down we've got 5 more jurors needed to finalize the panel and so open the statements could begin as early as Monday this out. We're gearing up for this fast approaching case for bringing you the 5 best moments from that fiery pretrial hearing on Friday now we're going to start with the defense's arguments the defense team is arguing that officer John o'keefe was killed. >> Defendant has stood here defense counsel who stood in this court repeatedly. I stood here and in other venues in it pleadings exposing various third-party culprit. Series or scenarios. And now that it's time to actually try the case in the courtroom. I don't have a motion from the defense to admit third-party culprit. Testimony so and as you're well aware I have to make findings before any third-party any mention of any 3rd party culprit evidence or even an opening goes before the jurors. You know in order to admit it and given that I have no information at all. I don't know who the 3rd party culprit is even after reading 4500 pages of discovery. I don't know what the motive. A third-party culprit might have I don't know how it's relevant I don't know if it's remote or if its current I don't know if it's speculative or if it's relevant. I don't know if it will prejudice or confuse the jury and if it's hearsay have a whole other series of factors that have to consider so missed unity are you pursuing a third-party company to do so. >> We are your honor and I'm prepared to address that the Commonwealth has raised the issue and I am prepared to address that. >> So you filed motions first and you did not raise it so if the Commonwealth had not raised it. You did not move to introduce it correct. I have no motion from know I understand I understand your >> if you'd like something in writing for us we can do that I have full argument prepared. >> All right so who is the 3rd party company we are. >> Are under no obligation to name. >> Any specific third-party culprit how am I support you you're prepared to argue all the most prepared to argue with high, so we will get to that when we get to that was motion that's fine. Now that the second thing I want to address because again it's it's. Very important at this point. The motion regarding. The DNA excluding the DNA. Why should I not allow that motion. >> For a couple reasons Number What I can. Provide to the court by way of update that. Most of the with regard to that item is So first and the item is his that was confirmed by the BOE testing prior to them conducting any sort of mitochondrial testing. The mitochondrial profile of the partial profile was generated in regard to the hair sample is complete. The mitochondrial DNA profile in regard to Mister o'keefe sample is complete. The preliminary that I received by way of e-mail from voting indicated that they were. >> Consistent with each other. I asked for some sort of preliminary report or something that I could share with counsel based on lab's that is on permit them to release anything by way of report prior to going through for review process. My understanding is that it's not only that process but the lab file. Should be produced by Tuesday. On top of that what I >> state as far as any sort of prejudice to the defendant of years of age suffered as a result of there is still 0 reciprocal discovery that I received a in regard to anything from Council and then part of the delay at least a portion of the delay in this specific testing as the court is as you've had a chance to review. Bode technologies observance policy as far as outside experts there was a significant delay and hearing from Council for the defendant in regard to whether or not they wish to have someone present prior to calling the delay. Believe it was at least several weeks if not a month we spoke about it in person in December. And I don't believe that my order was in November. So one that it would took it the order was in November. What took a little time on our part was to the samples taken from the troopers in regard to the other testing and in order to get all of those items shipped and transported from the msp co 2 Lorton Virginia to bode when was that done. Late November. >> All right let's talk some more about this case boy I look at our panel this is here at Matt Johnson Court TV crime and justice correspondent in the studio staff by remotely I have attorney and trial advocacy professor Don T Mills with us and lieutenant Randy Sutton with us as well boy oh boy great to talk to you all. Okay, let's just start a little bit I'm with you met This hearing on Friday in terms of. What was a bombshell what really jumped out you know would you say to you you know reporting on this case it was the third-party culprit staff. >> I think so because that's what led us to our breaking news on Wednesday that The defense team cannot use any of that during opening statements and really we saw the backdrop of why she made that decision just now in Friday's hearing because she was questioning them of why they didn't submit You know evidence that they hope to present for her. >> The rule on that right right has to be relevant evidence has to evidence that has substance to it it can't just be or was this person you've got to back it up you know that it has to be backed up in order to come incompetent evidence so we'll see what they've got not being able to say it in the opens I'm sure they are devastated about this. Professor Mills OK tapping into your experience as a trial that professor and as a criminal defense attorney I want to make clear the distinction between us third-party culprit defense versus just the it wasn't me defense it was somebody else would you kind of walk us through that big distinction and why the law has to be really particular in this area in order for the judge to let it in. >> Absolutely just so we understand in a criminal defense cases, you're defending yourself you don't have to prove anything. But the prosecution has to prove that you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt your job as a defense attorneys, not necessarily to prove anything. So you saying it wasn't me it essentially casting doubt on the burden of the prosecution. If you're trying to bring in a third-party party culprit defense it's a little further changes, the burden a little bit where you have to show that is reasonably based the rule is there because you are not allowed to just come in and just start naming people who may have committed crime um without any evidence to back it up. That's where that hearing was for a last week where the judge wanted to know. What evidence do you have what can you show us to show that this allegation of a 3rd party is reasonably based in facts in evidence and that's obviously what they have some issues doing so the judge said they can't talk about this and opening because the judge isn't impressed enough with the substance that they have behind it but as that trial goes on if they bring out testimony that supports this 3rd party culprit defense. Then the judge can then opened the door and allow them to bring this evidence in to show that not only was it not me it was somebody else has that next step that they were want to go but there's a screening process before they can get there. >> And as beautifully said Don thank you for that and so here they were given an opportunity to the defense team was given plenty of latitude to go into whatever supportive evidence they haddin you're going to see in the show will replay the clips it just wasn't the it was yet these people were at the House party. But it wasn't saying these people had a motive opportunity. The means to kill a officer John o'keefe and to try to cover it up leaving his spotty in the snow according to the defense theory I've got a clip where David you Nettie who's one of Kerry's defense attorneys was asked point blank by the judge. >> Who's your 3rd party culprit who is here's your chance lieutenant Randy Sutton would come to you on the other side this could take a look at what he says to the judge when given the opportunity to say with specificity who it was that murdered the officer. >> Are you pursuing a third-party culprit >> we are your honor I'm prepared to address that the Commonwealth has raised the issue and I am prepared to address that to you. >> Filed motions for us to new did not raise it so if the car Commonwealth had not raised it you did not move to introduce it correct. >> I have no motion from know I understand I understand your if you'd like something in writing for us we can do that I have a full argument prepared. >> All right so who is the 3rd party company what we are. >> Are under ♪ >> no obligation to name any specific third-party culprit. >> Lieutenant Randy Sutton would you think of that. >> I call that tap I agree with you lieutenant. >> This is it sounds like they're playing a game of clue here. I'm not impressed with the with what the defense is doing here. They're throwing it. The massive smoke screen up and I think they're playing really playing to the media play into that the people that are outside that courtroom chanting or name and support which I find a little strange to begin with the as I so far the prosecution looks like it's in pretty good shape. motions that have been put before the court by the defense are. Very very shaky. So it's be interesting to see how how the report themselves as this. >> As the trial continues isn't that the true that and I'm with you I see a big giant smoke screen. And I think that this defense team tried very hard to get this case kicked before trial. I think that was their mission from the outset let create as much of us scene and chaos and make this seem like this woman is being framed to try to get rid of it I think they've done everything in their power to do that and now that it's gone forward, it's like oh boy here we are we don't know what to say it happens go ahead not well, you know what I was going to. >> Add to that yes it's unusual to see protesters out in front for defendant, especially a defendant that some accused a cop killer. But it's also unusual in this case that you don't have police in uniform during the hearings in support of their fallen friend, the judge restricted that yeah but not during the pretrial hearings. >> I know there have been police in the courtroom every hearing I do know that. >> Usually you know in cases that I've covered in California and elsewhere there is like a line of police in the gallery. I haven't seen that in the hearings that I've covered in uniform and yes, you're right. The judge did restrict that for the trial. Yeah, you know, observers and witnesses cannot wear their uniform in the gallery just like Karen Reid supporters can't wear buttons or t-shirt. Yeah that. >> There could also there could have been an order given by the agency that happens very often that the people that don't have to come from a judge you can come internally from the agency itself. >> Appreciate that that would make sense especially because the agency was under attack by the community. Some members of you know in questioning. >> And those yeah and who knows what their their juices their reasoning. Yeah, if if anyone is being paid to stand out there with signs. I have a lot of questions about this. >> We're going to talk some more we just got hit or break when we come back prosecutors present a motion for body camera evidence, including alarming and very damaging statements that Karen Reid made you're going to hear who she points the blame. On her boyfriend's death 2 when she's Welcome back to court to be live. I'm Julie Grant homicide defendant Karen Reid is claiming. >> That there is a wide ranging coverup going on involving everyone from police least of first responders too. >> The district attorney's office, she's claiming she's the victim she's saying she's at the center of a plot to frame to to be framed rather for the death of her boyfriend which she admitted to him and him at the scene by the way admitted to hitting him at the scene when he was found in the snow. >> It in the middle of January on the morning of a nor'easter now during the final pretrial hearing. The issue of her statements came up again and not the I hit him I hit him I hit him statements not those these are some statements we hadn't heard heard before Friday statements caught on body camera video when state police re arrested her after the grand jury heard the evidence and decided to indict on murder charges. Remember police just charged her for manslaughter. It was the grand jury after hearing from over 40 witnesses said no it's murder here. voted to opt for a true bill there and so here in this video, she's she's arrested she sitting at the station with the trooper listen to what she sets about what happened to John o'keefe. >> The defendant's arrest post indictment by the grand jury in this case it was 6/9/2022. >> So that's why I have not seen. The video itself. >> Raccoon and that's certainly something that the can can provide for the court but essentially when she was arrested and during the booking process at the Milton state police barracks. The troopers to conduct about arrest, I were wearing body worn camera. Pursuant to their their BWC with the state Police. Council has a copy the policy Council has a copy of the video and essentially there are. A number of different statements which provide sort of 3rd 4th 54th 6. I'm not sure what number up to at this point of sort of varying accounts. The defendant has provided to give me an idea now how do you do you know the substance to the substance of these particular the defendant MS. Reid's is told by its sergeant be can tick to essentially stop talking his adviser over Miranda and advised her to stop making statements. And repeatedly states that to her during the course of her making statements but the sum and substance of is she says something to the effect of you know are you in on the joke and that makes some sort of reference to having witnessed Brian Albert in calling out for it essentially smashed Roanoke he's headed into the tail light indicating that that's how or taillight was broken doesn't make any sort of further statements about why she would then leave the scene after that occurred or anything like that. But these are again a different account. That have been direct variants to prior statements that she made January to the troopers, 2 paramedics to treating medical professionals to miss Roberts to MS. Mccabe the niece of Mister o'keefe to a whole other sort of a slew of a variety of of people with a different sort of a variation on what each So it's sort of inextricably intertwined with the fact that she's in custody I thought how so is she in handcuffs as she and see them. >> He did at the booking desk of the booking rail and the state Police So I mean I don't need to make direct reference to it I it's just again it's something. But it's a caution based on sort of where it is and when it is that the statements are made naturally sort of come out as far as but if the court wishes I think it's something that the court can can cure. By issuing a curative instruction. If there's any prejudice to be suffered by the But it is a statement by the defender which is admissible in the court is well aware and then it is sort of in the confines are in the context of her being in custody when she makes that statement. I certainly wouldn't be trying to elicit testimony that she was in custody, but it gets it is kind of a parent that she is. Can you have that here for this afternoon. Yes, I can arrange for that so we can see it. I was the defendant's position here. >> For the it's a little bit like the as far as the entire to the video the portion that I would be submitting to the court 7 minutes and 4 seconds until 9 minutes and 55 >> has a process a little may follow. >> rainy weather. >> Do need a baby. go first. We should More. >> too as long yeah, I'm just waiting for him to or is the issues here quarter. >> Today a grand On the shark to >> So the shot. >> In charge. >> What >> are some of And great. >> it's a joke right. >> Ku you need >> so you thought if you want. It was and I'm sure ♪ >> all right, so the judge in terms of ruling on this admissibility and whether or not it can be know that she was detained Matt do we know anything it so that's what we're waiting for. >> There are a number of motions they're going to be key for this case that were waiting for including statements for state of mind which this could statements made to the media and also her hospital records which you may have said there at that time but I did want to mention the fact that you know, unlike the dormant case that we covered this officer did the right thing like upon reminding her of the Miranda. >> All right a right to Chad doerman case in Ohio where the confession got tossed you're right not properly. Advising of the defendant of his rights. Thank you for that Matt I want to talk about this video and how it may be helpful or harmful to both sides would like to ask Randy and on to take different sides respectively Dante looking at this from the defense side. How concerned would you be what would you want him to arms of whether it comes in or exclusions we heard the pressure to mention a curative instruction all your thoughts on all of this please. >> this video can be key. >> And to find the defendant I'm I don't want this to come in. Any statements that she made is going to lock her into a story in especially if their ferries. Something else happened this not a part of that and it's already they're already on thin ice with the substance that they have for their 3rd party Her saying anything that ties her to it or cooperate anything that the prosecution is saying is very damaging. It's very interesting in this particular case because the judges the gate keeper of information and the jury won't see any of this if the judge doesn't allow also all of this can exist in to just as it doesn't come in and the jury doesn't hear these confessions then that's a huge piece of the case is missing. It will impact the outcome that could impact the outcome because if they don't hear these types of statements is less likely that they'll convict her so I think K statements like this a pivotal enough and the defendant I'm trying by any means necessary to keep these statements out. >> right Dontae definitely and I don't like the idea of a curative instruction and rather do something like severed the video from the audio and isolate the audio. So that just the important information you know about where she saying that this fight happened and that's our daylight got cracked that comes in versus talking about her bail you know things that indicate. She's under arrest and detained in could prejudice the jury against her. I'm lieutenant Randy Sutton tell me this a bombshell in court on Friday. No one in the media knew about this this is this is stopping something that came out of course the defense team's not going to talk about it. The prosecutors how helpful do you think it is to the commonwealth's case against Karen Reid to prove that she hit him with her car. >> Well every statement that she makes the app after has the possibility of affecting case the trooper did do exact we as he should have in continuing to adviser that she shouldn't make any statements but that's up to her and extra extemporaneous statements of shoes making can be of MS. Tumble and usually they would be admissible so I think that that every every thing that that she is saying has the possibility of negatively affecting her case because. It what it what it does is. It locks or into the statements that she's made so it will be very interesting to see what the court's ruling is on this but I can't see her ruling against the Commonwealth on this because there was no there there was no time of a of a custodial gay shun that was taking place so therefore I think that they're just going to keep it in. >> Right right and I think you're absolutely right as she should you know because they are admissions you know by party opponent, the rules of evidence provide for those to come We just have to be Kate for careful not to prejudice the jury in any way with the detention part of great points by you all stand by Kylie place when we come back, we're going to take a look at w Welcome back to court TV live jury says let's election continues today in the case against defendant Karen redone were unpacking some of the biggest. >> Bombshell motion a bombshell moments rather from her hearing on Friday and earlier you heard us talking about. >> How her defense team is raising that 3rd party called for defense which is different from just saying somebody else did this it's where you're blaming someone in the law provides if you're going to raise it up got to be specific about it you have to have particular evidence about motive means opportunity it can't just be you know mere die a lot you know we believe it's this we believe it's that no you have to back it up and so here you're going to see the judge offered to the defense team the time to show their evidence and show what they have to support their theory that they've been preaching about for months and months take a look. ♪ >> The initial question why is there a 3rd party culprit defense why is it relevant. And we start to Iran or with the fact that our forensic medical examiner, Frank Sheridan you know a pathologist forensic pathologist who has so performed himself. Thousands and thousands of autopsies has on already submitted a sworn affidavit to this court keeps injuries are consistent with having been in a fight and are not consistent with having been hit by a since he submitted that affidavit. The federal authorities have provided us with their reports whereby FBI experts also corroborate the keeps injuries are not consistent with having been hit by a car they employed expert in biomechanics and kind of medics we have reviewed the evidence in this case and they've come affirmed that the physical evidence. essentially shows and doesn't show what talk to Sharon has opined so therefore if John o'keefe was not hit by a car that means that cam Henry did not kill him. And we know, but John o'keefe did not die of not it will cause us this was not a heart attack or a stroke John o chief was injured. He was mortally injured. If he was not hit by a car as both are expert and FBI confirmed that he was attacked and if you if he was not hit by a car. Then there is a 3rd party culprit or culprits it's so by asking this court to prohibit the defense from introducing evidence that others had the motive up 2 unity and the means to attack John o'keefe Cuomo says essentially asking this court to prohibit. Karen Reid from being able to defend herself so I don't think there. >> Asking that he be prohibited from doing that they're asking first 2. Have you tell them what that is. >> Right well if this is a you know you're getting to that in terms go ahead, you don't have very much we're either it required to give them or not You know it is not our job to solve this case for the prosecution, it's our contention there the opportunity to do that, but they failed it is not our job to name a specific third-party culprit. We do not have to prove that Brian Alberto calling Alberto Brian Higgins or some combination of them intended to kill John o'keefe we don't have to prove that any of them talked John o'keefe such that he eventually died they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they didn't. But the fact of the matter or is there is evidence that all 3 of them had a motive had they had the opportunity and the means to attack. John o'keefe now the couple sites coma for says cocky in their motion and as this court started the discussion on this issue when you first of the bench cocky makes clear that the defendant has a constitutional right to argue that somebody else may have committed the crime and its certainly no yaks and that person can't be too attenuated in time or method of operation has missed allowing mentions but in terms of being the right time period you are you can't get any closer than there presence at the scene at the very time that John o'keefe was killed and in terms of the method of operation. Given that we have evidence that he was not hit by a car and that he was attacked. All 3 of these men either alone or in combination possessed the ability to attack him with or without a weapon, I mean it's a very low standard here. The Commonwealth acknowledges that it's a low standard of simple relevance. And the evidence here establishes relevant now your I could go through with the court. The specific the evidence we have with regard to motive property to nutty and means with regard to the 3 Commonwealth witnesses that I've named so go ahead. Starting with Brian Higgins. He was present at 34 Fairview road on January 28th 2928th. It was close friends with the homeowner Brian Albert he had a prior romantic interest in Karen Reid. He did not expect Karen and John o'keefe to be at the waterfall that bar on January 28th. Karen Reid did not greet Higgins despite the fact that they had previously exchanged flirtatious tax and that she had been at his apartment one evening. Although it was nothing that took place between them any more than a heck of a kiss. That the waterfall Higgins does not engage with John o'keefe he does not say good-bye to John o'keefe and Karen when he leaves but before he leaves he tax Karen. And that text was something to the effect >> well old. >> With a lot of them that's what we know that there was a preservation order from this court, your predecessor judge crop to preserve his cell phone. And that trooper Proctor gave you and him and he did to just you know in order to sure Irv on Brian Higgins and he left at the front desk of the Canton police station form and that Higgins we learn for the federal investigation. Higgins became angry demanded that Proctor a comeback any essentially upbraided him and read him the riot act which shows a little bit about Higgins at the end of the night everyone discuss going back to 34 Fairview and when he gets back to 34 Fairview he tax not care and the tax join o'keefe at 12:20AM. He testified before the federal grand jury that he had no knowledge that they had been invited to 34 Fairview but that is contradicted by this text message. And the inference is that he was coaxing John to come to that House. And you know we're not saying this gives him a motive to kill John, but we don't have to show that any motive to feel hostility or animosity towards John o'keefe. Goes to his motive. And your honor when Brian Higgins and Brian Albert are in that House. They're the only 2 people who are unaccounted for when the rest of the group was in that kitchen and they claimed that they were looking at photographs together. And we have evidence that they were in the basement. >> Yeah right here or listen to that's the defense's proffer that they say they have to offer the court to say that it was these specific. >> Other people are you impressed with the proffer. I'm not a done team as I was watching your face as you were taking notes and watch of talk to us please what do you think in place. >> Listen as a criminal defense attorney and you know I always preach controlling the narrative I think there's something here. There is a salacious detail of a jealous romantic interest. In Carol Reed, but by somebody that was at the House at the time. They were out earlier and he sent her a text that confirms that is so I know that there's been a lot of smoke and a lot of talk but at this comes in and they can say somebody in that House wanted can read and was that he didn't have her and she opened the door to leading him on to think that he can get there by giving him a kiss when she was at his house I think that's nothing for the to grab onto if they're looking for a reason to think there's a cover up that's all you need to do it could from a defense attorney is something to stick and I think this type of information is salacious it's gossipy if somebody is looking for a reason I think this provides a reason and I think this is enough to allow the judge or push that forced the hand of the judge to let this information. >> In his salacious and gossipy and I believe the state once it in Dante amount would you speak to that they've put in some of the response of motions about how Karen Reid was going after Brian Higgins of the ATF agent that she planted one on him at kyiv's House that she snuck downstairs to walk him out and kissed him and he was surprised. >> That's how it may help the defense right what Dante saying, but how it may help the prosecution and the Commonwealth here is the fact that they're really trying to paint a motive of the relationship was breaking down they went on vacation, there was allegations of infidelity. Some of the family members may testify that there were a lot of fighting there voice messages that Karen Reed left a allegedly saying you know saying terrible things green. >> And it's a terrible thing so she could go to. >> A motive in their eyes. >> We have so much more to talk about after the break lieutenant Randy Sutton hold your thoughts for just a moment, we've got to get a >> We're feeling today, Karen >> Court TV live are talking about defendant Karen Reid and how we may get a jury seated today I want to bring back in my guess my colleague of course, Matt Johnson in the studio attorney and professor Don T Mills standing by remotely and so is lieutenant Randy Sutton, a highly decorated officer he's also of radio show host the host the voice for American law enforcement he's received multiple awards for lifesaving incidents for exemplary service he stunt training of officers all around the country and founded the wounded blue which helps disabled officers and we thank you for your service attend and I want to go to you up please tell me is this case is going to open up on Monday. We think we think Monday is going to be the day. What are you most looking forward to seeing lieutenant in terms of the case evidence. >> Well this is going to be a highly volatile trial in that there are so many accusations that are being made against the people that in the House and I think with the recall is here and that is that somehow the feds got involved in this and I think that that that could have huge of effect on this trial along with the you know the exculpatory evidence if that is accurate. From the other medical examination that took place so their room there will be a massive attempt by the defense to discredit. The forensic evidence that was collected at the scene by the state and with that. >> That will a lot of. >> Fodder for the defense and it remember. >> This the defense does not have to prove. Somebody else you know they don't have to say job loaded this. They they the burden of proof is on the state. And so that is that is where you can see that that's that the avenue that that the defense is taking is sisters throw enough mud. There to to to try and get the jury to say you know what there's reasonable doubt here it only takes one jury one juror to say no and those either becomes a hung jury were you were the defense you know. Winds that if the if the end of the day so be very interesting. Yes, certainly. >> Lieutenant we just have a couple more seconds but curious how much you thank you Karen Reid its own statements are going to matter here. She was in hysterics that morning and multiple people at the scene heard her say and that she hit John o'keefe. >> this sketch critical stuff that the statements made except reviews too The investigation are all the admissible and that's going to be really critical stuff. >> This is such a great
