Closing argument analysis: 'no collision' vs. 'no boogeyman'

Summary

Summary of Podcast Episode: Closing Argument Analysis: 'No Collision' vs. 'No Boogeyman'

Podcast Title: The Karen Read Murder Trial: Canton Confidential
Host/Author: NBC10 Boston
Release Date: June 13, 2025

---

Introduction

In this pivotal episode of Canton Confidential, NBC10 Boston meticulously dissects the latest developments in the high-profile Karen Read murder trial. Titled Closing Argument Analysis: 'No Collision' vs. 'No Boogeyman', the episode delves into the final pitches presented by both the defense and prosecution as they vie to sway the jury’s verdict. Hosted by J.C. Monahan and Glenn Jones, the episode offers an in-depth analysis, expert opinions, and insights from a former juror to elucidate the complexities of the case.

---

Closing Arguments Overview

The episode opens with a recap of the intense closing arguments delivered by defense attorney Alan Jackson and special prosecutor Hank Brennan. Both attorneys presented contrasting narratives designed to influence the seven women and five men comprising the jury. The defense emphasized scientific evidence to introduce reasonable doubt, while the prosecution leveraged Karen Reid's own statements to assert her guilt.

Notable Quotes:

• Alan Jackson [00:13]: "Do not let the Commonwealth get away with this."
• Hank Brennan [00:15]: "This taillight was gone. There's no boogeyman. There's no plant. There's no Higgins."

---

Defense's Closing Argument: 'No Collision'

Defense attorney Alan Jackson centered his argument on the absence of concrete evidence linking Karen Reid to the collision that resulted in the death of Officer John O'Keefe. By highlighting inconsistencies and questioning the prosecution's reliance on testimonies, Jackson aimed to establish reasonable doubt.

Key Points:

• Science and Data Focus: Jackson emphasized that "Science, the physics, the data" (02:26) do not support a definitive conclusion of guilt.
• Reasonable Doubt: Repeatedly asserted that the prosecution failed to meet the "extraordinary burden of beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty" (02:55).
• Challenge to Prosecution's Experts: Pointed out doubts cast by the prosecution's own experts, including Dr. Welcher and Ian Whiffen, regarding John O’Keefe’s location at the time of the alleged collision.

Notable Quotes:

• Alan Jackson [02:22]: "There was no collision."
• Alan Jackson [02:55]: "If there isn't enough evidence... you vote not guilty."

---

Prosecution's Closing Argument: 'No Boogeyman'

Special prosecutor Hank Brennan countered the defense by focusing on Karen Reid's actions and statements post-incident, portraying her as culpable and deceitful. Brennan aimed to dismantle the defense’s narrative by presenting Reid’s own words as evidence of her guilt.

Key Points:

• Focus on Reid’s Actions: Brennan argued that Reid "made a choice" by leaving the scene after the collision, equating her actions to second-degree murder (04:10).
• Use of Reid’s Statements: Leveraged Reid's interview excerpts to illustrate her awareness and admission of guilt, such as “Could I have hit him? Did I hit him?” (10:36).
• Discrediting Trooper Proctor: Portrayed the lead investigator as biased and untrustworthy, suggesting corruption in the investigation process.

Notable Quotes:

• Hank Brennan [04:10]: "John o' Keefe lying helpless like a child on the front yard. She made a choice."
• Hank Brennan [05:05]: "Don't look at her. Look the other way."

---

Legal Expert Analysis

Legal experts Morgietta Derisier and Sue O'Connell provided a nuanced critique of both attorneys' performances during the closing arguments.

Defense Analysis:

• Visual Aids: Commended Jackson’s effective use of visuals, such as handwritten phrases on notebook paper backgrounds, to reinforce key messages (05:52).
• Performance: Described Jackson’s delivery as vocally powerful and well-rehearsed, ensuring clarity and memorability.

Prosecution Analysis:

• Visual and Contextual Integration: Praised Brennan’s incorporation of visual clips that aligned with his narrative, enhancing the persuasiveness of his arguments (06:34).
• Body Language: Noted Brennan’s dynamic courtroom presence, utilizing movement to engage the jury despite fewer visual aids.

Notable Quotes:

• Morgietta Derisier [06:34]: "He came up with some ideas and some thoughts that we hadn't heard before."
• Sue O'Connell [07:07]: "I think they both did great."

---

Jury Deliberation and Verdict Process

The episode transitions to the commencement of jury deliberations. A former juror, Ronnie Estanislau, shares insights into the deliberation process, emphasizing the methodical approach taken by jurors to evaluate each charge independently before reaching a consensus.

Key Points:

• Deliberation Strategy: Jurors focused on dissecting each charge individually, ensuring thorough analysis of evidence related to second-degree murder, motor vehicle manslaughter, DUI, and leaving the scene (14:39).
• Impact of Verdict Slip: Discussed confusion surrounding the verdict slip, which lacked an explicit "not guilty" option, potentially influencing jurors' decisions (15:32).

Notable Quotes:

• Ronnie Estanislau [15:01]: "We need to look at the different charges and figure out based on each charge."

---

Verdict Slip Discussion

A significant portion of the episode is dedicated to analyzing the complexities and potential confusions associated with the verdict slip used in the trial. Defense attorney Alan Jackson criticized the slip for not providing a clear "not guilty" option, arguing it directed jurors toward specific subordinate charges.

Key Points:

• Structural Issues: The verdict slip presented five sections without clear individual labeling, making it challenging for jurors to independently assess each indictment (15:32).
• Jury Confusion: Juror Estanislau acknowledged that the absence of a separate "not guilty" option could lead to incongruent verdicts based on the charges (17:12).
• Potential Impact on Verdict: The lack of clarity might have influenced jurors to opt for lesser charges, affecting the overall outcome (17:19).

Notable Quotes:

• Alan Jackson [15:32]: "They didn't have an option on the verdict form to find her not guilty."
• Ronnie Estanislau [17:19]: "I honestly think it would have because we were focusing on operating a vehicle under the influence."

---

Juror Testimony and Insights

Former juror Ronnie Estanislau provides a firsthand account of the deliberation experience, highlighting the challenges posed by the verdict slip and the comprehensive instructions provided by the judge. The juror reflects on the deliberation's intensity and the responsibility felt in determining Karen Reid's fate.

Key Points:

• Understanding Jury Instructions: Initially found the instructions overwhelming but recognized their clarity post-deliberation (19:56).
• Deliberation Process: Emphasized meticulous evaluation of each charge, ensuring unanimous agreement among jurors (15:00).

Notable Quotes:

• Ronnie Estanislau [19:56]: "I felt like it was clearer. It was more outlined of what needs to be, what's the goal?"

---

Conclusion and Next Steps

As the episode concludes, the focus shifts to the anticipation of the jury's verdict. The host reiterates the significance of the closing arguments and the jury's role in delivering justice based on the presented evidence. Listeners are encouraged to stay tuned for ongoing coverage and future developments in the trial.

---

Notable Quotes Recap

• Alan Jackson [02:22]: "There was no collision."
• Hank Brennan [04:10]: "John o' Keefe lying helpless like a child on the front yard. She made a choice."
• Ronnie Estanislau [15:01]: "We need to look at the different charges and figure out based on each charge."
• Alan Jackson [15:32]: "They didn't have an option on the verdict form to find her not guilty."
• Ronnie Estanislau [17:19]: "I honestly think it would have because we were focusing on operating a vehicle under the influence."

---

Key Takeaways

• Defense Strategy: Emphasized scientific evidence to sow reasonable doubt.
• Prosecution Strategy: Leveraged Karen Reid’s own statements and questioned investigative integrity.
• Jury Process Complexity: The verdict slip's design potentially influenced the clarity and direction of the jury's decision-making.
• Expert Analysis: Legal experts commended both attorneys' use of visuals and presentation styles, noting effective communication tailored to a young jury.
• Juror Experience: Former juror highlighted the methodical approach and the emotional weight carried during deliberations.

---

This episode of Canton Confidential provides a comprehensive exploration of the closing arguments in the Karen Read murder trial, offering listeners valuable insights into the legal strategies employed by both sides and the intricate dynamics of jury deliberation. As the trial progresses, NBC10 Boston continues to deliver detailed coverage, ensuring the audience remains informed about every critical development.

Transcript

[J.C. Monahan]

Start your day the right way with NBC 10 Boston Morning News worthy of you. Tonight, making their final pitch to the jury, the defense and prosecution face off in closing arguments.

[Alan Jackson]

Do not let the Commonwealth get away with this.

[Hank Brennan]

This taillight was gone. There's no boogeyman. There's no plant. There's no Higgins.

[J.C. Monahan]

At the Sally Court, the defense stresses the science as they urge jurors not to convict Karen Reid.

[Alan Jackson]

Science, the physics, the data. They lose. But tr.

[J.C. Monahan]

Tragically, Michael Proctor wins, while the prosecution uses Reed's own words against her.

[Hank Brennan]

That eyewitness tells us that she knew. That eyewitness is Carrie herself.

[Karen Reid]

Could I have hit him? Did I hit him?

[J.C. Monahan]

But which strategy was more successful? Our legal expert weighs in. Plus, the jury begins debating Reed's fate. He may retire and deliberate your verdict. A juror from the first trial provides his insight. Canton Confidential. The Karen Reed murder trial started. Starts right now.

[Glenn Jones]

After eight weeks of testimony and dramatic closing arguments today, Karen Reid's fate is now in the hands of the jury. Good evening. I'm Glenn Jones.

[J.C. Monahan]

I'm J.C. monahan. Seven women and five men make up that jury today. They witnessed defense attorney Alan Jackson and special prosecutor Hank Brennan go head to head, doing whatever they could to convince the jury to believe their narrative of what happened on that night of January 29, 2022. Melody Mendez was there. Melody, a lot of takeaways from closing arguments. What can you tell us?

[Melody Mendez]

Well, J.C. listen. Over the past eight weeks, everything the jury heard in that courtroom is the same. The facts are the same, the testimony is the same. But what each side thinks that jury should take away from everything they heard, well, that could not be more different.

[Alan Jackson]

Courage is what this moment, this moment demands.

[Melody Mendez]

Injustice, according to Alan Jackson, is at the core of this case. And today he told the jury to stare it down.

[Alan Jackson]

You folks are the last line of defense, the last line of defense between an innocent woman and a system that has tried to break her, that falsely accused her, that tried mightily, mightily to bury the truth.

[Melody Mendez]

He closed his case using the same four words with which he opened it. There was no collision.

[Alan Jackson]

Cannot and they will not ever be able to prove that John was struck by a vehicle beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty. Because the science does not lie, the medical evidence does not lie. The physics do not lie.

[Melody Mendez]

Jackson pointing to two of the prosecution's own experts to show reasonable doubt. First, Dr. Welcher.

[Alan Jackson]

There isn't enough evidence to determine what happened. I beg your pardon? What happens when there isn't enough evidence in his Words you vote not guilty, then.

[Melody Mendez]

Ian Whiffen.

[Alan Jackson]

If their own cell phone expert has a reasonable doubt about John's location, so should you. Because none of those standards maybe, might be, possibly, probably, likely, very likely. None of those meets the extraordinary burden of beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty.

[Melody Mendez]

Focusing more than once on the man behind the investigation, Trooper Michael Proctor, saying his case was corrupt from the start.

[Alan Jackson]

The lead investigator in a murder trial was never called to testify. Think about that. That should stop you in your tracks.

[Melody Mendez]

Proctor's text messages.

[Alan Jackson]

Michael Proctor went far beyond just insulting Karen Reid. He dehumanized this woman. He was fired for this blatant bias. If the Massachusetts State Police can't trust him, how can you trust him and.

[Melody Mendez]

What his investigation ignored?

[Alan Jackson]

You have a man laying dead in the yard dressed for inside and one shoe on. I wonder where the other shoe could be. I don't know. Maybe in the house, 30ft away.

[Melody Mendez]

Cutting to the corruption they say is.

[Alan Jackson]

At the heart of this case on full display. You saw the lengths to which some. Some police officers will go to to protect their own at the expense of the rest of us. At the expense of Karen Reed, an innocent woman.

[Melody Mendez]

Hank Brennan got the last word for the Commonwealth and started with a focus squarely on John.

[Hank Brennan]

John o' Keefe lying helpless like a child on the front yard. She made a choice. She drove away. She was drunk, she hit him and she left him to die.

[Melody Mendez]

That decision, he says, constitutes second degree murder.

[Hank Brennan]

That's what this case is about. And the decision is that she steps on the gas after banging it into.

[Melody Mendez]

Reverse, saying Reed not only knew she hit him, but pretended to find his body the next morning.

[Hank Brennan]

She does not see John o' Keefe. She knows where he is. She knows exactly where he is.

[Melody Mendez]

As for Michael Proctor, he would not.

[Hank Brennan]

Say that Trooper Proctor was honorable because he wasn't. He wasn't. But that does not create a conspiracy, doesn't invent a dog. It doesn't make somebody in a house something they're not. It just doesn't.

[Alan Jackson]

And.

[Melody Mendez]

And using the same phrase Jackson memorably delivered in his closing of the first trial, look the other way. Brennan delivered them again.

[Hank Brennan]

Don't look at her. Look the other way. 227. Look the other way. Don't look at what she did. Former Trooper Proctor. Look the other way. Don't look at her. There's no grand conspiracy. It leads to one person. The defendant. John o' Keefe is not a body. John o' Keefe was a person and he was murdered By Karen Reid.

[Melody Mendez]

Now, the jury deliberated here for 90 minutes before going home for the weekend. They'll be back here first thing Monday morning, and so will we.

[Glenn Jones]

Glenn JC we saw some major league loring today. Thank you very much, Mel. We're joined now by defense attorney Morgietta Derisier and our courtroom insider, Sue o' Connell. All right, colleagues, let's grade what we saw today. Sue, we'll begin with you since you were in the courtroom, starting with Alan Jackson, since he went first.

[Morgietta Derisier]

Alan Jackson, I mean, he's an excellent lawyer. There's no debate about this. What I really loved about what this defense did was their use of the visuals, which I don't think we saw so much at home. They actually took phrases of what Alan Jackson wanted to communicate, put it up on the screen in a handwriting font on notebook paper background, right? So you have a young jury, you're communicating to them in phrases, and many of them have been taking notes, so really reinforcing the message that you wanted to get. And I think compared to last year, everything we've talked about to the last trial definitely streamlined to the point. Not a lot, a lot of off ramps of places to go. So I think it was an A performance and an A delivery, and then.

[Glenn Jones]

Brennan had to follow that up. How did he do?

[Morgietta Derisier]

And he did as well. What he was really good at was also the visuals. Finally, the clips that they were playing made more sense with the context, the way he presented them, with the evidence, with the narrative that he was giving. So when everyone kept saying how they relate to how they react to the clips, this time I think it really landed completely. And listen, he came up with some ideas and some thoughts that we hadn't heard before, like Karen and the snowplow, all of that. So I think that Brennan did the best that he possibly could with what he had to work with.

[Sue O'Connell]

Margayla I agree with Sue. I think they both did an excellent job and I like their style. And juries are going to really resonate with how you present that information. Hank did everything he could with the evidence that he had. He weaved in the clips nicely. I only wish that he would have ended with a clip with Karen Reid, because that was his strong point throughout the trial. He ended, I think, with the visual, with the car, but with the clip, it would have been much nicer and cleaner. But what's interesting is Alan Jackson is a former prosecutor and Hank Brennan is a former defense attorney, and now they're giving two different roles. So it was really interesting to See them do the opposite role. But I think they both did great.

[J.C. Monahan]

Well, to that point, they do have different styles clearly on display today during closing arguments. Let's play little bit of it.

[Hank Brennan]

And that one person who could help him that morning was this defendant right here, Karen Clee.

[Alan Jackson]

No evidence of an impact site on his entire body. That in and of itself is reasonable doubt. You don't need anything more. The Commonwealth case is done. It's cooked.

[J.C. Monahan]

Okay. From what Glenn and I were talking is that Jackson stayed at the podium. He was turning pages, but vocally powerful. Brennan vocally, you know, not quite as strong, but moved and really didn't look like they have notes. Does that start with you as a lawyer? How. How does that present to a jury?

[Sue O'Connell]

So jury, one on one training, you're not supposed to use notes. Right. But I think that there's an effective way to do it. And Alan Jackson did it here, especially when he cued in the videos and the clips that took practice. They must have went over that a million times because it weaved in very nicely. So both presentations were different, but they both were very, very different styles.

[Morgietta Derisier]

And Hank really used. I'm calling him Hank just because you are Hank Brennan really used the whole courtroom as well. So he brought attention to the o' Keefe family when he walked over to the screen. So it was. And I used the word pace. I didn't mean it in a derogatory way. But he walked back and forth in front of the jury. All eyes had to follow him. He didn't have as many visual elements as the defense did. So I think he filled that space with the way he used his body.

[Glenn Jones]

In the courtroom repeatedly through closing arguments. Alan Jackson said there is reasonable doubt in this case. Here's just one of those. Mom.

[Alan Jackson]

Reasonable doubt is not a sliding scale. It's a wall. If the Commonwealth cannot get over every one of these dozens of walls, you have to acquit Karen Reid. The truth is, Karen Reid is not guilty.

[Glenn Jones]

Morgieta. Every lawyer seems to have their own metaphor for what reasonable doubt is. What do you think about the way he used it in front of the jury?

[Sue O'Connell]

Honestly, I use that as well.

[J.C. Monahan]

Oh, do you?

[Sue O'Connell]

Because I do. Because you have to focus on each and every element. And that is the strongest point. Because sometimes people think, oh, it could be a combination of things. No, it has to be take the charge and go through each and every element, and you have to hit that wall. And if you go to, let's say, five of the elements, I think is in one of the charges you come to count two or element two, it's not there. You have to stop. That's reasonable doubt.

[Morgietta Derisier]

And he had a slide up behind him many times that had. It was kind of like a reasonable doubt phrase cloud. So it said reasonable doubt at the top and all the ways that he was saying there should be reasonable doubt. And that kept reinforcing it to the jury.

[J.C. Monahan]

All right, we did talk a little bit about this already. But just as he did in opening statements and throughout the trial, Hank Brennan did use the clips of Karen Reid speaking to various outlets. Here's one from her interview with dateline.

[Karen Reid]

Could I have hit him? Did I hit him? How could I have been? How could that be? Did he come up in any trip or bend over his cell phone and I ran over his. And then he passed out drunk. I mean, I didn't think I hit him, but credit clipped him.

[J.C. Monahan]

So that is the prosecution really trying to use Karen Reid's words against her. Effective or not, you had said, right.

[Sue O'Connell]

You just, you don't speak super cringe.

[J.C. Monahan]

Can I say cringe?

[Sue O'Connell]

Is that it's allowed. It just hurts. And then when you weave it into the closing, that's the last thing that the jury is going to hear. And you have to listen to what you said. Did I hit him? Hit him?

[Alan Jackson]

So.

[Sue O'Connell]

So did you. You know, what kind of hit do we have here? You know, it's only one kind of hit, and either one of them could fit into one of the elements that are here. So it's very hard to hear. As a defense attorney, it is so.

[Glenn Jones]

Exceedingly rare for us to hear this much from a defendant who doesn't testify.

[Sue O'Connell]

Right.

[Morgietta Derisier]

I mean, Hank Brennan's moment when he said, we have an eyewitness, that was a very compelling moment. You know, where again, it tied all these clips, audio and visual clips that we've had of Karen together. And I, you know, I guarantee I the body language at the defense table when these run are just kind of.

[J.C. Monahan]

Like, oh, cringe, cringe, cringe.

[Glenn Jones]

Super cringe, probably. What a compelling day. Thanks to both of you. Sue o' Connell, thank you. We'll see you in a moment. Morgietta. But coming up, deliberations get underway in the retrial. We'll be joined by a juror from the first trial, what he has to say about closing arguments and how Alan Jackson and Hank Brennan spoke to jurors today. You're watching Canton Confidential, the Karen Reed murder trial.

[Priscilla Casper]

Don't miss any of the Karen Reed murder trial. Get the full recap of what happened in court, expert analysis and what we could see next. This is coverage you won't see anywhere else. Canton confidential, weeknights at 7 on NBC. 10 Boston.

[Hank Brennan]

You're gonna have to ask yourself, is there evidence that Ms. Re knew that she had hit him? Don't need to prove it for murder 2. Don't need to prove it for OUI manslaughter. But for the third charge, C has to prove beyond reasonable doubt she knew she hit him.

[J.C. Monahan]

That's special prosecutor Hank Brennan explaining the charges Karen Reid is facing during closing arguments today. We're back now with defense attorney Morgietta Derisier and Ronnie Estanislau, who served as a juror on the first trial. Let's first remind everybody of the charges that Reid is facing. Second degree murder, motor vehicle manslaughter while driving under the influence of and leaving the scene of a collision causing injury and death. Again, Brennan said, I'm going to. Judge Kanoni is the judge. I'm going to let her explain the law. I'm going to explain more. J. Tell me if I got this right, why we're charging her with what we're charging because he hit that we didn't. We're not saying she intended to. But you don't need to prove that. Am I getting that right?

[Sue O'Connell]

Absolutely. Because obviously there's first degree. There's levels of degrees of murder. Right. First degree, second degree. So what he's saying with the second degree murder is that he's not saying that she intended to, but she had enough knowledge that he had passed away or she did an overt act, meaning reversing her vehicle and knew he was back there and did it anyways. That is what he's trying to push for the second degree murder charge.

[Glenn Jones]

All right. During closing arguments, there were times when both the defense and prosecution had very specific messages to the jury. Let's take a listen.

[Alan Jackson]

Not here, not now. Not on our watch. That's what you're being asked to do, Stare down injustice.

[Hank Brennan]

Their opinions weigh no more than yours. Your common sense has more value than an expert's opinion. Their job is to assist you to explain what their expertise is so that it's a tool for you so that you can make a decision.

[Glenn Jones]

So, Ronald, shortly after hearing that, the jury begins their deliberations. You did this a year ago. Walk us through the process. When you get into the deliberation room, what are you doing?

[Ronnie Estanislau]

First, I think we were all suddenly realizing the scope of what we were about to do, the weight of it yes.

[Glenn Jones]

Yeah. And what'd you do next? Did you discuss immediately what you were thinking?

[Ronnie Estanislau]

I think we went. Our kind of ideas of how to approach it in an easy way.

[Glenn Jones]

And what did you decide? Ultimately?

[Ronnie Estanislau]

Ultimately, we said that somebody has to. We need to look at the different charges and figure out based on each charge. Charge. Can we make decisions on each charge. And if we can't, then we should look at the evidence of everything. And then one more time at the end, look at the evidence again to make sure everybody is in agreement.

[J.C. Monahan]

All right, we're going to talk about this. We're getting a closer look at the verdict slip that the jurors will be filling out. You may remember, I'm sure that Ronnie does, that there was talk that the jury was a bit confused over the boxes that needed to be checked. Take a listen.

[Alan Jackson]

They didn't have an option on the verdict form to find her not guilty. It's almost like the court is directing a verdict to subordinate charges.

[J.C. Monahan]

Okay, I disagree with you, Mr. Nettie. You've seen verdict slips exactly like this.

[Alan Jackson]

Okay, I actually haven't.

[J.C. Monahan]

Okay, so one major change this year is about the second charge of manslaughter while operating a motor vehicle under the influence of liquor. They have added a lesser included offense of oui. We have the verdict slip here, and even you said that this is confusing. And so I want to talk to both of you. Explain to me what I'm looking at here. And then, Ronnie, if you can just let us know if this updated version would have helped you at all.

[Sue O'Connell]

So what we're looking at here is five sections that the jury has to decide on. And I think the reason why it's confusing is because they're not individually labeled to each indictment. But if the only charge is that the jury thinks she was operating under the influence, they have to assume that counts 1 through 4, or sections 1 through 4 on the verdict slip she is not guilty of in order to get to section five. So if they believe that she's guilty of anything one through four, they have to stop right there. What the defense attorneys are arguing is that there should be a section next to each section that just puts not guilty or guilty. But the problem is there's no case law to support modifying a verdict slip to fit that narrative.

[Glenn Jones]

So, Ronald, on the issue of number five that Morgieta was just talking about, this jury can decide to convict her on Ouija independent of everything else. Was that an option even available to you, or was it an option at least made clear to you that Wasn't.

[Ronnie Estanislau]

Even an option that was made available. So, no.

[Glenn Jones]

Would it have made a difference, do you think, in the outcome of what that jury decided?

[Ronnie Estanislau]

I honestly think it would have because we were. We were focusing on. Some of us were focusing on the fact that we believed she was operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol, and we wanted some sort of justice for that. And there was no other charge or anything to check off.

[Sue O'Connell]

And I think, to be honest, just because they've been waiting 8 weeks and 31 days, I can reasonably see how this is an easy out, because what is she going to. The charges that she's facing, the penalties. She could just get probation. You know, she could get a very small, as they say, slap on the wrist. And that might appease the jury. They did their due diligence. They picked something, but not something that's.

[J.C. Monahan]

As grave as what I do want to point out. Andrew Jackson. Andrew Jackson. Alan Jackson said, if you find her guilty on anything, then Proctor wins. And that, to me was, ooh, they do think that there's a chance that it's possible.

[Sue O'Connell]

I mean, the clips are the clips. We really can't take those back. I mean, she said that she was drinking. Now, again, in that section five, there's two parts. It's whether her ability to operate that motor vehicle was impaired or whether her blood alcohol level, which there was no expert to testify to, was above 0.08. So really has to be 5A.

[Glenn Jones]

It's such a. It's such a development because, of course, the defense requested this, not the commonwealth. And it's usually the commonwealth that's adding charges to the indictment list. But anyway, let's tackle one of the many viewer questions we got about the jury process. Greg and Stoughton asks, how were the alternates chosen? Well, alternate jurors were selected at random today. 18 jurors in total heard the case, but only 12 will be deliberated. So that means six of the panel were selected as alternates, their numbers pulled from a wooden box by the court clerk. You see that happening right there. The judge is the one who decides who the foreperson will be. That person will ultimately communicate with the judge and deliver a verdict if one is reached. Before deliberations began, Judge Kanone read off a long list of instructions to the jury. Here's one of those instructions.

[J.C. Monahan]

Lawyers or witnesses may suggest something about the law that's not necessarily the law. That's because it's my responsibility of the. As the judge and mine alone to instruct you what the law is that.

[Glenn Jones]

Brings us to another viewer question. Paul wants to know, are the jury, is the jury allowed to keep a hard copy of the deliberation as a reference, a hard copy of the instructions? I'm sorry for deliberations. Ronald, the reading of the instructions was pretty long as, as Greg puts Paul points out there. Were you able to keep a copy and refer to it?

[Ronnie Estanislau]

Yes. Actually, that was one of the first things looking back at it that we kind of looked at because some of us were still confused when we first walked into the room of what were the instructions?

[Glenn Jones]

Did you, did you watch the jury instructions today?

[Ronnie Estanislau]

Yes.

[Glenn Jones]

Did you feel like it was a clearer process than the one that you experienced?

[Ronnie Estanislau]

I felt like it was clearer. It was more, it was more outlined of what needs to be, what's the goal? What's the objective?

[J.C. Monahan]

And don't forget, they sat there for an hour and 15 minutes for the defense is closing, an hour and 15 minutes for the prosecution's closing. They got a half hour lunch break and then they had come back and listened to an hour of jury instructions. I mean, that is a lot to process considering the weight, as you said, when you walked into that room and then to deliberate and deliberate. Right. And you actually get to speak to people after all that time. There has to be, that has to be a monumental moment.

[Sue O'Connell]

Absolutely.

[J.C. Monahan]

All right. Well, we are, we're now going to see where we go from here because if Morgieta is confused about the verdict slip, you can't be the only one. That's impossible. So it's going to be something we'll be watching and trying to explain. Thank you both so much. Thank you for being with us throughout the trial and thank you for staying with us as we await the verdict. We appreciate it.

[Glenn Jones]

If you have questions about this case, keep sending them our way. The email address is on your screen. Canton.confidentialbcuni.com we'll answer as many questions as we can.

[J.C. Monahan]

And remember to join us every weeknight at 7 on NBC 10 Boston. We'll have a full recap of the latest developments from court as well as legal analysis. Plus, this week's episodes will be streaming on Peacock. On Sunday. You're watching Canton Confidential, the Karen Reed murder trial.

[Priscilla Casper]

Watch Priscilla Casper and Colton Bradford third weeknights at 6 on NBC 10 Boston to watch full episodes of Canton Confidential, the Karen Reed murder trial. Tune in to NBC 10 Boston weeknights at 7 through the duration of the trial. You can also catch past episodes on the NBC 10 Boston YouTube page. Full episodes are posted one day after airing NBC 10 Boston news worthy of you.