This is Hidden Killers with Tony Brewski.

When a jury speaks, their word is final.

But what happens when the public and even seasoned law enforcement professionals are left wondering whether the jury actually listened?

In the aftermath of the 2025 Karen Reid trial, the legal world has been swirling

with debate, confusion. In deep reflection, Reed was acquitted of second-degree murder, manslaughter,

and leaving the scene of a fatal accident. In the death of Boston police officer John O'Keefe,

she was found guilty only of operating under the influence.

To many, the verdict was an expression of the jury's doubt in the prosecution's case.

But to others, including former FBI Special Agent, Jennifer Coffin-Daffer, it raised the specter of something much more troubling.

Jury nullification. Jury nullification.

Jury nullification is rare.

It's when jurors, despite clear legal instructions, are presented evidence.

Acquits a defendant because they disagree with the law, distrust the process, or are emotionally swayed.

It's legal, but controversial. And for Coffendafffer, those whose decades-long career includes complex federal investigations and courtroom experience,

it's something she never encountered firsthand until maybe now.

In our interview, she dissect the implications of this unprecedented verdict, the dangers of jury bias, and whether this case veered off the

rails of justice, or it just didn't go the direction many people thought it might. We explore

what this verdict means for the O'Keefe family, the investigators, the legal community, and the ripple

effect it could have on future high-profile cases.

What protections exist against potential jury misconduct?

Was there any sort of jury misconduct?

Could charges like witness intimidation, jury tampering, or even perjury,

...