'There was a lot of wincing': Expert witness' cross-examination, explained

Summary

Summary of "There was a lot of wincing': Expert Witness' Cross-Examination, Explained"

Podcast Information:

• Title: The Karen Read Murder Trial: Canton Confidential
• Host/Author: NBC10 Boston
• Description: Nightly coverage of the Karen Read murder trial and her allegations of a cover-up over the killing of her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe.
• Episode: 'There was a lot of wincing': Expert witness' cross-examination, explained
• Release Date: May 19, 2025

---

Introduction

In this episode of Canton Confidential, NBC10 Boston delves deep into a pivotal moment of the Karen Read murder trial—the intense cross-examination of the Commonwealth's expert witness, Shannon Burgess. Hosted by Jack Lew, the episode dissects the implications of the defense's strategic attacks on Burgess' credibility and explores how these developments may influence the trial's outcome.

Key Testimony and Cross-Examination of Expert Witness Shannon Burgess

The trial took a significant turn during the cross-examination of Shannon Burgess, a digital forensics expert whose testimony is central to establishing the timeline of the events surrounding the murder of Officer John O'Keefe.

Initial Testimony: Burgess presented detailed data extracted from Karen Reed's SUV to establish a timeline of events on the night of January 29, 2022. He testified, "Using her SUV to track the movement of Karen Reed on the street today, a forensic analyst pinpointed a timeline that's crucial to this case" ([03:24] Sue O'Connell).

Defense's Attack on Credibility: Defense attorney Alessi launched a calculated assault on Burgess' qualifications, revealing significant discrepancies in his academic credentials. Alessi questioned Burgess about his purported Bachelor of Science degree in Mathematics and Business Administration, highlighting that:

• Burgess does not possess the degree he claimed ("I do not have a Bachelor's degree" [03:46]).
• He has been pursuing the degree for 17 years without obtaining it ("You've been pursuing a Bachelor of science degree for 17 years, correct?" [07:07], Burgess affirmed [07:15]).

Furthermore, Alessi exposed technical errors in Burgess' testimony, such as confusing gigabits and gigabytes, undermining his expertise ("You misinterpreted the difference between gigabits and gigabytes, correct?" [04:36]).

Impact of Cross-Examination: These revelations severely damaged Burgess' credibility, prompting reactions from both the prosecution and the defense. Melanie Mendez, a reporter, noted the defense's strategy as feeling like a "trial by ambush," leaving the Commonwealth scrambling to maintain their case ([05:28] Melanie Mendez).

Impact on the Trial

The defense's effective discrediting of Burgess has significant repercussions for the prosecution's case. Michael Coyne, the chief legal analyst, explained that the prosecution now faces a formidable challenge in rehabilitating Burgess' credibility and reinforcing the timeline established through his data ([07:23] Michael Coyne).

Coyne emphasized, "He's going to have to tighten that timeline up and they're going to have to. There's really no way to rehabilitate the education part of it or much of what he said" ([07:55] Michael Coyne). This puts the prosecution in a precarious position, as the jury may now question the reliability of the expert evidence presented.

Legal Analysis from Experts

Michael Coyne's Insights: Coyne highlighted the depth of the damage inflicted on the prosecution's case, noting that although Burgess' initial testimony was "solid and very important," the cross-examination has significantly weakened it ([08:22] Michael Coyne). He compared the situation to famous tech entrepreneurs who succeeded without formal degrees, but cautioned that expertise alone may not suffice in this legal context.

Peter Tragos' Perspective: Florida-based attorney Peter Tragos criticized the prosecution's handling of the expert witness and Judge Kanoni's ruling on shifting timelines. He argued that allowing the prosecution to introduce new reports midway through the trial disrupts the defense's strategy and undermines the trial's integrity:

"It's a trial by ambush. These trials aren't supposed to be bombarded with evidence halfway through that nobody knew was coming" ([05:28] Melanie Mendez).

Tragos further commented on the inconsistencies within the prosecution's expert testimonies, suggesting that the defense could leverage these discrepancies to sow reasonable doubt among jurors ([12:34] Peter Tragos).

Jury's Reactions and Courtroom Dynamics

Reporter Sue O'Connell provided an on-the-ground perspective of the jury's behavior during the technical and emotionally charged testimony:

• Engagement: The jurors appeared highly engaged, diligently taking notes and highlighting key points ([16:02] Sue O'Connell).
• Reactions to Cross-Examination: Several jurors exhibited visible discomfort and cringing moments as Burgess was grilled on his credentials and technical errors ([17:37] Sue O'Connell).
• Impact on Jurors: While the jurors remained stoic, their note-taking and subtle reactions suggest that the cross-examination may influence their perception of the prosecution's evidence ([17:41] Sue O'Connell).

External Factors: Courtroom Buffer Zone and Public Activity

The episode also touched upon recent changes to the courtroom's buffer zone and a related incident involving a woman being detained for allegedly violating these new restrictions.

Buffer Zone Adjustments: The buffer zone around the courthouse was recently redrawn, resulting in increased public activity and heightened tensions. A notable incident involved a woman detained for wearing a T-shirt that read "Criminals Run Norfolk County," which law enforcement deemed a violation of the buffer zone rules ([20:15] Sue O'Connell).

Advice to Potential Activists: Sue O'Connell cautioned viewers against unintentional activism, advising them to plan meticulously if they choose to express their opinions near the courthouse to avoid legal repercussions ([21:24] Sue O'Connell).

Viewer Questions and Legal Advice

A viewer named Cherelle inquired about the defense's ability to subpoena the DNA of law enforcement officers Brian Albert and Brian Higgins, as Karen Reed's legal team considers them as potential third-party culprits.

Michael Coyne's Response: Coyne explained that subpoenaing DNA in such cases is uncommon and legally challenging. It requires a compelling reason and likely a warrant, making voluntary DNA provision by the officers unlikely ([22:57] Michael Coyne).

He stated:

"They could supply it voluntarily, but most people don't want to supply information voluntarily. You don't know what they're going to do with it" ([23:34] Michael Coyne).

Conclusion and Next Steps

As the episode concluded, host Jack Lew teased upcoming developments, including the introduction of new expert witnesses and continued legal analyses. Listeners were encouraged to stay tuned for future episodes, which promise to offer comprehensive coverage and expert insights into the evolving dynamics of the Karen Read murder trial.

---

Notable Quotes:

• Melanie Mendez on the critical nature of the numbers presented: "These numbers are absolutely Critical to this case and depending on which numbers the jury chooses to believe could determine the outcome" ([03:24]).

• Defense attorney Alessi on Burgess' prolonged pursuit of his degree: "You've been pursuing a Bachelor of science degree for 17 years, correct?" ([07:07]).

• Michael Coyne on the prosecution's predicament: "There's really no way to rehabilitate the education part of it or much of what he said" ([07:55]).

• Peter Tragos on the trial's integrity: "It's a trial by ambush. These trials aren't supposed to be bombarded with evidence halfway through that nobody knew was coming" ([05:28]).

• Sue O'Connell on jurors' engagement: "They're very engaged, they're very interested, they pay attention, they are writing things down" ([16:02]).

---

This comprehensive summary encapsulates the episode's key discussions, providing listeners—whether they have tuned in or not—with a clear understanding of the critical moments and their implications within the Karen Read murder trial.

Transcript

[Indeed]

You just realized your business needed to hire someone yesterday. How can you find amazing candidates fast? Easy. Just use Indeed. When it comes to hiring, Indeed is all you need. Stop struggling to get your job Posts seen on other job sites. Indeed Sponsored Jobs help you stand out and hire fast. With Sponsored Jobs, your post jumps to the top of the page for your relevant candidates so you can reach the people you want faster. According to Indeed data, Sponsored Jobs posted directly on indeed have 45% more applications than non sponsored jobs. There's no need to wait any longer. Speed up your hiring right now with Indeed and listeners of this show will get a $75 sponsored job credit. To get your jobs more visibility@ Indeed.com podcast just go to Indeed.com podcast right now and support our show by saying you heard about Indeed on this podcast. Indeed.com podcast terms and conditions apply. Hiring Indeed is all you need. The Canton Confidential podcast is brought to you by NBC 10 Boston news worthy of you.

[Sue O'Connell]

Start your day with Latoya, Raul and.

[Indeed]

Tevin, Weekday mornings at 6. NBC 10 Boston mornings worthy of you.

[Sue O'Connell]

NBC 10 Boston news worthy of you Tonight, extracting data from Karen Reed's car. Some of it said to be missing until now.

[Raul]

Essentially all of the user data was missed during that initial download.

[Sue O'Connell]

A digital forensics expert revealing new findings, how it could impact the case timeline.

[Raul]

We're able to identify the exact the approximate time that the three point turn.

[Sue O'Connell]

Occurred, plus the move made by the defense to challenge his credibility in court. Either you have a Bachelor of Science degree or you don't.

[Raul]

I do not have a Bachelor's degree.

[Sue O'Connell]

And tense moments as a recently redrawn court ordered buffer zone results in a woman being taken into custody near the courthouse. Manton Confidential the Karen Reed murder trial starts right now.

[Jack Lew]

Data bites and bits Today, jurors learned a lot about the inner workings of Karen Reed's SUV during the early morning hours of January 29, 2022. Good evening everyone. I'm J.C. monahan.

[Raul]

And I'm Glenn Jones. Today there was a lot of dense information presented, but testimony took a dramatic turn when the defense made a calculated attack on the credibility of the Commonwealth's expert witness. Let's get right out to our Melanie Mendez. She joins us live outside Norfolk Superior Court. A lot of people talking about today's testimony. Mel.

[Melanie Mendez]

Glenn, you're absolutely right. A lot of people talking and there's a whole lot to talk about. Listen. Today was really science heavy. There were a lot of numbers being thrown back and forth. The bottom line though is these numbers are absolutely Critical to this case and depending on which numbers the jury chooses to believe could determine the outcome. Take a look. Using her SUV to track the movement of Karen Reed on the st today, a forensic analyst pinpointed a timeline that's crucial to this case. Shannon Burgess testified that Reed's SUV made a three point turn then drove in reverse between 12:32:04am and 12:32:12. It was during that same time that a previous witness said okeefes phone took 36 steps then locked the time of.

[Raul]

That event with the clock variance adjusted is 1232 04. Between 123204 and 12321 2.

[Melanie Mendez]

Alessi pressed Burgess on his coming up with this report halfway through the trial.

[Sue O'Connell]

And so approximately 10 years. This is the first time you've submitted a amended supplemental report in the middle of a trial.

[Raul]

A supplemental report, Correct.

[Melanie Mendez]

Then Alessi grilled him on his credentials, pointing out discrepancies in his published CVs, claiming Burgess has a bachelor's degree that he does not have and the school doesn't offer.

[Sue O'Connell]

It states BS in Mathematics and Business Administration, correct?

[Raul]

That's what it states there, yes.

[Sue O'Connell]

And you do not have a Bachelor of Science in Mathematics and Business Administration, do you?

[Raul]

No, I do not.

[Melanie Mendez]

Burgess says it's something he's currently pursuing but after more questioning saying he started pursuing the degree in 2008.

[Sue O'Connell]

If I did the math correctly, sir, you've been pursuing a Bachelor of science.

[Michael Coyne]

Degree for 17 years, correct?

[Raul]

That is correct.

[Sue O'Connell]

And you have not obtained it as you sit here today?

[Raul]

That is correct.

[Melanie Mendez]

And Alessi wasn't done there. He then focused on multiple errors uncovered in Burgess testimony from other cases.

[Sue O'Connell]

You misinterpreted the difference between gigabits and gigabytes, correct? At that time you got that wrong. In layperson's terms, correct?

[Raul]

I did make an error.

[Melanie Mendez]

Karen Reed reacting to it all on her way out of court.

[Jack Lew]

And now we find out from this witness that Attorney Brennan knew this report.

[Melanie Mendez]

Was coming the whole time.

[Jack Lew]

That's the definition of an ambush.

[Sue O'Connell]

What do you think of his LinkedIn, his credentials?

[Jack Lew]

Anything on his credentials called fraudulent? It's fraudulent. It's a lie.

[Melanie Mendez]

So Burgess will be back on the stand Tomorrow morning. Glenn, J.C. we will be here.

[Raul]

Back to you, Melody. I know Karen has been selective on when she speaks outside court. She obviously spoke today. We just saw it in your story. Do you have any idea why she would speak today?

[Melanie Mendez]

Listen, Glenn, I have to say I know the video was a little tough here, but in the vantage points that I saw Karen looked frustrated today. She typically walks out of court very positive, very optimistic today. She was visibly frustrated. And I think it's because of this report, this evidence in particular. Right. The defense was trying to argue that it should not be allowed to come in, given the fact that this trial started on April 22nd. Right. These attorneys on both sides have been working for the better part of a year on this case on these numbers, and now to be introduced with all of a sudden new numbers, they feel like the goalposts have been moved and they've been moved five weeks into the case. So they are very frustrated with that. You know, it shouldn't be a trial by ambush. You heard Reid say there. This is a trial by ambush. And we've heard Michael Coyne say it before. It doesn't happen like we see it happen on tv. These trials aren't supposed to be, you know, bombarded with evidence halfway through that nobody knew was coming. So I think that's. I think that's what we saw today is the culmination of a lot of frustration for her.

[Raul]

It was a dramatic TV moment today, for sure. Mel, thank you very much. We're joined now by chief legal analyst Michael Coyne. Michael, we have to start with Shannon Burgess. I mean, I think that's a thing everybody is talking about tonight. Melanie just showed us who that is. During direct testimony, he gave, you know, a pretty good explanation of the time variance. He also gave us an idea that he thought Reed's SUV could have indeed hit John o' Keefe. But then we learn all of these other things about errors and gross misstatements in his resume. Let's take a listen to what he said on the stand.

[Sue O'Connell]

If I did the math correctly, sir, you've been pursuing a Bachelor of science degree for 17 years, correct?

[Raul]

That is correct. Michael, the Commonwealth has a credibility problem with their expert witness. What do they do now?

[Michael Coyne]

He's going to have to have an incredibly strong direct, but the problem is that the damage has been done. As you pointed out, the direct exam was very powerful. It solidified the timeline and the Commonwealth's theory of what happened in this case. But on cross examination, he was shredded. So they're going to have to tighten that timeline up and they're going to have to. There's really no way to rehabilitate the education part of it or much of what he said. You know, the guys from Animal House finished in fewer than 17 years for their undergrad degree, so it's really problematic.

[Jack Lew]

That he would lie on that one.

[Raul]

Yeah, I felt the pain as well.

[Michael Coyne]

That he would lie on such a basic point.

[Jack Lew]

To be clear, the cross. Right. Was not so much about the evidence he brought to the table. It was about his credibility and the mistakes on his cv, which for Brennan, how does he, how does he erase that? Like you said, you can't erase the fact that he said he has a BS in math and he doesn't have one. But you want the juries to go. But his information was correct.

[Michael Coyne]

Well, because you'd have to focus again back on the technology, back on the idea that in technology your ultimate degrees don't matter as much. Right. Bill Gates didn't finish college. Mark Zuckerberg didn't finish college. It's a question of expertise. And he's going to have to come back to show that the science is solid. It's not an easy job. It's a very difficult job to do, but that he has to do that on redirect so that the jury refocuses on what Glenn had talked about. That direct was very solid and very important to their case.

[Raul]

All right, but the trouble is those people you just mentioned didn't lie on their CVs.

[Michael Coyne]

No. And they're not testifying as an expert witness. Hundreds of dollars an hour.

[Raul]

All right, Michael, don't go anywhere. We'll see you again in a moment.

[Jack Lew]

All right. Joining us now live is Florida based attorney Peter Tragos. He's also known for his YouTube channel, Lawyer. You know, Peter, welcome. We'll get right to it. What was your take on today's testimony from Burgess?

[Peter Tragos]

I was so surprised to see an expert who put information that is just blatantly false out there to the public, to potential clients for lawyers to look at. If he's really testified in four or five different states, how has this never come up before? It was brutal to watch. I had some secondhand embarrassment watching him talk about his credibility issues with his education.

[Raul]

Yeah, secondhand embarrassment is a good sort of phrase for all of this, Peter. Now, we want to get to your response on something one of our panelists said last week about Judge Beverly Kanoni's ruling on the shifting timeline. Take a listen. This whole issue, she's handled absolutely perfectly. And people don't really understand.

[Sue O'Connell]

It's a careful legal analysis.

[Michael Coyne]

It is notice to the defendant versus.

[Raul]

The search for the truth. The nature of the change is minor, so the search for the truth wins out.

[Sue O'Connell]

She is the right decision.

[Raul]

And if she had done the opposite.

[Sue O'Connell]

For technical legal reasons, she would not.

[Raul]

Have been reversed, but she might have been criticized by the Supreme Judicial Court. That was retired Massachusetts judge Jack Lew last week. He supports Judge Kanoni's decision to allow Burgess and his colleague to shift the times. Karen allegedly hit John o' Keefe with her car. Fast forward to today. We saw timestamp data from her SUV part of the testimony. Peter, I watched you over the weekend, so I know already you disagree with what Judge Lu had to say and Judge Kanoni's ruling.

[Sue O'Connell]

Why?

[Peter Tragos]

Yeah, I really do. It's not surprising. It's happened to me before in trial as well, where judges let the prosecutors change things like that and the defense goes scrambling and figures out how to deal with it, regardless of what our plan has been the entire trial. But even Mr. Burgess testified that he could have just handled this in testimony and spoke to Mr. Brennan about that. That was the correct decision, in my opinion, because the search for the truth that that judge was talking about still would have been handled, but it wouldn't have been a new report. It wouldn't have been an undisclosed expert opinion. It wouldn't have been a discovery violation. But they still would have been able to get into the fact that those time discrepancies and clock variances exist. And that's why we have differences in multiple experts and testimonies on the commonwealth side.

[Jack Lew]

All right, speaking of those timeline changes you just mentioned, digital forensic examiner Burgess, who we were just talking about, brought up those clock variances on the standard before he was cross examined. He went over his process to match events recorded from Reid's Lexus to data from John's phone. We're talking about things like when her car was turned off, when it was turned on, when she put the car in reverse. Is this why the timeline is changing? Is it significant enough, the timeline? As you said, there are these slight differences to the jury.

[Peter Tragos]

So I think one of the big parts as a criminal defense attorney is to point out the inconsistencies in the Commonwealth's expert in evidence. So if one expert says one thing, one expert says another. Maybe Hank Brennan said something different in his opening statement. Trooper Paul says something different when they talk about his report. If you have all these inconsistencies, that's a big part of the case. I still think a lot of this is foundational. And the defense still has a plan as to how they're going to use everything Mr. Burgess testified to in their closing argument to point out that it's impossible based on when Karen Reed connected to John O' Keefe's Wi Fi at 136.

[Raul]

So Burgess also talked about his belief that some of the data from Reid's vehicle was missed during the initial investigation. So we didn't hear about it in the first trial. So in a way, it's a strange situation where it seems like the commonwealth's current expert witness is kind of questioning the quality of the work of their flight. First expert witness, what's your take on that part of it? Peter I don't think that's going to.

[Peter Tragos]

Be the last time we see that. I think their new reconstructionist is not going to agree with Trooper Paul at all. And I think the defense is going to use that and point out the fact that they can't prove any of this beyond a reasonable doubt because the investigation was so bad, the download of the data was bad, these reports are delayed. All these experts can't even agree with each other. What did they really prove? I think that's what the defense is going to try to do.

[Jack Lew]

Peter Tragos, the lawyer, you know, on YouTube, we will be tapping back with you coming up later in the trial because you always have great insight and we appreciate it very much. We know how closely you're watching it.

[Peter Tragos]

Thank you for having me.

[Jack Lew]

Thank you. Up next, the prosecution has brought new experts to the witness stand in this retrial, as we've mentioned. So how do they compare to the testimony during the first trial? Stay with us. Michael Coyne returns with our courtroom insiders. Sue o' Connell will take a look back and answer viewer questions.

[Raul]

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 Ken Confidential, the Karen Reed murder trial.

[Indeed]

You just realized your business needed to hire someone yesterday. How can you find amazing candidates fast? Easy. Just use Indeed. When it comes to hiring, Indeed is all you need. Stop struggling to get your job post seen on other job sites. Indeed Sponsored Jobs help you stand out and hire fast. With Sponsored Jobs, your post jumps to the top of the page for your relevant candidates so you can reach the people you want faster. According to Indeed data, Sponsored Jobs posted directly on indeed have 45% more applications than non sponsored jobs. There's no need to wait any longer. Speed up your hiring right now with Indeed and listeners of this show will get a $75 sponsored job credit. To get your jobs more visibility@ Indeed.com podcast, just go to Indeed.com podcast right now and support our show by saying you heard about Indeed on this podcast. Indeed.com podcast terms and conditions apply. Hiring Indeed is all you need.

[Sue O'Connell]

Don't miss any of the Karen Reed murder trial.

[Raul]

Get the full recap of what happened.

[Sue O'Connell]

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.

[Jack Lew]

We're back now with chief legal analyst Michael Coyne and courtroom insider Sue o' Connell. Sue, you were in there today to listen to all this technical talk, all of this math. Can you tell us when it comes to the jury, I know you've been watching them. How did it look like they were taking in the information? How much were they taking the notes? And then also when we found out that the expert on the stand does not actually have a bachelor's degree, which is what his resume had said, and he had to admit that if there was any reaction from the jury, because you've said they've been quite stoic, you can't really read what they're doing.

[Sue O'Connell]

Yeah, that's definitely a Tale of Two Cities again, though, with the witnesses kind of like in the beginning and then Buchanan at the end. So it's like I said to Michael earlier, it's like being in college with people who actually want to be there. They're all in there taking notes. There are 18 of them. Only one is not taking notes. And of course, I keep saying that would be me, because everyone else is taking notes and statistically I'm not going to need them. So they were very, they're very engaged, they're very interested, they pay attention, they are writing things down. I think I saw one drawer with a highlighter. Now who's going back and highlighting things? And that was this morning. And then when we got to Alessi for the defense cross, there was a lot of wincing because as it became clear, I think that the jurors are getting the way the cadence of each lawyer has what you can expect from each of them, because remember, they've got this big variety of lawyers now. It's not just Adam Lally and Jackson and Yannetti, it's a whole plethora of them. So they know what Alessi is going to do. I think they know they're going to start with some easy questions and then he's just going to trap them and he's going to get him. And at one point when I think Burgess said, well, people just look at your post, they don't look at your Profile. One juror just went like, oh, you know, well, that means you were on LinkedIn recently. And that means, you know. And so there was, I think, some sympathy, but also just some cringing of what was happening. Now, how this plays for them, I don't know. Will they be sympathetic? Does it impact the testimony he gave earlier? But they're very engaged, even though they're not very emotive.

[Jack Lew]

Okay.

[Sue O'Connell]

Kind of like me in real life.

[Jack Lew]

It goes to our next point here. We want to take a look back at the first trial because state police trooper Joseph Paul told the jury his theory of the pedestrian strike. Take a listen to this clip. He was struck along the right side and area's arm and then he was post impact with the Lexus. He rotated counterclockwise and eventually hit the.

[Indeed]

Ground and came to final rest.

[Michael Coyne]

Based on your expert opinion, you believe that he was projected through the air.

[Sue O'Connell]

To his final rest place.

[Jack Lew]

That's not what I'm saying.

[Michael Coyne]

But you said there's no evidence that.

[Indeed]

He rolled and there's no evidence that.

[Sue O'Connell]

He flew through the air either.

[Jack Lew]

Exactly right.

[Michael Coyne]

Exactly.

[Raul]

Objection.

[Jack Lew]

So the point here is, in the first trial, we had Trooper Paul, who was talking about the strike today, we had Burgess. Has the Commonwealth been able to be more successful this time around to get the point across to the jury, at.

[Michael Coyne]

Least with respect to the timeline, based on the dead cell phone battery or the dying cell phone battery, the lack of movement of the phone now tying it to the vehicle and the last movements of the vehicle at 34 Fairview, I think they've done a pretty effective job with that. The problem is there's also a lot of area that's developed on cross that undercuts a lot of those points.

[Raul]

Well, we know from the witness list that Dr. Welcher, a colleague of Shannon Burgess, will ultimately testify. Is that another shot for the Commonwealth to clean some of this up?

[Michael Coyne]

Absolutely. But again, you're going to see a similar cross where they start to undercut their colleagues credentials. And you relied on each other's data and you reviewed each other's report. And even the attack on Burgess credentials sort of carries over to their colleague in the same company. So it's problematic for the government and.

[Raul]

An essential Witness, I'm sure Dr. Walters checking his CV right now.

[Sue O'Connell]

And this is also the same challenge with the dog expert from the last trial. Why did you get involved in this? You know, so now the Commonwealth has somebody who offered it a report. Why did you get involved. Involved in this?

[Jack Lew]

All right, we told you last week about A redrawn buffer zone. Today we learned a woman was taken into police custody for allegedly violating has been compared with the first trial, incredibly quiet outside the courthouse. So now that the buffer zone has been reduced and people can get closer to the courthouse, is there more activity and did you see what happened today and violating the buffer zone?

[Sue O'Connell]

Yes, there is more activity. There's more looky lose, as the state police call them. And they're able to gather across the street from the courthouse at the Deeds Building. And as long as they don't have on any T shirts or hats or signs or anything that have messages or protests on it, I didn't see what happened today. I did see our photographer who did record it and the person had on a, I think it said criminals Run Norfolk County T shirt on her back. And, you know, that apparently was enough for them to detain her. And I just want to tell people watching at home, if you're thinking you're going to, you know, you can make an argument about First Amendment, you can make an argument about whether they can do this or not. But if you show up there, they will detain you and put you in a little, a little detaining van that they're going to close you in. And then you're going to have to figure out how your lawyer's going to get you if you have your medicine, all those things. So if you're going to do something, make sure you plan on how to do it. Call your lawyer in advance, call your insurance agent, make a plan. Just don't be shocked if you have a hat on that says anything and they detain you when you disobey them.

[Jack Lew]

Don't do it. Why are you going to put yourself in. I don't want to be thrown in.

[Sue O'Connell]

The back of a van. They want to express their First Amendment rights. I totally get it. But you just don't. Don't be an accidental activist. Be an intentional activist if you're going to do that.

[Raul]

Sue, I just want to ask you one, follow up about this because you've been clear that the decorum inside the courtroom and around it has been much more serious and befitting of what we're trying to solve here in our justice system. What you're describing with law enforcement, can they protect that decorum that you've been talking about?

[Sue O'Connell]

So they can inside the courtroom, but if people start chanting outside the courtroom, they can't. And I also just want to point out Karen Reid deserves a fair trial. That is her right. And I know that the people Outside tend to be supporting her in yelling things that support her. But I would also say maybe a juror doesn't want to hear that and maybe a juror is on the fence and maybe a juror decides, you know, all that chanting is bad. I don't think that's. I think it tips it in the other way. So you have these two rights that are in conflict here. Karen's right to a free trial and our right to free expression in the first Amendment. So I just, you know, it's not just a knee jerk reaction here. I think people need to be thoughtful about what they want to accomplish.

[Jack Lew]

Okay, we have to get to a viewer question. Thankfully we've had so many come in. So thank you to all of you. This one is from Cherelle. Considering the defense's theory of a murder cover up, can they subpoena the DNA of law enforcement officers Brian Albert and Brian Higgins? We just want to note Reed's legal team is trying to use the third party culprit defense, naming the two Bryans as possible perpetrators. So Michael, let's start with you. Is a subpoena for DNA common and should it be done in this trial?

[Michael Coyne]

It's not that common because it's very difficult to get access to it. If you're going to invade my body, my space, you have to be able to show more than just a legitimate reason, almost a compelling reason why you should be able to take a sample from me of that sort. Even in criminal cases, you're going to need a warrant to get it. When we're talking about the accused or some one of the conspirators or co defendants perhaps. So this one would require a significant showing of a foundation as to why you must be able to access that information in order to exonerate the defense.

[Raul]

Could they supply it voluntarily?

[Michael Coyne]

They could supply it voluntarily, but most people don't want to supply information voluntarily. You don't know what they're going to do with it.

[Jack Lew]

Okay, Michael, sue, as always, thank you so much for joining us tonight.

[Raul]

What will happen tomorrow? If you have any 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.

[Jack Lew]

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