Bob Mata (8:44)

I think that there were two cases that really kind of like, struck the public conscience, and it was Karen Reed and the Richard Allen case. And the thing that was significant in both of those cases is that an unusual thing happened, and that was that the defense in both of those cases kind of put out their theory of defense long before the general public ever hears it in most cases. So in. In Karen Reed, you had them filing the motion to dismiss, where you get this whole cop conspiracy house long to die. And they like this massive conspiracy. So when that came out, people started to read it. It became kind of more public knowledge. And when you have that situation, because we were very acc in this country, particularly to only hearing the state's theory of the case, you very rarely hear the defense say, all right, well, that's what they're saying happened. Well, this is what we're saying happened and having it out there for public consumption, leading up to a trial for a year plus.

Ashley Banfield (9:55)

One of the things that I am, like, fixated on, it's a small thing in this trial, but I feel like it's super important for everyone, and that is that Karen Reid said something like an utterance that the police have been using against her and the prosecutors have been using against her, and is, I hit him. But I always feel like, was that with a question mark at the end or an exclamation point at the end? Because you could say it as I hit him or I hit him. And I always think about my cousin Vinnie and I shot the clerk, you know, which if you take the intonation and the lilt out of the end of your voice, it's, I shot the clerk. And I say that's important for people because it's the reason your lawyer tells you, do not talk till I'm there. Because these things that you have no intention of doing or saying can be used against you. And that's a perfect example.

Bob Mata (10:55)

And they will. I mean that. That's part of the Miranda for a reason that they will. They can and will use everything that you say against you in a court of law, and that always bears itself out. You gave a much cleaner version of what I usually tell my clients, which is, you know, shut the F up.

Ashley Banfield (11:13)

So STFU is usually what we write.

Bob Mata (11:17)

You know, but the concept is you just don't talk, especially in a situation where you're innocent, because if they've invited you to their house, meaning they've invited you to the police station because they need to talk to you. You know that they're looking at you for something, like if you're a lay witness or just somebody that they want to talk to or they're going to go canvassing, they'll knock on your door. It'll be way more low key than that if they're inviting you in and you haven't done it. But in all situations, you should never talk to law enforcement, which sounds terrible to say, but it's true.

Ashley Banfield (11:54)

It doesn't feel right. Because if you are innocent, want to profess your innocence right away, and you feel, I have nothing to hide, I have nothing to hide, too bad you have nothing to hide. But the things you say can be twisted. There's another total aside here, not a Karen Reid issue here, but when you're stopped at a traffic stop and the officer says, do you know why I pulled you over? If you say, was I speeding? You're acknowledging that you don't know if you were speeding. So you shouldn't say that. Even though you are trying to be honest and have a good narrative and conversation with the officer. If you say, was it speeding? Right. You know, it's on. It's on body cam.

Bob Mata (12:34)

Right? Yeah. And you've, like, basically acknowledged the fact that, like, maybe you were breaking the law. So, yeah, the. The best thing is you can't say.

Ashley Banfield (12:41)

Later, I wasn't speeding because you already asked if you were. Yeah. Right.

Bob Mata (12:44)

Yeah. And it's that in that situation, you basically just say, hello.

Ashley Banfield (12:50)

Yeah. And no, sir.

Bob Mata (12:52)

Yeah, exactly.

Ashley Banfield (12:53)

Do you know why you were pulled over? No, sir.

Bob Mata (12:55)

No.

Ashley Banfield (12:55)

And be very polite.

Bob Mata (12:56)

That's right.

Ashley Banfield (12:57)

Yeah. I always say, like, I remember, like, from a very early age, well, look, we're. We're older, right. So we were terrified of police, and we behaved ourselves. And when you watch Live PD slash op live, you see how disrespectful and horrifying people are to police who usually start the conversation in. In a respectful way. I always say put your interior light on immediately. Put your hands. Put all the window. All four windows down. All four. Don't. Don't. Just put yours down. Put every window down so that as they approach, they can see that you've done something to allow them to see in. And put your hands up on the wheel, up high, right.

Bob Mata (13:35)

100.

Ashley Banfield (13:36)

So they can see your hands without gloves on them, without anything. And just be so polite, because that woman or man who's walking up to your car is in a position where this could be the last thing they ever see in their life before the gun goes off, you know, and you're racing off because you're a felon who's about to be caught and thrown back in jail. So it's very, very scary for that officer. And maybe that anxiety is what comes out when they seem edgy 100%.

Bob Mata (14:04)

And beyond that, I mean, take, take the person out of the uniform and just think about your daily interactions with people. I mean, I think that old axiom that you, you get more bees with honey than you do with vinegar is very true. So if you, if you come at them hard, I mean, like you, like if you were in a grocery store and you start yelling at the, the person who's checking you out, you're going to get a pretty combative thing. Now, obviously, the, the end game not. Is not nearly as significant as if you're dealing with the police officer. Yeah, the concept is the same. You know, it's just treat others as you want to be treated. And frankly, if you're acting completely defensive, that puts them on high alert immediately, so.

Ashley Banfield (14:46)

And things will take longer and go worse. Yeah, absolutely.

Bob Mata (14:49)

Absolutely.

Ashley Banfield (14:49)

So what a diversion from Karen Reed. But let's talk dog bite theory, because I also find this one fascinating that, you know, dog bite science is not something we have often seen in a courtroom. I've heard the smell science in Casey Anthony's case. You know, some people call it voodoo science and whatever else, but the dog bite science in this case is important. You want to take it from there and give me your perspectives on why dog bites in this case matter?

Bob Mata (15:15)

Well, I mean, they matter. Going back to our little conversation about, you know, that initial motion dismissed, where they kind of laid out the entire theory, which was the defense theory, is that John O'Keefe went into that house, something went down, and that Chloe the German shepherd had something to do with it. Which in their theory, Chloe or another dog caused the injuries on John O'Keefe's arm.

Ashley Banfield (15:38)

So as opposed to Karen Reed's SUV.

Bob Mata (15:42)

SUV, exactly. So, you know, it's. Again, we've got two absolutely competing theories that are. One, one has nothing to do with the other. The other one is kind of a difficult sell when you're trying to convince 12 people in a box that, you know, all these cops were conspiring to do this. And, you know, it's a difficult, difficult sell. So the concept of trying to figure out what happened to his arm then became a very important part to the defense. And, you know, like, I've seen The pictures of the arm. You've seen the pictures of the arm. I'm no dog bite expert. Do, do they look like they could be dog bites or scratches? They do to me, you know, so. And I think that from the perspective of a normal person, when you're looking at it, when there is no real reasonable explanation that's been proffered by the commonwealth as to how those particular injuries were caused, you want to try to hammer it home by putting on an expert who's going to say, yes, you know, I'm very learned in the ways of dog bite injuries and in my opinion, what I'm looking at, these wounds were caused by a canine. So I mean, and you want to do that to hammer it home because in court, lawyers words mean little to nothing. It's all about what's brought in in evidence. So, you know, you have to have an expert like Dr. Russell come in and testify. They'll give you, you know, her cv, they'll put it all out there. This is her experience, this is what makes her an expert in the field. And then they'll go through the process of her identifying why she believes and her methodology as to why she believes that a canine caused those injuries. And then it's up to the, the commonwealth in this case to rebut that, either with their own expert or on cross examination.

Ashley Banfield (17:31)

And that's when I love the word reasonable. Because it's the number one question that so many jurors come back with as they've been dismissed to deliberate in a case. They send the question back to the judge. What does reasonable mean in reasonable doubt? Can you define reasonable? And the judges usually put out the same response, which is what's reasonable to you? That's your inner fabric. I can't tell you what's reasonable to you because what's reasonable to one person is that no one should drink before the age of 21. And what's reasonable to another person is for God's sake, I can give my 18 year old boy a beer. And so everybody's a little different there. And all you need is one of those jurors to say it is reasonable to think maybe the dog bites, maybe those were dog bites. And that that expert sounded reasonable. And I'm kind of there with the, I'm not sure. It's not, it's not definitive, but it's reasonable doubt. It's not definitive proof, you know.

Bob Mata (18:33)

Exactly. And it's. As an attorney, the concept of reasonable doubt has always been one of my biggest hang ups. Because if you look from state to state and you go through their jury instructions where they try to define what reasonable doubt is. Inevitably, they're always different. There is no standard explanation of what it is. And it comes back to haunt defense attorneys so often because there is no way to really explain it in a way that is just concise and clear, you know, so it always leaves kind of this buffer zone of doubt in terms of the jurors minds. Are they applying it correctly?

Ashley Banfield (19:21)

Are you allowed in summation to say to jurors, let me talk about reasonable doubt for a hot minute. Reasonable is what seems fair to you, not to your neighbor, not to the other juror. There's no definition of what is reasonable to you. But we all know what reasonable means. It's not loony and it's not beyond shadow of a doubt. It's reasonable. It's a little less than that. Are you allowed to use those kinds of words to describe it and define it to them in summation?

Bob Mata (19:56)

Absolutely. And you know, I think that that was one of the problems with the defense and Karen Reed's first trial is they, they did not focus on that aspect in closing enough in terms of hammering home what reasonable doubt means and the concept that the defense has no burden, even though they're putting forth this, this conspiracy defense. They had no obligation, even though it seemed like it was a burden shift because Yannetti, the first words that came out of his mouth during his opening is Karen Reed was framed. You know, so like when they, when they did that, even though there is no actual burden shifting that takes place in the minds of jurors. There is, yes.

Ashley Banfield (20:37)

Oh, yes. Prove it. They want to say, prove it. If you didn't do it, prove it. That's the first thing that goes through their minds. Even if they're not saying those words. That's their, that's their feeling. I'm in a courtroom. You look guilty over there at defense table, so prove you aren't. And, and you're right. But I do think there is a burden unspoken of defense attorneys to reach into the gut of a juror and through their work, say, is it reasonable that this might not be true?

Bob Mata (21:04)

Right.

Ashley Banfield (21:04)

Is it just reasonable to think it might not be true and make it simple like OJ's case was the masterclass in how to f up simplicity and a reasonable person's gut. I would have put on such a short case there and say, what's reasonable to you? Right. Is it reasonable that there's some mass conspiracy between 100 different outlets at the LAPD and the prosecutor's office to think they all mass conspire within 10 minutes in an evening, you know, like. And then you've got me. But if you clutter everything. And sometimes I think that lawyers and prosecutors and defense attorneys, they get wound up in their own business, and they forget that that's a hairdresser, that's a manicurist, that's a car mechanic over there, and that's an accountant. And they don't understand your terms. They don't understand why you're going there with this. Well, what's going on here? Just tell me the story. I think they forget to tell a story story, you know, and. And the biggest part of that story is what you just said. Let me tell you a little bit about what's reasonable doubt and. And what should be reasonable to you.

Bob Mata (22:12)

It's huge. Because that. That concept, when they go back there and if they don't understand what it means, you. You hammer home two points. If you're on the defense side of it, you're. You're hammering home the point that we had to prove nothing to you. Now, that being said, the reality is I've never walked into a courtroom on a bio. Not. No.

Ashley Banfield (22:29)

Not thinking shady af.

Bob Mata (22:31)

Right. No. I always think that I have to prove that my client's innocent if I have the ability to do it. Because, like, in some cases, as a defense attorney, you'll have a defense. Either it's an affirmative defense, or you have your own theory of what happened, and sometimes you don't. And that's where you're leaning into a reasonable doubt. You're hoping that the jury will find that there's reasonable doubt there. And you have to do that sometimes by just picking apart the. The state's evidence and saying, well, that evidence is weak. And, you know, so in terms of the prosecution, it's a different thing. And I saw. I can't remember which trial was, you know, I think it was Zachary Hughes. And I actually liked what the state had done in terms of. From their perspective, trying to get across to the jury what it meant from the state's perspective. And she had just taken a large pad of paper and she put in kind of like it looked like an old hangman game, you know, with. You play with your kids, where you put the dashes for the letters and she put in like, C blank, blank, blank, mm, O, N. And then sense spelled out, and she's like, all right, so beyond a reasonable doubt is a lot like the wheel of fortune. So she's like, I'm gonna hold this up to you now. You can look at it and you know exactly what that is. There's no question in your mind that you know that that spells out common sense, even though there's two missing pieces. Right. So, like, and I thought that that was a really, really effective way for the state to be able to say, okay, that is what beyond a reasonable doubt is. As far as the defense goes, wait.

Ashley Banfield (24:01)

Wait, would you be allowed to. Could you see a judge saying, that's not appropriate? Can you do that again in summation to show how simple this is?

Bob Mata (24:10)

That's what she did.

Ashley Banfield (24:11)

And you can do that anywhere, any jurisdiction. But can a judge ever shut you down and say, you can't do that?

Bob Mata (24:15)

I mean, if you're giving an improper. If you're giving an improper instruction to the jury. Yeah.

Ashley Banfield (24:21)

Like, I only say that because you're bringing in an artifact, you're bringing in an exhibit and showing them something that hasn't been introduced in trial. And I always wonder, is that one of those gray areas where you could be shut down, where the layperson doesn't know why you're being shut down, but legally, according to jurisprudence, you can't do that?

Bob Mata (24:38)

Typically, no, because remember, like, in the judge always admonishes the jury, and there's typically an instruction in the jury instructions that says, look, whatever the, Whatever the lawyers are saying is not evidence. And closing arguments are exactly that. It's argument. That's all it is. So they can give whatever weight they deem that they should give it in terms of what that lawyer is arguing. As long as they understand that that's not evidence in the case, all it is is argument from the lawyer that their story is the right story. So, like, but from the defense attorney side of it, it's harder to come up with, like, a really good analogy that works, that makes it clear, other than, you know, you'll typically hear if in your mind you're thinking, well, that probably happened, that's reasonable doubt. Or maybe that happened, that's reasonable doubt. If you're there, if you're thinking that there's another plausible explanation as to what may have happened, that's reasonable doubt. So it's like you really have to kind of flesh out those things, and you're absolutely allowed to bring that up to a jury trying to explain, explain what the concept is, because that is the burden, you know, so, like, you're always going to be able to try to clarify it to the jury in terms of that Very, very difficult job that they have, which is to go back and, you know, judge another person, where the end result, they ultimately know in a criminal case is most likely to be the loss of liberty and freedom.

Ashley Banfield (26:08)

And some. And some jurors are unreasonable. I mean, the reality is the motorist ahead of you, that if you get into a fender bender who brings out a baseball bat is an unreasonable person, and that could be a juror at some point. You have to, like, yeah, you got to get all these personalities together. Some are very unreasonable, some are morons, didn't pay attention, and some are really, really invested and very reasonable. And somehow that has to come together with all 12, you know, with the same, you know, decision.

Bob Mata (26:35)

And we can have. We could do a podcast episode for five hours talking about the importance of picking a jury and how hard it is, because it's exactly what you said. You're getting people from all walks of life. You're getting very little information. It's not like, what was the movie, the Grisham novel, where they were getting these, like. Like massive dossiers. It was about Runaway Jury.

Ashley Banfield (26:59)

Runaway Jury? Yeah. Oh.

Bob Mata (27:00)

Like, they were getting these huge dossiers about who these jurors were, and they're on huge computers, typing, you know, pulling up all that. That's not how it is. Like in Illinois, for instance, where we practice, we get it the morning of trial, we get sheets that basically is bio, and they'll have some questions that they asked, and that's all we get. Now, in cases that are bigger, where you're really worried about the publicity, they're so. Yeah, like. Like, the first thing I'm doing when I'm sitting in the courtroom is I'm digging in. So if Allison, my partner and my wife, is sitting next to me, and she's going to be doing the first panel of Voirdeer, I'm going through their socials to try to get a sense of who they are. Like. Like a lot of times people's politics matter. Like, do you want a conservative jury? Do you want a liberal juror? You know, like, so you're trying to pick apart all the different things that you can get and call out of that information. Socials.

Ashley Banfield (27:52)

If you're defending a police officer and they're, you know, their bio picture is the. The American flag in gray and blue. That's your juror.

Bob Mata (28:01)

That's your guy, you know, gal. But it's so. It's so hard to know what. Like what. Like what they're thinking or what they're going to think. And they, like judges, will limit you a lot more during that voir dire, during the questioning of the jurors on the front end than they will an argument towards the end because they want to try to limit it. And we're always wanting to try to dig deep because we're trying to get a sense of who that person is.

Ashley Banfield (28:27)

Alan Jackson should be really good at this. And I'll tell you a little anecdote. I don't know if many people know about this. Alan Jackson was the prosecutor in California for Phil Spector's case, for his number one trial, number one that was hung. And one of the jurors in Phil Spector's case was a Dateline producer.

Bob Mata (28:49)

Wow.

Ashley Banfield (28:50)

And I kept thinking, how did that happen? That's impossible. Because a Dateline producer will be on that story after because they've got the inside information. And that story is a heck of a lot more sellable if he's guilty. And so that was number one. That drove me crazy. And the other issue is one of them in the hung jury, which was trial number one, was an engineer. And I remember learning this from my Court TV colleagues back in the day. You never want an engineer on a case because engineers must connect every dot. There can't be a stressor point anywhere in a bridge. Everything must be connected. And thus, if you have chasms in a case, which we always do, they will not be able to see through. See through it. And they will say it's reasonable doubt because you didn't connect this to that. And that's. Guess who hung that jury. The inspector was the engineer. So Alan Jackson was there for that. And I feel like now he's on the other side. He's defending Karen Reed. He should be extraordinarily astute. He's a very smart guy, by the way. I know him well. He's very, very smart and very good at his job. He should.

Bob Mata (30:07)

I don't know if Robert Alici. Smart, though.

Ashley Banfield (30:10)

Go on.

Bob Mata (30:11)

Yeah, he's. He's a brilliant guy, but no, yeah, Alan. Alan's an unbelievable attorney. And, you know, I mean, he's kind of going through it right now.

Ashley Banfield (30:19)

He's been through it. He's been through when the jury sinks you, when that one juror sinks you. So he. He'd be so mindful about jury selection.

Bob Mata (30:27)

I know. It's just so hard to do, though, like. So probably my worst mistake ever in a trial is I was trying a case and it was just a dui, but my client wanted to bring it to trial. I'm like, okay, so we brought it to trial, and it was. I was employing kind of a rather peculiar defense. It was the defense of necessity, meaning that there was a reason, there was a necessity for him to be driving. It was related to something that was going on domestically at his house. And. But it. Legally, it was an interesting. It was a very novel defense. So I'm, like, going into it, I'm like, all right. I was telling Allison there was a former prosecutor from that county who was no longer a prosecutor, but a prosecutor who I knew that was in the jury veneer. And. And I was. Allison, like, came in. She wasn't trying the case with me. And I'm like, I'm thinking about taking this prosecutor only because of this novel defense. I'm worried that it might go over just an average layperson's head and they won't get it. So I'm hoping he'll explain it. She hears it, right? She was a.

Ashley Banfield (31:30)

She'll explain it. She'll explain it.

Bob Mata (31:33)

I mean, talk about never putting a prosecutor on your jury. But I decided to do it anyway, knowing that she would ultimately become the for person, which, of course she did. And my. My ship was sunk. So. Because it was really a pretty. It was a valid defense. But at the end of the day, I think that she just said, look, this is kind of like a black and white situation. If. If you're intoxicated and you're driving, you broke the law, it's guilty. So. But they did deliberate for about six hours on a, like, a simple dui. So that was. But that was definitely my worst, worst mistake ever. Lesson learned, lesson learned, lesson learned. And I knew it. I knew it ahead of time.

Ashley Banfield (32:11)

Let's talk a little bit about conspiracy, because I see Karen Reed's case as two alleged conspiracies. The first one was the conspiracy to kill the police officer boyfriend, if that's in fact what happened among all the officers at the party. Second one was to cover up and point the finger at Karen. So those are the two allegations, and people love to theorize about those. But a reasonable person usually says, ah, hold on. Stop telling me conspiracy theories. That's unreasonable. But in this particular case, it's not. Because there's so much now coming out about these officers, nearby officers, cases that involve nearby officers in these officers, AKA Sandra Birchmore's case, that are starting to bear out that they do behave in a conspiratorial way. So walk me through how that is going to work itself into trial number two for Karen Reed especially what they're allowed to bring in and what they're not allowed to bring in.

Bob Mata (33:13)

Yeah, I mean, that. That'll depend on what happens with Wolf and Rensselaer, the two ARCA experts that they're going to have that were hired by the DoJ in terms of what they're going to be able to get in after. I was not a huge fan of the conspiracy theory defense because not that I didn't believe that it was possible, that it was true, but I thought it would be near impossible to get 12 people on a jury to believe that it was true. I think that you'll get the certain portion of the jury to believe that it's possible, and that's all they have to do. Again, remember, they don't have to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. They just have to get the jurors to say, well, that could have been exactly what happened. Right. That's reasonable doubt. So, like, in my estimation, like, coming out of the first trial, I'm like, man, like, I get it with respect to dealing with the taillight being in the yard, but like, trying to sell that whole thing seems so difficult when you have such powerful witnesses, specifically those two ARCA guys who are just going to get on the stand and say, look, we are. We are biomechanical engineers. We've tried to, to see any way possible that those injuries, or lack thereof on John O'Keefe, that he was hit by that vehicle, and we can't do it. We cannot show, based on the injuries that he sustained, that he was hit by that 6,000 pound SUV. And, you know, I'm leaning into that because at the end of the day, what I'm trying to do is win the case for my client. I know, especially Alan, definitely they're trying to exonerate her because this case, you know, how toxic it is out there, like with these both warring sides in this case. Those who think that she hit John O'Keefe will always, forever believe that she hit John O'Keefe. Even if she's acquitted, they're not going to be like, oh, all right, well, the jury said they're not going to care about that. They're always going to think so. I think in their mindset, it was always, we've got to prove that that didn't happen. And the best way to do it is by proving that what happened in that house actually happened. So they've kind of really. They've married that thing. And going into the second trial, they don't seem to have Divorced it at all. They seems to be like they're still going to lean into it, because to me, it goes to exactly what you were saying 15 minutes ago, where you're like, sometimes you just keep it simple, you know, like, less is more. All those old axioms that exist because it's true. Like, you lean into the fact that, look, the injuries don't match what they're saying happened. And beyond that, we're going to put two amazing experts on that, are going to convince you through science that John O'Keefe was not struck by that vehicle.

Ashley Banfield (35:53)

Were those the same experts that said that vehicle could not have. I'm trying to remember who said that vehicle could not have been been damaged by a human. Like, a human can't create that kind of damage on a vehicle because of the. The legitimacy and the integrity of the materials in that portion of the vehicle. You'd have to hit a brick wall to do it. You can't hit a. You can't hit flesh and bone. Those. Are those the same guys?

Bob Mata (36:31)

Yeah, those are the same guys. So those guys were, you know, it was their mindset, like, so I think Wolf is the one who made the pneumatic potato cannon so that they were firing potatoes out of it because they were trying to figure out. Because in their estimation, based on science, they were saying exactly what you said, that there's no part of John O'Keeffe's body that the vehicle, if going 29 miles an hour in reverse, would have shattered that tail light like that. There's no part of his body, including his skull. So, like it. They were trying to figure out, well, what's another way that this thing could have cracked? That's where they kind of came up with the concept that John O'Keefe, who we all know, got out of the vehicle with the glass, the rocks, glass from the bar, like, in, like, for me, I'm like, oh, well, I mean, him and Karen are arguing. She's probably pissed off that he's going into the house that late at night. She's like, the kids are home. Why are you still drinking? You're already hammered. Enough is enough. Let's go. John probably, like, pissed off.

Ashley Banfield (37:29)

So the girl's been in the picture.

Bob Mata (37:31)

Too, the other girls in the picture. Exactly. So, like, whatever they're beefing, he gets out. You know, she probably screams something out the window when she's leaving, and maybe he takes and whips the glass at the back of the car and hits that tail light. Now, that was kind of the thing that they were trying to figure out if. If that rocks glass thrown at full speed by John O'Keefe and he. And he strikes the tail, like, could that have done it? And, you know, and my thing was always like, like what. Why isn't anybody ever arguing about the concept of him just slipping both feet up out, like under. From underneath them, and he just cracks his skull on the back, like on the pavement. Not knocked out. Gets up and then passes out in the. In the front. In the front lawn. I mean, there's just.

Ashley Banfield (38:13)

Well, then there's injuries, though. All those injuries everywhere. How'd they happen then off your head?

Bob Mata (38:17)

You know, people give me a lot of. A lot of grief about this one. But, like, I Googled and I. I encourage you to do it too, Ashley. I want you to Google coyotes in that area that particular year. They were out of control. The feds were actually sending. Sending teams in to try it. Try to help mitigate the coyote issue in that particular area. And if you look at a map of the other side of that, the residents, it is a massive woodland, massive wooded area. So, I mean, in. The concept being that coyotes typically don't want to eat their prey in. In a. In a. In an area that's visible, so they'll typically try to drag. Drag whatever they've killed to an area that's more private. They're always concerned about other animals coming on and trying to feast on their. On their prey.

Ashley Banfield (39:10)

So, like, the concept, even a coyote could not drag that kind of carry. And I hate to call John O'Keeffe carrying, but at that point, to a coyote, that's what it is. Couldn't drag something that big. Wouldn't even attempt it, right?

Bob Mata (39:24)

Well, I don't know, but, like, that might explain, like, maybe it tried with its. With its mouth and its paws. And that's what you're seeing with the claw marks in the mouth. And it's like, okay, this dude's two. Two balloons. I can't move him.

Ashley Banfield (39:36)

So it's kind of the same as like, hey, what about the rock glass going through the back of the, you know, taill. Hey, what about a coyote that tried and failed to get.

Bob Mata (39:46)

I'm just trying to. To think of a theory that may exist. It doesn't require 12 people.

Ashley Banfield (39:51)

I'm gonna weigh in on the unreasonable part here. I mean, gone look like.

Bob Mata (39:57)

I mean, is that any more unreasonable that. Than what the defense is suggesting now? Yeah, because, like, to a jury, you're always thinking about it in terms of 12 people, right? Like, like it's. I, I've seen people that were, they slip on ice and we know that it was slippery. We know that John was hammered. We, we know what his bac is. If he threw that rocks glass at the back of the car in anger to like, you know, just pissed off. His feet go out because of the momentum of his. His throw. Like they go out from underneath him. That is exactly where you would hit your head. If you're going like full blown both legs out from underneath you and you're falling back on your back and you're smashing your head on the ground, it's exactly where that thing. So the other part of it is, who knows if it was a coyote, maybe it was Chloe, maybe it was, who knows, some other wild animal. Because remember, it's like the concept of when a storm comes in, like in the. The animals know that they're, they're going to be holed up for a minute. That's really when they're going to go out and try to get something to be able to, to eat while they're holed up for sometime days. So it's like there's concepts of it that I think you might be able to sell a little more easily than.

Ashley Banfield (41:08)

That's a tough one though. I'm a way in as the manicurist.

Bob Mata (41:15)

For sure.

Ashley Banfield (41:15)

I'm gonna give you a lot of pushback on that. Again, maybe I'm not the right person to ask. You know, I do do this for a living. I am entrenched in this and I feel like I've heard everything but. But the manicurist might. And the car mechanic might say, yeah, I guess so. I see a lot of them around my house too. You know, this is their community. They are the peers. They come from here.

Bob Mata (41:33)

Possible.

Ashley Banfield (41:34)

So it could be so. I love the way you think he's gonna signpost that. Just like I love. Man, if I get into a murder trial, I'm calling you.

Bob Mata (41:46)

I mean, I'll think of some stuff.

Ashley Banfield (41:47)

You know, you'll think some stuff up. I love it. Let's. Let's talk about the craziest part. Well, there's so much crazy, but this is a really crazy part that the jurors who wrote the note out to the judge saying we can't come to an agreement. It wasn't determined until much later and by the defense that they had indeed come to a few agreements and they had checked some boxes and that the court did not do its due diligence. And you're gonna have to Correct me if I'm making any mistakes here, but the court should have canvassed them or looked at their jury forms and said, wait a minute, you did get a verdict on this charge and this charge, but just not on manslaughter. But you did agree that it's not a murder. How is that not the court's fault? Because now in an appeal, it's been thrown back at Karen Reid and the court has said, no, sorry, too bad. That's not one of those little things that's like to me anyway, layman curative, like it's not. There was a verdict reached, a real verdict, and it's the court's fault for not having checked and asked.

Bob Mata (42:58)

I agree. And ultimately, at the end of the day, they're so the appellate court ruled against them. They're going to try to bring it up to the Supreme Court in Massachusetts and they're going to get the same answer. Because in Massachusetts it's not a verdict unless it is recorded in open court. And that's it. It's a simple. It's like it's a hard line rule.

Ashley Banfield (43:18)

I got that part. But why wasn't it recorded in open court? Failing of the court, therefore the court failed the process. Why can't the appellate court, Supreme Court, and I'm going to guess maybe the U.S. supreme Court, because I do see this as really, really weird.

Bob Mata (43:31)

I agree completely. And when we were covering that portion of it, as you can imagine, I was beside myself and I pulled up the rule the way it's currently situated, which I have a sneaking suspicion that they're going to change it, that that should be mandatory, a polling of the jury in a situation where they're coming out where you've got multiple counts that the judge ask, okay, well, I just want to be clear so that you have not reached a verdict on any of the three counts like that. That simple question would have resolved all of these issues. Yes, because now where she's sitting, she is now in like actual jeopardy of being convicted of second degree murder, which.

Ashley Banfield (44:16)

It sounds very much define that because it really doesn't mean the jeopardy that that lay. People think it's the double jeopardy being convicted and then tried again because they. That ju. Being. Being acquitted and being tried again because that jury decided she was not guilty of murder and they moved on and couldn't like, what is it? Aaron Hernandez had a few other charges as well. There were. There was a hung jury on some of the charges. There was guilty on other charges they were going to retrieve. I think on on the. On the hung charges. And then he died.

Bob Mata (44:47)

Right, exactly. So. And that's the thing with. With a mistrial, which is basically what happened here. Which. The most common way that you get a mistrial in any trial is when the jury can't reach a. A decision, a unanimous decision. And they'll try and they'll try and they'll try. Sometimes they'll get a dynamite charge, or in Massachusetts, they call an Allen charge. So that's just a.

Ashley Banfield (45:11)

It sounds mean and nasty, but all it is is the judge. Again, for the lay folks, the judge says, hey, this is important. Go back, work it out. Use your good judgment, talk amongst yourselves, work harder. And weirdly, it often works.

Bob Mata (45:25)

It does. You know, I mean, there's. There's argument to be made that you're really forcing somebody on that juror to cave, you know, by sending them back. I mean, like, you'll. You'll hear a lot of, like, really intelligent, like, conversations from both sides that they're not fans of, of those kind of those. Those charges to the jury. Forcing them to go back when they've told you multiple times, we can't reach a conclusion because, you know, somebody's capitulating back there. Somebody's giving in, and you know that that's not the way that they feel. They've fought.

Ashley Banfield (45:55)

Can I be devil's advocate?

Bob Mata (45:56)

Yeah.

Ashley Banfield (45:56)

That's what happens even before an Allen charge. A lot of times people can be convinced when they're not. And that's how you get to unanimity. Because people come in and if they're deliberating for multiple hours, they usually, not always, but quite often from reports back, juries go in and they say, hi, everybody. Okay, now we're allowed to talk. Should we just go around the table once and see how everybody feels? And oftentimes that's where you'll find the divisions, or that's where you'll find the unanimity. But they will say, well, we A, gotta get lunch because it's free, and B, no, no, not a word of a lie there. And B, I think we're supposed to work harder at this. So let's just at least go over stuff and make sure we didn't mess up. Then they, you know, stay at unanimity or the debate begins, and eventually the debate changes minds. So the fact that an Al in charge may just say, go back and continue the debate. I get what you're saying, but I also get that the debate changing minds was happening before. Alan Charge, too.

Bob Mata (46:50)

Yeah, I mean, it depends on how deep you are and how many. How many notes they've sent back, you know what I'm saying? So, like, in that particular situation, I think they were on their third note, and they do have something in place in. In the commonwealth there, where basically both sides have to. To reach the conclusion that it's now time to give it. You know what I mean? So, like, it's not strictly the judge's decision. Both sides have to say, I think it's a proper time to give the charge. So, which happened here. But to your main point, the biggest problem is that the judge Canoni did not ask that question. And in light of the fact that Alan Jackson had argued about that exact point, the fact that there was no box for them to check not guilty on counts one and three, and judge Canoni gave him a ton. It was. It was a. An epic argument. And his argument was, well, you're not giving them the opportunity to say guilty or not guilty. She's like, well, we can get it by inference. If they haven't checked guilty, then. Then we know that it's not guilty. Instead of just saying, yeah, you're right, let's just put the not guilty box. Because had that even happened, then that would have probably alleviated this situation. So, like, Jackson had given her an out in terms of being able to clarify those jury instructions and the verdict slips, she chose not to take it. But the other part of it is, is it. It is in the statute, it's in the criminal rules, the criminal procedure rules out there that either party can ask the judge to. To inquire as to each count if they are in fact.

Ashley Banfield (48:23)

So Alan should have done it too.

Bob Mata (48:25)

Alan could have done it. The state could have done it. You know, it's one of those things. Or the judge could have done it on her own accord, by the way, infatuated with those notes.

Ashley Banfield (48:35)

Yeah, I. I am, like, mystified by how prosecutors and defense attorneys don't automatically do a polling of the jury no matter what. And I have seen so many cases where they don't poll the jury, and everyone always thinks, oh, this is dumb. Why are we polling the jury? They already said what they said. But there have been multiple cases where in the polling, someone says, actually, no.

Bob Mata (48:59)

Right.

Ashley Banfield (49:00)

I don't feel good about this. And it's like, wait, are you kidding me? Why isn't it automatic? It takes one minute to have 12 people say, yes, your honor. Yes, your honor, it is. Yes, it is. My. My decision. It takes one minute, and it just finalizes the Record. It's just such an important. It's like putting the plug in the back of the boat before you launch it. I don't get why they wouldn't.

Bob Mata (49:22)

I think it's ineffective assistance of counsel if they don't do it. It's like, why wouldn't you do that? Because of exactly what you said. And it's going back to that deliberation. What's going on back in that room. If you have a 12 angry men situation with Henry Fonda and they're trying to guide the jury through and, you know, you get somebody to kind of cave and they may not feel comfortable back there because they've been. They feel like they've been pressured to come to this verdict for whatever reason. Could be a multitude. And then they get the opportunity out there when the judge asks, you know, is this your verdict? Is this. Is this the way that you feel about it? And if they. That could be their first opportunity to be outside of that room with those other people where they feel free enough to say, yeah, right. Yeah. So it's.

Ashley Banfield (50:07)

I've been emotional hostage for the last seven days. Yeah, I think you're right. So tell me one other thing. It's not going to be one other thing. You know, I kid. But the grave concern that the judge voiced the other day about the defense behavior, immediately I thought, wait a minute, I know Alan Jackson. There's no way he would have stood up. And multiple times on the record in front of everyone said, and you haven't received money from us. Correct. And the expert witness says, that's correct, sir. And we haven't paid you and we haven't talked about this before today, correct? That's right. So this is like you're asking if two people lied in court. One, an officer of the court and two, a witness under threat of perjury. It just didn't sound like it was possible to me. What am I missing here?

Bob Mata (50:59)

I don't know, because I was saying the exact same thing. I'm like, Alan Jackson has worked very, very hard to build his reputation for decades.

Ashley Banfield (51:08)

Decades.

Bob Mata (51:09)

And I'm like. And I literally said this last week. I was like. And then when he doubled up talking to the media after the hearing and he said, we absolutely did not pay the bill. I'm like, there's no way. He doubled down. Like, I'm like, I will eat crow. I will die on this hill. There's no way that they paid that bill.

Ashley Banfield (51:28)

I was getting the impression, help me here, because sometimes I lose the arcane aspects of everything with doing a thousand trials a week. But I thought that he had plausible deniability there because there was a different, like there was a, some sort of an agency that was actually, I believe, government related that had paid those experts. Therefore, the defense did not pay the experts. And for anybody listening right now who is a layperson, it is absolutely normal in trials for each side to pay experts, because these experts are giving sometimes weeks of their life and they're getting on planes and traveling for trials. It is absolutely normal to pay experts for their expert opinions and testimony in a case. That's not the infraction here, it's disclosing it. And the allegation is, is that the defense didn't disclose these, these, these experts and actually had paid them. But I, I sort of thought I had put those pieces together saying it's true, they hadn't. There was a tangential agency that had done the paying and it wasn't the defense. Am I wrong?

Bob Mata (52:34)

No, you're right. And because I did the same thing after the fact, like, when I first heard about it, I'm like, all right, because you could pull up and it was, it was the, the feds were paying for it. The Department of Justice was paying for it because they had hired them. Because of, of what you're talking about. This whole investigation started because of the Sandra Birchmore case that you were first talking about. When you get the bleed over of cops, the same cops working on both cases, and then they, they catch wind of what the defense is saying in the Reed case about this conspiracy and the corruption that's going on in that case. That's what caused them to kind of look at this and say, all right, well, let's see if what the defense is saying has any legs here, because we're seeing what's going on in the Birchmore case, and it definitely has legs there. So they end up hiring Arca. So Arca gets hired and they get paid 29,000 by the federal government. They pay them out. But there's also another factor. There's the protective order that's in place. The protective order is one of the things that none of us know about yet because we don't know what the language is in there. We heard some about what, you know, happened when they initially called the feds and they're like, hey, can we talk to these guys that are like, no. Or you can talk to them about background. Okay, but. And you can't, you can't talk them, can't talk to them about their going into trial. You can't talk to them about their opinion and how they reached it. So they. They were limited in terms of what they could communicate with them about. And then the problem with the money is, is that even though arca, once they were disengaged from the federal government and they were then kind of a free agent at that point, Even when the defense, after the vor dyer of the witnesses, when judge Canoni decided that they were going to be able to testify and they were going to be able to be listed as defense witnesses, it. The defense obviously would think that it was incumbent upon themselves to pay their bill for travel expenses, for eating, for housing, whether when they put them up in a hotel. So, like, from that perspective, they're not paying them for their opinion, for their opinion.

Ashley Banfield (54:33)

It's just logistics.

Bob Mata (54:34)

Right. Because the one thing that's very, very important to remember, and I think that will probably be the saving grace for Alan Jackson with respect to that issue, is the fact that they had formed their opinion and done the testing long before either the commonwealth or the defense had any idea that they were doing it. They came to learn it after the fact, so whatever. And he did not. He did not change his opinion at all from what was written in the report. It was same thing, same thing. You know, I mean, there. There's some intricacies in there in that argument that it all boils down to candor to the court and whether or not when. When they ask that question during the first trial, have you been paid anything? And it was really doing during the voir dire where he asked, have you been paying anything by the defense? He's like, no, because it's that. That concept of that they're independent witnesses, which makes them so powerful, so much more powerful, so much more powerful. Because it's like. Like I'm hiring an expert as a defense. The first thing the prosecution says, well, they're a hired gun. They're being paid by. How much did you get paid by the defense?

Ashley Banfield (55:36)

How much you get paid?

Bob Mata (55:37)

Right? And so it's like.

Ashley Banfield (55:38)

But, you know, like, again, just the devil's always in the details. And here's a really tiny one. If the defense paid the hotel bill, they did not pay the expert. If the defense paid the expert for reimbursement for the hotel bill, they still haven't paid them because they're not. The. The. That expert is not up. They. They were down and they were made whole again, which is not being paid. I mean, you could just. On a technicality, you could just.

Bob Mata (56:07)

But that's true. That. That's exactly the point. Like, you're. You're not paying them for their services. You're paying for the expenses. Yeah. So, like. And I think it's a distinction that. That Judge Canoni will. Will, you know, come to think that I agree with that side of it, because, remember, they did call and they called before they. They paid the invoice. They called the feds and said, hey, do we pay this invoice? Because they were not trying to step on the toes of the feds, you know, so like. And that was put in by Alessi when he was arguing. He said, look, they called the. The Assistant U.S. attorney on this thing and asked, do we pay this? And the guy said, yeah, go ahead and pay it. So that's when they paid it. So, like, the, the bigger issue from the Commonwealth is that the way that they were represented at trial, that they were this independent thing, when in Hank Brennan's mind, that he believes that there was actually a relationship had been formed so that they weren't truly independent anymore. That, that because of the fact that. And remember, either side could have called them. It just so happened that the evidence that they had in terms of the report worked in the favor of the defense. And they're like, it's like.

Ashley Banfield (57:18)

And the stickler for details worked in the favor of the prosecution when they didn't ask if you've already come to a verdict. I mean, like, let like, exactly. Same treatment on either. So one last question.

Bob Mata (57:29)

Yep.

Ashley Banfield (57:30)

And that is that the most recent thing that was just sort of an eye popper was that the defense filed a motion to dismiss. And I think the language was based on extraordinary government misconduct. Which part? Like, what is it specific exactly what misconduct the defense is. Is pointing to here?

Bob Mata (57:49)

Yeah, they were very like. So specifically what they were talking about is like the Sally Port video, which, if you're not familiar with the case, one of the big things that came up during the first trial was there. There was the. The video of the Sally Port, which is kind of a garage at the law enforcement in Catton's police department. I believe that's where it was. Wherein they were storing Karen Reed's vehicle. So they brought it. When they towed it from the location where it was, they brought it back to the Sally Port. And. And the defense wanted that they had been. Part of their conspiracy theory is that they had taken the shattered tail light and they had spread it out on John O'Keefe's lawn. And what the. The defense was saying is we Think that it happened at the sally port.

Ashley Banfield (58:38)

That the sally port was where that headlight. That taillight was broken.

Bob Mata (58:42)

Exactly. And so they wanted the video. And so what they're saying is that it took them over two years to get the video from the commonwealth, and when they got it, they got it piecemeal, and there's chunks of time missing, and there's never been an explanation on why it took two plus years. At the EVA trial, they finally get this video. We then had the problem at trial wherein they show an inverted video where they switched the way that. That the camera looks so that you're. It. It's. It's showing the opposite so that it's not showing the cop that you can see clearly behind. When you're watching the regular. The original uninverted video, you can see the cop behind near that tail light. So the thing might have legs. The thing might have legs. I mean, they. They came with a pretty. It's not. It's nothing new in terms of the concepts. It's the same things that they were arguing about during that trial, but now they've put it in a cogent. In a cogent motion that. That's pretty powerful. And now the commonwealth's responses come out. I didn't find it very compelling in terms of coming up with a reasonable explanation of why this evidence wasn't turned over, why they inverted the video. You have an expectation of judges that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you're going to hammer the defense for being shifty, you've got to do the same thing to the commonwealth or the state. You know, they're. They're not on a different playing field. They're on the exact same playing field, and it should go both ways, and it seems like it hasn't. I mean, like, I. I expected when that came out that that was an inverted video and what they were trying to do with it. I. I thought that she would have been outraged, and she didn't bat an eye.

Ashley Banfield (60:25)

Well, obviously, you and I have another date coming, because this is fascinating stuff, and you're just the perfect person to talk to because a, you are steeped in the case, and b, you're super duper smart. And so I knew you'd have lots of. Lots of answers for my many, many questions. Bob Mata, thank you so much.

Bob Mata (60:41)

Always. I love hanging with you. Let's do it again.

Ashley Banfield (60:44)

It's a promise.

Bob Mata (60:46)

All right.

Ashley Banfield (60:48)

Okay. There you have it. So as we await this, like, retrial, is Karen Reed going to prevail in trial number two. Is she going to fail in trial number two? What do the jurors all know already? Right? Jury pool coming in. They've all heard about this. They've even been through a trial in the media. How hard is it going to be to pick jurors who, even if they've heard about the case, agree and prove to the court they can be fair and impartial? And then what about the media on this one? Because, man, oh man, it was big in round one and the battle has just become more epic in round two. I can promise you this, I am going to be following it and I hope you will too. Thank you so much for staying with me on Drop Dead Serious, my podcast. I'm just thrilled that you're a part of this. As always, I. I ask if you could do me a big favor and just subscribe, rate and leave a review. Even if you hate me. I'm good with that. It helps me get better. But it really does help the podcast and it does help me in, in how I cover these cases as well. I always love it if you leave a review and tell me cases you want me to cover as well. I've got to pick a case every single week, if not more. Sometimes I do bonus episodes as well, which is why I also ask you to subscribe, but also sign up for alerts, because alerts, they tell you when I'm dropping bonus episodes unexpectedly. And that happens, right? That just happens. If you're watching on YouTube, definitely leave a comment below. Like subscribe and all the rest, but definitely leave me a comment below. Tell me what you like, tell me what you didn't like. Tell me what your thoughts are on the case and tell me what cases you'd really like me to look into as well. Because, you know, I just love reading your comments and then formulating this work based on you. Like, we're all a group here, we're all a community. So I want it to be a two way, two way conversation. Don't forget to check out Defense Diaries, Bob Mata's podcast, because it's a good one. Again, smart potato, that guy. And as always, I leave you with this. The truth is not just serious, it is drop dead serious.