The final days of Karen Read's retrial. The Pam Hupp saga continues. Plus, jury instructions.

0:01Hey, good morning. You're listening in on Dateline's morning meeting. Okay, so let's get started on this rainy morning. Our producers are catching up on breaking crime news. When did it happen? I have every single body-worn camera as part of this investigation. We're lucky at Dateline. We get to go to trials for work. These people are taking off of work. Welcome to Dateline True Crime Weekly. I'm Andrea Canning. It's June 12th, and here's what's on our docket. In Lincoln County, Missouri, a new development in one of Dateline's most well-known cases, the Pam Hupp saga. A former sheriff's deputy who investigated the 2011 murder she's accused of committing is now in handcuffs himself.

0:48The judge set his bond at$50 ,000. In Dateline Roundup, former Major League Baseball pitcher Dan Serafini squares off against his former lover in court. And Lori Vallow gets thrown out of an Arizona courtroom. You don't need to yell at me either. Yeah, you are. And you do not need to talk to me that way. Plus, NBC News legal analyst Danny Savalos gives us the lowdown on jury instructions and how they can make or break a trial.

1:22But before all that, we're heading to Dedham, Massachusetts, where the jury at Karen Reed's retrial may soon be getting their own instructions.

1:33After seven weeks, Karen Reed's retrial is entering its final days, but the drama in the courtroom shows no sign of slowing down. Reed is charged with second-degree murder and is accused of hitting her Boston police officer boyfriend, John O 'Keefe, with her SUV and leaving him to die in a snowstorm. She has pleaded not guilty, and the defense has argued that Reed was framed by law enforcement as part of a cover-up. As the defense wrapped up its case this week, tensions ran high and sidebars ran long. Reed's lawyers called for their second mistrial in less than a week. Even Judge Beverly Canoni seemed fed up.

2:09We've done important work, but we've wasted an awful lot of the jurors' time today. Here to break it down is Dateline producer Sue Simpson, who has been watching In Court. Sue, welcome back. And when we say in court, you were in court? I was in court. Hi, Andrea. You've said many times how tiny this courtroom is. This has been going on for weeks. It seems like everyone is just feeling a little cooped up in that courtroom. What's the mood been like? Oh, boy, Andrea. Everyone seems to be feeling a little depleted. The judge, the attorneys, and the jurors, everyone has shown signs of fatigue at times.

2:41There have been a few testy exchanges. You know, a long trial is tough on everyone. Yeah, well, we are in the homestretch, and we will talk about that in a minute. But, Sue, let's start with this motion for mistrial that happened on Monday afternoon. What happened with that? So it's not unusual, as you know, Andrea, to see a motion for a mistrial. Either side can do this if they believe the other side has made a big mistake. But there are times when it's done more to get it on the record, perhaps with an eye to an appeal. So here's what happened on Monday. The defense called an accident reconstructionist named Daniel Wolfe to the stand.

3:16And during the cross-examination, the prosecutor asked Wolfe about holes in the back of the sweatshirt that John O 'Keefe was wearing when he died. The prosecutor made it sound like the holes could have been caused by road rash after John O 'Keefe was hit by a car. But the defense jumped up to say those holes were actually made by a forensic expert who examined the sweatshirt during the investigation. And Andrea, defense attorney Bob Alessi really let the prosecutors have it. And now what we have is we have holes in the back of the sweatshirt that were dramatically held up and confronted with Dr.

3:53Wolf and then the jury sees it. With the clear, unmistakable, purposeful intention of having the jury conclude that these holes could have come from events on January 29th of 2022. What could be more egregious? What could be more misleading than that? What did the prosecution have to say in response? Well, Prosecutor Hank Brennan admitted that he'd made a mistake, and that's unusual for such an experienced attorney. Brennan said he just went through the lab paperwork too quickly. Judge Cannoni dismissed the mistrial motion, but she did say she'd include an instruction for jurors, advising them that the holes had been made during the investigation.

4:47And, you know, there was a bit of tension between the judge and the defense as she was going over the wording of her note. I instruct you that you are not permitted to draw any inference that those holes were a result of the events on January 29th. So, all right, this is what I'm going to say. So if you're not going to listen to it, that's fine. I've already said it. All right, we can bring the jury in. It's what I said.

5:15Okay, so now we're going to talk about another defense witness, a forensic pathologist. But before she even started testifying, there was a lot of discussion between the lawyers and the judge about what she was allowed to say. So tell us about this witness and why there was so much back and forth surrounding her. Right. So this was a woman named Dr. Elizabeth LaPosada. She used to be the chief medical examiner of Rhode Island. And she studied John O 'Keefe's autopsy and other records, you know, like police records, documents from the hospital. Her testimony was supposed to deal with John O 'Keefe's injuries.

5:49But there was a debate over whether she could say those wounds on his arm were caused by a dog. You know, finally, Judge Canoni ruled that La Posada wasn't qualified as an expert on dog injuries, but she allowed her to say that the wounds could be from an animal. What else did the defense ask her about, this pathologist? So Alan Jackson asked her about that serious injury on John O 'Keefe's head. Could you describe that, specifically his head injuries, to the jurors, please? Well, as we say, he has a pattern head injury on the back of his scalp, where there is a tearing of the scalp, and then vertically above that, there is some little areas of scraping to the skin.

6:32So that tells me that Mr. O 'Keefe went backwards onto something that had a little ridge. She explained that the injury couldn't have been caused by John O 'Keefe falling onto a flat surface, like the driveway. She also talked about a cut on his eyelid that she said was consistent with some application of force which broke the skin. Dr. LaPosada, you just mentioned that the laceration above the right eyelid was consistent with the application of force, correct? Correct. You said it could come from some object. Is that right? Correct. It was fairly small. Could be some sort of object. Is it also consistent with a fist?

7:08Sure. A fist is an object. The pathologist's interactions with the prosecutor on cross were sometimes testy. Good afternoon, Dr. LaPosada. Six minutes till the afternoon. Good afternoon. Yeah, he questioned LaPosada's background, particularly about her neurological expertise, since she was testifying about O 'Keefe's head injury. And that led to a memorable exchange. Do you agree that a brain is very soft, consistent with, for example, tofu? Oh, gross. What do you mean? It is soft. Is it that soft? Is that the texture of it? Well, it depends on what kind of tofu you have. OK. The prosecutor also pressed La Posada on whether O 'Keeffe's arm injuries could have been caused by pieces of the taillight flying off Karen Reed's SUV.

7:58And he asked her about the effects of the impact of the vehicle hitting O 'Keeffe. But La Posada held firm. She insisted the car did not hit him. So you didn't care to know anything about the car, the data in the car, because you had already formed your opinion? It did not hit him, so it was not relevant to my opinion. Is that a different way? By looking at the body, I could tell that there was no evidence of impact with the vehicle. All right, so as we mentioned off the top, this is the home stretch, Sue. The defense rested their case on Wednesday afternoon, and we are looking ahead now to closing arguments.

8:35based on sitting in the courtroom day after day. Any idea how you think both sides will wrap things up? Well, of course, Andrea, you know, they're both going to drive their arguments home. The prosecutor saying Karen Reed reversed her car into her boyfriend deliberately. And the defense saying, no way. O 'Keefe was beaten up by others in the house that night. And the thing is, Andrea, this whole case comes down to a car, a couple apparently arguing in a few seconds. That's what the data in the car and on John O 'Keefe's phone tell us, that whatever happened was over in seconds. Either he was hit or he was in the house.

9:11So what actually happened in that tiny, tiny time frame? Yeah. All right, Sue. Well, maybe next week we'll have you back to talk about an actual verdict. Wouldn't that be something? Thanks, Andrea. Talk soon. Coming up, a former sheriff's deputy faces criminal charges in the case that inspired the thing about Pam.

9:41On Tuesday afternoon, Russ Faria walked into the Lincoln County Courthouse in Missouri, the same courthouse where he was wrongfully convicted in 2013 of murdering his wife. He was then acquitted two years later at a second trial. This week, he watched as the former sheriff's deputy who testified against him was taken into custody and charged with lying on the witness stand. If you don't know Russ Faria's name, you probably know the name of the person who now stands accused of murdering his wife. We are talking about Pam Hupp. She's been the subject of multiple Dateline episodes, an NBC scripted miniseries starring Renee Zellweger, and a hit podcast from our own Keith Morrison.

10:21I'm Keith Morrison. This is Dateline NBC's newest podcast, The Thing About Pam. In 2016, Pam Hupp fatally shot a man in her house. She claimed it was in self-defense, but investigators uncovered an elaborate scheme. They accused Pam of luring the victim to her home by posing as a Dateline producer, all part of her plan to frame Russ Faria as a violent man. Hupp took an Elford plea and was sentenced to life in prison without parole. It was then that investigators started looking at Hupp for the murder of Russ's wife, Betsy. There was a new prosecutor in office, and he didn't just dust off the Betsy Faria case file.

11:02He launched an internal investigation into allegations of misconduct by the former prosecutor and law enforcement who handled the case, including Michael Merkel, that former sheriff's deputy who appeared in court this week. We've asked Dateline producer Christine Fillmore, who's been covering this story for more than 10 years, to come on the show to bring us up to speed. Later, we'll be joined by Russ Faria himself, who will tell us what it was like to go back to court. Hi, Andrea. Christine, fill us in on Michael Merkel. What role did he play in the investigation? So Merkel was a detective at the Lincoln County Sheriff's Office.

11:40And he was one of the first investigators to arrive at the scene of Betsy Faria's murder in 2011. and he took the stand at both of Russ Faria's trials to talk about the investigation. Merkle has been accused of committing perjury at Russ's first trial. Christine, first, let's start with the main points of his testimony that are under scrutiny. Yeah, so Merkle testified about his use of Blue Star, which is similar to luminol. It's the solution that you spray onto surfaces to test for the presence of blood, And it can also react to certain cleaning agents as well. And so Merkel said when he sprayed the chemical inside of the Faria home, there was a positive reaction on the floor.

12:27And it showed a path in the direction of the back door. And there was a reaction on the kitchen drawer that contained hand towels. Okay, so how did that make Russ Faria look guilty? Why did that matter? Well, it mattered because to the prosecutor at the time, this test result showed evidence of a cleanup indicating someone went into the kitchen where they accessed the towel drawer. And the prosecutor argued only someone who lived in that house would have known where the towel drawer was located. And Russ Faria lived in that house because he was Betsy's husband. Yep. And they also presented a theory that the dog was inside the home during the murder.

13:11And that was based on what looked like a bloody paw print on Betsy's pants. The prosecutor said Russ put the dog outside after the murder and then tried to clean up. And that's why the presence of blood near the back door was important to their theory. It all pointed to Russ. So what did Michael Merkel get wrong, according to the new prosecutor, Mike Wood? Merkel testified that he photographed the blue luminescent reaction, but he said that the camera malfunctioned and the photo showed absolutely nothing, when in fact it captured 132 images. Who found that out, that it actually captured the images, unlike what he said?

13:53So that's interesting. It wasn't until shortly before Russ's retrial that the defense attorney received an anonymous envelope with a disc. And it had, yeah, it had all 132 images. And what was on the images that worked in Russ Faria's favor? According to the now prosecutor, they didn't show evidence of a cleanup. So is the prosecutor then alleging that the former deputy, Merkel, lied on purpose? Yes. The prosecutor told me he believes Merkel lied about the camera because the photos didn't show what he put in his report. They didn't support evidence of a cleanup. And Merkel is denying this? He's pleaded not guilty to perjury.

14:36Christine, what is the motive here? Why does the prosecutor believe Merkel lied? Well, Prosecutor Wood told Dateline, I've always held the opinion that this was an orchestrated and well-organized effort among all of law enforcement to manipulate and secrete evidence in order to secure conviction against Russ Faria. Yeah, and we already mentioned the internal investigation. the new prosecutor launched into how investigators handled the Betsy Faria case. Christine, it turns out these perjury charges aren't the first time Merkel has caught Wood's attention. That's right. So before Merkel was charged with perjury, this was back in 2022, he was charged with stalking and harassing the lead detective who was in charge of the internal investigation.

15:22And the prosecutor believes it was in hopes of preventing the internal investigation from moving forward. He's pleaded not guilty to those charges as well and was out on bond awaiting trial when these latest perjury charges came down. And we should say the internal investigation isn't complete. Prosecutor Wood told us that there will be more charges to come for other members of law enforcement in the next few months. Christine, you've also spoken to Merkel's defense attorney. What was his response to these perjury charges? He says his client is going to be completely exonerated, and he called the perjury charges a political stunt.

16:03Thanks, Christine. Now we're going to hear from Russ. So, Russ, tell us what it was like to attend Michael Merkel's hearing and see him in handcuffs. Well, it was quite refreshing, actually, to kind of be a part of it and realize that this is actually happening. his lawyer was trying to argue that the crime was victimless, which I disagree with wholeheartedly. Of course, because if the prosecutor is right, you are a victim. And that's exactly what the prosecutor was arguing. Went as far as to point me out in the courtroom and just tell the judge and the attorneys present, you know, ask this man if he doesn't think he was a victim.

16:46Russ, you've been living with this every day for more than 13 years. What has life been like for you recently? Well, I got married in October of 23. Congrats. I run a local motorcycle shop. I just go out and have fun and trying to put pieces back together and live a normal life. You are still waiting for justice in Betsy's case. Pam Hupp is scheduled for trial in August 2026. She has pleaded not guilty. Do you plan to be at the trial? I'm planning on being at the trial. I've also been in contact with Mike with the prosecutor, and he expects to call me as a witness in the trial. All right. Russ, thank you for your time today.

17:34Well, thanks a lot for the opportunity to come on. Up next, it's time for Dateline Roundup. We've got the dramatic testimony of the prosecution's star witness at the trial of former Major League Baseball player Dan Serafini. Plus, NBC News legal analyst Danny Savalos on what he says is one of the most important and least discussed parts of a trial. Jury instructions.

18:07Welcome back. For this week's Roundup, we're joined by Dateline Digital producer Veronica Mazzaca. Hey, Veronica. Hi, thanks for having me. So, Veronica, first up, we are checking back in on the murder trial of former Major League Baseball pitcher Dan Serafini. He is accused of the 2021 murder of his father-in-law, Gary Spore, and the attempted murder of his mother-in-law, Wendy Wood, at their Lake Tahoe home. He has pleaded not guilty. So, Veronica, key witness is on the stand this week. Yeah, that's right. We are talking about Samantha Scott. She is the woman who pleaded guilty earlier this year to being an accessory to the crime, saying that she was the one who drove Serafini to his in-law's house the day of the attack.

18:49She gave a pretty detailed description of what Serafini had with him that day. Yes. She testified that he had a gun and a homemade silencer inside a backpack. He also had a face mask. So that's interesting because the man caught on surveillance camera, If you'll recall, there was surveillance video of a man walking up the victim's driveway into their home just hours before the shooting. And that man had a backpack. That's right. Samantha Scott testified that she didn't know about Serafini's alleged plans to murder his in-laws that day. Did she say when she started to get suspicious of what was happening?

19:24So the shootings were in June, and she said that over the summer, her concerns began to grow. She testified that Dan eventually confessed and threatened her not to tell anyone. He even said he would harm her family. Something else we learned this week, Veronica, Samantha Scott testified about when she and Serafini became lovers. According to her testimony, she says that didn't happen until after the murder. Yes. She said it was a few months later and it was on and off until her arrest. When the prosecutor asked her if she still loved Serafini, she couldn't give a straight answer. All right. So Samantha Scott will be back on the stand for cross-examination by Serafini's defense attorney, and we'll keep an eye on that.

20:05Next up, we're back in Arizona at Lori Vallow Daybell's third trial. She is accused of conspiring to kill Brandon Boudreaux, her niece's former husband. She has pleaded not guilty and is representing herself at trial. Brandon himself testified at the end of last week. Veronica, what was that like hearing from him? So Boudreaux was the prosecution's first witness, and he described the day. He said he dropped his kids off at school, was heading home from the gym, and noticed a green Jeep. And then... The back window pops up. I see a muzzle. I hear a bang. And so I just immediately thought, someone's shooting at me.

20:44Wow, that is scary. Also last week, Veronica, on a pretty tense exchange, the judge removed Lori from the courtroom. What happened there? There was an exchange outside the presence of the jury, and it involved Lori demanding a hearing to introduce character evidence, specifically pertaining to her being a good person. And here's what the judge had to say about that. If you're going to introduce how you have great character and good character, we're going to have a short hearing on what evidence that they can bring in to rebut that character, which could include being convicted of four murders.

21:16So talk to your advisory council during the break. You don't need to yell at me either. I'm yelling at you, okay? Yeah, you are, and you do not need to talk to me that way. I am very courteous to you. No, you have been nothing near courteous to me during the course of these proceedings. And it all ended with her being escorted out of the courtroom. Wow. This week, things have been a little calmer and the state got through all of its witnesses. Lori Vallow Daybell didn't call any witnesses, so it seems like this trial will end soon. Thank you so much for all this great information. We appreciate it.

21:50Thanks for having me. As we mentioned earlier, closing arguments are set to begin this week in Karen Reed's retrial. That means pretty soon a jury of six men and six women will get the case to start deliberating. But before that can happen, Judge Beverly Kanoni will read their jury instructions. Jury instruction is a part of the trial we don't really talk too much about. But according to NBC News legal analyst and defense attorney Danny Savalos, it can be a pivotal moment. If anything goes wrong with the instructions, they can be grounds for a mistrial or even an acquittal. Danny is here to tell us more.

22:25Hey, Danny. Hey. I know you're going to make this interesting, right? Oh, yeah. Well, jury instructions, you know, they are quietly, arguably one of the most important, if not the most important moment in a trial. And it's a part of trial that most people just don't see or hear about. Simple but not simple question, Danny. What are jury instructions? Jury instructions are basically at the end of the case, the jury's heard all of these facts, all of this evidence, but they've heard nothing really about the law. That's when the judge tells them what the law is so that the jury now can take the facts that they've decided, the evidence that they've heard, they try to apply it to the law as the judge gives it to them.

23:04But jury instructions run from everything from the actual law on the charged crimes to things like if the defendant doesn't testify, you cannot hold that against her. So there are a lot of jury instructions beyond just what the alleged crime is and the elements of that crime. Yeah. And it's funny because for someone like me covering trials over the years, I've been there for many a jury instruction where you're like, oh, gosh, can we just be done with this? You know, because you've been waiting so long for these deliberations to start. Yes. Jury instructions is one of those events that lasts a long time.

23:40And the attorneys are battling out over words. And what happens is my last one in federal court took all day. They excused the jury. And then we start hashing out and arguing over jury instructions. And I have to tell you, it was the one moment in trial that I came the closest to getting held in contempt. That's how contentious it can be. And you realize that if you're not vigilant about every word that goes into jury instructions, you could win or lose a case. So that would be a really important one for the defense, what you just mentioned, you know, that you cannot hold it against a defendant if they don't take the stand.

24:15Because you don't want jurors thinking, oh, well, they must be guilty. You know, they're not shouting from the rooftops that they're innocent. It's arguably the most important one. And other instructions like that, like the burden of beyond a reasonable doubt, those are very, very important for the defense. What do you think is important to the prosecution during jury instructions? I think that they're often given instructions about experts, you know, how they should weigh expert testimony. We mentioned off the top, you know, if there's a mistake with jury instructions, this could be a mistrial.

24:50This could affect a later appeal. What can go wrong with jury instructions that can blow up a trial? Consider this as much as academics and scholars and judges and attorneys make all these efforts to write jury instructions that educate the jury on what the law is in a clear layman style language. Juries still have tons of questions about jury instructions. And the general feeling among defense attorneys and prosecutors is that your best ground for appeal is some flaw in the jury instructions. I've covered so many of these cases and I didn't even realize that a lot of these appeals were because of jury instructions.