Karen Read's SUV, Solo cups, John O'Keefe as an uncle

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Karen Read Murder Trial: Canton Confidential Episode: Karen Read's SUV, Solo Cups, John O'Keefe as an Uncle
Release Date: May 15, 2025
Host/Author: NBC10 Boston

---

Introduction

In this episode of The Karen Read Murder Trial: Canton Confidential, NBC10 Boston provides an in-depth analysis of the latest courtroom developments surrounding the trial of Karen Read. The focus centers on critical pieces of physical evidence, witness testimonies, and the strategic maneuvers of both the prosecution and defense teams. The episode, titled "Karen Read's SUV, Solo Cups, John O'Keefe as an Uncle," offers listeners a comprehensive overview of the trial's progress as of May 15, 2025.

---

Witness Testimony: John O'Keefe's Niece

The trial took a poignant turn with the testimony of John O'Keefe's niece, a minor whose statements were presented without audio or visual recordings to protect her identity.

Sue O'Connell, the courtroom insider, reported:
"She was very articulate, smart, and mature. She detailed her close relationship with her Uncle John and highlighted the deteriorating relationship between John and Karen in the final months before his death."
(16:22)

Her testimony humanized John, portraying him as a dedicated uncle who took custody of his sister's children after both parents passed away. She described how Karen Read was involved in the children’s lives, taking them to activities like getting haircuts and attending sporting events, thereby establishing Karen's integral role in the family.

Melody Mendez, reporting from outside the court, added:
"She talked about how John and Karen's relationship was deteriorating, leading to more frequent fights. She also mentioned a family vacation in Aruba, where an incident involving an iPad led to tension between John and Karen."
(02:37)

---

Presentation of Physical Evidence

A significant portion of the day's proceedings involved the examination of physical evidence, particularly focusing on damage to Karen Read's Lexus SUV and the collection methods employed by law enforcement.

Maureen Hartnett, a crime scene technician from the Massachusetts State Police lab, presented photographs showing damage to the SUV’s undercarriage. Defense attorney Bob Alessi pointed out that Hartnett couldn't determine when the damage occurred, raising questions about the timing and circumstances.

A pivotal moment came when the defense questioned Hartnett about the collection of evidence using red Solo cups and paper grocery bags.
"Have you ever had to collect a sample from a red Solo cup before?"
(03:36) Hartnett responded,
"I've never performed a collection like that, no."
(04:05)

Alessi highlighted the use of Solo cups to collect evidence, emphasizing the seemingly incongruent presence of glass shards and hair on the vehicle after it had been towed over 30 miles in blizzard conditions.
"Is it possible for glass perched on a bumper to travel 60 miles in such conditions and remain attached?"
(04:58)

Hartnett testified that removing the glass and hair was straightforward, which the defense used to question the integrity of the evidence's preservation:
"It was easy. I picked it up with a pair of tweezers."
(05:30)

---

Defense and Prosecution Strategies

The prosecution focused on systematically validating the collection and handling of evidence, while the defense aimed to introduce reasonable doubt about the evidence’s integrity and the investigation's conduct.

Chief Legal Analyst Michael Coyne observed:
"The defense initially tried to undermine Michael Proctor's role as the lead investigator, but the prosecution effectively demonstrated that evidence collection adhered to proper protocols."
(06:36)

Courtroom Analyst added:
"The defense is planting seeds of doubt by questioning how evidence remained on the vehicle after extensive travel in adverse weather, appealing to the jury’s common sense over scientific explanations."
(08:01)

Despite these efforts, Michael Coyne noted that the prosecution maintained a robust stance on the forensic evidence, suggesting that the jury would need to delve deeper into the scientific aspects to fully assess its validity.
"The forensic scientists presented solid evidence, and the jury will need to consider the scientific explanations provided."
(11:17)

---

Cross-Examination and Courtroom Dynamics

A notable incident during today's proceedings involved the defense's attempt to question the role of Brian Tully, the former head of the state police unit investigating Karen Read. This led to a brief sidebar where the judge ruled the line of questioning inadmissible.

Courtroom Analyst explained:
"The defense pushed the boundaries of previously ruled inadmissible topics, hoping to challenge the quality of the investigation without sufficient evidence to support their claims."
(09:12)

This maneuver was seen as an effort to test the courtroom's patience and possibly reopen avenues that were previously closed, although it ultimately did not sway the jury's focus from the primary evidence.

---

Viewer Questions and Interactive Segment

The episode also addressed viewer questions, providing clarity on various aspects of the trial:

• Inconsistent Statements by Karen Read:
  Courtroom Analyst stated that while Karen’s public statements have been inconsistent, they are considered admissions under Massachusetts law and could potentially support her defense rather than the prosecution’s case.
  (19:52)

• Juror Note-Taking Practices:
  Melody Mendez highlighted that jurors are allowed to take notes, which they leave secured during breaks to prevent evidence tampering. Jurors in this trial were actively taking notes, fostering a thorough and engaged deliberation process.
  (21:01)

---

Conclusion

By the end of the episode, legal analysts Michael Coyne and Courtroom Analyst concurred that today’s proceedings favored the defense by effectively introducing reasonable doubt regarding the evidence’s handling and integrity. However, the impactful testimony of John O'Keefe’s niece provided a humanizing narrative that bolstered the prosecution’s case.

As the trial progresses, both sides continue to present compelling arguments, with the defense pushing to undermine the prosecution’s evidence and the prosecution striving to solidify their case through meticulous forensic analysis and heartfelt witness testimonies.

Stay tuned for further developments as Canton Confidential continues to provide nightly coverage of this high-profile case.

---

Notable Quotes

• Bob Alessi:
  "Testimony was back in full swing today with a new round of witnesses taking the stand."
  (02:00)

• Michael Coyne:
  "The defense did a good job at the outset when they tried to bring Michael Proctor as the head investigator. But then the prosecution systematically demonstrated that evidence collection adhered to protocols."
  (06:36)

• Courtroom Analyst:
  "The defense is planting seeds of doubt by questioning how evidence remained on the vehicle after extensive travel in adverse weather."
  (08:01)

---

This comprehensive summary encapsulates the key discussions, testimonies, and strategic movements within today's proceedings of the Karen Read murder trial, providing listeners with a clear and engaging overview of the episode's content.

Transcript

[Pandora Ad]

Pandora makes it easy for you to find your favorite music. Discover new artists and genres by selecting any song or album and we'll make you a personalized station for free download on the Apple App Store or Google Play and enjoy the soundtrack to your life.

[Bob Alessi]

Have you ever had to put your.

[Courtroom Analyst]

Plans on hold due to symptoms of.

[Bob Alessi]

Generalized myasthenia gravis or gmg, like taking.

[Courtroom Analyst]

That weekend trip, talking with friends or enjoying a meal? Learn about a treatment option that may help. Visit treatgmg.com to learn more. That's treatgmg.com.

[Pandora Ad]

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 rate 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 Ondeck or Celtibank. On Deck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval. NBC10 Boston news worthy of you tonight. Court back in session with state troopers and a forensic scientist taking the stand.

[J.C. Monahan]

I've never collected a sample from a red solo cup before.

[Pandora Ad]

And ramping up discussion about Karen Reed's suv.

[Courtroom Analyst]

You had no personal knowledge prior to your arrival of how long Michael Proctor had been with that SUV before you got there, correct?

[Pandora Ad]

That's right. Details on the glass and hair found on the vehicle. We dive deeper with our legal experts on all that and more. Canton Confidential the Karen Reed murder trial starts right now.

[J.C. Monahan]

Testimony was back in full swing today with a new round of witness taking the stand. Good evening. Thanks for joining us everyone tonight. I'm J.C. monahan.

[Glenn Jones]

And I'm Glenn Jones. Much of the testimony came from law enforcement, particularly Massachusetts State Police, including a forensic scientist from the crime lab. But the first witness to testify was John Okeefes niece. Cameras were shut off for her testimony since she's a minor.

[J.C. Monahan]

John took custody of his sister's kids when both their parents died within months of each other. Melody Mendez joins us now live outside Norfolk Superior Court on what was a much busier day than the last few few.

[Bob Alessi]

It really was JC And Glenn certainly after yesterday's unexpected last minute cancellation. So let's start with John o' Keeffe's niece because during the first trial you may remember that his niece and nephew both testified well, his nephew didn't take the stand today. This was just his niece. But she did give the jurors a glimpse into what she says life was like with John and Karen in the final months before his death. John o' Keefe's niece described the deteriorating relationship between the couple, tension around the house, and an incident on family vacation in Aruba weeks prior when John was upset about his nephew using an iPad on vacation. Karen defended him. At one point, she said Reid claimed John kissed someone else. Under Cross, the defense established the relationship Karen had with the kids, where she took them to get haircuts, nails done, sporting events and sleepovers at her house. Evan Brent, a Mass. State Police trooper who worked with the Crime Scene Services Unit, took the stand in a notable moment. Brent is the first trooper on the stand to acknowledge that Michael Proctor was the lead investigator in the case.

[Courtroom Analyst]

You knew at the time that Michael Proctor was the lead investigator investigator on the case, correct?

[Glenn Jones]

Yes, I did.

[Bob Alessi]

More than half the day's testimony was from Maureen Hartnett, a crime scene tech from the State Police lab. She showed the jury photos of the damage to Reed's SUV in Cross. Attorney Bob Alessi pointed out she had no way of knowing when that damage happened. The defense also noting that Hartnett tested the undercarriage of the vehicle and no blood was detected. And then the return of the red solo cups. Alessi asked Hartnett if she'd ever seen anything like it.

[Courtroom Analyst]

Did you ever have to take swabs of red stained material from solo cups that people usually use for other purposes?

[J.C. Monahan]

I've never performed a collection like that, no.

[Bob Alessi]

As we learned last week, police in this case used solo cups and a paper grocery bag to collect evidence from the scene. The focus then shifted to the tiny pieces of evidence and apparent hair and shards of glass collected from Reed's rear bumper after the vehicle was towed more than 30 miles from Dighton to Canton. In blizzard conditions, the glass pieces that.

[Courtroom Analyst]

Were just perched on the bumper would have traveled about 60 miles before you.

[Melody Mendez]

Saw them, Is that what you're saying?

[J.C. Monahan]

No, I don't know when the apparent.

[Courtroom Analyst]

Glass appeared on the bumper.

[Glenn Jones]

Is it possible for.

[Courtroom Analyst]

Glass that is perched on a bumper to travel 60 miles and be subject to average wind speeds of 15.7 and still remain on the bumper?

[Bob Alessi]

Alessi making sure to note the evidence was not affixed to the bumper in any way. The glass, how hard or easy was.

[Michael Coyne]

It for you to remove those pieces.

[Courtroom Analyst]

Of glass with tweezers?

[J.C. Monahan]

It was not difficult.

[Bob Alessi]

Or the apparent hair.

[J.C. Monahan]

It was Easy again. I picked it up with a pair of tweezers.

[Bob Alessi]

Now, Hartnett will be back on the stand first thing tomorrow morning. Glenn. JC we of course, will be here for it all.

[J.C. Monahan]

Melody, when it comes to the solo cups, Robert or lessi asked Maureen Hartnett from the State Police crime lab whether any DNA testing was done on the swabs of those red brown stains from one of the cups. That's not, that's not part of her job. Right.

[Bob Alessi]

Right. She in fact, said that she didn't believe any testing was done on those swabs. In fact, to your point that it's not part of her job, she said she actually left the cup and its contents at the Canton Police Department.

[Glenn Jones]

JC Melody Mendez at the courthouse. Thank you. Joining us now is our chief legal analyst Michael Coyne and criminal defense attorney Neil Fagel. Welcome to both of you. Let's talk more about what the Commonwealth did today with the presentation of this physical evidence. Of course, the defense wants the jury to believe that that evidence got there improperly. So Neil, maybe starting with you, who leveraged the physical evidence better today, do you think the defense or the commonwealth?

[Michael Coyne]

Well, I think the defense did a good job at the outset when they tried to bring Michael Proctor as the head of this whole umbrella. But then I think the prosecution did a nice job and very systematically going through the collection of the evidence, that the collection was done in an appropriate manner in accordance with all the policies and procedures that are in place. So I think it was almost a jump ball, as they say.

[Glenn Jones]

I guess bottom line here, Michael, is that the defense wants the jury to start thinking about the possibility that the evidence got there some way other than a collision with John o' Keefe.

[Courtroom Analyst]

Yeah, no doubt. And they planted those seeds a long time ago. And we see it on the cross examination of a lot of these witnesses. Witnesses, the vilification of Proctor as the boogeyman, that he somehow infected all of the evidence in this case. All of the officers interactions that we saw today were with the principal investigator, Trooper Proctor. And the witnesses, I think held their own today much better than we've seen in the past, acknowledging the things that are indefensible and saying yes, he is and this and that, and trying to still provide the Commonwealth case in significant part. I think the forensic scientists, that's solid evidence and I think the jury will hear that if in fact they can dig deep into the science.

[J.C. Monahan]

And there were quicker answers. The day moved on a lot faster. There were still a few sidebars that happened and one in Particular came when the defense brought up questions regarding Brian Tully, that's the former head of the state Police unit investigating Karen Reed. And that prompted this question from Michelle. Michelle in Methuen. Why wasn't Attorney Yannetti not allowed to ask questions about Tully and then was told he couldn't have a sidebar at first. Now, before you guys answer, let's play a bit of that moment from court today so we can see what we're talking about.

[Courtroom Analyst]

And so you were there when Lieutenant Tully was removed as the supervisor of that unit? Correct. That's sustained. And folks should to disregard that.

[Bob Alessi]

I could have requested instruction.

[Courtroom Analyst]

Jurors, pay no attention to that question or answer that is not properly before.

[Melody Mendez]

You with this witness.

[Courtroom Analyst]

Is Lieutenant Tully still the supervisor of that unit? Yes. I'm gonna see you a tie bar.

[Pandora Ad]

For just a minute, please.

[Courtroom Analyst]

Did Michael Proctor reveal to you that he and Kevin Albert had socialized together by drinking alcohol in their cruise.

[Pandora Ad]

In his cruise sustained injuries.

[Glenn Jones]

I'm going to ask you to strike.

[Courtroom Analyst]

That question disregarded to be heard at sidebar.

[J.C. Monahan]

Okay. So our viewer, Michelle, wants to know what was up with all of that. Let's start with you.

[Michael Coyne]

My guess is, and correct me if you think I'm wrong, is that I will, is that probably they had addressed the situation earlier in a motion and limited, and the judge had already made a ruling and that the defense now was crossing that line. They knew they shouldn't have gone there. The judge already ruled that that was inadmissible and inappropriate to delve into that line of questioning.

[Courtroom Analyst]

Yeah, in fact, it's the motion you sent me last week that Attorney Brennan filed saying you don't really get in Massachusetts to challenge the quality of the investigation unless you have more evidence to support it. Because for the jury to even hear questions like that, you've got to have a sufficient basis that makes those questions relevant. And after the Bois deal last week, the judge said, no, we're not going to hear any of that. And what they keep doing is pushing that door open and they're trying the patience of the court. That's why they're not getting the sidebar.

[J.C. Monahan]

But why not admonish them? They can keep doing this because as we've talked about it before, once the genie is out of the bottle, you can't put it back in. He laid the foundation. Maybe that was planted and those. Those people were fired.

[Courtroom Analyst]

It only asks. All you have to do is ask the question to start planting those seeds. And so they know that they're trying the patience of the court, but they've got a defendant to represent, so they are going to push the boundaries of that order and hope that maybe she'll change their mind or maybe some of these questions will be more permissible than what her prior ruling was.

[Glenn Jones]

All right, let's get back to some more of the physical evidence, because so much of the testimony today was about Karen Reid's car. Of course, the Commonwealth is arguing her Lexus SUV is the murder weapon in this case. And most of the questions surrounding cross examination focused on how the evidence, like bits of glass or hair, ended up on the back of the vehicle despite 60 miles of travel back and forth from Canton to Dighton, et cetera, in the middle of a snowstorm for some of it. So I guess is it plausible to raise these questions about how these little pieces of evidence remained affixed to the bumper?

[Michael Coyne]

Michael and I talked about this earlier. You know, since trials are now on TV and all over the social media. You know, I liken this to the Mark Fuhrman defense, where you have from the O.J. simpson trial where you have to try to start taking the case down from the top. And if the evidence that's coming in is not good because of some specific reason, then the jury should not consider it. And I think that's where they're going with this.

[Courtroom Analyst]

And I agree. The point you're making, though, and this is what, where common sense comes in, you say 70 miles, round trip snowstorm, one little piece of hair stays. You're thinking how exactly? And the little piece of glass, you know, it doesn't take a scientist like JC to be able to say that this storm is going to cause all sorts of problems here. How do those things stay on that bumper throughout this? And I do think the jury looks at it in a common sense fashion, not necessarily science, and questions whether that in fact happened.

[J.C. Monahan]

Yeah, you're covering a little bit of what I wanted to ask you. We're going to talk about the hair. Let's show the photos. The crime lab actually expert on the stand, says she was able to remove it easily with tweezers, giving the defense that opportunity to question how it could still be there after the car was exposed to the storm. Well, she's not an expert on that, but again, they start laying that foundation. So what did you think about the moment when she said, no, I just took tweezers.

[Michael Coyne]

Another situation in this trial where something comes up like that, it doesn't seem plausible or credible that a small piece of hair would have stayed on the vehicle if it went all the way from Canton to Dighton and then Dighton back to Canton. But I think she did a good job saying, listen, my job was just there to collect the evidence. I collected the evidence in the appropriate way. It was documented by a picture, and then I submitted it to the. To be analyzed. And we haven't seen what the analyzation is yet.

[Glenn Jones]

Well, hang on. So, Michael, if it's plausible that layman would question how this could happen, is it a straight line from there to. Well, a police officer must have done it.

[Courtroom Analyst]

It's not that crooked of a line, and it's not that big of a jump to make that. And that's what they're asking the jury to buy in by asking the question. I thought it was a great question for the defense, because if I can remove it with the tweezer, you know, what I might take a splinter out with or any other simple task. How did it survive such a challenge? And again, remember, the defense only has to create that reasonable doubt in order to get not guilty verdicts on these charges. And all of these things do, to an extent, chip away at the Commonwealth case.

[J.C. Monahan]

We're running out of time, so I'm going to give you one word. Who got more out of today, the defense or the prosecution?

[Michael Coyne]

You go first.

[Courtroom Analyst]

I'm going to go with the defense.

[Michael Coyne]

I'm going to go with the defense as well, because I think they, as Mike said, they put enough certain things in there to probably try to establish reasonable doubt.

[Courtroom Analyst]

With the exception of the niece, we didn't hear the niece's testimony. I think that humanizes John so that. That. That you'd have to see that testimony in its entirety to make a final decision.

[J.C. Monahan]

You're teeing us right up because that is exactly what we're going to talk about when we go back. So don't go anywhere because our courtroom insider, Sue o' Connell, will be joining the conversation. She was in the room when John o' Keefe's niece took the stand. So up next, we will go over her testimony. And of course, we're continuing to answer your viewer questions.

[Glenn Jones]

And before we go to break, we want to take a moment to remember John o' Keefe, the victim in this case, the Braintree native was a Boston police officer who became the legal guardian of his niece and nephew after the children lost both of their parents to illness. You're watching Canton Confidential, the Karen Reed murder trial.

[Pandora Ad]

Pandora makes it easy for you to find your favorite music, discover new artists and genres by selecting any song or album. And we'll make you a personalized station for free download on the Apple App Store or Google Play and enjoy the soundtrack to your life. CIDP is no walk in the park. It can make your daily routine feel not so routine. The good news, there's a treatment option for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy that may fit into your routine. Discover [e-mail] and talk to your doctor. That's innovation fourcidp.com brought to you by Argenics. 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.

[J.C. Monahan]

Back with us now is our chief legal analyst, Michael Coyne and our courtroom insider, Sue o' Connell. And as we just heard at end, the start today was John's niece who took the stand. Now, she's a minor, so there was no audio, no visual recordings allowed. Sue, you were in court. You were there to hear what she had to say without getting specific, to protect what, you know, what she what she has as a kid and still had to say. What was the overall message that she got across to the jury?

[Melody Mendez]

Well, if you watched the trial last time, it was very much on point, almost exactly what she testified in the first trial. She's very articulate, she's very smart, she's very mature. She's a older now than she was then, older than she was when her beloved Uncle John died. But she was basically able to set her relationship with John. They didn't spend as much time on it as I thought that they might to humanize John some more. But she did talk about the relationship that John and Karen had that in the end of the year and in January, it was deteriorating. They were fighting more, but again, also establishing that Karen took her to get her nails done once a month, took her to her own hairstylist, ironed her hair once a week so that she could go to school with straight hair. She and her brother sometimes slept at Karen's house. And also it didn't come out immediately, but when that call was made to Jen McCabe that morning, she did say maybe he was hit by a plow, maybe I hit him. But all in all, it was a bit of a wash, I think, in terms of, you know, she had the relationship with Karen. It was a family relationship. They talked about Aruba, just to give that some, some context, if that's going to come up later in the trial. But, you know, again, it was. It was something that I think both sides could take something away from. But did it actually humanize what the relationship was and how they live together?

[Glenn Jones]

So, Michael, we have the download now from sue, because, of course, we weren't able to see the testimony. There was a cross examination this time around, different from the last trial. Based on what you've heard, was the cross examination handled with the sensitivity it needed to be handled with?

[Courtroom Analyst]

From what's reported, I believe the answer is yes. I would have expected, as sue said, that the direct would have humanized John Moore. And what the defense didn't really need to do, I think, and they didn't do it, is the fact is, all relationships and all houses with teenagers in them are not smooth sailing.

[Michael Coyne]

Nope.

[Courtroom Analyst]

So their relationship had some bumps. I don't think it particularly helped the government. I think the part is, though, they can put a face to John. They can put some sensitivity to that and recognize what he lost. And so that's the advantage for the prosecution.

[Melody Mendez]

She got a laugh, though, when she got a little tangled up on the New Year's Eve timeline. And, you know, and Yannetti wasn't pushing hard, and it was clear we had already established that. And she said something like, well, I had just broken up with my 8th grade boyfriend, so I was in crisis. I can't really remember here. So people got a laugh out of that. So it was a very human experience.

[J.C. Monahan]

Yes. All right, let's take a look at some viewer questions, starting with Michael from Melrose. He wants to know, can Karen Reagan's daily statements outside the courthouse be used by the prosecution? We know Karen Reid has spoken frequently outside of court since the trial began. Take a look at some of the compilations of what she said to reporters recently. Inconsistencies. Every statement's different under oath, not under oath. The cops are all wrong. This is. This is very similar to what we saw a year ago.

[Glenn Jones]

Do you think that she colluded with why? Why is she so inconsistent?

[J.C. Monahan]

Because she's lying. I saw Jen go in the house.

[Glenn Jones]

Can you describe him going to the.

[Courtroom Analyst]

House, which door, and how and when?

[J.C. Monahan]

No, I have, though, and I'm sure the prosecution will play it.

[Courtroom Analyst]

Do you think Proctor will testify?

[J.C. Monahan]

Karen? I don't believe so. But you've seen this afternoon how much evidence has not been shown to this jury. And we've had to work really hard. Allen's had to work really hard to organize it so that they can be presented with the Actual evidence in this case.

[Glenn Jones]

So Reid's lawyers are under a gag order. She's her own spokesperson. When she leaves court, is she doing herself a service or a disservice?

[Courtroom Analyst]

I don't think she's done herself a service when she's talked to any of the media throughout the last couple of years. These statements would be admissible if the prosecution decided they wanted to offer them. They're considered admissions in Massachusetts. You can offer a party statement. Those statements we just saw wouldn't be particularly relevant. They would actually tend to support her case. So the prosecution likely wouldn't want to offer those. But as we've seen throughout, they've offered a number of her statements, including statements today about the relationship with Higgins and how that wouldn't have affected John.

[J.C. Monahan]

Let's get to another viewer question. This is from Wanda in Falmouth, Maine. Hello, Maine. She asks, quote, I was recently on a jury in another state and as a juror, was not allowed to take any notes during the trial. I've heard mention of jurors taking notes during the proceedings. Why is this allowed?

[Courtroom Analyst]

It's up to the judge's discretion as to whether the jury can take notes and in what fashion they can take notes.

[J.C. Monahan]

Is that just here or is that.

[Courtroom Analyst]

No, that's. That's virtually everywhere. And some judges will even allow jurors to submit questions to the court that the court will then decide whether they will ask them of witnesses. We don't. We haven't done that here.

[Melody Mendez]

And they have to leave their notebooks there. Even when they go to lunch, they leave their notebooks on the table, on the chair, rather. So they're not taking them with them or comparing notes. So I don't know how anyone could get through any trial without taking notes. It's astonishing to me that some judges wouldn't allow it.

[Glenn Jones]

And you said this jury is more ferocious than the other.

[Melody Mendez]

I feel like I'm in class most. I swear to God, I'm not being funny. There are five. There are 18 jurors, five continuous note takers. As soon as they get in, they take the notes. They refer to other things. Everybody on this jury has taken notes, and I think it spread a little bit, except for one guy that, you know, he's not taking that many notes, but we'll see if he makes it to the final.

[J.C. Monahan]

What happens here to the notebooks at the end of a trial?

[Courtroom Analyst]

They're custody of the Commonwealth. They are not going home with them to write their bestseller, so don't write any.

[J.C. Monahan]

Like love letters in there confess any crime while you're some sketches and some.

[Melody Mendez]

Doodling there could be.

[J.C. Monahan]

I'm sure there are, especially someone who.

[Melody Mendez]

Doesn'T want to take notes and feels the peer pressure.

[J.C. Monahan]

Michael sue, as always, thank you.

[Glenn Jones]

And if you have questions about this case, keep sending them our way. The email address is on your screen. Canton.confidentialbcuni.com or 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 starting Sunday. You're watching Canton Confidential, the Karen Reeve murder trial.

[Pandora Ad]

Watch Priscilla Casper and Colton Bradford, weeknights at 6 on NBC 10 Boston. Hey, this is Will Arnett, host of Smartless. Smartless is a podcast with myself and Sean Hayes and Jason Bateman, where each week one of us reveals a mystery guest to the other two. We dive deep with guests that you love, like Bill Hader, Selena Gomez, Jennifer Aniston, David Beckham, Kristen Stewart and tons more. So join us for a genuinely improvised and authentic conversation filled with laughter and newfound knowledge to feed the smartless mind. Listen to Smartless now on the SiriusXM app. Download it today.