I looked into Judge Beverly Cannone's appeal record in published decisions. She doesn't always get it right, but that doesn't mean the reviewing courts will fix it.
I enjoyed this analysis of what we might expect to see, since it also possibly explains reasons for what we’ve already seen in the courtroom. I do think there are compelling alternative theories consistent with these facts, but I’m willing to concede that Judge Cannone is being classically conditioned to rule in favor of the Commonwealth for positive reinforcement (raising her stats to be more accurate than a coin flip).
Theory 2. Given Judge Cannone’s long history of representing indigent individuals, Karen Read possibly doesn’t get the instinctive benefit of the doubt because she’s considered part of a privileged and even intellectual class (she’s definitely considered that way from the ‘circle’ of accusers).
Theory 3. Another possibility is that the bias is largely intentional and corruption is involved. Even if the initial ‘Auntie Bev’ accusation and request for her recusal was unfounded (don’t know if it was), it doesn't follow that no bribery or favors are involved. As you point out, the objections are opaque and so are the rulings. This creates a black box, and a hospitable environment for corruption.
Some good, some bad. Defense nearly always has an uphill battle on appeal anyway because the standards are unfavorable and they've been convictesd, so they aren't sympathetic. But if there's a ruling where they can argue Judge Cannone misunderstood the law, her track record for interpreting the law isn't great and they may have a better chance there. What does concern me is what her record may be telling us about why she seems to persistently favor the Commonwealth because it suggests she's already got a view of the facts that's coloring her application of the law, and it also suggests we shouldn't expect that trend to change during the trial.
Not being able to directly use 3rd party just adds to the confusion. I really feel for these jurors. I’m sure they are tuning out half the testimony at this point because their brains are full of random facts. These 3 guys were at the scene and had the physical strength to beat John up. It’s not like they’re pointing the finger at Bella’s Mom.
Yes and I have to say their motive evidence is a whole lot better than the Commonwealth's at this point. If the stuff with Higgins is supposed to support her motive, why is it not supporting his at least as much?
Is the idea that they will have another ruling at the end of direct on whether they can go with 3rd party? Do you think they have already asked at any of the past sidebars?
I'm sure they've discussed it at sidebar and will continue to throughout the entire case as it's implicated by the evidence that's proffered. They probably won't ask for a blanket ruling on it again until all the evidence is in and they're deciding instructions and whether they'll be limited in arguing third-party culprit in closing.
If I was on the jury, I would have checked out mentally during week 1. And isn't there 4 more weeks to go? Yikes.
At least! They're so behind. Another 40+ witnesses are still on the Commonwealth's list.
I hear that. How do you sit through the prosecution's testimony in particular--in a hot room?
I enjoyed this analysis of what we might expect to see, since it also possibly explains reasons for what we’ve already seen in the courtroom. I do think there are compelling alternative theories consistent with these facts, but I’m willing to concede that Judge Cannone is being classically conditioned to rule in favor of the Commonwealth for positive reinforcement (raising her stats to be more accurate than a coin flip).
Theory 2. Given Judge Cannone’s long history of representing indigent individuals, Karen Read possibly doesn’t get the instinctive benefit of the doubt because she’s considered part of a privileged and even intellectual class (she’s definitely considered that way from the ‘circle’ of accusers).
Theory 3. Another possibility is that the bias is largely intentional and corruption is involved. Even if the initial ‘Auntie Bev’ accusation and request for her recusal was unfounded (don’t know if it was), it doesn't follow that no bribery or favors are involved. As you point out, the objections are opaque and so are the rulings. This creates a black box, and a hospitable environment for corruption.
So is that good thing or bad thing
Some good, some bad. Defense nearly always has an uphill battle on appeal anyway because the standards are unfavorable and they've been convictesd, so they aren't sympathetic. But if there's a ruling where they can argue Judge Cannone misunderstood the law, her track record for interpreting the law isn't great and they may have a better chance there. What does concern me is what her record may be telling us about why she seems to persistently favor the Commonwealth because it suggests she's already got a view of the facts that's coloring her application of the law, and it also suggests we shouldn't expect that trend to change during the trial.
Not being able to directly use 3rd party just adds to the confusion. I really feel for these jurors. I’m sure they are tuning out half the testimony at this point because their brains are full of random facts. These 3 guys were at the scene and had the physical strength to beat John up. It’s not like they’re pointing the finger at Bella’s Mom.
Yes and I have to say their motive evidence is a whole lot better than the Commonwealth's at this point. If the stuff with Higgins is supposed to support her motive, why is it not supporting his at least as much?
Is the idea that they will have another ruling at the end of direct on whether they can go with 3rd party? Do you think they have already asked at any of the past sidebars?
I'm sure they've discussed it at sidebar and will continue to throughout the entire case as it's implicated by the evidence that's proffered. They probably won't ask for a blanket ruling on it again until all the evidence is in and they're deciding instructions and whether they'll be limited in arguing third-party culprit in closing.