This is Hidden Killers with Tony Brewski.

Obviously, the jury has rendered their verdict in the trial of Karen Reid, and it's over.

At least for now, hopefully.

Deep breath, everyone, deep breath.

But there is still scuttle butts going on out there about how this all went down. The term that's being thrown around is jury nullification. What does that mean? That means that someone on the jury basically came in with a preconceived notion, what they were going to say,

what they were going to do, evidence be damned, I am sticking with my conclusion, going in,

and it's not changing.

That's the allegation that is being thrown out there to many jurors who are now giving interviews and such.

I'm not going to go after any specific one.

I just want to

discuss, you know, what does this mean? Is there any sort of legitimate grounds for it?

Joining me to discuss, Jennifer Coffendaffer, retired FBI special agent. So Karen Reid,

acquitted of second-degree murder and manslaughter, convicted of the OI. Give me your thoughts on this. I know,

obviously, you don't agree with the verdict. I personally don't either, but it is what it is.

But did we have a jury going into this that basically was compromised? Then we had a notification

that took place here.

You know, at the end of the day, Tony, to me, the sanctity of the jury is just something I,

I personally, in my experience, working these cases for 28 years, never experienced.

There was never any issue with the juror having to be thrown off. There was never an issue with jurors coming in with preconceived notions. I never had a case that, you know, had a

jury nullification issue. Just something that it really is rare. Obviously, everyone knows about OJ,

very famous case. But there's others where a nullification

went in, where people had their preconceived notions. And no matter what the evidence was,

...