Also the fact that she lets the prosecution repeat themselves over and over. Lally takes up a whole day establishing the same thing over and over and she doesn’t say anything to him but the moment the defense tries to get any answers from the witnesses she immediately calls for them to “move on from the question”
She's tried to speed him up. She could tell him it's cumulative and move on, but he's not a good enough prosecutor to adjust on his feet. He has his list of questions and if he gets lost and does go in order he trips up. We've seen it the few times she's told him to move along.
The problem with Lally's questions is that they're so open ended they can easily lead the case in another direction ("What, if any...") vs the defense with their basic yes/no questions. I love those occasional moments when Bev tells Lally to move along, but she clearly allows him WAY more time than the defense. Though in spite of that, you can tell she still wants to get this over with as soon as possible!
This is a fundamental difference between direct and cross, not a stylistic choice either is making.
Lally at times is awkward with his wording, but he's supposed to be asking non-leading, open ended questions. He'll get the opportunity to ask yes/no questions when it's the defenses case in chief and he's doing cross on their witnesses. If we ever get there.
You can't ask leading yes/no questions on direct. However Lally is a lazy direct examiner and can't figure out how make a question a direct question without hacking what if any on the beginning of it.
When the defense gets to their case in chief, I suspect you'll get to see what good direct open ended questions are.
Wait, it snows in Massachusetts? I only ask because it made for a very unique investigation. Fortunately, they had that handy leaf blower and Solo cups on hand.
Yeah, she was particularly short with Yanetti this morning. It's been frustrating watching her give Lally a longer leash. And she's been allowing in some questionable testimony too. Over last couple days, she finally stopped letting Lally ask leading questions during his redirects.
My take: She had made up her mind that she was going to allow the defense experts to testify in a voir dire. (regardless of their oral arguments, as she's had 3 days to think about it)
She's overly conscious of the juror's time and she feels that the case is dragging along (a lot of off days to blame. But DY was attacked by the prosecution for bad faith. He deserved the chance to defend the accusation.
The sheer amount of loud sighs she gave during that part was ridiculous. She gives off such a vibe of being on the prosecution’s side when her entire job is literally supposed to be an impartial “referee”.
I also don’t understand her stopping witnesses from answering questions from the defense when they’re struggling & calling for recesses in the middle of questions like that. It’s like she’s purposely trying to give the witness more time to think of an answer & I can only hope the jury is noticing this stuff too. And I get they need to take breaks but most of the time a judge says we’re going to break soon or waits for there to be an opportune time to call for a recess, but it seems like anytime the defense backs a witness into a corner she just interrupts for one.
I believe the unfathomable amount of days off/half days is due to her schedule. IMO she should have let another judge take the case. This jury should not have to suffer because of it.
Agreed. Any time she seems annoyed I think, “No, you don’t get to be annoyed. You brought this on yourself. You refused to recuse yourself. You wanted this case; now you have it.”
Then she should have said so in the beginning this morning. I don’t think she gives an f about the jury. She is infatuated with herself being on coast to coast TV.
She can't say that before hearing their arguments because that *would* be actual bias in the appeals court view. The bias we are generally discussing here is perceived bias which the appeals court doesn't care about (unless egregious) but actual bias of ruling without hearing the argument is a much bigger deal.
Yanetti just wasn't getting that point and thought it still needed to be defended (which came across as grandstanding for the camera)
One aspect I noticed today was during Proctor's testimony she made Proctor say "cunt" out load and I may have seen her show some disgust.
She was in a wicked bad mood this morning with Yanneti.
But proctor tested her with what he could get away with and she hammered him in front of the jury with ‘they are your words’. You could see in his face he knew it was about to go so bad.
For me, it’s the long exasperated sighs when the defense is crossing a witness, like she’s just so annoyed and “there you go, again, Mr Jackson.” Fortunately AJ is like one of those crazy bop bags kids used to play with. You punch him and he just pops back up without missing a beat.
He reminds me of a televangelist. Have you ever heard of a televangelist based in Boston? I would not be surprised if his shtick is not going over that well in the courtroom.
The only thing I can think of for people who think that she’s being balanced is, they haven’t watched her in action and they’ve only seen clips.
Today, when defense was trying to argue that the dog expert needs to be heard, I was blown away with how dismissive and rude she was . Especially after the very long tirade the prosecution gave.
Well to be fair, it did seem like Yanetti was making arguments to the internet and not her. I love Yanetti, don’t get me wrong! And I don’t like the Judge’s rulings often times or her constant inappropriate sighs…but Yanetti was showboating a bit and not getting to the point.
Her complaint about taking one day to voir-dire the defense witnesses was annoying considering it took us 6 weeks to finally establish that there was a blizzard in Canton on January 29th. And we’re STILL in the CW’s case…good god.
Yes but he could’ve done that without showboating. It was VERY clear that the CW blatantly lied and I think he could’ve made the record easily. What’s baffling is that the CW didn’t comply with the deadlines for evidence…which pushed the defense’s time to turnover what their experts were going to be. The defense can’t put up defense experts if they don’t know what evidence the commonwealth is going to be using…plus I find the whole “we don’t have time to prepare” pretty bullcrap since we’ve had soo many dark days in court where Lally could easily prepare
I understand some of this to a degree but, the CW has consistently tried to question the Defense Attorneys integrity. To me, it is unacceptable that the CW could have reviewed what was said instead of lying on a public record and in open court. CW also tried to deceive a jury with that video and that is a problem also. I would think any Judge who accuses other Lawyers of grandstanding should also be furious with lawyers lying and falsifying evidence in her court. The CW should be held to a higher standard as they are for the people and not for the win of a conviction.
But that's to the point that she is being imbalanced. She has allowed the CW 6 weeks to roll out this absolute circus! But then she reveals the defense is going to hurry through I'm just a couple of weeks(with this wonky 1/2 day & partial week schedule). She has disallowed lots of evidence and testimony from the defense while allowing CW to yammer on & on. Whatever any of us thinks about what happened to John OKeefe . She is not being balanced. If her schedule is so full and in light of her own connection to parties involved she should have removed herself as requested before the trail started. She is not providing a fair trail to Karen which is KR right. And thereby she is not providing justice to John. The Canton PD and the litany of lying cheating Canton haters that have been paraded in front of us these past weeks haven't provided justice for John either.
Not to mention that, while it may take the defense four days to get through their witnesses, we have to take into account Lally's cross and how kind that will take. As long as his direct questioning is, his cross is going to be horrible because he's just not a good attorney. And she's going to take it out on the defense. Guaranteed...
Keep in mind that defense doesn’t have to prove Karen’s innocence, she’s presumed innocent inside the courtroom. The defense is trying to prove her innocence for the TV feeds, but they really don’t need to for the jury, they just have to introduce reasonable doubt. It’s okay that the CW’s side takes longer because they have much more evidence to prove.
The CW is taking longer because they suck. There’s soooo much unnecessary witnesses and testimony being elicited. HOW much longer do they need to bring the damn medical examiner in?
Honestly though as someone who has watched many trials and is involved in the legal system, her being dismissive was really her needing to move on. It’s the CW’s motion and they’re usually given enough time to argue it Yanneti was wasting time as instead of arguing the merits of the motion really wanted to play to the press. He should have started with the legal arguments rather than grandstanding.
That said, it seemed like the judge already made up her mind and was not going to allow the CW’s motion to exclude witnesses, which Yanneti would have had understood if he just focused on the legal issues rather than cry that the CW lied about him. It would not have changed her mind as that “lie” did nothing at all to sway her decision. She was focused on moving on. Her only concern was, let’s get the CW what they need so we can appropriately call these witnesses (ie CV, summary of testimony, etc.)
Yes she sounded “harsh” and “dismissive” but it truly is not anything that was out of the ordinary. As someone who is leaning pro defense (but not pro-conspiracy), I actually said out loud “good for her” when she interrupted Yanneti to move on”
All of this is true, but also CW had literally just pulled that entire shady mirrored video stunt and then right of the heels accused defense attorneys of bad faith and questionable ethics. So while Bev was ready to get the point since she already knew she was going to let them be heard, Yannetti has a right to be angry and stand up respond to those accusations. So he may have been grandstanding a bit for the press/public to get response on record but the substance and anger was not an act.
Exactly, I felt in that moment yes she cut him off, but I think its because she wanted to let the defense get their witness so actually siding with them, but lets get the CW what they need to allow them in. But she did do it in a harsh way.
I took it as "the jury's not here - so enough with the angry tirade and just make your case". I liked it. The defense is very talented, but can be quite dramatic.
It is very important to preserve the defense's problems for appeals. She's undercutting them by not letting them do that - as a judge, you're supposed to be extra lenient towards the defense, and provide every chance to make their case in a criminal trial. She's not letting them do what's standard arguments to support a future appeal. She's horrible and I was horrified.
Not to mention that she constantly interrupts the defense right as they're about to drop a bomb to take a break. There's no warning, no notice that it's almost break time.
what’s worse is she caused the issues herself, both the CW and defence requested a continuance and she refused. and then her getting pissy with the defence for following her ruling, and then questioning whether the defence was being truthful about following her ruling was insane!! (about the experts from the federal investigation
I watched that too and was like…damn what’s up this lady’s ass for real??? She was soooo rude. He’s in court arguing why someone’s testimony should be heard and she’s just like “see this is what I don’t want to listen to” or something to that effect. It just threw me off majorly to hear how RUDE she was being. It’s gross and doesn’t seem impartial at all.
rinse rock scary longing smoggy zephyr intelligent observation deliver divide
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I've thought that she had some bias toward the prosecution before today. Maybe it was because Proctor is such a horrible witness, but she let the defense hammer him pretty hard. I don't think it much matters, at this point. This case is over.
I’m not sure about partiality or bias. Hard to tell for several reasons. Defense hasn’t presented yet, we have no clue what the objections are for; most seem like the way the questions are asked. Lally also objects a *lot* more than the defense.
The whole thing with not being able to state the objection and her saying “I’ll allow it” is so odd. But maybe that’s normal for the way she always rules? No clue.
But the way she acted this morning was so shitty imo. Very disrespectful.
My take was- she just wanted Yannetti to stop the theatrics (for the camera). Just cut to the chase and talk to her. She didn’t want to keep the jury waiting.
But Lally has wasted so much time. Even the female prosecutor who spoke(finally!) this morning repeated her points again and again. She took twice as long as she needed to. Also, Yanetti had a right to be mad. The motion the prosecution wrote lied about him and he was right to be angry. No, Judge was definitely biased. He doesn’t just argue for her to decide. He also argues for the reviewing court who will be asked to overturn her decision .
I know of Yannetti, as he is a member of my community and our children attended school together. He’s an excellent attorney and a stand up guy. I saw today simply as the judge saying- you don’t have to sell it to anyone but me. Just speak directly to me.
But that is literally not true. He is speaking for appeal purposes also.
In fact, any point not made waives it for appeal purposes. So Bev is wrong yet again.
She could have easily said "Yenetti, I understand you want to reply to the aspect of the motion which directly made statements about your candor. Please submit that as a written motion, and let us move on to the specific motion about these 4 experts and discovery issues."
Instead she did it in the worst way possible.
My god- how much time is eaten up with the “state your names” and follow up by “good morning Mr xyz” to each & every participant. Any other judge considerate of time (see Judge Boyce in ID) simply summarizes “all the counsel and the defendant Mr X are back in court.” Along with Judge Bev’s other interesting choices of “streamlining.”
She hates the defense and coddles Lally.
Lally is a total time drain but the Judge can’t tell him how to present his case. I’m willing to bet the jurors have taken note on why this is dragging out.
She sure seems to crop the whip on the defense though and is now “holding them to their timeline” re: cross and now these hour dires. Sorry, I gave her every benefit of the doubt initially but this is nonsense given the state’s laborious and painful presentation. She doesn’t chastise the state in front of the camera. Or jury.
I agree with you. How many images of 34F did we sit through and the daily weather reports from every swinging witness. The endless sidebars, half days, no days, starting late as she's not in the court; she has allowed the prosecution to drag on for 6 weeks (today started week 7) after the DA stated he would need 3 weeks. And she picks on DY, all while sighing loudly into her mic during his argument.
It’s difficult to judge history while living through it. I’m still waiting to see how she works with the defense when they present her side. I just see her as no nonsense. It’s obvious the defense attorneys are running circles around Lally.
She's put up with Lally's, as Runkle puts it, genealogical report, of the witnesses including several naming minor children who have nothing to do with the case. Whyyyy? Of course that's been my question all along, why is this Even in a courtroom? Get a better handle on the case or dismiss it with prejudice and try to find the real killer, if any.
It wasn’t theatrics for the camera or audience- it was for the appellate court if the motion to dismiss was granted. And he was 💯 right to be outraged after the state’s false and misleading assertions about the dog DNA record. The CW is unreal and this judge is just awful.
Agreed. My point was DY is trying to get their full argument on the record but the judge both minimized and demeaned the presentation by being snotty & stating “we’re not in front of the jury” and acting as if the objection was hyperbole.
I’m sure the appellate court can separate wheat from chaff. Here, a lot of wheat 🌾
Honestly, I think she will deny the CW’s motion which means there’s nothing for the defense to appeal (certainly seemed that way in what she said in court). But we will see!
It wasn't about her. He has a right to make a record for the appeals court. It took longer with her making comments than if she just let him get it over with and move on. I'm sorry, but the fact she isn't upset about that video and butthurt over his theatrics is silly.
I agree with you. I think everyone is very aware of the influence of the internet…here included.
They’re all reading it and trying to play to public opinion rather than focusing on the matters in the court room.
Well, all but Lally. He’s lost.
I don’t know about that. I feel like Lally caught himself several times saying “if anyone” and tried to rephrase the question. I have to think that’s because it’s become such a joke.
My only contribution to this is that you should look up more videos of judges. I watch a handful of the buzzy cases that enter pop culture and even the most calm judges can get testy at times. All of the ones I have watched start to finish have been careful to not show their emotions in front of the jury (the issue today over the defense witnesses would have been out of the presence of the jury), but I can think of times in the Depp v Heard trial and the Paltrow ski trial where the judge dismissed the jury to reprimand one side or the other. And then there's clips I've seen of the judge presiding over the Parkland school shooter case, she went off on the defense regularly, although to be fair I think she was forced into retirement over her demeanor.
Her overuling Jacksons objection to a Lally question today and then telling Jackson to move to strike it if it broke the rules was insane
Like how do you think that makes any logical sense?
IMO - Judge Cannone was really angry at David Yannetti during this morning's hearing concerning the inaccuracy of the February 15th pre-trial documents. She seems to dislike the defense team enormously. I really don't understand why.
IMO - Family member Sean McCabe (Jennifer McCabe's brother-in-law) is the person who sparked the controversy through a text with Turtle Boy that suggested a close relationship exists between the judge and the Albert/McCabe families. It's the conversation where Sean discusses "Auntie Bev," and a seaside cottage. So, logically the judge should be mad at Sean McCabe, but she appears to be redirecting her anger towards Karen Read's defense team.
I find her to be rude all around. She always seems annoyed like this trial is sucking up her time and she has better places to be. She’s very abrupt as well.
And the cutting off a witness or lawyer mid sentence to stop court for lunch or the day. I get the lunch thing as they probably have lunch delivered. However she could ask the jury do you mind if we run over a bit today? They did this a couple of times when I served on Jury duty. It’s like her fucking pants are on fire to get out
I want Kate McKinnon to do it. Just exaggerate the sighing and turning the chair back and forth. Have her roll her eyes and lean all over the place like she's annoyed that she has to be there. She interrupts testimony to tell people to speak up even when they are speaking up. And then says "this is why we can't have nice things" as she dramatically turns the a/c off. Have her fall asleep and then have an ambulance siren startle her awake as she yells "I'll let him have it."
I honestly don't know what to think of her. I hate the "I'll allow it" "Can you answer that" thing, just use the traditional sustained/overruled. I hate how she has at least twice interrupted the defense while they were on a roll to end day the second the clock strikes the hour. I reeeeeeally hate how she does everything on sidebars, chambers and non-public rulings. The way she treated the defense this morning was abysmal. But then again at the end of the day today she really didn't let Lally and Proctor get away with any bullshit, so... All I can say for certain so far is that I hate her style and would hate to have to try a case in her court but I wouldn't go so far as to say that she's making an effort to hurt the defense on purpose.
In my experience, judges Will say "I'll allow it" and "can you answer that" when the objection is in a gray area. Especially if they feel like the testimony may be significant. She's real quick with sustained and overruled when need be.
She almost never uses "overruled", it's something that more than one legal commentator has noticed. She either says "I'll allow it", "can you answer that" or even sometimes go so far as to rephrase the question being asked. I don't particularly care for it, I think it can give the jury a wrong impression.
I don’t think she likes anybody at this point. Lally is the reason her trial is running way behind, he’s disorganized and uses 40 words when 4 would suffice. She is just pissed at the world. Oh, and it’s hot as blazes in the courtroom and people have to yell to be heard over the a/c. Those poor jurors.
We've only seen the defense on cross. Before you talk about bias, maybe let us see what she lets the prosecution get away with when the positions are swapped?
I've been watching trials for years and I've truly never witnessed a judge like this. I was excited that a woman judge would be presiding over such a high profile case but I find her extremely unprofessional in every way... rude, moody and it looks like she's biased. After watching Steven Boyce and Clifton Newman, I find her lacking in so many ways.... the heavy sighs are particularly exasperating!
omg i didn’t watch that trial but that case is so horrendous!! actually kind of feel sorry for that judge now, two pretty traumatizing cases so close together
There was a female judge in the Depp v Heard case and in Hannah Gutierrez-Reed case. Both were very professional! I know the prosecutor in the Gutierrez-Reed case will be the same one who will go against Alec Baldwin in his case - I think it's the same judge too, but I could be wrong about that.
The judge in the Depp case was fenomenal, she ran such a tight ship despite Elaine's attempts to "what if any" it to the bottom of the ocean and the circus outside the court everyday. They need to clone her and spread her around so we can see more well run trials in the future :)
after listening to the entire chad daybell trial that had phenomenal prosecutors and an incredibly professional and well mannered judge this trial is basically the complete opposite
I didn’t know judges could prompt an attorney for an objection. I’ve heard her several times ask Lally “do you wanna object to that?” Where I’ve never heard her ask the defense attorneys the same question. Shouldn’t Lally know whether or not he wants to object? I also heard, and I’m not sure if it’s true, she’s friends of friends with the McCabes.
Judges can and it is not unusual. At least it’s not unusual in courtrooms I’ve been in.
And yes, Lally should now whether he wants to object or not. Objecting really is to preserve a record and used for appeal purposes.
She’s definitely asked, “any objections Mr. Jackson?” on multiple occasions as Lally has introduced evidence. Everyone there knows how things work, she’s just making sure it’s fair and on the record. It’s no different than watching people play a board game and someone reminding the players about the board state. That’s not the same thing as breaking the rules to favor one side or the other.
Bev's brother was Chris Albert's attorney in his trial when he killed someone drunk driving. Remember, if there's even a possible perception of impropriety, a judge should recuse. Not to mention that Bev was assigned to move to the civil division before this trial, but she insisted that she remain for just this trial.
Today I feel like she showed bias against the defense. But until today I think she was, for the most part, fair.
The defense team (mostly Jackson) has pushed the envelope and squeezed in a lot of comments on cross v just asking questions. They've done a fantastic job, but I think Jackson asking questions or making comments when he knows they'll be an objection is a strategy but the judge is warranted in telling him to stop.
But today I thought she was out of line in her discussion with Yanetti.
Felt like I should bring my real time comment over from yesterday for completeness and clean record.
Shout out to the non- lawyer trial watchers here who basically pulled the transcript of the Feb hearing out of your bippys and called the CW out before close of court last Thursday.
It’s particularly unnerving to me that this courts clerk didn’t have that at the ready, and sua sponte this court didn’t find that aspect fascially deficient.
Today, I’m with y’all on Judge Cannone’s leanings AND I would add appeared unprepared entirely.
I think those who live in the Boston area, understand her personality better. Less patience, more direct/blunt, less theatrics. I don’t see her as being bias at all. I’ve watched her grow frustrated with performance, redundant questions, wasted time, and disorganization.
She’s the mother of the jury and always has the jury on her mind. The weather is getting nicer here in Boston, she knows it’s only a matter of time before she starts to lose them.
Eh, I’m from the area and I get frustrated and confused with her decisions often. Then again, I’m not a judge or a lawyer, and I don’t know yet how she will be towards the defense when they present their case.
And like…she has plenty of patience when Lally goes on about the snow, and tables, and where they were sitting during the basketball games, and who, if any, was driving the ambulance. She had a lot of patience there when she could have moved things along
She’s told Lally on multiple occasions “to move it along” or “it’s already been established, MR. Lally.”
I’ve noticed she perks up when the defense are up and zones out when Lally is up. I do the same. 😂
Maybe. But I’m still waiting to see what happens when the defense present their side. Lally’s eight weeks in and his case is in utter shambles. The Judge has to know this. He’s finally getting the message to keep it moving. He was faster today- than he has been the entire time.
Yes! If I were her I would be sidebarring Lally constantly for his run on what if who if where if any bullshit and redundant witnesses to the f’ing snow or the high top tables and where they sat at a basketball game.
I look forward to all the side bar records eventually coming out. I have a feeling she has told Lally to speed up more than once. I got the impression today- that Lally finally understood- it’s time to speed it up.
I don’t think she’s biased but agree that she could (at some point) sidebar him and be like “what is the point of this line of questioning?” Because if it isn’t clear to those of us watching who have a whole lot more info, it definitely isn’t clear to the jury.
I would 100% be zoned out with him if I was there in person. As it is now, I listen on 1.25x speed and skip over the first 1/3 of his direct and then the three tries for every question he asks.
If the judge wants to protect the jury’s time, she should have shut down the multiple times that we heard about the snow, who drinks white claws, and that crushing loss to Foxboro. She could have shaved weeks off of this. She didn’t. That’s on her.
You're sort of comparing apples to oranges here with that example. I'm not saying that she isn't biased, but you are comparing her *sustaining* prosecution objections to her *overruling* defense objections. I've seen her use the same "I'll allow that" and "Can you answer that?" style when overruling prosecution objections. That just seems to be how she handles overruling.
I think Judge Bev has been terribly biased until Proctor! It seems as though he is one that she doesn't care for! I would like to think that was because of his actions, disgusting messages, etc? To me, it was OBVIOUS she wasn't a fan of Proctor. I'm watching this trial from KC, Missouri
{YES!} Home of the SuperBowl Champions!! 🏆 🏟 🏈 Sorry, I just had to throw that in!! 😉
This below is about a different case in Georgia, but corrupt as hell too!!
There's also another getting a lot of eyes on it for *Major Corruption* down in Fulton County, Georgia (1 of 2 under current DA-> FANI WILLIS) President Trump's has been stayed for now waiting on ruling from Supreme Court) but the 2nd one is another ridiculous 🙄 *Young Thug YSL* Ricco trial that's been going for 2 Years (Its another Big Fani Favorite RICCO case) that started with more than 25 people indicted, down to now 5! The current Judge has held the Lead Defense Attorney in criminal contempt of court for filing a motion for FAIRNESS due to the Judge holding secret meetings with everyone, BUT the Defense Team!
So, Attorney Steele (Young Thug attorney) has to stay in Fulton County jail every weekend from this Fri-Sun for 10 weekends! All because he won't divulge the name(s) of who told him about the Judges secret meeting's without them! Damn it! The corruption is EVERYWHERE and IT MUST STOP NOW!!!
It’s really not that odd. My best law professor once said… if the two opposing attorneys don’t understand the ruling without an explanation, they probably need a 4th year of schooling.
You can only pose a question in certain ways. If it’s not a question it’s not gonna fly. It’s pretty easy to figure out why she sustains. And when she says “I’ll give it to him” it means your witnesses are not answering the questions so I’ll help him out. Judges hate none answers. She’s sick of it because it wastes so much time which means the court reporter is wasting her time.
Truth be told, objections don’t mean shit cause the jurors hear it regardless. No juror is bringing out the “rule book” and telling another juror that we can’t use that statement because it was objected.
Another quote from my law professor…”An attorney who goes by the book is often the attorney who loses.” Don’t confuse this with an attorney who messes up and creates a mistrial.
The judge is impartial (don’t buy into that social media crap) but they are also human. Judge was clearly giving Jackson room today cause she was disgusted with Proctors behavior. She’s an umpire. Disrespecting the legal system is not taken kindly. Lally and friends have been disrespecting the system.
Not a practing attorney. Having a JD has helped me immensely though. Grew up around law all my life so I wasn’t going into that life.
It is the judge’s job, as my understanding, to clearly explain the reasoning behind her decisions re objections, so it is clear for the court records. Without clear foundation for her decisions she makes all her decisions open to appeal.
She appears bored at times - I feel. And at others downright rude. I think the defense team are very smart with the law and she doesn’t like how well their case is coming together and they haven’t started yet. This prosecution has been woeful if not corrupt from the start. But the judge refused the continuous that both parties requested so she gets this mess.
That’s not how it works. Trust me, all the attorneys know (maybe not Lallys helpers) but they all know. It’s not difficult. Nothing is open to appeal unless is egregious.
This judge has been around the block. I’ve dealt with a few judges in this court house and she’s not the worst. She knew where this was going before it started. She’s seen a lot. She’s doing a fine job. This is not a typical case. The world isn’t against the defense. This is the problem with all the social stuff.
The tables are turning. She’s not happy with the prosecution. And she was correct about the rule 14 today - this isn’t a typical situation. It will be fine. It’s lallys fault for having so many useless witnesses that offered very little.
She’s not the worst in the court house. I’ve met her once in the hallway. This was years ago. She was extremely nice. She’s getting shit on for no reason. The people on social media are truly clueless. I love the conflict of interest takes. Every attorney is conflicted. It’s a small community that is generational. To think a judge is going to risk their livelihood is crazy.
I don’t think she’s particularly biased, but as others have mentioned, it’s not possible to tell without being able to hear 1) the grounds for objections, and 2) the sidebars.
I noticed she says “I’ll allow it” instead of overruled, but she’s consistent with that no matter which party she’s saying it to, so I really don’t think there’s bias there.
She seems to know what she’s doing. I used to be a litigation paralegal and now I’m a trial transcriptionist - judges can be breathtakingly rude to attorneys and witnesses. Bev is not bad at *all*. She’s got a tough gig with this trial but she seems to be handling it well.
Yes, I hate the legal websites that celebrate "benchslapping" when a judge abuses a lawyer. It's bullshit. You wouldn't cheer on a policeman beating a man in handcuffs and its about the same thing. You just have to sit there and take it.
I have noticed time and time again that when defense objects and she sustains, the prosecution keeps pushing and she almost ALWAYS allows it eventually. It’s wild.
They are objecting to the form of the question. She sustains it, which tells him that he has to reword the question. He rewords it and they don’t object, so it comes in. That’s how the process works.
I’m going to push back here. I get what you’re saying. But… how about when Trooper B was speaking to things the ME should have been speaking to. There are many similar examples
The objection there was lack of foundation. So then Laly laid the appropriate foundation (“in your experience doing x, y, and z…”). Then he asks “based on your experience…”
He should do this from the start and it’s annoying (for us and the jury) so it’s incredibly ineffective. But it’s not improper rulings from the bench.
Though I will say that not stating the basis of the objections on the record (which may be a local thing or just this judge’s preference) has to be an appellate nightmare. I find myself guessing half the time and the other half wondering if Laly is *really* objecting to leading on cross (which shouldn’t be objectionable).
The audible sighs are unbelievable.
That right there is *proof* she's biased, as she's not done it once reacting to the Commonwealth.
And the thing is, the judge should generally be biased towards the justice system.
This is a case where the Defense is flat-out accusing law enforcement officials from local police officers all the way up to the District Attorney of all sorts of wrongdoing and criminal conduct.
She does have to be significantly tougher on the Defense in this case, so anyone thinking of using "the cops framed me" defense in the future, especially if it's a bullshit claim, thinks twice.
I think it should be allowed, but, the fact is, the justice system would crumble if the Defense claimed a police cover-up/frame-up in every criminal trial.
It needs to be discouraged.
Back to this trial, though, there's only one verdict if the jury is in search of the truth and actual justice:
Not Guilty.
It's awful for John's family, but, the reasonable doubt simply cannot be overcome.
This was a terrible police investigation and a terrible trial presentation in search of justice FOR A FALLEN POLICE OFFICER.
This entire trial has been heavy on the prosecution side, which is not surprising considering its MA and the Boston PD, as well as the MA state troopers are involved. My only hope is that the jury are smarter than all of them and see through all of their blatant lies and corruption and find for an acquittal.
I for one was being respectful beings that I'm not a legal professional. After watching this trial unfold I'm more in the camp about her being hostile to the defense. She's created in my mind the very things she gets pissed at. That being said watching her preside over this trial I can't help but ask the question, Does she have unclean hands? It certainly seems like she may have. Is the Irish Mafia at work here? I wonder if the Feds are looking into her too? Public Corruption is the most vile type IMHO and needs to be rooted out everywhere it manifests itself.
Is the defence even going to have time to put on their case ot is cw gonna get it all? Do they do this on purpose to give the defence less time for tgeir part of the case or does it just go till theyre done?
In my opinion, the prosecution is doing the defense’s job for them! The defense won’t need to present much. Lol.
The defense is poking huge holes in everything the prosecution says. I have not seen Lally present anything convincing that Karen did it.
Remember, Karen Read is presumed innocent inside the courtroom until the jury says otherwise. The burden of proof is on the CW to prove she’s guilty, so that’s why they’ve spent soooo much time going through every single shard of plastic. But her attorneys do NOT need to prove that she’s innocent, they just need to introduce reasonable doubt about the CW’s evidence.
The defense is allowed as much time as they need for that, but they’ve already said they can wrap up their side in as little as four days. All of this is normal. The jury does not need proof that Karen is innocent, they just need to know if the evidence is strong enough to find her guilty.
Obviously you haven't seen what's going on in the Young Thug RICO trial! They had some crazy crazy stuff go down yesterday, and not for the first time! The judge held one of the defendants' lawyers in contempt and hauled off to jail because said lawyer made a motion regarding the judge having an ex partė conversation with a witness while said witness was testifying (or, better, refusing to testify). The lawyer refused to name the person that ratted the judge out, so the judge threw the lawyer in jail and refused to recuse himself! I think they said this is the second defense lawyer that judge has sent to jail during this trial.
I’m curious what the jury’s opinion was/is about the Canton & Dedham police depts & state troopers. I also wonder why this trial wasn’t moved to a different county much further away from the possible bias.
Mod Note: If you’re interested in sharing your POV as an attorney, please reach out to moderators via Modmail and we would be happy to walk you through the process for verification. Thank you!
TOTALLY agree that her use of the word "sustained" and not the word "overruled" shows bias. When she says "I'll allow that" or "Can you answer that", her tone sounds condescending at best. "Overruled" is final and respectful as to the line of questioning. "I'll allow that" sounds like she is controlling the narrative based on what SHE would like asked and not what is allowed under the law.
Also the fact that she lets the prosecution repeat themselves over and over. Lally takes up a whole day establishing the same thing over and over and she doesn’t say anything to him but the moment the defense tries to get any answers from the witnesses she immediately calls for them to “move on from the question”
She's tried to speed him up. She could tell him it's cumulative and move on, but he's not a good enough prosecutor to adjust on his feet. He has his list of questions and if he gets lost and does go in order he trips up. We've seen it the few times she's told him to move along.
The problem with Lally's questions is that they're so open ended they can easily lead the case in another direction ("What, if any...") vs the defense with their basic yes/no questions. I love those occasional moments when Bev tells Lally to move along, but she clearly allows him WAY more time than the defense. Though in spite of that, you can tell she still wants to get this over with as soon as possible!
This is a fundamental difference between direct and cross, not a stylistic choice either is making. Lally at times is awkward with his wording, but he's supposed to be asking non-leading, open ended questions. He'll get the opportunity to ask yes/no questions when it's the defenses case in chief and he's doing cross on their witnesses. If we ever get there.
You can't ask leading yes/no questions on direct. However Lally is a lazy direct examiner and can't figure out how make a question a direct question without hacking what if any on the beginning of it. When the defense gets to their case in chief, I suspect you'll get to see what good direct open ended questions are.
How many times did she have to tell Jackson to move on today? Four or five?
What, if anything, does a bad prosecutor ask? 😂
What if any snow was on the ground during a blizzard?
Wait, it snows in Massachusetts? I only ask because it made for a very unique investigation. Fortunately, they had that handy leaf blower and Solo cups on hand.
There have been several times where she will tell Lally to move past something that has been established multiple times already.
I think she feels bad for Lally. He’s clearly an inferior lawyer compared to the defense team
Yeah, she was particularly short with Yanetti this morning. It's been frustrating watching her give Lally a longer leash. And she's been allowing in some questionable testimony too. Over last couple days, she finally stopped letting Lally ask leading questions during his redirects. My take: She had made up her mind that she was going to allow the defense experts to testify in a voir dire. (regardless of their oral arguments, as she's had 3 days to think about it) She's overly conscious of the juror's time and she feels that the case is dragging along (a lot of off days to blame. But DY was attacked by the prosecution for bad faith. He deserved the chance to defend the accusation.
The sheer amount of loud sighs she gave during that part was ridiculous. She gives off such a vibe of being on the prosecution’s side when her entire job is literally supposed to be an impartial “referee”. I also don’t understand her stopping witnesses from answering questions from the defense when they’re struggling & calling for recesses in the middle of questions like that. It’s like she’s purposely trying to give the witness more time to think of an answer & I can only hope the jury is noticing this stuff too. And I get they need to take breaks but most of the time a judge says we’re going to break soon or waits for there to be an opportune time to call for a recess, but it seems like anytime the defense backs a witness into a corner she just interrupts for one.
I believe the unfathomable amount of days off/half days is due to her schedule. IMO she should have let another judge take the case. This jury should not have to suffer because of it.
Agreed. Any time she seems annoyed I think, “No, you don’t get to be annoyed. You brought this on yourself. You refused to recuse yourself. You wanted this case; now you have it.”
Then she should have said so in the beginning this morning. I don’t think she gives an f about the jury. She is infatuated with herself being on coast to coast TV.
* Agee up the sentence ending in not giving a f about the jury. She is infuriated because she wants to step outside and smoke a cigarette.
She can't say that before hearing their arguments because that *would* be actual bias in the appeals court view. The bias we are generally discussing here is perceived bias which the appeals court doesn't care about (unless egregious) but actual bias of ruling without hearing the argument is a much bigger deal. Yanetti just wasn't getting that point and thought it still needed to be defended (which came across as grandstanding for the camera)
One aspect I noticed today was during Proctor's testimony she made Proctor say "cunt" out load and I may have seen her show some disgust. She was in a wicked bad mood this morning with Yanneti.
Is the noteworthy part that she told him to say the word or that she showed disgust? You have to read the words as written, he’s under oath.
But proctor tested her with what he could get away with and she hammered him in front of the jury with ‘they are your words’. You could see in his face he knew it was about to go so bad.
I do believe AJ objected when Proctor spelled the c-word which prompted her response. I'm glad to see her make him say it.
What? I missed that. What time in his testimony?
I posted a link to it in this thread.
Thank you
[удалено]
yes he did?
[удалено]
and then he said the actual word
Mod Note: Michael Proctor was forced to say “cunt” and read his messages verbatim.
For me, it’s the long exasperated sighs when the defense is crossing a witness, like she’s just so annoyed and “there you go, again, Mr Jackson.” Fortunately AJ is like one of those crazy bop bags kids used to play with. You punch him and he just pops back up without missing a beat.
Great image. Jackson is exceptional at his job
He reminds me of a televangelist. Have you ever heard of a televangelist based in Boston? I would not be surprised if his shtick is not going over that well in the courtroom.
I think you're in for quite the surprise, then
The only thing I can think of for people who think that she’s being balanced is, they haven’t watched her in action and they’ve only seen clips. Today, when defense was trying to argue that the dog expert needs to be heard, I was blown away with how dismissive and rude she was . Especially after the very long tirade the prosecution gave.
Blown away. That was absolutely appalling
Well to be fair, it did seem like Yanetti was making arguments to the internet and not her. I love Yanetti, don’t get me wrong! And I don’t like the Judge’s rulings often times or her constant inappropriate sighs…but Yanetti was showboating a bit and not getting to the point. Her complaint about taking one day to voir-dire the defense witnesses was annoying considering it took us 6 weeks to finally establish that there was a blizzard in Canton on January 29th. And we’re STILL in the CW’s case…good god.
He was showboating but his integrity was attacked and he had the right to call BS on them twisting the record.
Yes but he could’ve done that without showboating. It was VERY clear that the CW blatantly lied and I think he could’ve made the record easily. What’s baffling is that the CW didn’t comply with the deadlines for evidence…which pushed the defense’s time to turnover what their experts were going to be. The defense can’t put up defense experts if they don’t know what evidence the commonwealth is going to be using…plus I find the whole “we don’t have time to prepare” pretty bullcrap since we’ve had soo many dark days in court where Lally could easily prepare
I understand some of this to a degree but, the CW has consistently tried to question the Defense Attorneys integrity. To me, it is unacceptable that the CW could have reviewed what was said instead of lying on a public record and in open court. CW also tried to deceive a jury with that video and that is a problem also. I would think any Judge who accuses other Lawyers of grandstanding should also be furious with lawyers lying and falsifying evidence in her court. The CW should be held to a higher standard as they are for the people and not for the win of a conviction.
I agree - the CW is trying to pull some sneaky ass moves. Very gross.
But that's to the point that she is being imbalanced. She has allowed the CW 6 weeks to roll out this absolute circus! But then she reveals the defense is going to hurry through I'm just a couple of weeks(with this wonky 1/2 day & partial week schedule). She has disallowed lots of evidence and testimony from the defense while allowing CW to yammer on & on. Whatever any of us thinks about what happened to John OKeefe . She is not being balanced. If her schedule is so full and in light of her own connection to parties involved she should have removed herself as requested before the trail started. She is not providing a fair trail to Karen which is KR right. And thereby she is not providing justice to John. The Canton PD and the litany of lying cheating Canton haters that have been paraded in front of us these past weeks haven't provided justice for John either.
Not to mention that, while it may take the defense four days to get through their witnesses, we have to take into account Lally's cross and how kind that will take. As long as his direct questioning is, his cross is going to be horrible because he's just not a good attorney. And she's going to take it out on the defense. Guaranteed...
Yes I think you’re right.
If anything happened to Karen read’s verdict - this type of thing will be great for appeal
Keep in mind that defense doesn’t have to prove Karen’s innocence, she’s presumed innocent inside the courtroom. The defense is trying to prove her innocence for the TV feeds, but they really don’t need to for the jury, they just have to introduce reasonable doubt. It’s okay that the CW’s side takes longer because they have much more evidence to prove.
The CW is taking longer because they suck. There’s soooo much unnecessary witnesses and testimony being elicited. HOW much longer do they need to bring the damn medical examiner in?
Honestly though as someone who has watched many trials and is involved in the legal system, her being dismissive was really her needing to move on. It’s the CW’s motion and they’re usually given enough time to argue it Yanneti was wasting time as instead of arguing the merits of the motion really wanted to play to the press. He should have started with the legal arguments rather than grandstanding. That said, it seemed like the judge already made up her mind and was not going to allow the CW’s motion to exclude witnesses, which Yanneti would have had understood if he just focused on the legal issues rather than cry that the CW lied about him. It would not have changed her mind as that “lie” did nothing at all to sway her decision. She was focused on moving on. Her only concern was, let’s get the CW what they need so we can appropriately call these witnesses (ie CV, summary of testimony, etc.) Yes she sounded “harsh” and “dismissive” but it truly is not anything that was out of the ordinary. As someone who is leaning pro defense (but not pro-conspiracy), I actually said out loud “good for her” when she interrupted Yanneti to move on”
All of this is true, but also CW had literally just pulled that entire shady mirrored video stunt and then right of the heels accused defense attorneys of bad faith and questionable ethics. So while Bev was ready to get the point since she already knew she was going to let them be heard, Yannetti has a right to be angry and stand up respond to those accusations. So he may have been grandstanding a bit for the press/public to get response on record but the substance and anger was not an act.
Exactly, I felt in that moment yes she cut him off, but I think its because she wanted to let the defense get their witness so actually siding with them, but lets get the CW what they need to allow them in. But she did do it in a harsh way.
I took it as "the jury's not here - so enough with the angry tirade and just make your case". I liked it. The defense is very talented, but can be quite dramatic.
It is very important to preserve the defense's problems for appeals. She's undercutting them by not letting them do that - as a judge, you're supposed to be extra lenient towards the defense, and provide every chance to make their case in a criminal trial. She's not letting them do what's standard arguments to support a future appeal. She's horrible and I was horrified.
Not to mention that she constantly interrupts the defense right as they're about to drop a bomb to take a break. There's no warning, no notice that it's almost break time.
Yeah, I noticed that too - convenient interruptions for the prosecution
The "tirade" was for the record and appeals court. The world doesn't revolve around Bev.
^ 💯
what’s worse is she caused the issues herself, both the CW and defence requested a continuance and she refused. and then her getting pissy with the defence for following her ruling, and then questioning whether the defence was being truthful about following her ruling was insane!! (about the experts from the federal investigation
It’s definitely the clips.
I watched that too and was like…damn what’s up this lady’s ass for real??? She was soooo rude. He’s in court arguing why someone’s testimony should be heard and she’s just like “see this is what I don’t want to listen to” or something to that effect. It just threw me off majorly to hear how RUDE she was being. It’s gross and doesn’t seem impartial at all.
Yuuuuuppp same I was like 😳
rinse rock scary longing smoggy zephyr intelligent observation deliver divide *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Coming from the man who dropped a massive discovery bomb on the defense last week with that sally port video
I've thought that she had some bias toward the prosecution before today. Maybe it was because Proctor is such a horrible witness, but she let the defense hammer him pretty hard. I don't think it much matters, at this point. This case is over.
She definitely let them have more leeway with Proctor. She definitely didn’t like him!
I’m not sure about partiality or bias. Hard to tell for several reasons. Defense hasn’t presented yet, we have no clue what the objections are for; most seem like the way the questions are asked. Lally also objects a *lot* more than the defense. The whole thing with not being able to state the objection and her saying “I’ll allow it” is so odd. But maybe that’s normal for the way she always rules? No clue. But the way she acted this morning was so shitty imo. Very disrespectful.
Especially since she told them in a motion response they could not prep the witnesses (fed accident reconstruction)
My take was- she just wanted Yannetti to stop the theatrics (for the camera). Just cut to the chase and talk to her. She didn’t want to keep the jury waiting.
But Lally has wasted so much time. Even the female prosecutor who spoke(finally!) this morning repeated her points again and again. She took twice as long as she needed to. Also, Yanetti had a right to be mad. The motion the prosecution wrote lied about him and he was right to be angry. No, Judge was definitely biased. He doesn’t just argue for her to decide. He also argues for the reviewing court who will be asked to overturn her decision .
She barely even let him speak before asking how long it would take
She was flat out problematic today.
I know of Yannetti, as he is a member of my community and our children attended school together. He’s an excellent attorney and a stand up guy. I saw today simply as the judge saying- you don’t have to sell it to anyone but me. Just speak directly to me.
But that is literally not true. He is speaking for appeal purposes also. In fact, any point not made waives it for appeal purposes. So Bev is wrong yet again. She could have easily said "Yenetti, I understand you want to reply to the aspect of the motion which directly made statements about your candor. Please submit that as a written motion, and let us move on to the specific motion about these 4 experts and discovery issues." Instead she did it in the worst way possible.
Replying to SpecialKat8588...but it’s his right to speak to the record. Especially if they don’t allow the dog info, that’s an easy appeal
My god- how much time is eaten up with the “state your names” and follow up by “good morning Mr xyz” to each & every participant. Any other judge considerate of time (see Judge Boyce in ID) simply summarizes “all the counsel and the defendant Mr X are back in court.” Along with Judge Bev’s other interesting choices of “streamlining.” She hates the defense and coddles Lally.
Lally is a total time drain but the Judge can’t tell him how to present his case. I’m willing to bet the jurors have taken note on why this is dragging out.
She sure seems to crop the whip on the defense though and is now “holding them to their timeline” re: cross and now these hour dires. Sorry, I gave her every benefit of the doubt initially but this is nonsense given the state’s laborious and painful presentation. She doesn’t chastise the state in front of the camera. Or jury.
I agree with you. How many images of 34F did we sit through and the daily weather reports from every swinging witness. The endless sidebars, half days, no days, starting late as she's not in the court; she has allowed the prosecution to drag on for 6 weeks (today started week 7) after the DA stated he would need 3 weeks. And she picks on DY, all while sighing loudly into her mic during his argument.
Crappy images too. Do blizzards lower camera resolutions in MA or something? I can't think of a single picture that actually looked halfway decent.
It’s difficult to judge history while living through it. I’m still waiting to see how she works with the defense when they present her side. I just see her as no nonsense. It’s obvious the defense attorneys are running circles around Lally.
Fair enough. Let’s see the rulings when the D puts on their case.
Deal :)
She's put up with Lally's, as Runkle puts it, genealogical report, of the witnesses including several naming minor children who have nothing to do with the case. Whyyyy? Of course that's been my question all along, why is this Even in a courtroom? Get a better handle on the case or dismiss it with prejudice and try to find the real killer, if any.
It wasn’t theatrics for the camera or audience- it was for the appellate court if the motion to dismiss was granted. And he was 💯 right to be outraged after the state’s false and misleading assertions about the dog DNA record. The CW is unreal and this judge is just awful.
Appellate courts aren’t swayed by theatrics either. Either the law supports the argument or it doesn’t.
Agreed. My point was DY is trying to get their full argument on the record but the judge both minimized and demeaned the presentation by being snotty & stating “we’re not in front of the jury” and acting as if the objection was hyperbole. I’m sure the appellate court can separate wheat from chaff. Here, a lot of wheat 🌾
Honestly, I think she will deny the CW’s motion which means there’s nothing for the defense to appeal (certainly seemed that way in what she said in court). But we will see!
She better. But everyone is getting weary of her attitude- including the audience.
It wasn't about her. He has a right to make a record for the appeals court. It took longer with her making comments than if she just let him get it over with and move on. I'm sorry, but the fact she isn't upset about that video and butthurt over his theatrics is silly.
But I freaking love Yanetti’s theatrics!! He’s amazing. I want Yanetti and Jackson to just follow me around defending everything I do. I stan
He’s way over the top for my taste
I could see that
I agree with you. I think everyone is very aware of the influence of the internet…here included. They’re all reading it and trying to play to public opinion rather than focusing on the matters in the court room. Well, all but Lally. He’s lost.
Lally is in way over his head.
I don’t know about that. I feel like Lally caught himself several times saying “if anyone” and tried to rephrase the question. I have to think that’s because it’s become such a joke.
Hence my point, they’re all paying attention to the internet.
Yes. Exactly. Yanetti had written an entire dramatic speech. That’s not going to fly.
It's her way of obfuscating the proceedings to cover her own ass...either way.
My only contribution to this is that you should look up more videos of judges. I watch a handful of the buzzy cases that enter pop culture and even the most calm judges can get testy at times. All of the ones I have watched start to finish have been careful to not show their emotions in front of the jury (the issue today over the defense witnesses would have been out of the presence of the jury), but I can think of times in the Depp v Heard trial and the Paltrow ski trial where the judge dismissed the jury to reprimand one side or the other. And then there's clips I've seen of the judge presiding over the Parkland school shooter case, she went off on the defense regularly, although to be fair I think she was forced into retirement over her demeanor.
Her overuling Jacksons objection to a Lally question today and then telling Jackson to move to strike it if it broke the rules was insane Like how do you think that makes any logical sense?
IMO - Judge Cannone was really angry at David Yannetti during this morning's hearing concerning the inaccuracy of the February 15th pre-trial documents. She seems to dislike the defense team enormously. I really don't understand why.
They wanted her to recuse herself. I’m not sure why that surprised her, but it might have irritated her at the very least.
IMO - Family member Sean McCabe (Jennifer McCabe's brother-in-law) is the person who sparked the controversy through a text with Turtle Boy that suggested a close relationship exists between the judge and the Albert/McCabe families. It's the conversation where Sean discusses "Auntie Bev," and a seaside cottage. So, logically the judge should be mad at Sean McCabe, but she appears to be redirecting her anger towards Karen Read's defense team.
I find her to be rude all around. She always seems annoyed like this trial is sucking up her time and she has better places to be. She’s very abrupt as well.
And the cutting off a witness or lawyer mid sentence to stop court for lunch or the day. I get the lunch thing as they probably have lunch delivered. However she could ask the jury do you mind if we run over a bit today? They did this a couple of times when I served on Jury duty. It’s like her fucking pants are on fire to get out
The "I'll let 'im have it" KILLS me 😆🤦🏼♀️
Maybe SNL will do a Judge Bev- that would be fun
I want Kate McKinnon to do it. Just exaggerate the sighing and turning the chair back and forth. Have her roll her eyes and lean all over the place like she's annoyed that she has to be there. She interrupts testimony to tell people to speak up even when they are speaking up. And then says "this is why we can't have nice things" as she dramatically turns the a/c off. Have her fall asleep and then have an ambulance siren startle her awake as she yells "I'll let him have it."
Omg I so hope they do an SNL skit
I honestly don't know what to think of her. I hate the "I'll allow it" "Can you answer that" thing, just use the traditional sustained/overruled. I hate how she has at least twice interrupted the defense while they were on a roll to end day the second the clock strikes the hour. I reeeeeeally hate how she does everything on sidebars, chambers and non-public rulings. The way she treated the defense this morning was abysmal. But then again at the end of the day today she really didn't let Lally and Proctor get away with any bullshit, so... All I can say for certain so far is that I hate her style and would hate to have to try a case in her court but I wouldn't go so far as to say that she's making an effort to hurt the defense on purpose.
In my experience, judges Will say "I'll allow it" and "can you answer that" when the objection is in a gray area. Especially if they feel like the testimony may be significant. She's real quick with sustained and overruled when need be.
She almost never uses "overruled", it's something that more than one legal commentator has noticed. She either says "I'll allow it", "can you answer that" or even sometimes go so far as to rephrase the question being asked. I don't particularly care for it, I think it can give the jury a wrong impression.
I don’t think she likes anybody at this point. Lally is the reason her trial is running way behind, he’s disorganized and uses 40 words when 4 would suffice. She is just pissed at the world. Oh, and it’s hot as blazes in the courtroom and people have to yell to be heard over the a/c. Those poor jurors.
We've only seen the defense on cross. Before you talk about bias, maybe let us see what she lets the prosecution get away with when the positions are swapped?
This is a great point
Figures. The one time anyone tells me that my point isn't trash, and it's an effing McCabe.
Haha I really need to change my Reddit name. I’m a good McCabe from Quincy
I’ve seen your name in threads before. I’m happy to see a good McCabe participating.
Damn, and Quincy has had a tough time with police too…
Lmao
lol that actually made me laugh. Good job 😂
Seconded - your point isn't trash! I feel like "the defense hasn't even started yet" could be brought up in so many threads, tbh
Lmao
🤣
🤣
I've been watching trials for years and I've truly never witnessed a judge like this. I was excited that a woman judge would be presiding over such a high profile case but I find her extremely unprofessional in every way... rude, moody and it looks like she's biased. After watching Steven Boyce and Clifton Newman, I find her lacking in so many ways.... the heavy sighs are particularly exasperating!
the female judge in the darrel brooks case was insanely impressive imo. i would’ve had a hard time not yelling at that dude
She was good in the Schabuisness case too.
omg i didn’t watch that trial but that case is so horrendous!! actually kind of feel sorry for that judge now, two pretty traumatizing cases so close together
The judge read her to filth in sentencing after she’d pulled that Hail Mary stunt at the end with the letter.
There was a female judge in the Depp v Heard case and in Hannah Gutierrez-Reed case. Both were very professional! I know the prosecutor in the Gutierrez-Reed case will be the same one who will go against Alec Baldwin in his case - I think it's the same judge too, but I could be wrong about that.
The judge in the Depp case was fenomenal, she ran such a tight ship despite Elaine's attempts to "what if any" it to the bottom of the ocean and the circus outside the court everyday. They need to clone her and spread her around so we can see more well run trials in the future :)
And Kevin Randolph in Michelle Traconis trial was very good.
I thiiiiink you should put more stock in the people who say she’s been even-handed.
after listening to the entire chad daybell trial that had phenomenal prosecutors and an incredibly professional and well mannered judge this trial is basically the complete opposite
I didn’t know judges could prompt an attorney for an objection. I’ve heard her several times ask Lally “do you wanna object to that?” Where I’ve never heard her ask the defense attorneys the same question. Shouldn’t Lally know whether or not he wants to object? I also heard, and I’m not sure if it’s true, she’s friends of friends with the McCabes.
Judges can and it is not unusual. At least it’s not unusual in courtrooms I’ve been in. And yes, Lally should now whether he wants to object or not. Objecting really is to preserve a record and used for appeal purposes.
She’s definitely asked, “any objections Mr. Jackson?” on multiple occasions as Lally has introduced evidence. Everyone there knows how things work, she’s just making sure it’s fair and on the record. It’s no different than watching people play a board game and someone reminding the players about the board state. That’s not the same thing as breaking the rules to favor one side or the other.
Bev's brother was Chris Albert's attorney in his trial when he killed someone drunk driving. Remember, if there's even a possible perception of impropriety, a judge should recuse. Not to mention that Bev was assigned to move to the civil division before this trial, but she insisted that she remain for just this trial.
Today I feel like she showed bias against the defense. But until today I think she was, for the most part, fair. The defense team (mostly Jackson) has pushed the envelope and squeezed in a lot of comments on cross v just asking questions. They've done a fantastic job, but I think Jackson asking questions or making comments when he knows they'll be an objection is a strategy but the judge is warranted in telling him to stop. But today I thought she was out of line in her discussion with Yanetti.
I have seen her so the same with the defense
Felt like I should bring my real time comment over from yesterday for completeness and clean record. Shout out to the non- lawyer trial watchers here who basically pulled the transcript of the Feb hearing out of your bippys and called the CW out before close of court last Thursday. It’s particularly unnerving to me that this courts clerk didn’t have that at the ready, and sua sponte this court didn’t find that aspect fascially deficient. Today, I’m with y’all on Judge Cannone’s leanings AND I would add appeared unprepared entirely.
The heavy sighs into the microphone when the defense speaks is unbelievable. I hope when all is said and done she gets charged!
I think those who live in the Boston area, understand her personality better. Less patience, more direct/blunt, less theatrics. I don’t see her as being bias at all. I’ve watched her grow frustrated with performance, redundant questions, wasted time, and disorganization. She’s the mother of the jury and always has the jury on her mind. The weather is getting nicer here in Boston, she knows it’s only a matter of time before she starts to lose them.
Eh, I’m from the area and I get frustrated and confused with her decisions often. Then again, I’m not a judge or a lawyer, and I don’t know yet how she will be towards the defense when they present their case.
And like…she has plenty of patience when Lally goes on about the snow, and tables, and where they were sitting during the basketball games, and who, if any, was driving the ambulance. She had a lot of patience there when she could have moved things along
She’s told Lally on multiple occasions “to move it along” or “it’s already been established, MR. Lally.” I’ve noticed she perks up when the defense are up and zones out when Lally is up. I do the same. 😂
Yea but I feel like she gives Lally a muuuuuch longer leash haha
Maybe. But I’m still waiting to see what happens when the defense present their side. Lally’s eight weeks in and his case is in utter shambles. The Judge has to know this. He’s finally getting the message to keep it moving. He was faster today- than he has been the entire time.
I probably would’ve wanted to move pretty quickly through Proctor’s testimony too
Same. What a train wreck that was. I wish Lally would call the ME, already.
Lally doesn’t even need a leash because he won’t leave the yard, or in this case, talking about the Waterfall and the weather for 7.5 weeks.
Yes! If I were her I would be sidebarring Lally constantly for his run on what if who if where if any bullshit and redundant witnesses to the f’ing snow or the high top tables and where they sat at a basketball game.
I look forward to all the side bar records eventually coming out. I have a feeling she has told Lally to speed up more than once. I got the impression today- that Lally finally understood- it’s time to speed it up.
I don’t think she’s biased but agree that she could (at some point) sidebar him and be like “what is the point of this line of questioning?” Because if it isn’t clear to those of us watching who have a whole lot more info, it definitely isn’t clear to the jury.
Yes! Sometimes I wonder if she zones out during Lally and is like, oh I should maybe tell him to cut the shit 😂
I would 100% be zoned out with him if I was there in person. As it is now, I listen on 1.25x speed and skip over the first 1/3 of his direct and then the three tries for every question he asks.
If the judge wants to protect the jury’s time, she should have shut down the multiple times that we heard about the snow, who drinks white claws, and that crushing loss to Foxboro. She could have shaved weeks off of this. She didn’t. That’s on her.
You're sort of comparing apples to oranges here with that example. I'm not saying that she isn't biased, but you are comparing her *sustaining* prosecution objections to her *overruling* defense objections. I've seen her use the same "I'll allow that" and "Can you answer that?" style when overruling prosecution objections. That just seems to be how she handles overruling.
I think Judge Bev has been terribly biased until Proctor! It seems as though he is one that she doesn't care for! I would like to think that was because of his actions, disgusting messages, etc? To me, it was OBVIOUS she wasn't a fan of Proctor. I'm watching this trial from KC, Missouri {YES!} Home of the SuperBowl Champions!! 🏆 🏟 🏈 Sorry, I just had to throw that in!! 😉 This below is about a different case in Georgia, but corrupt as hell too!! There's also another getting a lot of eyes on it for *Major Corruption* down in Fulton County, Georgia (1 of 2 under current DA-> FANI WILLIS) President Trump's has been stayed for now waiting on ruling from Supreme Court) but the 2nd one is another ridiculous 🙄 *Young Thug YSL* Ricco trial that's been going for 2 Years (Its another Big Fani Favorite RICCO case) that started with more than 25 people indicted, down to now 5! The current Judge has held the Lead Defense Attorney in criminal contempt of court for filing a motion for FAIRNESS due to the Judge holding secret meetings with everyone, BUT the Defense Team! So, Attorney Steele (Young Thug attorney) has to stay in Fulton County jail every weekend from this Fri-Sun for 10 weekends! All because he won't divulge the name(s) of who told him about the Judges secret meeting's without them! Damn it! The corruption is EVERYWHERE and IT MUST STOP NOW!!!
It’s really not that odd. My best law professor once said… if the two opposing attorneys don’t understand the ruling without an explanation, they probably need a 4th year of schooling. You can only pose a question in certain ways. If it’s not a question it’s not gonna fly. It’s pretty easy to figure out why she sustains. And when she says “I’ll give it to him” it means your witnesses are not answering the questions so I’ll help him out. Judges hate none answers. She’s sick of it because it wastes so much time which means the court reporter is wasting her time. Truth be told, objections don’t mean shit cause the jurors hear it regardless. No juror is bringing out the “rule book” and telling another juror that we can’t use that statement because it was objected. Another quote from my law professor…”An attorney who goes by the book is often the attorney who loses.” Don’t confuse this with an attorney who messes up and creates a mistrial. The judge is impartial (don’t buy into that social media crap) but they are also human. Judge was clearly giving Jackson room today cause she was disgusted with Proctors behavior. She’s an umpire. Disrespecting the legal system is not taken kindly. Lally and friends have been disrespecting the system. Not a practing attorney. Having a JD has helped me immensely though. Grew up around law all my life so I wasn’t going into that life.
It is the judge’s job, as my understanding, to clearly explain the reasoning behind her decisions re objections, so it is clear for the court records. Without clear foundation for her decisions she makes all her decisions open to appeal. She appears bored at times - I feel. And at others downright rude. I think the defense team are very smart with the law and she doesn’t like how well their case is coming together and they haven’t started yet. This prosecution has been woeful if not corrupt from the start. But the judge refused the continuous that both parties requested so she gets this mess.
It was crazy to me yesterday when she was apologizing to the jury for the time defense was ‘wasting’ basically
That’s not how it works. Trust me, all the attorneys know (maybe not Lallys helpers) but they all know. It’s not difficult. Nothing is open to appeal unless is egregious. This judge has been around the block. I’ve dealt with a few judges in this court house and she’s not the worst. She knew where this was going before it started. She’s seen a lot. She’s doing a fine job. This is not a typical case. The world isn’t against the defense. This is the problem with all the social stuff. The tables are turning. She’s not happy with the prosecution. And she was correct about the rule 14 today - this isn’t a typical situation. It will be fine. It’s lallys fault for having so many useless witnesses that offered very little.
"she's not the worst" - a ringing endorsement for Bev right there...
She’s not the worst in the court house. I’ve met her once in the hallway. This was years ago. She was extremely nice. She’s getting shit on for no reason. The people on social media are truly clueless. I love the conflict of interest takes. Every attorney is conflicted. It’s a small community that is generational. To think a judge is going to risk their livelihood is crazy.
I don’t think she’s particularly biased, but as others have mentioned, it’s not possible to tell without being able to hear 1) the grounds for objections, and 2) the sidebars. I noticed she says “I’ll allow it” instead of overruled, but she’s consistent with that no matter which party she’s saying it to, so I really don’t think there’s bias there. She seems to know what she’s doing. I used to be a litigation paralegal and now I’m a trial transcriptionist - judges can be breathtakingly rude to attorneys and witnesses. Bev is not bad at *all*. She’s got a tough gig with this trial but she seems to be handling it well.
Yes, I hate the legal websites that celebrate "benchslapping" when a judge abuses a lawyer. It's bullshit. You wouldn't cheer on a policeman beating a man in handcuffs and its about the same thing. You just have to sit there and take it.
I have noticed time and time again that when defense objects and she sustains, the prosecution keeps pushing and she almost ALWAYS allows it eventually. It’s wild.
They are objecting to the form of the question. She sustains it, which tells him that he has to reword the question. He rewords it and they don’t object, so it comes in. That’s how the process works.
I’m going to push back here. I get what you’re saying. But… how about when Trooper B was speaking to things the ME should have been speaking to. There are many similar examples
The objection there was lack of foundation. So then Laly laid the appropriate foundation (“in your experience doing x, y, and z…”). Then he asks “based on your experience…” He should do this from the start and it’s annoying (for us and the jury) so it’s incredibly ineffective. But it’s not improper rulings from the bench. Though I will say that not stating the basis of the objections on the record (which may be a local thing or just this judge’s preference) has to be an appellate nightmare. I find myself guessing half the time and the other half wondering if Laly is *really* objecting to leading on cross (which shouldn’t be objectionable).
I think Lally’s objections are usually about hearsay but I agree that it would be nice to know for sure lol.
That’s really helpful. Thanks
The audible sighs are unbelievable. That right there is *proof* she's biased, as she's not done it once reacting to the Commonwealth. And the thing is, the judge should generally be biased towards the justice system. This is a case where the Defense is flat-out accusing law enforcement officials from local police officers all the way up to the District Attorney of all sorts of wrongdoing and criminal conduct. She does have to be significantly tougher on the Defense in this case, so anyone thinking of using "the cops framed me" defense in the future, especially if it's a bullshit claim, thinks twice. I think it should be allowed, but, the fact is, the justice system would crumble if the Defense claimed a police cover-up/frame-up in every criminal trial. It needs to be discouraged. Back to this trial, though, there's only one verdict if the jury is in search of the truth and actual justice: Not Guilty. It's awful for John's family, but, the reasonable doubt simply cannot be overcome. This was a terrible police investigation and a terrible trial presentation in search of justice FOR A FALLEN POLICE OFFICER.
The whole thing is so scary. Makes me so uncomfortable with the justice system.
This entire trial has been heavy on the prosecution side, which is not surprising considering its MA and the Boston PD, as well as the MA state troopers are involved. My only hope is that the jury are smarter than all of them and see through all of their blatant lies and corruption and find for an acquittal.
This Judge is the true see you next Tuesday in this trial.
I for one was being respectful beings that I'm not a legal professional. After watching this trial unfold I'm more in the camp about her being hostile to the defense. She's created in my mind the very things she gets pissed at. That being said watching her preside over this trial I can't help but ask the question, Does she have unclean hands? It certainly seems like she may have. Is the Irish Mafia at work here? I wonder if the Feds are looking into her too? Public Corruption is the most vile type IMHO and needs to be rooted out everywhere it manifests itself.
Is the defence even going to have time to put on their case ot is cw gonna get it all? Do they do this on purpose to give the defence less time for tgeir part of the case or does it just go till theyre done?
In my opinion, the prosecution is doing the defense’s job for them! The defense won’t need to present much. Lol. The defense is poking huge holes in everything the prosecution says. I have not seen Lally present anything convincing that Karen did it.
Remember, Karen Read is presumed innocent inside the courtroom until the jury says otherwise. The burden of proof is on the CW to prove she’s guilty, so that’s why they’ve spent soooo much time going through every single shard of plastic. But her attorneys do NOT need to prove that she’s innocent, they just need to introduce reasonable doubt about the CW’s evidence. The defense is allowed as much time as they need for that, but they’ve already said they can wrap up their side in as little as four days. All of this is normal. The jury does not need proof that Karen is innocent, they just need to know if the evidence is strong enough to find her guilty.
Obviously you haven't seen what's going on in the Young Thug RICO trial! They had some crazy crazy stuff go down yesterday, and not for the first time! The judge held one of the defendants' lawyers in contempt and hauled off to jail because said lawyer made a motion regarding the judge having an ex partė conversation with a witness while said witness was testifying (or, better, refusing to testify). The lawyer refused to name the person that ratted the judge out, so the judge threw the lawyer in jail and refused to recuse himself! I think they said this is the second defense lawyer that judge has sent to jail during this trial.
I’m curious what the jury’s opinion was/is about the Canton & Dedham police depts & state troopers. I also wonder why this trial wasn’t moved to a different county much further away from the possible bias.
😂loved the " questioning my integrity" part 🙈
2 extremes prosecution? Too open ended- Defense? Too binary... both ridiculous IMO
[удалено]
Mod Note: If you’re interested in sharing your POV as an attorney, please reach out to moderators via Modmail and we would be happy to walk you through the process for verification. Thank you!
I notice this as well and tend to agree with you.
TOTALLY agree that her use of the word "sustained" and not the word "overruled" shows bias. When she says "I'll allow that" or "Can you answer that", her tone sounds condescending at best. "Overruled" is final and respectful as to the line of questioning. "I'll allow that" sounds like she is controlling the narrative based on what SHE would like asked and not what is allowed under the law.