Brian Walshe trial recap | Jurors begin deliberations

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: The Karen Read Murder Trial: Canton Confidential

Episode: Brian Walshe trial recap | Jurors begin deliberations
Host: NBC10 Boston
Aired: December 13, 2025

---

Episode Overview

This episode provides a detailed recap of the Brian Walshe murder trial proceedings as jury deliberations begin. The panel—NBC10 Boston anchors Glenn Jones and J.C. Monahan, reporter Brianna Borghe, and legal experts Morgietta Derisier, Elise Hirshhorn, and courtroom insider Sue O'Connell—break down the prosecution and defense closing arguments, the legal standards, jury instructions, and the case's emotional impact as the fate of Brian Walshe hangs in the balance over the death of his wife, Ana Walshe.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Trial Status and Closing Arguments

• Jury Deliberations Begin

  • "We are now one important step closer. Closer to a verdict in the Brian Walsh murder trial." — Glenn Jones [02:22]
  • Deliberations started shortly before 12:30 pm after final arguments.
  • Jury sent home at 4:15 pm; will resume Monday [06:03].

• Defense's Position

  • Did not call witnesses.
  • Maintains Brian Walshe panicked after Ana's sudden, unexpected death:

    "Brian Walsh panicked after his wife Ana died suddenly and unexpectedly." — Brianna Borghe [02:42]

  • Argues absence of premeditation or motive:

    “There's no evidence that he deliberately premeditated the murder.” — Larry Tipton [03:11]
    “Without a motive... you have a sudden unexpected event that results in confusion, panic and fear.” — Larry Tipton [03:26]

• Prosecution's Position

  • Describes Brian as methodical and motivated by Ana's relationship, desire to move, and his own legal troubles:

    "The defendant set up an area in his basement where he's surrounded it with plastic sheeting, wore a tie-back suit and dismember his wife..." — Judge Frenier [04:02]
    "He lulled Ana into thinking that everything was okay.... He didn't want her to realize he was aware of the relationship with Will or her ability to leave him." — Judge Frenier [05:03]

  • Framing: “Anna Walsh is dead because he murdered her.” — Prosecution, repeated by multiple speakers [03:03]

2. Legal Standards and Jury Instructions

• First vs. Second Degree Murder

  • First degree: Must prove intentional, premeditated killing.
  • Second degree: Covers intentional or reckless action leading to death.

    “[Jury] will fill out three options. Not guilty, Guilty as charged. Murder in the first degree and guilty of on murder in the second degree.” — Glenn Jones [07:09]

• Standard of Proof

  • "Reasonable doubt and beyond a reasonable doubt is such a high standard. You have to really have no valid doubt or no even small doubt." — Elise Hirshhorn [07:33]
  • Both legal experts note lack of direct evidence for premeditation or exact mechanism of death.

• Instructions on Prior Bad Acts

  • Judge explicitly tells jurors not to consider Walshe’s prior federal fraud or body disposal in determining murder guilt:

    "You may not use it to conclude that if the defendant committed these other bad acts that he must have also committed murder. It would be extremely unfair..." — Judge Frenier [15:13]

• Sentencing Not for Jury Consideration

  • "You are not to consider the sentencing consequences of your verdict at all." — Judge Frenier [21:23]

3. Key Evidence and Interpretations

• Google Searches

  • Prosecution: Indicates searches ("hacksaw best tool to dismember," "can you be charged with murder without a body") show Brian is a calculating killer [08:53].
  • Defense: Paints him as panicked after Ana's sudden death.

    "Why is a man searching now if he had intended to kill his wife?" — Larry Tipton [09:39]

• Absence of Forensic Testimony

  • No defense experts or alternative theories provided via witnesses. Defense only raised possible doubts in closing.

    "They didn't need to do that. There's no burden to do that…It is a little bit surprising that they didn't call any witnesses…" — Elise Hirshhorn [12:18]

4. Jury Composition and Deliberation Dynamics

• Jury Makeup

  • 12 deliberating jurors (6 men, 6 women), mostly older, professional backgrounds [18:51].
  • Seen as mature, methodical:

    “I think what we're going to see here is very mature and rational jurors who are going to go through this as if it's a homework or a business assignment.” — Sue O’Connell [19:17]

• Deliberation Process

  • Jurors instructed to rely on memory, not just notes or lawyer statements; extensive evidence to review [20:24].
  • Expected to "check off" each element of charges [21:54].

5. Courtroom Atmosphere & Public Interest

• Emotional Weight

  • Ana Walshe's friends and family present; Brian's mother sat alone [23:13].
  • Law enforcement and national media in attendance for closing arguments.

• Memorable Moment

  • "Dismembering really does take a lot of work and effort to go into, and you just can't put that to the side." — Morgietta Derisier [17:00]

• Jury’s Challenge

  • Struggle separating the graphic details of dismemberment/admitted bad acts from the murder charge itself [16:41–17:33].

---

Notable Quotes & Moments (with Timestamps)

• Prosecution's Framing:

  "Anna Walsh is dead because he murdered her." — Prosecution [03:03]

• On Premeditation:

  "We don't have evidence of premeditation. ...the prosecution still in their closing, did not suggest or attempt to propose a theory as to how he killed her. So we don't know how she died and they didn't tell us." — Elise Hirshhorn [07:52]

• On Reasonable Doubt:

  "Open questions lead to reasonable doubt." — Elise Hirshhorn [07:52]

• On the Google Searches:

  “Why is a man searching now if he had intended to kill his wife?” — Larry Tipton [09:39]
  "Can you be charged with murder without a body? Ana was dead. The defendant killed her." — Judge Frenier [09:19]

• On Dismemberment:

  "Dismembering really does take a lot of work and effort to go into, and you just can't put that to the side." — Morgietta Derisier [17:00]

• On Jury Dynamics:

  “What we're going to see here is very mature and rational jurors who are going through this as if it's a homework or a business assignment.” — Sue O’Connell [19:17]

---

Important Timestamps and Segments

• [01:30–02:22] — Opening: Jury deliberations begin, case summary.
• [02:42–06:14] — Recap of closing arguments, defense/prosecution theories, case returns to jury.
• [06:14–13:26] — Expert panel analyses legal standards, Google evidence, defense strategy.
• [15:13–17:28] — Judge’s instructions regarding prior acts, panel on jury’s struggle with separating facts.
• [18:51–23:53] — Jury composition, deliberation process, possible verdicts, courtroom scene.

---

Tone and Language

The podcast maintains a professional, analytical tone, interspersed with emotional reflections on the shocking nature of the crime. Legal terminology is clearly explained for the audience, while panelists do not shy from emphasizing the emotional difficulty jurors face given the case’s grisly evidence.

---

Summary

This episode provides an in-depth, balanced look at the Brian Walshe murder trial as it moves into jury deliberations. Listeners gain insight into both sides’ closing arguments, critical evidence (such as the damning Google searches), and the significant challenges for jurors asked to separate fact from emotional reaction amidst graphic testimony. Commentary from experienced legal analysts emphasizes potential weaknesses of both prosecution and defense strategies, the pivotal role of reasonable doubt, and the practical dynamics at play as an older, professional jury methodically weighs an enormous amount of complex evidence. The story remains unresolved, with all eyes on the jury’s verdict in the days to come.

Transcript

[Glenn Jones]

How can I help you today?

[Brianna Borghe]

Hey, I need to talk about my loan.

[Narrator/Announcer]

No problem.

[Judge Frenier]

So I got the email.

[Brianna Borghe]

Sandy Spring bank is becoming Atlantic Union Bank.

[Glenn Jones]

That's right.

[Brianna Borghe]

And will you still be your banker?

[Elise Hirshhorn]

Of course.

[Brianna Borghe]

More branches and ATMs.

[J.C. Monahan]

Way more.

[Brianna Borghe]

Still community driven.

[J.C. Monahan]

Still live here.

[Morgietta Derisier]

Still give here mobile app.

[J.C. Monahan]

Easy. Everything right at your fingertips.

[Sue O'Connell]

And what about my business?

[J.C. Monahan]

Always here to help you reach your goals.

[Brianna Borghe]

Sandy Spring bank is becoming Atlantic Union Bank. October 2025. Same bankers you love.

[Judge Frenier]

With even more to offer.

[Narrator/Announcer]

KFC presents a tale in the obsessive pursuit of flavor. Colonel Sanders spent decades perfecting his spicy wings and his fluffy potato wedges. But as soon as all of America fell in love with them, we took them off the menu. Yeah, it doesn't make much sense to us either. The Colonel lived so we could chicken. Backed by obsessive demand, the bold flavor of KFC's spicy wings and fluffy potato wedges. Come and get them. Prices and participation may vary. Only available while supplies last. This message is brought to you by Apple Card. Apple Card members can earn unlimited daily cash back on everyday purchases wherever they shop. This means you could be earning daily cash on just about anything, like a slice of pizza from your local pizza place or a latte from the corner coffee shop. Apply for Apple Card in the Wallet app to see your credit limit offer in minutes. Subject to credit approval. Apple Card issued by Goldman Sachs Bank USA Salt Lake City Branch trans terms and [e-mail] tonight, jury deliberations begin.

[Judge Frenier]

Ultimately, jurors, each of you must decide this case for yourselves.

[Narrator/Announcer]

Jurors are now debating the fate of Brian Walsh.

[Judge Frenier]

Low down. Do not rush to a decision.

[Narrator/Announcer]

Plus clarity on what they will be deciding. First or second degree murder. And both sides make their final pitches to jurors.

[Larry Tipton]

There's no evidence that he deliberately premeditated the murder. There's no evidence that he ever intended to kill Anna Walsh.

[Narrator/Announcer]

The defense argues Brian didn't kill his wife. But the prosecution urges jurors to convict.

[Brianna Borghe]

Anna Walsh is dead because he murdered her.

[Narrator/Announcer]

But was either defense or prosecution effective? Our legal experts weigh in. Commonwealth Confidential the Brian Walsh murder trial starts right now.

[Glenn Jones]

We are now one important step closer. Closer to a verdict in the Brian Walsh murder trial. Good evening. I'm Glenn Jones.

[J.C. Monahan]

I'm J.C. monahan. Jury deliberations got underway shortly before 12:30 this afternoon after the defense and prosecution delivered closing arguments. Our Brianna Borghe has been covering it all from Norfolk Superior Court in Dedham. She's joining us live with the update.

[Brianna Borghe]

Brianna, J.C. glenn. After not calling any witnesses, the defense made its final case to the jury saying Brian Walsh panicked after his wife Anna died suddenly and unexpectedly. Prosecutors argue that Brian knew Ana was building a life down in D.C. and he deliberately killed her after a New Year's Eve celebration.

[J.C. Monahan]

Anna Walsh is dead because he murdered.

[Judge Frenier]

Her and he intended her death.

[Larry Tipton]

Mr. Walsh loved Anna Walsh, the mother of his three children. There's no evidence that he deliberately premeditated the murder.

[Brianna Borghe]

The defense spending nearly an hour arguing that Brian Walsh is not guilty of first degree murder.

[Larry Tipton]

And the evidence suggests there was no motive at all. And without a motive, without a reason. A reason that is based on facts and circumstances, logic and understanding. Without that, you have a sudden unexpected event that results in confusion, panic and fear.

[Brianna Borghe]

But prosecutors argue he not only planned to his wife, but was methodical in his approach.

[Judge Frenier]

The defendant set up an area in his basement where he's surrounded it with plastic sheeting, wore a tie back suit and dismember his wife along with his wife.

[Brianna Borghe]

The defense, however, telling the jury nothing violent happened in the couple's Cohasset home.

[Larry Tipton]

If that knife is to be considered a weapon used, then why is it in that cabinet? You have heard evidence of bags and bags being thrown in dumpsters over a period of days. The government wants you to think that Mr. Walsh killed his wife and perhaps used this knife. Ben Gly was sitting in a cabin days later in open view for the police.

[Brianna Borghe]

Prosecutors say Brian was pushed to the edge over Ana's affair, her desire to bring the children to D.C. and the possibility of going to prison over his federal art fraud case.

[Judge Frenier]

He lulled Ana into thinking that everything was okay. He joked with her about abortion. He didn't want her to realize that he was aware of the relationship with Will or her ability to leave him.

[J.C. Monahan]

Fossa going to let Anna know that she wasn't safe.

[Larry Tipton]

Look what she says. What a year. And yet we are still here. What does that tell you? Yes, they had been through a lot. She missed her children. What mother wouldn't? But they were working toward the future.

[Brianna Borghe]

The case now rests in the jury's hands.

[Judge Frenier]

There is only one verdict. Final defendant was guilty of the premeditated first degree murder.

[Larry Tipton]

Mr. Walsh is not guilty. He's not guilty of me.

[Narrator/Announcer]

Thank you.

[Brianna Borghe]

Now, jurors spent hours deliberating this afternoon and they were sent home at about 4:15. They will be back in court Monday morning to continue their work. For now, we're live in dead. I'm Brianna Borghe, NBC 10 Boston.

[Glenn Jones]

Brianna, thank you. We're joined now by two defense attorneys, Morgietta Derisier and Elise Hirshhorn. Welcome to you both. We've got some questions for you. I have to say it was confirmed that a second degree murder conviction is on the table. Before closing arguments began, Judge Frenier explained what the Commonwealth needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction on first or second degree murder. For first degree murder, the Commonwealth must prove Brian caused the death of Ana, he intended to kill Anna, and he committed the killing with deliberate premeditation or after a period of reflection. For second degree, the Commonwealth must prove Brian caused the death of Anna. Plus Brian intended to kill Anna Walsh, or Brian intended to cause grievous bodily harm, or Bryan intended to do an act that a reasonable person would have known would create a strong likelihood that death would result. And we've got to look at the verdict slip. The jurors will fill out three options. Not guilty, Guilty as charged. Murder in the first degree and guilty of on murder in the second degree. So, Elise and Morgietta, I gotta ask you both, maybe Elise, I'll start with you. If there is a weakness in the prosecution's case, it's whether or not this crime was premeditated, do you think they reached that threshold beyond a reasonable doubt to convince the jury?

[Elise Hirshhorn]

I think that's an interesting question. Reasonable doubt and beyond a reasonable doubt is such a high standard. You have to really have no valid doubt or no even small doubt. So we don't have evidence of premeditation. Everything that they argued in their closing argument was argument.

[Narrator/Announcer]

Right.

[Elise Hirshhorn]

It's called closing argument because you're taking a piece of evidence and you're trying to fit it into your story or your theory. I think what's really interesting is that the prosecution still in their closing, did not suggest or attempt to propose a theory as to how he killed her. So we don't know how she died and they didn't tell us. Usually the prosecution is answering questions, not leaving them open. Open questions lead to reasonable doubt.

[Glenn Jones]

Poor Jada. Do you agree with the specific part that Elise just said? That there's no evidence of premeditation? Do you agree?

[Morgietta Derisier]

I agree with that. And I also think that there's no evidence of specific intent. What is the motive? I know that the Commonwealth has tried different angles with their financial crisis and the fact that there was an affair, but what would the specific intent for Brian to cause her death be? And I think, as Elise said, when you have open ended questions, that's usually what defense attorneys do. And the commonwealth did that here. So it kind of leans towards the fact that they weren't really confident on that piece.

[J.C. Monahan]

Let's talk about the Google searches because those were highlighted especially by the prosecution. It was made by Brian Walsh after his wife was last seen. He searched the following hacksaw best tool to dismember. Can you be charged with murder without a body? And can you identify a body with broken teeth? While the prosecution made the case that the Google searches are the sign of a killer, the defense said they were actually signs of a panicked husband. Take a listen.

[Judge Frenier]

He was looking at best way to dispose of a body. Better to throw away crime scene clothes, wash the crime scene. Can you be charged with murder without a body? Ana was dead. The defendant killed her.

[Larry Tipton]

Why is a man searching now if he had intended to kill his wife? Why is the man searching now if he had planned to kill his wife?

[J.C. Monahan]

Okay, same evidence, two different interpretations. Prosecution versus the defense. Morgieta will start with you in terms of how they did on that.

[Morgietta Derisier]

So I said this earlier, on other platforms, this would have been a perfect reason why to not have the pleas for the other two charges out because that information would really lead to the dismemberment. I could see the jury saying, okay, well, maybe he just only intended to dismember her. But when you only have one charge in front of you for the defense, it just seems illogical. Why would somebody search those pieces of information if they didn't already kill the person in the first place?

[J.C. Monahan]

Elise, what do you say to that?

[Elise Hirshhorn]

I completely agree. And I'll take it a step further and say that if you only give one charge to the jury, even if they don't think that the prosecution proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt, they're not going to let somebody walk when there's such overwhelming evidence that he did something so gruesome. So even though he wasn't on trial for dismemberment, that was the majority of the trial. And if the jury really doesn't know which evidence was not presented that he pled guilty to dismemberment, they're going to think, well, maybe he didn't. Even if he didn't first degree or second degree murder her, he dismembered her. And we can't just acquit him after he did that. So I think that was a bold move and I'm not quite sure exactly why they did that.

[Glenn Jones]

Well, let's talk more about the defenses theory that Anna Walsh died suddenly and unexpectedly. It was first brought up in opening statements. And then defense attorney Larry Tipton doubled down during closing arguments. Here's more from that.

[Larry Tipton]

So what would cause a loving husband and a loving father to do the things that you heard about in this case? Could it be something that was sudden, something that was unexpected, something that was unbelievable, something that only a medical examiner would understand, have knowledge of, but not a man like Brian Walsh.

[Glenn Jones]

So, Elise, Brian Walsh did not testify and give evidence about the way that Anna Walsh died. No experts were called. In fact, the defense didn't put on a single witness. We hear the judge tell us that opening and closing statements are not evidence. Can the jury really consider that honor Walsh died suddenly and unexpectedly?

[Elise Hirshhorn]

They can, because we need to remember that the burden is on the prosecution to prove something. All the defense has to do is raise a question to that. They did take it a step further in this case. Instead of just raising a question, they said this is actually what happened. They didn't need to do that. There's no burden to do that. And therefore they don't have to present evidence to support that. It would be, I think, better received if they had called some witnesses. I don't question their decision not to call Brian Walsh for a lot of reasons. He probably wouldn't have made a good witness. He's had a lot of guilty pleas. He has the federal case. He has the two charges with this case. And there's a lot of explaining to do. And they would have had him go through every gruesome detail. It would not have helped their case. But it is a little bit surprising that they didn't call any witnesses to bolster the theory that they proposed in the beginning.

[J.C. Monahan]

Right, that somebody could die suddenly, unexpectedly.

[Morgietta Derisier]

Yeah, absolutely.

[J.C. Monahan]

All right, Elise, Morgieta, thank you so much. Elise, stay with us. Morgieta will be sticking up, sticking around, I should say, because coming up next, we delve into the instructions the jury received from the judge, the message she.

[Glenn Jones]

Delivered to jurors, plus what she told them about Walsh's past bad acts, including his admission that he disposed of his wife's body.

[J.C. Monahan]

And as we go to break, we're taking a moment to remember Anna Walsh. She grew up in Serbia, later immigrated to the United States. She ended up settling in Cohasset with her husband. She became a successful businesswoman who was co parenting three young sons at the time of her disappearance. She was just 39 years old. You're watching Commonwealth Confidential, the Brian Walsh murder trial.

[Narrator/Announcer]

AI agents are everywhere, automating tasks and making decisions at machine speed. But agents make mistakes Just one rogue agent can do big damage before you even notice. Rubrik Agent Cloud is the only platform that helps you monitor agents, set guardrails and rewind mistakes so you can unleash agents, not risk. Accelerate your AI [e-mail] that's R U B R I K.com the McDonald's snack wrap is back. You brought it back.

[Glenn Jones]

Ranch Snack Wrap Spicy Snack wrap.

[Narrator/Announcer]

You broke the Internet for a snack? Snack wrap is back.

[Brianna Borghe]

Hi everyone. I'm Ashley Flowers, creator and host of Crime Junkie, the go to crime podcast for the biggest cases and the stories you won't hear anywhere else. So whether on your commute, studying or while you work, let us keep you company. With new episodes every Monday, it is truly a crime junkie's dream. So join me, my best friend Brit and our entire crime junkie community right now by catching up on hundreds of episodes and by listening to a new case every Monday on Crime Junkie, available wherever you listen to podcasts.

[Judge Frenier]

You have heard mention of other acts allegedly done by the defendant. That he was charged in 2018 and sentenced in 2024 in a federal case involving Arcroft, that he lied to the police and or that he disposed of the body of Anna Walsh. You may not use it to conclude that if the defendant committed these other bad acts that he must have also committed murder. It would be extremely unfair to consider this evidence for those purposes.

[J.C. Monahan]

We are back now with our panel, defense attorney Morgietta derisier and courtroom insider Sue o'. Connell. So you just heard Judge Frenier telling the jurors not to consider Brian Walsh's previous bad acts when deliberating. That includes his decision to plead guilty to misleading police and disposing of his wife's remains, which he did on day one of jury selection. Now, the jury does not know about those guilty pleas. The judge also urged them to use their common sense during deliberations. Take a listen.

[Judge Frenier]

You will decide who and what to believe and whether the Commonwealth has proven Mr. Walsh's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. You must be completely fair and impartial and unbiased in your work as jurors. Do not let your emotions, any kind of prejudice, or your personal likes or dislikes influence you in any way.

[J.C. Monahan]

I know we were touching upon this in the last few minutes, but come on, we're humans. It is very difficult to put something like that aside. It's not just any act. It's not the fraud that we're talking about. We're talking about dismembering his wife's body. Morgietta to you first. How do you expect jurors to put that aside and just focus on the murder itself?

[Morgietta Derisier]

I think they're going to have a difficult time putting that aside, especially when his own attorney in the opening statement made several references to these things. And I think that the game day decision to not have him testify really probably left a sour taste in their mouth because that's all they really have to go by. So the jurors are going to really struggle with that. They come in with their common senses and their rational thinking. But dismembering really does take a lot of work and effort to go into, and you just can't put that to the side.

[J.C. Monahan]

I just can't believe we're having a discussion like that. You know, let's discuss how hard it is to dismember someone's body.

[Sue O'Connell]

Yeah. And more general, correct me if I'm wrong here, but the judge also gave sort of some pathways off of the instruction, like you can't just consider that alone as is guilt. If there's some evidence that that works with, you can consider it. Right. So it's not just like you robbed a bank, you stole a car, so therefore you stole this bicycle. If they are some way related and there's evidence that supports that, like it was a crime spree and you were seen everywhere, then they can consider it. So it's not like they're just putting it out of their mind. And I'll also note that, you know, Tipton, in his closing didn't say these alleged acts. He says these acts that you heard he did. And if these jurors are listening with their. Their listening hat on, they heard him say that he did pretty much not alleged acts, and that's going to go forward.

[Glenn Jones]

So let's talk more about the jury. Sixteen were picked for the trial, including four alternates. All of them heard case, including all of the testimony, as well as opening statements and closing arguments. But only 12 are now behind closed doors for the deliberation. Here's the makeup. It's an even split between men and women, six each. So you were in the courtroom when those 12 were chosen. Today, they have a big task ahead of them. What can you say about them based on your observations?

[Sue O'Connell]

They're an older jury than we were talking about with the either Karen Reid jury. I think the youngest is maybe in his 30s. The rest of them I think are 40. Plus a couple of the jurors, two or three that I saw, they've woir Dire when they're being chosen. They're professionals, they're white collar employees, they have worked at firms. So, you know, I'm always happy when my guesses get proven correct. Where today they asked, they didn't have a question. They had a request for the, basically the executive summary and index of all of the evidence that they didn't get. So I think I got to like number 37 and said, this is too confusing. Where's our executive summary? And the judge had to get that to them. So I think what we're going to see here is a very mature and rational jurors who are going to go through this as if it's a homework or a business assignment. Didn't see a lot of emotion from them during the trial. Saw a lot of note taking. And I think it underscores that today lots of folks like, why don't we have a, why don't we have a verdict today? Well, the judge told them to look at all the evidence, suggested look at all the evidence, told them all those things that every, every judge tells a jury. I think they're actually following the jury, the judge's instruction and there are hundreds.

[Glenn Jones]

Of pieces of evidence and not to rush.

[J.C. Monahan]

You know, they got it around lunchtime.

[Morgietta Derisier]

Right.

[J.C. Monahan]

So it was really only a half day that they had. We talked about the notes that they have as well, Morgana. When they go in there, they have, this is not a heavily evidenced case. Right. They have some evidence to look at and they have their notes and then just a matter of discussion.

[Morgietta Derisier]

Correct. And they really have to focus on their own memory, not the memory of what the prosecution said and not the memory of what the defense attorney said in either the opening or the closing. They really have to focus on what they remember. And the judge even tells them that their notes are not a transcript. If juror A has particular notes and juror B has different notes, then it's how you remember. You can't use those as phrases. Further analysis of what the actual information is.

[J.C. Monahan]

Let's talk about the jury slip if we can. They're debating between first degree murder and second degree murder. So let's take a look at the sentence that Brian Walsh could face if he's convicted of either charge. According to state law, first degree murder conviction for an adult carries a sentence of life in prison without parole. Second degree murder, a conviction for an adult carries a sentence of life in prison with the possibility of parole after a court determined minimum term. So a big difference. Before deliberations, Judge Frontier addressed sentencing in her Jury instructions. Here's what she said.

[Judge Frenier]

My job as the judge is to impose sentence if defendant is found guilty. Therefore, you are not to consider the sentencing consequences of your verdict at all. That's not your responsibility. So please put any issues about sentencing out of your mind.

[J.C. Monahan]

Okay? But on that slip, all they have is first degree or second degree. How much do they know about the differences? And would that apply in terms of knowing there would be a different sentence in the weight of that?

[Morgietta Derisier]

They're usually not going to know too much other than what is in the jury instructions that they get. So what Judge Frenier read, they'll actually get a copy back in the jury deliberation room with them that says this is what qualifies the first. That's each of the elements. And as sue said, they're probably going to be very methodical about it, going through the evidence and just checking off each one. So I think that they'll be contained to that paragraph or several paragraphs for those charges and do what they think is going to be best.

[Sue O'Connell]

And can we just point out how easy it is to get a juror's verdict slip that's easy to read.

[Glenn Jones]

That one was easy to follow.

[Sue O'Connell]

I just want to. I know we keep bringing up the Karen Reid trial, but the ghost of Alan Jackson keeps whispering in my ear. The one thing he would say to me repeatedly is like, what's wrong with this state? And I'd say, oh, we were founded in the 1600s, Alan. This is how it is. But we have a clear jury instruction. We have a clear juror slip, verdict slip. We didn't have to say this is how it's always done, like the prior judge did. This judge who I'm hearing raves about from the courthouse isn't a Norfolk county judge. Right. So she has come in here and is kind of cleaning everything up, saying, let's do it this way. Let's move it along. So thrilled that I think we'll have less confusion with the jury with the verdict slip.

[Glenn Jones]

Literally only a few seconds left, but I just wanted a word about how full the courtroom was today versus the other days of this trial.

[Sue O'Connell]

Yes. Noted that it didn't seem Ana had a lot of supporters there. There were like 40 supporters there today. Prior witnesses, obviously, people crying and hugging each other, consoling each other. Brian Walsh's mother, Diana, continued to sit alone in the front row. There was also a number of state police there, including Yuri Buchanan, who I got to sit next to, and Aidan Kearney, who came on the other side of me and a full bevy of reporters and journalists from all over the country. So today was a day for the closing arguments. I think people wanted to see what Tipton was going to say, how he was going to spin this.

[J.C. Monahan]

And also jurors saw a different picture when they looked out.

[Sue O'Connell]

Yes, they did see and they did look around.

[Glenn Jones]

Sue Mogietta, thank you very much as we continue to await the verdict. And stay with us for continuing coverage of jury deliberations. We'll be recapping the latest developments every night at seven until a verdict is reached. And if you have questions about the case we want to hear from you, just send them to commonwealth.confidentialbcuni.com you're watching Commonwealth Confidential, the Brian Walsh murder trial.

[Judge Frenier]

Want the same expert advice from the.

[Brianna Borghe]

Pros at a discount tire store while shopping for tires online? Meet Treadwell, your personal tire guide. Treadwell is an online tire buying guide.

[J.C. Monahan]

That gives you personalized recommendations.

[Brianna Borghe]

Shop for tires with [e-mail].