics of abortion, privacy, capital punishment, and the emerging public health state (which both Norm and Mike understand as functionally the same as an emerging federal police power).  The two receive a glowing review from a caller thanking Norm for speaking plainly and with substantive merit to the public every day.  The two end the hour by unpacking Lanier v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, a case originating in Massachusetts in March 2019, dealing with Tamara Lanier's claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Specifically, Ms. Lanier claims—and the Supreme Judicial Court apparently agrees—that Harvard breached its duty of care to her in its treatment of her claims that she is the direct lineal descendant of one of the salves depicted in certain daguerreotypes dating to 1850.  With the limited time remaining Norm expresses his relief that this SCOTUS term has come to an end, and analyzes a view of the lesser regarded decisions that have been handed down.  Norm is joined by Brian Festa in the second hour. Listeners may recall Brian Festa from previous Law and Legitimacy and LAL Live episodes. Brian is the face of We The Patriots USA and a great friend to the LAL family. Norm asks Brian to give his opinion on the public reaction to Dobbs and to extrapolate those opinions to a larger criticism of American society.  Like, share, and subscribe! Norm is live every weekday from 12pm ET to 2pm ET on WICC 600AM/107.3FM. Stream Norm live at https://www.wicc600.com/. Follow @PattisPodcast on Twitter. 

ANN/Groong Week in Review - June 19, 2022Topics:Did the Opposition Blink?Scandal in the SJCMore “Peace” Talks, More Border ShootingsGuests:Tevan Poghosyan / TW/@TevanPoghosyanHost:Hovik Manucharyan TW/@HovikYerevanAsbed Bedrossian TW/@qubriqEpisode 143 | Recorded: Monday, June 20, 2022

6/16/2022--This week, Jenn and Lisa unpack a major development on the ballot question front -- the Supreme Judicial Court this week threw out a ballot question that would classify ride-share drivers as independent contractors. Jenn explains the court's reasoning behind the decision, and Lisa shares what it all means for the future of rides-hare drivers' fight to unionize. Tori Bedford, reporter at GBH, stops by The Horse Race to discuss her recent coverage on America's Test Kitchen employees' moves to unionize. Willow Montana works as a shift manager at a Cleveland Circle Starbucks location that has recently moved to unionize -- they share what the process of forming a union has looked like so far, Starbucks' response to the unionization effort, and the benefits unionizing Starbucks workers are seeking.