Mistrial declared for Emanuel Lopes, charged with killing Weymouth Police Officer Michael Chesna and bystander

[HARRYM]

I think the Judge and Juries in DC have been very temperate and fair in their dealings with the 1/6 defendants...........

 

[AMV]

I think the Judge and Juries in DC have been very temperate and fair in their dealings with the 1/6 defendants...........

This is where a change of venue can have huge affects on a jury pool. A jury of your peers may look quite different in a red state compared to a blue state……

 

[Cap'n Mike]

This is a good example to those that try to get out of jury duty.

One person can make a difference.

This 100%
Getting out of Jury duty is the same as not voting IMHO.

Working in the Criminal Justice system I could very easily get out of it like most of my coworkers, but I always go.

 

[SFC13557]

A hysterical female juror I read which is why woman shouldn't be allowed as jurors. .
If the juror couldn't handle the evidence and the type of trail they should have excused themselves from the jury.

 

[AMV]

A hysterical female juror I read which is why woman shouldn't be allowed as jurors. .
If the juror couldn't handle the evidence and the type of trail they should have excused themselves from the jury.

she could have that's why they have 14 jurors.

 

[appraiser]

I am normally one not to play Judge and Jury, I believe in the right of presumption of innocence until convicted by a jury of ones peers.

But in this case Lopes should have been executed on the spot by a responding officer

Or given a spirited ride unrestrained in a prisoner transport unit on the way to court.

At this point I would love to see him as a quadriplegic eating thru a feeding tube at some prison while being used as a sex toy by the entire prison popuation

 

[eboos]

The Norfolk Superior Court jury in Dedham deliberated for days after getting the case late last month, but could not decide whether Lopes is a murderer or mentally ill.

Are the two mutually exclusive?

 

[appraiser]

Page 1 Instruction 9.200
Revised June 2022 LACK OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
LACK OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
If the Commonwealth has proved the elements of the offense
beyond a reasonable doubt, the Commonwealth must also prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was criminally
responsible at the time of the alleged offense. Under the law, a
person is not guilty if they lacked criminal responsibility when they
committed the offense. This is sometimes referred to as not guilty by
reason of insanity. There is no burden on the defendant to prove that
they lacked criminal responsibility.
The Commonwealth may meet its burden of proving a defendant
was criminally responsible for their conduct in either of two ways.
The first way is for the Commonwealth to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant did not suffer from a mental
disease or defect at the time of the alleged offense.
A mental disease or defect need not fit into a formal medical
diagnosis. It is a legal term, not a medical term. It does not, however,
include an abnormality that presents itself only by repeated criminal
or otherwise antisocial behavior. It is for you to determine from the
evidence whether the defendant had a mental disease or defect at the
time of the alleged offense.

The second way for the Commonwealth to prove a defendant
was criminally responsible for their conduct is for the Commonwealth
to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that, even if the defendant
suffered from a mental disease or defect at the time of the alleged
offense, the defendant nonetheless retained the substantial capacity
to appreciate the wrongfulness or criminality of their conduct and to
conform their conduct to the requirements of the law.
To establish that the defendant had the substantial capacity to
appreciate the wrongfulness or criminality of their conduct, the
Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendant appreciated – that is, that the defendant knew or
understood in some meaningful way – that their conduct was either
illegal or wrong.

 

[JDL]

Maybe after ke kills again and maybe not

 

[Kilroy]

Jury foreperson speaks out after mistrial declared in trial of man accused of killing Weymouth police officer, bystander - Boston News, Weather, Sports | WHDH 7News

DEDHAM, MASS. (WHDH) - The foreperson of a hung jury is now speaking out after a judge declared a mistrial in the case of a<a class="excerpt-read-more"...

whdh.com

 

[Roadglide]

Jury foreperson speaks out after mistrial declared in trial of man accused of killing Weymouth police officer, bystander - Boston News, Weather, Sports | WHDH 7News

DEDHAM, MASS. (WHDH) - The foreperson of a hung jury is now speaking out after a judge declared a mistrial in the case of a<a class="excerpt-read-more"...

whdh.com

The lone holdout would not be swayed. She agreed with the defense theory that Lopes was having a psychotic episode and is not legally responsible for the murders.

“She just would not participate and give justified reasons for her conclusions,”

Like I said before…..one idiot had a tantrum.

 

[TLB]

Jury duty isn't easy, but it is worthwhile. The holdout judged the credibility of the witnesses and evidence differently than the others. Many just tilt easily with the majority in the jury room, based on my experience. I'm fine with her sticking to her convictions. I don't really know anything about the case since I wasn't at the trial.

 

[meh]

I'm fine with her sticking to her convictions.

I just wouldn’t want any of the other jurors to be moved to say afterwards that I would not participate.

 

[not new guy]

The holdout judged the credibility of the witnesses and evidence differently than the others.

We hope. There is a possible alternative explanation though - one supported by the juror’s refusal to participate in discussions or otherwise explain their position.

 

[In God We Trust]

I actually spoke with someone who would have been impaneled on that jury but was removed right before the final jury was decided.

The question that DQ’d him was “does using drugs make someone a bad person” and his answer was in his opinion it doesn’t make them a good person.

He could have been the one that made a difference, I wonder how that’s sitting with him now.

If he answered honestly, it should be sitting just fine with him. I think we have a duty to be honest and let the lawyers do their thing.

I’ve been called 3 times that I recall. Once I blew it off, twice I was excused. Never got to serve although I would like to at some point.

 

[TLB]

We hope. There is a possible alternative explanation though - one supported by the juror’s refusal to participate in discussions or otherwise explain their position.

Things can get pretty heated in deliberations. At some point, certain personalities just shut down after repeated attack of their position. Some people think that just restating their position over and over again is deliberating. Some just want to go home, unfortunately. I participated in a very healthy debate during my service. Myself and another guy did most of the back and forth. In the end, I agreed with him and we complemented each other afterwards on the back and forth. To some people (not me), debating or arguing is akin to fighting. Without being there, we just don't know. But the state gets another bite at the apple, unlike if the one juror capitulated.

 

[Cap'n Mike]

Never got to serve although I would like to at some point.

I served on 2.
One a civil case, the second time on Grand Jury. It was very eye opening and educational.

 

[meh]

At some point, certain personalities just shut down after repeated attack of their position.

The thought had occurred. It seemed odd that the foreman (foreperson, whatever) was surprised that the judge declared a mistrial. You have a holdout juror who is not participating in deliberations anymore. Presumably the other 11 jurors were not considering flipping. And she wasn't expecting a mistrial at that point? I don't think I quite like the implication that the hold out might be worn down with more time when they aren't even participating at that point. I guess maybe she thought the holdout would be forced to participate in time? And then what? Just struck me as kind of odd.

 

[Eddie_Valiant]

Can the law re try the case as many times as it wants or is there a limit

James Kater, the bastard that tortured and killed 15 year old Mary Lou Arruda in 1978, was tried four times. Two trials were overturned by the SJC. Raynham
Is there a limit? Probably not but I've never heard of more than two attempts.

 

[Picton]

James Kater, the bastard that tortured and killed 15 year old Mary Lou Arruda in 1978, was tried four times. Two trials were overturned by the SJC. Raynham
Is there a limit? Probably not but I've never heard of more than two attempts.

Yeah, usually there are no attempts. In this case, there will be. Because cop killer. It's also a very, very winnable case for the state.

You don't see many retrials unless the case makes headlines, whether that's deserved or not.