Verdict watch: What might the jury's 4 questions mean?

Summary

Summary of "Verdict Watch: What Might the Jury's 4 Questions Mean?"
Canton Confidential - Karen Read Murder Trial
Release Date: June 17, 2025
Host/Author: NBC10 Boston

---

Introduction

In the latest episode of Canton Confidential, hosted by NBC10 Boston, the focus centers on the ongoing deliberations in the high-profile Karen Read murder trial. Titled "Verdict Watch: What Might the Jury's 4 Questions Mean?", this episode delves into the significance of the four pivotal questions raised by the jury and explores their potential implications on the trial’s outcome.

---

Jury's Four Questions Explored

The episode meticulously breaks down each of the jury's four questions, providing expert insights from legal analysts Michael Coyne, Margaret McLean, and former prosecutor David Yannetti.

1. What is the Time Frame for the OUI Charge? 12:45 am or 5:00 am?

   • Judge Kanoni's Response [04:17]:
     “You folks have all the evidence, and remember, it's only you who decide the facts in this case.”
   • Analysis: The defense preferred ambiguity, while Special Prosecutor Hank Brennan advocated for pinpointing 12:45 am, a time central to the prosecution's case. Judge Kanoni maintained neutrality due to the lack of specificity in the indictment.
   • Quote [05:16] – David Yannetti:
     “The indictment usually would allege a date, not a specific time, at any rate, so the jury could be free to find either time.”

2. Are Video Clips of Karen Reed's Interviews Evidence? How Can We Consider Them?

   • Judge's Response [05:51]:
     “The videos are evidence. You should weigh the defendant's statements and the videos as you would any other piece of evidence.”
   • Expert Insight: The videos must be assessed for voluntariness and relevance.
   • Quote [06:22] – David Yannetti:
     “I have no doubt she was speaking voluntarily, freely, and rationally.”

3. Does Convicting Guilty on a Subcharge Convict the Overall Charge?

   • Judge's Explanation [07:08]:
     “If you find the defendant not guilty of the offense charged or any lesser included offense, stop and sign the verdict slip.”
   • Discussion: This clarification helps jurors understand that a guilty verdict on a subcharge can seal the overall conviction without needing to deliberate further.
   • Quote [08:01] – Sue O’Connell:
     “I like the way she explained it to me. She didn’t use these words, but it’s like a ladder...”

4. If We Find Not Guilty on Two Charges but Guilty on One, Is It a Hung Jury on All Three or Just One?

   • Judge's Response [12:18]:
     “It's a theoretical question, and we don't answer theoretical questions.”
   • Expert Interpretation: This question addresses whether a partial verdict leads to a full mistrial or only affects the unresolved charge.
   • Quote [13:26] – Sue O’Connell:
     “Judge Kanoni wants to avoid a hung jury like last time.”

---

Public and Supporters' Reactions

Outside the courthouse, tension and hope intermingle among the crowd awaiting a verdict.

• Sue O'Connell [01:32]:
  “I'm anxious. I've been here since last year. My heart pounds when I think about it.”

• William Reed [02:21]:
  “Hope that they're almost there, that they're almost to a verdict.”

Supporters, including Karen Reed herself, expressed a mix of optimism and uncertainty.

• Karen Reed [01:58]:
  “It just felt like today was the day. I don't have a specific reason. I just felt like today was the day.”

---

In-Courtroom Dynamics and Emotional Landscape

The episode captures the intense emotions within the courtroom, highlighting the defense team's optimism juxtaposed with the anguish of Officer John O'Keefe's family.

• William Reed [15:31]:
  “The tension is high... they're trying to read the emotions... what the verdict will mean.”

Legal teams were seen strategizing and reacting emotionally to the jury's inquiries, with significant focus on the implications of each question.

---

Potential Penalties and Sentencing Implications

The podcast outlines the severe consequences Karen Reed faces if convicted:

• Second-Degree Murder:
  Life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after 15 years.

• Manslaughter while Operating Under Influence of Liquor:
  Minimum of 5 years to a maximum of 20 years in prison, a fine up to $25,000, and license suspension for at least 15 years, potentially lifelong.

• Leaving the Scene of an Accident Resulting in Death:
  Mandatory minimum of 1 year in jail or 2.5 years in state prison, fines between $1,000 and $5,000, and a license suspension of at least three years.

• Operating Under the Influence (OUI):
  Up to 2.5 years in prison, though typically rare for first-time offenders.

• Quote [19:27] – David Yannetti:
  “The legislature has given the judge the discretion to sentence a defendant even on a first time offense for up to two and a half years. That would be highly unusual for a first time offender, but this is in fact a highly unusual DUI case.”

---

Predictions and Public Implications

Legal experts anticipate a verdict potentially scheduled for the following day, though uncertainty remains.

• David Yannetti [21:32]:
  “I think yes, we'll have a verdict tomorrow.”

Should Karen Reed be convicted only of OUI, significant political and public backlash is expected, deepening the emotional toll on both families involved.

• William Reed [20:54]:
  “If it turns out she's not guilty on all counts or guilty on the OUI, there'll be a huge reaction from the public.”

---

Conclusion

The episode of Canton Confidential offers a comprehensive examination of the current state of the Karen Read murder trial. By dissecting the jury's four critical questions and presenting diverse expert opinions, the podcast provides listeners with a nuanced understanding of the possible directions the trial may take. As tensions escalate both inside and outside the courtroom, the community remains on edge, awaiting a verdict that could have profound legal and emotional repercussions.

---

Notable Quotes:

• J.C. Monahan [00:00]: “Tonight, another day of deliberations without a verdict.”

• Sue O'Connell [08:29]: “Involuntary manslaughter.”

• William Reed [15:31]: “The tension is high... they're trying to read the emotions... what the verdict will mean.”

• Margaret McLean [01:32]: “Everyone is on edge. Emotions.”

---

This summary encapsulates the key discussions and analyses presented in the podcast episode, providing a detailed overview for listeners and those interested in the unfolding legal drama.

Transcript

[J.C. Monahan]

NBC10 Boston news worthy of you. Tonight, another day of deliberations without a verdict.

[Glenn Jones]

It's been a long day for everybody and we'll see you tomorrow morning when everybody's fresh to start again.

[J.C. Monahan]

The jury sent home after asking four questions. But what could they mean?

[Glenn Jones]

You folks have all the evidence and you are the fact finders.

[J.C. Monahan]

We take a closer look at each question posed today with our legal experts as Verdict Watch continues. The crowds are gathering outside the courthouse. What it's like outside. Canton Confidential. The Karen Reed murder trial starts right now.

[Melody Mendez]

The third day of deliberations in the Karen Reed murder trial has come and gone with no verdict. Good Evening, everyone. I'm J.C. monahan.

[Michael Coyne]

And I'm Glenn Jones. But there was no shortage of activity inside and outside of the courthouse as word of questions from the jury made their way to trial watchers everywhere. Our Melody Mendez was among the people waiting outside. Mel, what was the reaction from those crowds as the day unfolded?

[Margaret McLean]

Well, Glenn, it was actually fascinating to see as word spread about those jury questions coming into the judge, the energy out here cranked up a notch. Certainly the nerves went up a notch as well. So I went into the center of the masses to find out what people were saying. Take a look 50ft from the entrance to the courthouse, across the street and behind the metal gate, nerves are frayed.

[Sue O'Connell]

I'm anxious. I'm anxious. I've been here since last year. My heart pounds when I think about it.

[Margaret McLean]

Do you think you're gonna get a verdict today? I really hope so. And everyone, it seems, is on edge. Emotions. What are you feeling?

[William Reed]

Sick.

[Melody Mendez]

Tired. Hopeful, I guess. I think I'm hopeful. I think that hopefully we'll come back today.

[Margaret McLean]

The crowd of Karen Reid supporters, some there hours before Reid, her herself arrived at court.

[Karen Reed]

It just felt like today was the day. I don't. I don't have a specific reason. I just felt like today was the day.

[Margaret McLean]

They watch with full attention, listen to coverage on their phones and laptops, and try to extrapolate any bit of information they can. So news of the jury's questions to the judge today certainly gave them plenty to talk about. Having heard the jury questions, do you still feel confident you're gonna have a verdict today?

[Karen Reed]

Part of me says yes, and part of me says no. I think they really hung up on the jury instructions like they were last year. Very confusing. They're not, you know, the questions they're asking, they're not. Their answers aren't being met.

[Margaret McLean]

Hearing the jury questions change your mind at all?

[William Reed]

Well, no it kind of gave me.

[Michael Coyne]

Hope that they're almost there, that they're almost to a verdict.

[Margaret McLean]

Not losing hope, but patience. Well, maybe a little bit. What's going through your head?

[David Yannetti]

I'm anxious, and I want it to be over so I can get back to work and my normal life and get a good night's sleep.

[Margaret McLean]

A feeling echoed by William Reed on his way out of court to just.

[David Yannetti]

Want our daughter home and free.

[Margaret McLean]

So the jurors will be back here Tomorrow morning at 9:00am Guys, we will be here before then, and we will stay until there's a verdict.

[Melody Mendez]

Back to you, Melody. Thank you. Back with us tonight is our chief legal analyst, Michael Coyne and former prosecutor Margaret McLean. We want to take a closer look at those juror questions that were submitted today. So you see them on the screen. There it is. What is the time frame for the OUI charge? OUI? At 12:45am or at 5:00am are video clips of Karen's interviews evidence? How can we consider them? Does convicting guilty on a subcharge, for example, offense two, Offense two, number five, convict the overall charge. And the final question, if we find not guilty on two charges but can't agree on one charge, is it a hung jury on all three charges or just the one charge? It's starting to sound a little bit familiar on that one. We want to go through Judge Kanoni's responses so we can hear them and get your thoughts on each one. So let's start with that first one. What is the time frame for the OUI charge? 12:45 or 5:00am Here is the judge's answer.

[Glenn Jones]

You folks have all the evidence, and remember, it's only you who decide the facts in this case. All right? That's the answer to that question. You are the fact finders.

[Melody Mendez]

Okay. So before she spoke to the jury, though, she talked about it with both legal teams. The defense team was fine with it being vague, whether it was 1245 or 5. Special Prosecutor Hank Brennan wanted them to point to 1245, saying that has been the central part of the case all along. And then Judge Canoni said there was no specific time put in the indictment, therefore she did not feel comfortable highlighting one time or another and therefore just said what you just heard, which is you have everything you need. So let's start. Michael, just tell me, was that the appropriate response?

[David Yannetti]

I think it was. I mean, the indictment usually would allege a date, not a specific time, at any rate, so the jury could be free to find either time. If she was driving under the influence that she could be convicted. And the judge says, you decide the facts. That's up to you at this point.

[Melody Mendez]

What would you think the change would be if she had highlighted just 12:45 for the jury?

[Sue O'Connell]

Well, the interesting thing is 12:45 is a really weird time that they came up with because she connected with the wi fi at John O' Keefe's house at One Meadows at 12:36. So was she really driving at 12:45? Not according to the evidence.

[Melody Mendez]

Right. And then came back with the 5:00am as well. So, okay, that's question one.

[Michael Coyne]

Let's move on to question number two, which reads, are video clips of Karen Reed's interview's evidence. How can we consider them? Here's how the judge answered that. 1.

[Glenn Jones]

The videos are evidence. You should weigh the defendant's statements and the videos as you would any other piece of evidence.

[Michael Coyne]

That answer went on to include part of the humane practice instruction telling the jury the defendant's statements must have been made voluntarily, freely, and rationally. Throughout the trial. We have seen plenty of clips of Karen Reid's media appearances. Is there any doubt in your mind, Michael, and that she was speaking voluntarily, freely, and rationally?

[David Yannetti]

No doubt in my mind whatsoever. And, I mean, I wonder if the jury really was asking when they say, how do we consider them? Can we see them again? Because then that would make some sense. Because to ask if a piece of evidence which is already in evidence can be used to convict, that seems sort of self evident.

[Melody Mendez]

Well, could it be Margaret? Could it just be when she said, was it four, Was it five, Was it six drinks, that that could be used as evidence that she was drunk?

[Sue O'Connell]

Yes, that's the way I was looking at it.

[William Reed]

Yes.

[Sue O'Connell]

Yeah.

[Melody Mendez]

Okay. All right, let's go to question three. The jury asked, does convicting guilty on a subcharge, for example, offense two, number five, convict the overall charge? So here's judge Kanone's response.

[Glenn Jones]

If you find the defendant not guilty of the offense charged or any lesser included offense, stop and sign the verd slip.

[Melody Mendez]

All right, let's highlight just that portion of the verdict slip that we're talking about. Keeping in mind, the jury used this as an example. We don't know for sure that this is the sticking point. It's charged to manslaughter while operating a vehicle under the influence of liquor. The subcharge, though, the number five they were talking about is the drunk driving. The defense had asked for changes to the verdict slip to make this easier, as they thought, to understand. And Judge Kanoni did not change it. However, after the question came in today, she amended the verdict slip. We haven't seen what that means. But more importantly, she said, get to this point. You find not guilty, you can turn the page. If you find guilty, you stop and sign it. Was that enough, do you think, for.

[Sue O'Connell]

The jury at this point? I think so. And I like the way she explained it to me. She didn't use these words, but it's like a ladder, right? You start at the top rung, which is manslaughter. And, and if you can't decide on that, you go to the next, which is a lesser included, which would be involuntary manslaughter. Then if you say not guilty on that, you can keep going. Well, then you have manslaughter. No, it's. What is it?

[David Yannetti]

Involuntary manslaughter.

[Sue O'Connell]

Involuntary manslaughter. But then there's the other rung underneath. That would be homicide. Right. Felony. Felony manslaughter at homicide. Oui. And to me. And then you have oui. So basically you're going down the rung, and if you stop at number two and think she's guilty, then that's it. You just sign off on your verdict. So I like the way she explained it.

[Melody Mendez]

Michael, do you agree? Because that helped me a lot in thinking of lesser charges as individual pages. So that you start with this one, and if you find it guilty, you don't have to look at the other ones. You just sign it and we're done. But you keep turning the page. As long as you continue to decide and deliberate unanimously that it's not guilty.

[David Yannetti]

That's correct. I mean, what you're really saying, and we talked about this before, is that if, if you say we've got 10, then you have nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, two, one. But if we don't have 10, now we're going to look at whether we have nine, and if we don't have nine, then we're going to look at eight. And I thought she explained it. And I think the modification of the jury verdict form will help the jury be able to resolve those differences. Because count two is by far the most complicated one and the most confusing for the jury both last time and likely at least from what we know now this time as well, you can.

[Michael Coyne]

See how crowded that that count is just by looking at the page tier on the, on the screen.

[Melody Mendez]

And they did. And the defense was arguing that each one of those, lesser included, should have a not guilty box next to it. That was the, that was the chatter yesterday, right? That they wanted to try to get that added. And she. She wouldn't amend the. The slip because she said, this is how we always do it here in Massachusetts, which I'm not sure are. Sure the out of town lawyers were loving.

[Sue O'Connell]

Well, yeah, but I think she was right, because then you can get an inconsistent verdict, Right? Yeah.

[David Yannetti]

You could have guilty and not guilty as you go down the list, and now the verdict is a mess, and you wouldn't be able to accept that verdict either.

[Michael Coyne]

That is a fair point.

[David Yannetti]

So I think this clarification should resolve that issue. If they haven't, if they found not guilty, then go to the next charge. If you found not guilty on that, then go to the next charge.

[Michael Coyne]

Why?

[Melody Mendez]

After what we found out after the first trial, and again, we've heard this through secondhand sources that jurors came out and said that they were confused on what seems to be, based on the questions presented today, the same issue. Why are we still talking about this jury slip? Why was this not cleaned up between a year ago and today?

[David Yannetti]

You know, everyone wants to blame Judge Kanoni. I would blame the lawyers. You knew this problem for a year existed because of the problems last time. A week before closing arguments, this issue should have been debated and exchanged. We saw so many motion arguments and a proposed jury verdict form submitted that we could all either agree on or there could be a definitive ruling to make it clearer. And so I think the lawyers should have done a better job here.

[Melody Mendez]

Can I ask about the OUI because this is another one that confuses me. So the least, the lowest charge of those, lesser included, is she could basically be convicted of drunk driving. But there's drunk driving, and I'm using layman's term, not the legal terms, and driving with an alcohol level of 0.08% or higher. What's the difference?

[David Yannetti]

I would call that the latter charge in layman's terms, aggravated drunk driving. So not only were you drunk driving, but you were drunk driving to the point where you had an elevated blood alcohol and therefore should be punished more severely.

[Michael Coyne]

All right.

[Melody Mendez]

Okay.

[Michael Coyne]

Let's go to question four. Now, this was addressed later in the day, even though it was submitted earlier. It read, if we find not guilty on two charges but can agree on one charge, is it a hung jury on all three charges or just that one charge? Let's play Judge Kanoni's response.

[Glenn Jones]

It's a theoretical question, and we don't answer theoretical questions. This is not a question I can answer on this. And sending it back.

[Michael Coyne]

All right, Michael, that Question started with the word if. I know how that could be decided as being theoretical. But if I put it into the context of the world we live in, this was the issue in the last trial. You can't call it theoretical. This was a real problem. So I guess my question for you is, could this jury be actually trying to avoid a mistrial? Is that what this question is telling us?

[David Yannetti]

Yes. I think what they're trying to make a determination either in advance of a final resolution on all those counts or saying, well, we've reached agreement on the on two of the counts, but we can't resolve our differences on the third. That's why, though it's a hypothetical, they haven't reported to the court they have a verdict on any of the counts. At some point they will or she will inquire this time whether they've reached a verdict on any of the counts. She wants to be careful not to push them to a verdict that would require them to abandon what they're in good faith they presently believe.

[Michael Coyne]

Margaret, do you agree on the decision not to directly answer the question because of those reasons?

[Sue O'Connell]

Absolutely. Because it's, you know, it's a hypothetical and, you know, she doesn't. Judge Kanoni has to be really careful that the jury's. Are they thinking? Are they back there thinking, well, we know last year's trial was mistrial. It's very possible. And they were hung. So we don't want that to happen to us. How can we avoid that? And that's what she, Judge Kanone, wants to avoid.

[David Yannetti]

And I think that's likely true. If you think about it. Do people before Karen Reid really understand the term hung jury or one count we can't resolve, but the other two, it seems like this case has elevated everyone's awareness of those issues.

[Michael Coyne]

All right, Michael, Margaret, thank you very much helping us through what was a very, very dramatic and full day. Don't go anywhere. Our conversation continues after the break with Sue o' Connell. She shares her take on today's developments from inside the courtroom. This is Canton Confidential, the Karen Reid murder trial.

[J.C. Monahan]

Don't miss any of the Karen Reid 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 Dateline, true crime Weekly.

[David Yannetti]

Andrea Canning and the Dateline team cover breaking crime news around the country.

[J.C. Monahan]

And now a special series with daily.

[David Yannetti]

Updates from the trial of Sean Combs.

[Margaret McLean]

I'll be talking to NBC News correspondent Chloe Meloss every day after court about what she's seeing inside the witnesses, the evidence, and what it all means.

[David Yannetti]

Dateline True Crime Weekly.

[J.C. Monahan]

Listen now, wherever you get your podcasts.

[Melody Mendez]

We are back now with Michael and our courtroom insider, Sue o' Connells, who I've been waiting to talk to you. Because all the action was inside the court today. There was a lot. Lawyers were called in and out multiple times. A jury came in and out multiple times. And I only can imagine, as we felt outside of court, that the tension is building with each one of these wondering if this is going to be the moment that we get a verdict.

[William Reed]

Oh, absolutely. I mean, the tension is high. And also, you're trying to read the emotions that when the questions came back, the first three questions, the Karen Reed defense team was again, ecstatic. They were happy. At the sidebar, Yaneti and Karen, David Yannetti, the attorney, were looking at Karen's family and smiling and beaming and tears started. And we have no idea what's going on. Like, you know, it's certainly not a verdict because we would know that. So what is the question that they feel so good about? And then we come back at 1:30 different reaction to the fourth question, which was met with some anger and some concern. And meanwhile, the o' Keeffe family, you know, also just this is just so hard for them to go through over and over again. And there's no real support in the courtroom because you're just in here for this kind of administrative stuff that is going to have such a big, big impact.

[Melody Mendez]

She does have a large team, so her presence there, as you've mentioned, in a small courtroom, makes a noise.

[Michael Coyne]

Four questions, sue, which is a departure from the first jury, which really only passed something like one note during the whole proceeding. When you look at these four questions, does it tell you anything between the lines that we should be thinking about?

[William Reed]

Yeah, my prediction, and it might be a projection, emotional projection, so it might be a confirmational bias here, is that I feel like they probably know there was a mistrial last time, and they probably know it was messy. And I think that they are very concerned about getting this right. So whatever they're going to decide on whatever charges, they want to make sure they understand the implication, not the implication to Karen or the implication to the justice system, but that they're doing it the way that they intend to do it and doing it correctly. So I think some of these might be preemptive, wanted to get out. I think there was a variety, even though they were Sort of in the same lane. What if we do this or what if we do that? What happens here? So I think that they're just being very conscientious. And again, this jury, I felt like I was in a PhD program every single day watching them. I'm not surprised they're asking such smart questions.

[Michael Coyne]

That wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, what sue just explained.

[David Yannetti]

No, it wouldn't. And that's the question, is what was their intent? Have they gotten far enough that they really need to start to make the hard decisions with respect to which one do we think she's not guilty on? Do we have some real debate as to whether there's no reasonable doubt on any of the charges?

[Melody Mendez]

So when you see the team on Karen Reid's side huddled together as they do, and today, they weren't necessarily sidebar. There was a lot of chit chat right at the table. You're right there. The o' Keeffes are right in front of you. Can you. I know you can probably feel it. Can you hear it? What they're saying, what the sidebar is or what the chit chat is today, what the chit chat was? Because at one point they got a new verdict slip, I think, and they were sort of going over it, and you had just said, like, they had this. There was a positive attitude at one point.

[William Reed]

Yeah, I mean, they're very emotive. The defense team is very emotive, and Karen is very emotive. And they. Understatement of the year. And her family reacts. So we may not know or hear what they're doing. I mean, I could tell during the setup for the closing arguments, they also were ecstatic about, I think, the judge allowing them to use some of those visuals. I could see those on the tech guy's computer screen, so I can't hear them, but you can kind of see which direction things are going by the reactions, and they're just expressive.

[Michael Coyne]

There's no denying. We are closing in on the end of this trial. So let's look ahead to some of the penalties that Karen Reid could face if she's found guilty on any of the charges. If she's convicted of second degree murder, there's a possible punishment of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after a minimum of 15 years. In regards to manslaughter while operating under the influence of liquor, the defendant could face a minimum mandatory prison sentence of five years and a maximum of 20. That's in addition to a fine of up to $25,000. There's also a license suspension of at least 15 years and potentially for life.

[Melody Mendez]

If Reid is found guilty of leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death, there's a mandatory minimum sentence of a year in jail or two and a half years in state prison. Fines between 1,000 and $5,000, a mandatory license suspension of at least three years. But as for that lesser charge of OUI, the punishment can be up to two and a half years in prison, which. Michael, I was talking to you. Rare if ever happens to a first time offender, but it is up to. To the judge up to two and a half years. Is that correct?

[David Yannetti]

That's correct. The legislature has given the judge the discretion to sentence a defendant even on a first time offense for up to two and a half years. That would be highly unusual for a first time offender, but this is in fact a highly unusual driving under the influence case.

[Melody Mendez]

Can I put you guys on the spot and just say what do you.

[David Yannetti]

Think is going to happen for the decision or sentencing?

[Melody Mendez]

If she's guilty, what's go with if she were to be guilty of oui, what would Judge Kanoni be giving as.

[David Yannetti]

A. I think she'll sentence her to mandatory alcohol, ad program, some supervised probation. I don't see a jail sentence coming from just a dui. It's a question of if you look at count two, there's a lot more serious offenses there where she will do prison time, and that's going to be in Framingham State.

[Michael Coyne]

Sue, can I just ask you, if we do end up with the result that JC was just mentioning, hypothetically convicted only of oui, will there be political fallout?

[William Reed]

Yes. I mean, it would be. First of all, it'd be devastating for the o' Keeffe family that go through all of this for two years and it turns out there's just an oui charge. I mean, not just. It's obviously a serious thing, but I mean in the scope, in the comparison of murder charges and manslaughter charges. And it will say for the second time the commonwealth was unable to get a conviction on a murder and a manslaughter. Obviously there's the third charge. So, yes, I think there's going to be a huge, huge, huge reaction from the public if it turns out she's not guilty on all counts or guilty on the. On the oui.

[Melody Mendez]

Are we back here tomorrow with a verdict?

[William Reed]

I think so.

[David Yannetti]

I think not.

[Michael Coyne]

I think so.

[William Reed]

I think so.

[Melody Mendez]

Thank you so much. We're gonna find out.

[David Yannetti]

What do you think?

[Melody Mendez]

Oh, do you notice how I stayed up? No, I would think I have by the end of tomorrow. The thoughtfulness that you have said with this jury and the questions that they sent. But who knows? Michael, how many times have you told us, you never know.

[David Yannetti]

You never know is right.

[Michael Coyne]

Michael and sue, thank you. Remember to join us every night 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. That begins on Sunday. And if you're on the go, check out our true crime podcast about the case. It's the audio version of our nightly show that will catch you up on all the twists and turns up until this point. This is Canton Confidential, the Karen Reid murder trial.

[Melody Mendez]

Start your day the right way with NBC 10 Boston Morning News. Worthy of you.