← The Stefon Diggs Trial: Commonwealth Confidential
The Stefon Diggs Trial: Commonwealth Confidential
Karen Read lawyers talk 'culminating moment of the defense,' Cannone, more
00:37:04
Karen Read defense attorneys David Yannetti and Robert Alessi joined us for a live conversation about the murder trial. Watch their extended interview here, covering the dramatic end to the trial, key moments along the way, Judge Beverly Cannone, how to explain complicated technical evidence, why they didn't call several key witnesses (Michael Proctor, Brian Albert and Brian Higgins) and much more.
Loading summary
Transcript73 lines
- [00:01]
Andy Richter
Hi there, it's Andy Richter, and I'm here to tell you about my podcast the three Questions with Andy Richter. Each week I invite friends, comedians, actors and musicians to discuss these three where do you come from, where are you going, and what have you learned? New episodes are out every Tuesday with guests like Julie Bowe and Ted Danson, Tig Notaro, Will Arnett, Phoebe Bridgers, and more. You can also tune in for my weekly Andy Richter Call in Show episodes, where me and a special guest invite callers to weigh in on topics like dating disasters, bad teachers, and lots more. Listen to the three Questions with Andy Richter wherever you get your podcasts.
- [00:43]
NBC News Anchor
Curious if who you've been talking to online is who they say they are? The sea of love is filled with catfish. Make sure one doesn't hook you with lies. If you're trying to confirm the identity of someone you're talking to on dating apps, you you need truthfinder.com with truthfinder, you can check public records to see if they're being deceitful about their age, identity, past divorces and more. Make sure you're not wasting your time and energy on a scammer with truthfinder.com dating today.
- [01:11]
On Deck Representative
Building a business may feel like a big jump, but On Deck small business loans can help keep you afloat. With lines of credit up to $100,000 and term loans up to $250,000, OnDeck lets you choose the loan that's right for your business as a top online small business lender. On Deck's team of loan advisors can help you find the right business loan to fit your needs. Visit ondeck.com for more information. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by On Deck or Celtic Bank. On Deck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amount subject to lender approval.
- [01:42]
NBC News Anchor
NBC 10 Boston news worthy of you tonight, nearly two weeks after a verdict was reached, big names from Reed's defense team are talking to us live. We get their reactions to the trial, the jury's decision, and take a closer look at their strategies in the courtroom. The special edition of Canton Confidential, the Karen Reed murder trial starts right now.
- [02:18]
Glenn Jones
Two key members of Karen Reed's defense team are with us tonight. Good evening, I'm Glenn Jones. They joined Canton Confidential nearly two weeks after a verdict was reached in the second trial, which turned out to be even more high profile than the first. The verdict was read on June 18 after four days of jury deliberations. Emotions were raw in the courtroom as the reality sunk in. Karen Reed, acquitted in the Death of John o' Keefe and able to walk free, ending a years long legal battle. Here's a refresher on the jury's decision. On second degree murder, not guilty. On manslaughter with a motor vehicle under the influence of liquor, not guilty. And for leaving the scene of an accident causing injury and death, not guilty. However, Reid was found guilty of OUI with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 or greater. This was a subcharge added by the defense right before the jury began their deliberations. Speaking of the defense, defense attorneys David Gannetti and Robert Alessi. Welcome to Canton Confidential. Let's jump right in because I know I'm going to feel like we've run out of time. So let's begin with this. Attorney Unetti, you were the first lawyer on this case. We saw you just a moment ago in that video, wiping tears from your eyes as the verdict was read. I want you to just take us back to that moment, especially the part where you could hear the roars outside from the crop, from the crowd. I imagine that was pretty unique in your career.
- [03:45]
David Yannetti
I have never heard that before and I probably will never hear it again. So, you know, in any case, when the jury is filing back into the courtroom and you have no idea what the verdict is going to be, your heart is pounding out of your chest. I am, you know, hanging on every word. I no longer can look at the jury when they're back in the courtroom. And earlier in my career, I watched them file in. I try and glean something from whether they looked at me or not. What's the verdict going to be? I've resigned myself to the fact that I'm completely out of control at that point. And I'm just bracing myself for what, what could come. So, you know, with this case, you know, there were three charges, the second of which was complicated with several lesser included charges. And I felt like I was, you know, on the ocean in high seas, you know, just trying not to fall overboard as they're announcing the verd. And it was within that, I don't know, maybe it took what, 30 seconds. But within that 30 second span of time, I just had a range of emotion and, you know, it was just overwhelming for me.
- [05:06]
Glenn Jones
And when you heard the noise from outside, did it startle you.
- [05:13]
Robert Alessi
There?
- [05:14]
David Yannetti
They had behaved themselves in an exemplary fashion. You know, the first trial they were loud, I think feedback from the jury. The first time is that the jury could hear them. You know, there were a couple of, or maybe two or three leaders of the crowd out there, supportive supporters of ours, but people that commanded respect. And it was incredible that you had that amount of people outside, and yet they were silent. They respected the process. They gave us, you know, hand signals to indicate their love for us. We gave it back to them, and it was an outpouring of emotion once it was finally done. And the roar of the crowd did not surprise me at all. But they waited until the last verdict was in.
- [06:03]
Glenn Jones
Attorney Alessi, I'd like to go back inside the courtroom and take you back to the dust stop over John o' Keefe's hoodie. Fairly late in the trial, Special prosecutor Hank Brennan made it seem like the holes in that article of clothing were the result of a crash instead of being cut by a criminalist in a lab. You made a motion for a mistrial. Shortly after that, it was denied. Here's Hank Brennan admitting to his mistake.
- [06:28]
Robert Alessi
My brief review of the lab paperwork and looking at the hoodie, it appears.
- [06:33]
David Yannetti
That I made a mistake.
- [06:35]
Robert Alessi
And so I think what should happen is there should be curative instruction.
- [06:40]
Glenn Jones
Now, the jury foreman told my colleague Emily Ikeda, Brennan's mistake indicated to him that there were, quote, games being played. So you were very tenacious in the moment on that issue, almost from the moment it happened. Did you have a hunch Brennan's self described mistake would be a pivotal moment for the jury? It.
- [07:01]
Robert Alessi
That was such a serious affront to the facts, and it was on a very, very key witness, Dr. Wolf, our accident reconstructionist physicist. It was really the. The culminating moment of. So the stakes were very, very high. But also it was on the key issue of whether or not there was a collision. And we asserted, and I particularly asserted forcefully all along, there was no collision. And Attorney Brennan tried to use the hoodie, sweatshirt, and specifically the holes in the back to support his wayward theory that there was a collision. So once it was elucidated that that was not true, what the representation, the implication, and the direct statements were false. And I need to just put a little nuance to what you said. His exact words were, I may have made a mistake. He didn't say I made a mistake.
- [08:18]
Glenn Jones
So wait a second. Do you think it was a mistake or do you think it was intention?
- [08:23]
Robert Alessi
I don't know. I don't know what's in Attorney Brennan's head. I will tell you that in addition to Attorney Brennan, there were two other prosecutors at the table with him who were there in the first trial. And I don't know if your viewers know this, but in the first trial, Mr. Lally affirmatively adduced testimony from Ms. Hartnett, who I cross examined, who was the criminalist who made the cuts. He adduced testimony, meaning he had her say, yes, I made those cuts in the back of the shirt. So I think that further underscores the issue. But to your question of playing games and the significance, my judgment that that was significant. And the last point that I think really illuminated this point was the judge, at my request, allowed me to hold up the hoodie sweatshirt in front of the jury and walk back and forth and look right at the ju so the jury could actually see the full extent of the stunt. And I thought that that also impacted the moment.
- [09:34]
Glenn Jones
Well, let's talk about the person who hired special prosecutor Brennan, Michael Morrissey, the Norfolk District attorney responsible for the prosecution of criminal offenses in Norfolk county from the get go. He charged Karen Reed with second degree murder. We've had many analysts on this program tell us that she was overcharged. Attorney Yannetti, what I want to ask you, though, is how did this happen? Why do you think she was overcharged? And especially why do you think it happened twice?
- [10:04]
David Yannetti
Well, the trial happened twice, but in my view, she was overcharged twice. You know, I was there right at her arraignment in Stoughton District Court on February 2nd of 2022, and I was surprised that they had charged her with manslaughter in the first place. In my view, reading the police report at that time, it was a motor vehicle homicide. And, you know, I could only surmise it was because of the identity of the victim. You know, John o' Keefe, being a Boston police officer, I think the case was. Was treated differently because of who the victim was. I also think it was treated differently because of whose home outside of which he was. He was found. But then, you know, they then took case to the grand jury and it wasn't enough to, in my view, overcharge her with manslaughter. But they then overcharged her with second degree murder, which I just thought was crazy. You know, when that happened, I thought to myself, well, they must have some new evidence that they haven't produced yet. But then, you know, you read the grand jury minutes and the discovery that they relied on, it was the same evidence essentially that was introduced or that was, you know, produced, I should say, at the start.
- [11:21]
Glenn Jones
So, so just just to rhetoric there, if John o' Keefe was not a Boston police officer, do you also think she's never charged with second degree murder?
- [11:33]
David Yannetti
Well, my personal belief is yes, that's the case. My personal belief is if he wasn't a Boston police officer, I think this case stays in Stoughton District Court and is tried as a motor vehicle homicide there. I don't think she would have been indicted for this, but for the fact that he was a Boston police officer. That's just my personal view.
- [11:57]
Glenn Jones
Attorney Alessi, I know you don't typically practice in Massachusetts, but I'm sure you've gotten to learn a lot about the place. We haven't heard from DA Morrissey since this verdict, at least not in a substantive way. Should we.
- [12:15]
Robert Alessi
Prosecutors generally are very pithy with regard to their statements after a verdict, particularly when they're not successful. I would have hoped that District Attorney Morrissey would have thanked the jury for their service. This jury was incredibly attentive, very professional, and is one of the most impressive juries I've been in front of. To the extent that District Attorney Morrissey was to say more, I think it should have simply been to thank the jury for their service, to educate the public on the importance of jurors. And despite people's view of what they may think the right and the wrong outcome is, is that to respect the process. So, yes, my hope was and was that District Attorney Morrissey would have spoken up for the process, thank the jurors, because that's the way civilized societ resolve disputes. And I just, if I was district attorney, would have. Would have said more and would have said things differently.
- [13:31]
Glenn Jones
Attorney Yannetti, back at the end of the first trial, it does seem as if the defense team had an opportunity to demand more answers in Judge Kanoni's courtroom about what the jury was actually saying when she declared a mistrial. When you look back on that, in retrospect, do you have any regrets not taking more action in that moment? Did you guys drop the ball there?
- [13:55]
David Yannetti
No, I don't think so. I mean, you know, this issue has been fully litigated both in, you know, Judge Kanoni's courtroom and also the Supreme Judicial Court, in addition to federal court. You may recall that, you know, the jury had come back with a question or two before they ultimately reported that they were hopelessly deadlocked. And with regard to those previous questions, the judge had always, as judges do, call the attorneys into the courtroom and read the questions and strategize with them about how to respond. With this last note, the judge didn't do that. You know, she reported that they were deadlocked and then immediately called him in the courtroom. There was really no opportunity for us to interrupt the proceedings. The jury was right there. It was a matter of seconds from the time that the judge announced that to the time that the jury was in the courtroom. But, you know, again, this issue was, was fully litigated. We didn't win. But ultimately, you know, even though we didn't win that battle, we did win the war.
- [15:08]
Glenn Jones
All right, let's talk a little bit.
- [15:09]
Robert Alessi
And I don't understand, I don't understand the question. This is the second trial. I don't understand the question and the relevance to, to the second trial.
- [15:20]
Glenn Jones
All right, well, let's talk a little bit more about Judge Beverly Kanoni's presiding over the second trial. A lot of viewers felt she was biased and that she favored the commonwealth, especially when it came to overruling objections by the defense. We got a number of questions directly from viewers asking to have this be addressed and we'd like to do that with you tonight. Do you agree with all of these viewers? I mean, I'm talking about dozens of emails over the course of the trial. Do you see it the same way that these viewers did?
- [15:57]
Robert Alessi
Here's the way I see it. I see it is the attorneys who appear before judges have a job to do on behalf of their clients. There are sometimes you're going to get judges that are going to make your life a little bit easier as an attorney. And sometimes there's judges that are going to make rulings and have approaches and have views of your case that are going to make it more challenging. My perspective is not to focus unduly on the judge per se, but to find a way to achieve the objective. Notwithstanding what's coming at you, there's no doubt that there were a number of rulings that made our job more challenging. I made many motions. We can't talk about sidebars, but we vigorously asserted our clients rights at trial. And there are certainly aspects of the case and the judge's rulings that I publicly disagreed with and argued vigorously for at sidebar. And so my perspective is that the prosecution in this particular case got a number of rulings in their favor and that yet it was still our job as the defense to find a way to overcome them. And the jury, who is the ultimate arbiter, determined that we did overcome them successfully. So I tend not to focus unduly on the judge and just try to find a way to get the result, notwithstanding what the judge's rulings are.
- [17:28]
Glenn Jones
Robert Alessi, David Yannetti, thank you so much for joining us. Don't go anywhere. Our conversation continues after the break with our courtroom insider, Sue o' Connell. Severe weather can strike anywhere at a.
- [17:43]
NBC News Anchor
Moment'S notice, whether you live in Drake.
- [17:44]
Robert Alessi
It in Webster, in Worcester, in Shirley or in Quincy. Wherever you're watching from NBC 10 volleyball.
- [17:50]
Glenn Jones
Boston's first alert weather team is working hard to keep you safe with the most accurate forecast around. No other weather team in Boston can say that. Because the most important thing on our radar is you. Is you. Is you.
- [18:01]
Sue O'Connell
Is you.
- [18:02]
Robert Alessi
Because the most important thing on our radar is you. First alert weather on NBC 10 Boston weather coverage worthy of you.
- [18:13]
Glenn Jones
We're back now on Canton Confidential with two of Karen Reed's defense attorneys, David Yannetti and Robert Alessi. And we want to welcome our courtroom insider, Sue o' Connell to the conversation. All right, let's talk about some of the social media surrounding this case and how it could impact future cases moving forward. Not long after the verdict was reached, we heard from the McCabe and Albert families who wrote in a joint statement, quote, we mourn with John's family and lament the cruel reality that this prosecution was infected by lies and conspiracy theories spread by Karen Reed, her defense team and some in the media. The result is a devastating miscarriage of justice. Although not named in that statement, Aiden Kearney, a blogger who goes by Turtle Boy, has been accused of witness intimidation and was allegedly aggressive towards some of the witnesses in this case. So, Attorney Yannetti, I wanted to start with you on this subject. Does the defense team bear any responsibility for his actions, given your association with him?
- [19:14]
David Yannetti
No. And, you know, I question the allegations against Mr. Carney anyway. You know, if you look at, you know, old time journalism, 60 Minutes, you know, people reporters going up to people's houses, knocking on doors, trying to get a statement, you know, a lot of that stuff is remarkably similar to what Mr. Carney did. And, you know, in terms of us bearing responsibility for what, you know, we all we did was defend our clients zealously as we're required to do under the rules of professional responsibility. You know, Mr. Carney is fully able to take care of himself and make his own decisions. He's not a child. So, yeah, I think the short answer is no, I don't agree with that at all.
- [20:06]
Sue O'Connell
I wanted to ask Attorney Alessi, hi to both of you. I feel like we were working together for 40 days and 40 nights. But Attorney Alessi, you thank. This case has had so much dense medical information, technical information, and it was a slog the first trial. A lot I heard from so many Jurors and so many people watching that you made it so clear for them to understand what, what's the key to your success in being able to communicate this dense information clearly for people to understand and then be able to adjudicate it?
- [20:43]
Robert Alessi
Well, first I want to say it's an absolute pleasure to see you again. You were an absolute pro and a delight to speak about non case things within the courtroom. So nice to see you again. To answer your question, I have a technical background. I'm a clinical pharmacist, was a licensed pharmacist. I've always enjoyed science, technology, math. I've had every physics, calculus, chemistry in the world. And in my career and practice law, I've had a lot of technical issues all the way from what I just mentioned. And then ad accounting, my mind is, I think a little bit wired that way. There's two different sides of the brain for the science and technical and then the law. And I love the challenge of them both and what I taught law school for five years also. So I think it's very, very important that attorneys keep in mind their obligation to have the jury understand the sub matter before you can ask them to be persuaded by your views. So the other part of the answer to your question is I spend a lot of time, endless hours reading the subject matter. I had to benefit a little bit of some experts on the case, although we were limited because of budget, but I spent an enormous amount of time reading. And so I think the combination of loving the subject matter and I love technical information and then spending the time putting in the time and then hopefully having the skills to be able in the setting that we're in, both extract information from the witness, but at the same time keep it at a level where it's understandable. And last point, as I mentioned earlier, this jury was just extraordinarily attentive in my view, bright. And I think that that all contributed to able to do that. And I believe that was something that was really needed with regard to trial two as opposed to what happened in trial one.
- [22:53]
Sue O'Connell
I knew there'd be three points. I knew he was going to do three points.
- [22:56]
Glenn Jones
Yeah, just like he was litigating his case. So there were ultimately five members of this legal team. We've had two of them here with us tonight. David Yanetti and Robert Alessi. We have some severe weather in the area, so what we're going to do is we're going to hit pause for a moment so that we could check on that weather. But if you at home would like to listen to more of this conversation. We have some more time with these gentlemen, so join us in a few moments on the NBC Boston streaming fast channels. We'll be right back with more of that conversation weather right after this break.
- [23:33]
NBC News Anchor
Watch Priscilla Casper and Colton Bradford weeknights at 6 on NBC 10 Boston.
- [23:38]
Kelly Ripa
Hey there, it's Kelly Ripa. And if you've been listening to my podcast, we are knee deep in season three. And if you haven't heard it, it's time to get on board. After years of interviewing celebs on camera, I finally get to bring you the real conversations that take place when the cameras aren't rolling. Where else are you going to hear Michelle Obama talk about keeping her girls out of Page Six? Hilaria Baldwin's hilarious reaction to Alec running for office, or Jeremy Renner's lucid hallucinations about Jamie Foxx? Nowhere else. It's raw, it's honest, and best of all, it's off camera. And believe me, that's where you get the good stuff. So download. Let's talk off camera with Kelly Rippa now. Wherever you get your podcasts.
- [24:22]
TruthFinder Representative
Sick of going on dates with the one, only to find out later they're really in it just for fun. If you're single and ready to mingle but tired of swiping right on catfish, then you need truthfinder.com Truthfinder confidentially searches millions of public records and gives you background reports with criminal and traffic history, divorce info, age, previous bankruptcies and more. See what you can find with just a name, phone number or email. Go to truthfinder.com dating today to uncover who they really are.
- [24:55]
Glenn Jones
I'm Glenn Jones and we're continuing with this extended edition of Canton Confidential. I'm joined now by attorneys David Yannetti and Robert Alessi. They were part of the defense defense team for Karen Reed. And our courtroom insider Sue o' Connell is back with us. So sue had a moment to talk with one of the jurors and that conversation seemed to echo the public's lack of confidence in law enforcement. Sue spoke with a juror a couple days after the jury reached its verdict. And this was this juror's opinion about one of the police officers called to the witness stand.
- [25:31]
TruthFinder Representative
Officer Dever was scary. She sold vibe of being so desperate and angry to everyone, like a child complaining, fighting with their mom. I mean, I just feel like unsafe to have a person with that level of immaturity carrying a gun among us.
- [25:53]
Glenn Jones
Those words were in regards to defense witness Boston police officer Kelly Dever. Who worked with Canton PD at the time of John O. Keith's death. She was somewhat combative on the stand and gave a little bit of attitude to. If a juror feels so strongly that Officer Deverer shouldn't be allowed to have a firearm, we kind of want to bring that question to Attorney Yannetti, who has said in some other interviews that he found sort of the attitude of Officer Dever to be really damaging to the prosecution's case. Case. Can you expand on that a little bit for us now, Attorney Yannetti? And also, please give your reaction to what that juror said.
- [26:37]
David Yannetti
Well, what the juror said was what we were thinking as well, which is, you know, her story didn't make sense. You know, the timeline was so damaging to her credibility. Right. I mean, you know, she initially reports that she saw, you know, Chief Berkowitz and Brian Higgins alone with Ms. Reed's SUV in the Sally Port for what she said was a wildly long period of time. Now, that's pretty specific, and that's unusual language, and that speaks to a pretty clear memory. And then after that, the commissioner of the Boston Police calls her, you know, rookie cop into his office, says, do the right thing. And sure enough, all of a sudden, that was a false memory. You know, I think at its basic level, her testimony didn't make sense. And in my view, she did not help herself out by the attitude that she had. You know, she. She paused for a long period of time. She was looking for ways to be sarcastic when we questioned her, you know, correcting Alan Jackson when he called her Officer Deaver instead of Dever, but said it in a snide way. I think that she was a combination of unlikable and unbelievable, and I think that she damaged the prosecution's case.
- [28:15]
Sue O'Connell
Attorney Alessi, do you see this? I mean, you know, we see a lot of misconduct. We cover. You're involved in, you know, covering cases, both of you, criminal behavior, police not doing a great job on the stand, not doing a good job investigating all kinds of issues. Do you see this as a moment where all these people who have been watching this trial, who have either been supporting Karen or not, and they see this sort of bad behavior to be kind by police officers. Do you. Do you think there might be a moment where average people think, you know, I need to do something about this, I need to make sure I know who my DA Is, I need to vote? Do you feel that energy, or do you think it's just going to pop, just float away like a balloon? And they'll be on to the next true crime story.
- [29:02]
Robert Alessi
Definitely feel the energy. I don't think it's going to float away like a balloon. I believe this case has illuminated in a stark fashion the issues that you just astutely referred to. I believe the majority of law enforcement is good, hardworking, but like in any other area, there are pockets that are very problematic. The problem is with law enforcement, they're near the people often, and the people rely upon them. And so to me, it's particularly compelling that the community stays involved in presses for change. And I think it needs to happen peacefully and needs to happen lawfully, but it needs to happen firmly and aggressively. And the start is at the voting box is to vote persons in that will discharge the duties to make sure that law enforcement does what they're supposed to do. And that starts with if you're in a town or a city, your, your, your, your legislative bodies, your, your mayors, your select boards. Boards all the way up to mayors of major cities. And it also involves district attorneys. So I believe that this trial has underscored not only the need for that to occur, but I think it's given people not only their voice, but to let them know that each one of their voices can be very effective. So I see this continuing on and I'm hopeful that it starts very soon at the voters box, but that the people keep on this issue. It's extraordinarily important.
- [30:51]
Glenn Jones
Attorney Yannetti, in the first trial, there were three witnesses called by the prosecution that you and the others on your team cross examined. Michael Proctor, Brian Albert and Brian Higgins. And I know the analysts around this table thought that you effectively cross examined those witnesses. So I think it, it meant to us that in the second trial you would call them if the prosecution did not. But you didn't do that. Can you explain why?
- [31:20]
David Yannetti
So I can't get into confidential communications amongst the defense team, but I can tell you what I was thinking. So, you know, we were aware, I was aware of the, you know, insistence by our supporters and I will say within my own family that, you know, that we call all three of them, you know, there would have been helpful information that we would have gotten from them that there was, you know, there was no other way for us to get that information. So, you know, it was something that, you know, we considered. But at the end of the day, we had, we believed such a strong case, a strong defense with strong defense witnesses. You know, the only adverse witness we called was Officer Kelly Dever. And we did that for a Reason everybody else just hit the ball out of the park. You know, from our experts to, you know, Brian Loughran to, you know, all of the people that we called, it was so strong. Now, if we had called any one of these three, you know, we would have maybe been able to lead them as they might have been considered adverse witnesses. But what I think a lot of people don't recognize is that Mr. Brennan, Hank Brennan, after we got done questioning them, would be able to now cross examine them. And he'd have multiple opportunities, three of them. If we called these three witnesses to reinforce his own case and essentially give his closing argum by asking leading questions and having these witnesses agree to them, and we didn't want to assert, insert that into our defense, we thought it would have been a mistake, and I think we were right.
- [33:16]
Glenn Jones
Yeah, it's hard to second guess that decision now that you've won these acquittals. Attorney Alessi, let me ask you about two sort of separate things, but I think they could be connected in this question. The defense team decided to add an oui charge on the verdict form for the jury. Ultimately, they selected that charge to convict Karen Reid on. And what jurors have told us is that her statements about drinking and driving is what led them to convict her on that charge. So can you help us out with the strategy of putting in the oui charge and the strategy that allowed Karen Reid to continue making public statements? Oh, I think we've got a problem with Robert Alessi's signal because he has no trouble answering difficult questions. We just got his signal frozen there, but maybe we have him back now. Do we? And if not, Attorney Alessi, maybe you can answer that question first for us.
- [34:25]
David Yannetti
Is Bob back?
- [34:26]
Sue O'Connell
Nope. It's up to you. Up to you.
- [34:29]
David Yannetti
So funny you called me Attorney Alessi. Do you know how many people have called me Attorney Alessi? And every time they do that, I.
- [34:35]
Glenn Jones
Say it's a compliment. Sorry about that.
- [34:38]
David Yannetti
So I'm sorry. What was the question, though? It was.
- [34:42]
Glenn Jones
The question was about adding the oui charge to the verdict form very late in the trial, and ultimately the jury selected that that subcharge to convict her on, and they said it was because of her public statements about drinking and driving. So the decision would also allow her to do that.
- [35:00]
David Yannetti
Right. So in terms of, you know, the decision to include that as an option, you know, we did that in case there were any jurors leaning toward coming up with some conviction. Right. Because our view was that, you know, the jury is looking at the o' Keefe family who lost a great man, and, you know, maybe there was somebody on the jury that just didn't want to give straight not guilties across the board. They wanted to, you know, maybe give one conviction. And the only conviction that we could live with would be a conviction for first offense, Oui. So, you know, we looked at that as a way to sort of neutralize indictment number two, which alleged manslaughter. And, you know, we weren't afraid of an oui conviction. And then, you know, in terms of the interviews that Karen gave, I think you'd have to ask her that. I'm not going to speak about that.
- [36:09]
Glenn Jones
Did you support her making public statements?
- [36:12]
David Yannetti
I'm not going to talk about that. I'm sorry.
- [36:15]
Glenn Jones
You mentioned this in your last answer, sir. The search for justice for John o' Keefe, based on where we are now, how do we get to that?
- [36:26]
David Yannetti
Well, you know, I was a prosecutor for a long time, for just about 10 years, and, you know, worked hand in hand with the state police for a long time investigating and prosecuting murder cases. And one thing that you learned early on is that the greatest chance you have to solve a homicide case is within the first 24 hours. And if you don't solve it within those first 24 hours or make substantial progress toward a suspect who actually did it, you jeopardize your chances of ever solving it. So now they've put all their eggs in this basket of trying to prove. Prove Karen Reid guilty. In my view, they never really had a shot at that. In my view, it was a misguided and bad decision, and ultimately the jury agreed. So, you know, where did they go from here? You know, I can't speak for them. I do suspect that it will be difficult for them to regroup and start going in another direction.
- [37:41]
Sue O'Connell
Bob Alessi, I want to talk to you about. Welcome back. I want to talk to you about practicing here in Massachusetts. I was delighted to see in the first trial when Alan Jackson noticed that a number of the jurors couldn't see the face of the witness. After 100 years of having, you know, trials in that courtroom. And then, of course, the jury verdict slip in the first trial and then issues in this trial. Do you think that maybe we could hire someone to go from state to state cases and find problems that we've just kind of, you know, been like the frog in the hot water and haven't noticed? I mean, what. What can we do to get our judicial system kind of up to snuff here? Not just US but the rest of the states too.
- [38:25]
Robert Alessi
You know, I try cases in all states throughout the country. I've actually tried cases internationally. And I can tell you that Massachusetts is not the only only state. There are a number of things. You could probably have a separate show on that topic. But suffice it to say, I tried federal court in courts in Boston, but not that many in state courts. It's the first trial in state court. There are a number of judicial commissions and studies that go on, but without getting into the details, there are actually people who do exactly what you're talking about. What needs to happen is the folks that have done it so long the way they're used to hopefully can be a little bit more open minded because I think the suggestions to make things go more smoothly are already on the table largely.
- [39:22]
Glenn Jones
All right, we're almost out of time, but maybe for both of you, I can get you to answer a yes or no question. Should we be preparing to read your books? I didn't get either a yes or no question.
- [39:38]
Sue O'Connell
I can observe that. And no comment.
- [39:40]
Glenn Jones
David Yannetti, Robert Alessi, we appreciate you spending so much time with us after such a long legal fight in Norfolk County. It's been a pleasure to have you on Canton Confidential.
- [39:52]
Robert Alessi
Thank you.
- [39:53]
David Yannetti
Thanks so much for having us. It was great.
- [39:54]
Glenn Jones
Thank you for Sue o' Connell, I'm Glenn Jones. Thanks for watching. This is Canton Confidential, the Karen Reed.
- [40:00]
On Deck Representative
Murder trial Pandora makes it easy for you to find your favorite music, discover new artists and genres by selecting any song or album and will make you a personalized station for free download on the Apple App Store or Google Play and enjoy the soundtrack to your life.