The Howie Carr Radio Network
Karen Read Verdict Watch: Attorney Mark Bederow on Jackson vs. Cannone | 6.26.24 - The Grace Curley Show Hour 3
Today's podcast is brought to you by Howie's new book Paperboy. To order today, go to howiecarshow.com and click on "Store." [MUSIC PLAYING] Live from the Aviva Trattria Studio, it's the Grace Curly Show. We've got to bring in a new voice, a young voice, a rising voice, Grace Curly. You can read Grace's work in the Boston Herald and the spectator. Especially Grace, Grace, stand up. Here's the millennial with the mic, Grace Curly. Hello, everyone, and welcome back to the Grace Curly Show. One of my favorite resources during this Karen Reed trial and during this verdict watch is attorney Mark Bedero. You can follow him on Twitter at Bedero Law. Thank you, Mark, for joining the show. I want to get right into it. First of all, are you concerned, sir, that the jury is taking this long? No, I mean, it's a murder case with, what, 70 witnesses? And it's really the first full day. So no, in one sense, I think the evidence is pretty powerful in terms of favor and the defense. But you don't know exactly what's going on in there. And I don't think it's unreasonable after a month-long trial that they take their time going through whatever they're doing. I think also, they were told by the judge to avoid the temptation of just doing an instant straw poll, which never heard a judge say that before. But that would tend to maybe make them flesh out a few things before they look at each other and say, where do we stand before we even start digging it? But no, I don't think it's abnormal at all. Oh, I didn't even realize that she said that. Don't take an instant straw poll. It's like when a teacher says, don't bring in the test right away. Sit down with it for a while and look over your answers. Never heard a judge tell a jury how to do anything in deliberations other than tell them that the foreperson will lead the discussion, so to speak, and sign any notes and deliver the verdict. Other than that, I've never heard a judge tell them what to do in there. Now, attorney Mark Bedero, I do want your reaction to this back and forth this morning between Alan Jackson and Judge Kenone. I want to play one cut for you, and then we'll get your response. This is how it started. Alan Jackson was very upset about the verdict form. Take a listen to cut one. Was that essentially where you see? 22117. All right, so why are we out here? Go to the-- I just saw the verdict forms, and as we discussed yesterday, the amendments caught indicated it would make a-- Oh, no, no. OK, I did not say I'd make it. I said I'd think about it. I said I was tired, and I needed to think about it. I said before you were tired, I needed to think about it, but you agreed that there needs to be not guilty options for subordinate charges under count two. I said that it made sense to me, but no, I did not change it upon looking at it, because this verdict slip as submitted to the jury is exactly how it always is in Massachusetts. Now, before we get to the fact that she did end up having a change of heart, I wanted to ask you, attorney Mark Bedero, I know you're an attorney in New York City, have you ever seen a verdict form where the lesser charges don't have the option of not guilty for these jurors? No, of course not. You have to let the jury know that each charge has to be considered individually assuming you don't convict. You go down by significance, start with the top charge. But if it's not guilty on that, then you go to the next one and do the same thing. So a verdict sheet in New York, in this case, would have, assuming she got acquitted, would have three checks in the not guilty, because each charge would have its own not guilty. So no, I've never seen anything like that. And I think what Jackson said makes perfect sense. I mean, on one level, it would appear to suggest that if you select not guilty on the first count, that the only boxes left to check are guilty on the lesser counts. And it's just a confusing form, which I'm glad she ultimately fixed, but she needed to do that or either remind the jury that the bottom line is you have to consider each count and not guilty for each count. The other problem with this verdict sheet is what happens if there's an acquittal on one count, but some other counts they hang on. How do you know which count is what? I mean, it raises double jeopardy problems. So I don't think she looked very good today. I think she looked a little unjudicious in her demeanor. Frankly, it was a little-- I don't know, sounded very tense for no real reason. I think Jackson was doing what lawyers do. They want to make a clear record and make sure that everything is done properly. And I mean, she ended up coming back and doing it. So it didn't look good. And then I thought her criticism of Karen Reid in front of the live stream was not great either. Yeah, for people who don't know, she eventually said to Karen Reid, like, is this funny misread? Because I think Karen Reid was kind of smirking at the absurdity of this, that there's not going to be an option for these jurors on the lesser charges to select and not guilty. On that first part about what you just said, why do you think she had a change of heart? Because based off what we heard in her interaction with Alan Jackson and Yannetty, and she wanted Yannetty to agree with her that this is how it's always done in Massachusetts, we'll talk about that in a minute. But she was, I think the way I would describe it, attorney Mark Betterow, is she sounded very bratty, like almost like a teenager. She was tired and she was really not listening to them. She was kind of petulant. And so my question for you is, why did she go from that to all of a sudden being open to changing this? What do you think provoked that change of heart behind the scenes that maybe we didn't see? That Alan Jackson made 100% perfect sense and was correct, and that whether she just wanted to push back and say, we're going to do it my way, which is essentially what it was in the first gathering of this issue. But upon reflection, egos aside, and all of that, it was the right thing to do. I mean, would you want to do something after a trial this long and this kind of a mess, this high profile, and run the risk of making a mistake that could-- if there was any confusion, again, about any hung counts, or whether the jury understood the verdict sheet, I mean, who wants that? So I think, ultimately, common sense prevailed. But yeah, it doesn't make her look good. I mean, she was very argumentative about it, and then came back and said, OK, fine, we'll do it that way, even though she said this is how we always do it. So it's not a great look, and everybody sees it across the country. It definitely doesn't add any glory or credibility to what everyone is watching in a trial that, you know, to be candid has looked kind of like a carnival and cartoon for everyone to see in terms of, this is not usually how trials are done. Yeah, and that last point that you just made, actually, leads me to my next question. So her big point about how things are always done in Massachusetts, which I don't think she's making the point she thinks she's making, because if you know anything about the commonwealth, there's a lot of craziness that goes on here. But are there other people-- and maybe this is far-fetched, but are there other people who could be sitting in jail right now saying, maybe that's why I'm here, because the form that they've been using in Massachusetts didn't give people the option to select non-guilty. Did she maybe just open up the commonwealth to more criticism? I mean, certainly criticism. Would it lead to any appellate relief for somebody incarcerated? I don't know. I mean, I'm not prepared to go that far just based on what we saw today. But I mean, the reality is the verdict sheet-- and again, for those of us that are not literally practicing in Massachusetts, if this is how it's always done, I mean, that's crazy. And all it would take for this to blow up into a real crisis is the scenario I said earlier, where there could be a not guilty on one count, which you wouldn't even know from the verdict sheet. But then there could have been hung counts on other ones. But how would you do that? There's no mechanism on the verdict sheet to say, what is not guilty, what's guilty, and what's left. So maybe they'll change their policy because the out of town or from California came in and said, you really should do it this way. I mean, they really should. Alan Jackson, change maker. Attorney Mark Bettero, I know that you have to go. But I thank you for your time, sir. And we hope to talk to you very soon. We appreciate you coming on. Everyone should follow Mark on Twitter @BetteroLaw. Thank you very much. Thanks. Have a nice day. He's a busy guy. He's a busy guy, but he's got a lot of wisdom. He's got a lot to share. I am. I kind of did want to get into the deliberations and what really goes on behind the scenes there. Because I do find that interesting that, let's say you have two or three people who disagree with the rest of the jurors, then it almost becomes a trial within itself. Like you have jurors trying to convince other jurors. And then the smaller the minority of people holding out from making it a unanimous decision, there's a lot of pressure on those people. And the other jurors, it kind of becomes like a mob. And in a very diplomatic way, of course. But it kind of becomes like, OK, we've been here for nine weeks. You're holding this up. What else do you need to know? Have you ever seen 12 Angry Men Grace? I have seen 12 Angry Men. It's a great movie. Not as recently as you have, though. No, I've watched. There's two versions. I like the second version, the made for TV version. But that's what I imagine. I've never sat on a jury. And I want to. You won't. I won't. I don't think so. Do I have to disclose who I work for? Yes, I mean, that's enough to get you booted off of any jury. At least in Massachusetts, Taylor. That's how I should preface them. All right, everyone, we'll be right back. We'll take more of your calls, your questions, and your text messages on the Karen Reid trial. We're still waiting on this verdict. I don't know, you know, Mark Betterow, the attorney from New York City, says he's not worried about it taking this long. I agree with him. I kind of think it's-- maybe this is going to sound goofy, but I'm going to say it. It's a little bit of a sign of respect to the court to say, all right, we'll take the day and look everything over, even if you're not really looking everything over. You know what you're going to do, but you got to kind of do the fake. Oh, yeah, OK, I looked at that. We looked at that. OK, and we saw that. I am curious, though, at what point would Mark Betterow say? Now I'm worried. Now this is taking too long. Now I don't think it's going to be the verdict that most people are hoping for. 844-542-42, we will be right back. And I have an update for you on inflation from the Nobel Peace Prize-winning economists that have led us astray so many times before. They're back. They're making their predictions. They're making their forecasts. And we're going to talk about it when we come back. Follow Grace on Twitter at g_curly. [MUSIC PLAYING] This is The Grace Curly Show. [MUSIC PLAYING] Today's poll question is brought to you by Perfect Smiles. Don't be fooled by imposters with similar names. If you're unhappy with your smile, you need to visit Dr. Bruce Houten in Nashua. Call 144-Perfect-Smile or visit PerfectSmiles.com. Taylor, what is the poll question and what are the results thus far? Today's poll question, which you can vote in at gracecurlyshow.com. A lot of people are doing so. We're getting record-breaking numbers on these poll questions. Keep it coming. Who was the least likable character in the Karen Reed trial? Judge Beverly Canoni, ADA Adam Lally, Brian Higgins, Jennifer McCabe, Trooper Michael Proctor, Trooper Joseph Paul, Trooper Yuri Buchanan, Trooper Nicholas Garino, or other. I'm going to have to go with Trooper Michael Proctor. The fact that he was the lead investigator in 16 hours later, he was texting these grotesque, misogynistic messages to his fellow state troopers and his high school friends. This man is the lowest of the low. 41% say Trooper Proctor followed by Jen McCabe at 33%. Way behind Judge Beverly Canoni, 13% and Adam Lally at 7%. Yeah, I'm not crazy about Judge Canoni. She doesn't bother me as much as she does some other people. I mostly just like to intimidate her voice because-- imitate her voice, not intimidate her voice, because it's easy to do. She just has that little quiet OK, Mr. Jones. I was tired, and I needed to think about it. 925 has a very solid point. You know what is really sad that if or when Karen is found not guilty, the O'Kee family will be going through all of this all over again when the FBI brings charges up to another person. Yeah, but I think the O'Keefs are-- and I mentioned this yesterday, because I know Turtleboy is frustrated that, for example, they brought in Jen McCabe and that they seem to be on the side of the McAlberts as he believes they are. On the side of the McAlberts as he calls them. But I said yesterday, I don't blame this family for anything. They've been through a lot. They were probably extremely-- definitely extremely vulnerable after this happened. And I think they're a grieving family, and they just want answers. So yes, it's horrible that they have to go through this. Period, let alone if they have to go through it again. But the silver lining to that is that maybe they will get some answers at the end of all of this. We can only hope. Let's go to-- who do you think, Taylor? Should we go? Let's go Henry. Henry, you're up next on the Grace Curly Show. What's going on, Henry? Hi, Grace. Enjoy your show. Just listening to your last guest, I guess he said that, at least in New York, judges don't typically tell or don't ever tell the jurors as they start deliberations not to take a poll at the start of their deliberations. I served on a jury in the Superior Court in Brockton a number of years ago. And when the judge was sending us off to begin our deliberations, he did say to us, he advised us not to take a poll at the start, but to consider all the issues and have some conversation before we took a vote. So from my experience here in Massachusetts, that was part of the process. I think the key word in all that is Massachusetts, because Mark Bedro, the attorney, he is a New York City attorney. And so you might be right, Henry. It might just be some of the craziness that is unique to the commonwealth. I mean, it does make sense from the standpoint that if everybody does, in fact, think that Karen Reed is not guilty, then they're walking in saying, all right, let's just take a poll. And if everybody says not guilty, what is there to talk about? You're coming right back out of the jury room. But if you talk about it first and people bring up areas of contention and get everything sorted out, you're taking more time, you're giving it more consideration. I can understand that, but I also like the expediency of everybody saying, you know, I'm pretty well decided on this. Yeah, and maybe I don't fully understand what is supposed to happen in deliberations. But it does feel like, and I mentioned this before we went to break, if you don't take the straw poll in the very beginning, if you do have these back and forths and everyone explains, it's almost like a second trial, whereas if everyone is just supposed to take into account what they heard, what they just heard, and they had nine weeks to hear it, and they're supposed to go in with that information and make their judgments based off that information, I don't see the problem with taking a straw poll right off the top, because I'm not supposed to be, I don't think moved by jurid number five. Aren't I supposed to be moved by what Alan Jackson and on the other side, Adam Lally told me? Right. But what I'm saying is there's a pitfall, a possible pitfall to the straw poll. I like the straw poll. I'm a big fan of the straw poll. The pitfall is that if everybody's unanimous already, you're not giving any consideration to the rest of the case. And you're more likely to say, well, I guess that's it. We're all decided. Nobody's got any points of contention that they want to discuss. Yeah, but again, I go back to the other, the consideration of the other side of the case was the last nine weeks, like they heard the consideration of everything Adam Lally had to say they weren't moved by it. But I guess I need more information about what deliberations are supposed to be because are you supposed to? Are you supposed to try to convince each other once you get back there is like, Oh, you know, you say this, I say this, or, you know, I like to give you an alternate opinion. You're forgetting about this piece of evidence. Is it supposed to be this collaborative effort between all the jurors or is it supposed to be? Hey, I just listened to this for nine weeks. This is what I think. I'm actually asking that. I'm not saying because something I love to point out multiple times a day is I'm not a legal expert. So if someone has an answer, then I would like to know, Christian, you're up next on the Grace Curly show. Go ahead, Christian. Hi, Grace. So I'm really, I called yesterday. I'm really fulfilled by what happens today with that, that instruction form. Yeah, I've been told by a couple of attorneys for a fact. It usually says on the form, not guilty on each count. And each count is on a separate page. OK, which I didn't know. I didn't really know the particulars. But litigators told me this and they thought it was weird. And I thought it was very telling when they when they asked you, and Eddie, and he's like, I've never seen that before. So I thought that whole thing was weird. Was that an oversight type ever? Just typical Massachusetts hackery and being sloppy. I don't really know why that happens. That's what I keep asking, Christian. Is this an ink problem? Do we not want to waste inks or using one piece of paper and we're using like, we don't want to put not guilty on there because it's going to use too much of the cartridge. I don't know, but she says it's how things always work. You know, he says it's not Mark bettero says it's not. That's not what he's seen, at least. So I am also confused. She did have a change of heart, though. So that leads me to believe that either somebody said to her that's actually not how it always works. You were wrong about that. Or somebody said, listen, that is how it usually works. We don't want to draw attention to the fact that that's how it usually works. So let's make an exception here. We'll put the not guilty on. Alan Jackson won't be mad at us anymore. He won't be wiping the floors with us in front of everybody. We can move on with our lives. It's a really good question, Christian. I don't have the answer. We'll be right back. Don't go anywhere. I was tired and I needed to think about it. Live from the Aviva Thratria Studio. We will never stand for the bombing and killing of babies in Gaza. We will never stand for the killing and bombing of children in the books or Malvernan or Yorkers. He will stand for the killing of Israelis on October 7th. Or maybe I should just say he won't sign on to resolutions condemning it for his own reasons. That was Jamal Bowman after he lost last night. And you know what, Taylor, it wasn't close. He's an incumbent and he's running in New York. He's a Westchester County. And I actually wrote about him a few months ago because the crime was skyrocketing in his district and all he cared about was like sending banned books to Ron DeSantis. He is a joke. He doesn't know how to open a door. That's usually I'd be exaggerating when I say that. You know the expression, oh, they couldn't run a two car funeral. That's a better expression than you don't know how to open a door. But he actually doesn't know how to open a door. He pulled a fire alarm in Congress and there's two things you can believe. You can believe that he was inciting an insurrection and trying to stop a vote. It was like a gap budget thing or something like that. Or you can believe that he truly, if you wanna take him at his word, that he truly does not know how to open a door. And now he's being shown the door, as Ben Shapiro pointed out. But he's a political incumbent in New York. That is very rare. And like I said, this wasn't neck and neck. He, Mr. George Latimer, who had the backing of Hillary Clinton and some other Democrats, he was leading Wednesday morning by about 17 points with nearly 90% of the vote counted. So I was wondering that because we always talk about, and I think it was Chris Christie who originally coined it, you have to win by a big enough margin where Democrats can't steal it. I also think that sometimes you have to win by a big enough margin where no one can claim Allah Stacey Abrams or Hillary Clinton that there was foul play. And I think Jamal Bowman knew when he was losing by 17 points that I can't claim the Russians did this one. I can't claim that like Stacey Abrams, this was stolen from me. So instead he just wants to get up and, you know, parrot some more propaganda from his buddies in Hamas. And that's what he's going to do. But I asked Taylor this before I said, why is it that he loses his primary? And he deserves to. He's a clown. But why not AOC? I know they represent different districts. I understand that she has a big following on social media. But why does Jamal Bowman why does he become the impetus for people to change the way they're voting and go for someone more moderate? But AOC always survives these primaries and she lives to see another day politically speaking. What is it about her? Like how come those people aren't waking up to her shenanigans and to her progressive ideology? And something that we were talking about in the green room and I think Taylor and Matt were kind of on the same page is that AOC was always billed as this. Like the people voting for her knew what they were getting. Yeah, she's like this crazy new age flower child and dancing on rooftops at BC. And she's this free wacky spirit. She's a little ditzy, but a little smart, I guess. She wears glasses sometimes. She claps back, she goes vibral. She's, you know, good looking and she's young. She fights with Marjorie Taylor green. She said, baby girl, don't. She's loud, she's modernish. I think she's on the boomer side of the millennials. Yeah, she's one of the older ones. Mindset, yeah, like us. Yeah, she wears white jumpsuits. She goes to the border. She stages photo ops with red lipstick on. She's got a little bit of flair to her. She's down with the cause, but she's also-- people knew what they were getting when they were voting for her. They saw all of that. So what do you think they thought they were getting when they voted for Jamal Bowman? Was he not as radical in the beginning? Who is more-- not to me. I wasn't really watching when he was first running, but he presents himself as this more-- it appears he presents himself as this more button down, logistical, educated, and in the education system from that industry, if you will, a candidate who is going to be more level-headed and have a more common sense approach to a lot of issues. He wasn't this young guy who was out there ripping off his jacket, and he got caught up. He was never been to a rave before, and he got to the rave, and he had a little too much to drink. He got ahead of his skis. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, and another part of it that I do think is important to note is that he was very brazen about his anti-Semitism. I do think that's the thing that pushed him over the edge. And if you're Rashida Tyib, or if you're Ilhan Omar, you can get away with that in your district. Your district is actually going to be more enamored by you if you start parroting Hamas propaganda. Not everybody in the district, but some people will be. But Jamal Bowman's in New York. And this was a great point by Representative Richie Torres, also in New York, and who has been very outspoken about his support for Israel. He said Jamal Bowman's greatest problem is Jamal Bowman. APAC did not illegally pull a fire alarm. Jamal Bowman did. APAC did not vote against infrastructure. Jamal Bowman did. APAC did not deny the Hamas rapes against Israeli women. Jamal Bowman did. So he can scream about APAC all he wants, you know? But you lost, and you lost in a big way. Eight, four, four, five hundred, 42, 42. So before we went to breaks, we have a lot of people who want to talk about Judge Kannoni, who want to talk about the verdict that we are awaiting in the Karen Read trial. I had asked people about what happens, 'cause like Taylor, I've never served on a jury. I've been summoned, but they, actually the only one, now that I say it, this is like, you say something, it's like Beetlejuice. I'm gonna get one when I get home. But the last time, Taylor, that I got jury duty, I called them up, it was on a Friday that I was supposed to go in, I called them up on Thursday. And I said, I just want to make sure this is still on, that we're all on board for this. And they said, oh no, no, don't come in. We're not doing it. And so I didn't even have to go in and, you know, answer all the questions. But I don't think I'll ever be on a jury. I don't think any jury, especially in Massachusetts, would want me because of my political beliefs and my job. So I don't really know what this is. - I stopped getting them. I don't know what's going on. I haven't gotten one in years. I know it's like every so often. - Don't look a gift horse in the mouse. - I want to go. - In the mouse, in the mouth. - I want to be called up. - Yeah, but I don't know what they tell them. Do they tell them? - Duty. - Do they tell them, you know, go back there and collaborate and come up with them? Are they to tell them? However you think right now is what you should go with. We've got someone on the line who served on four juries and you're up next on the Grace Curly Show. Go ahead, Anne. - Oh, sorry. - I was nodding off there. - That's not how you acted on those juries, is it? (laughing) - I'm sorry. I was just calling, I know you've already moved on to other things, but I was just calling to tell you, I can't remember if it was five juries or four, but at least four, and I was forming on all of them. And only because I look like I'm from the Midwest and no threat. But what was so disturbing was, you know, people do need to talk over what they heard, 'cause if you heard that nine weeks ago, a lot of people don't remember, they just remember the last part. And when people would come in and say, "I already made up my mind," it just kind of blew me away because it's like, "Well, then, what are we talking about here?" You know, and people would change their minds. And I'll also tell you, it was kind of frightening because I'm no brain trust, and I could change people's minds. And it's just kind of like, I don't want to be on a jury of my peers, ever. So I just thought I'd share that. - You know, if you should get on a trial. - I really appreciate that, Ann, and you're right, because even yesterday during the closing arguments, there was a lot of points that Jackson brought up that I thought, "Oh, I forgot about that." Like even Colin Albert, for example, he wasn't brought up, I don't think, in the closing arguments. And that was, at the time when we were watching it, that was a huge part of it. We were like, his bloody knuckles, he says he broke his fall in the driveway. It wasn't even important enough, and now, in Jackson's mind, to be included in the closing arguments, 'cause they had so many other pieces of evidence and so many other bizarre happenings that they wanted to cram into this hour closing argument. So Ann is right, by the time you get in there nine weeks later, maybe you do need to kind of have a refresher from your fellow jurors. And Ann, you said you could change people's minds. That's interesting to me, though, like, were you ever on a jury and where there was holdouts, and it just became about convincing a few people that they have to, and how often does it come down to, we just wanna get out of here? - About half and half, Grace. None of my trials were as interesting as this one. I gotta be honest, but they lasted a long time, and when I was on a federal and it lasted a month about a post office person stealing mail, and if I fell asleep at this, you can imagine what I did there, but no, you really, people can change their minds, and if someone's a very strong person, and didn't they have two lawyers on this jury, I just can't imagine that they weren't swaying people's minds. - I know if you had two lawyers on the New York City Hush Money trial, I haven't heard that there's two lawyers on this, but I could be wrong about that. - Oh, no, I could be wrong about that, but I honestly think, yeah, if you're a strong person, you have a good argument, it's kinda scary how much you can sway people. Just my opinion. - And like, I changed your mind, and I'm not happy about it. I don't like the fact that I was able to change your mind. Thank you, and we appreciate your call, stop. - Did you remember this? When you control the mail, you control information. - Yeah, I was just gonna say, Newman on trial, I hope Ann didn't put him away. Also Ann, just FYI, if you're still out there listening, don't nod off, turn the crazy curly show, we do not appreciate that, okay? That is-- - Rude. - That is very rude. - That is rude. - And-- - Being very rude. - Yeah, you will be kicked off the jury. There's no doubt about it. Eight, four, four, five hundred, 42, 42, I'm gonna go right back to the calls, but I just wanna point out one thing, 'cause this story really caught my eye today, and it's incredibly laughable. And that would be this headline from CBS. 16 Nobel, or as KJP might say, noble, prize-winning economist, warned that Trump's economic plans could reignite inflation. So they're back, all of these Nobel peace, or Nobel prize-winning brain truss, as Ann might say, are back giving us their two cents. Now, there's so much that I could break down here, but I wanna start with the headline. They're warning us that Trump could reignite inflation. reignite implies that the flame went out, okay? reignite, how can you reignite the flame that never died? We're still dealing with inflation. What the hell are you people talking about? Also, are these the same Nobel prize-winning economist who assured us ad nauseum that Biden's inflation reduction act wouldn't increase inflation away than it did? Or are these the same experts? Let's give another example. Are these some of the same experts who told us inflation was transitory? Like Janet Yellen? Are these the same experts who told us COVID didn't originate in a lab in Wuhan, but in a wet market? Or are these the same experts who said that you can't get COVID once you get vaccinated? Or, since we're talking about experts, are these some of the 51 intelligence experts who told us Hunter's laptop was Russian disinformation? By the way, we just played a Seinfeld cut. If I'm Trump, I'm taking this headline to the bank because this is George Costanza to a T. If everything these economists predict, if all of their forecasts are always wrong, then the opposite has to be right. So if these economists are saying when Trump gets back in, he could reignite inflation, the only thing that I can take away from that is that Trump is going to decrease inflation because you all told us that Biden was gonna crush it economically speaking. And when he stepped in, inflation was very low. And then all of a sudden, when your guy got in who had all these brilliant, socratic economic plans, inflation was through the roof. And you all told us, oh no, no, no, no, it's gonna go away, it's transitory. These same experts, these same idiots told us, don't worry about it. It's not here to stay. - Well, Janet Yellen's not seeing it at least at the grocery stores. Did you see that? - Yeah, do we have that sound? - Janet Yellen, who's worth $20 million, by the way. - Secretary Yellen, have you been to the grocery store lately? - I sure have like the way every week. - It's sticker shock, isn't it? I just, when you look at shipping costs, those have come down. Global food commodity prices have also come down, but food prices still remain high. I know they're not rising at the rate that they were last year, but they're still up 20% from pre-COVID. - No, no. I think sticker shock makes less of an impact if you're worth $20 million. And also if you're delusional, because she's-- - She realized she was being lulled into that conversation. - Yes, I do like whoever. - Does anyone believe that she goes every week? Does anyone believe that Janet Yellen goes to the grocery store and does her own shopping? If you believe that, I have a bridge that I'm willing to sell you. It's expensive because of inflation, but it will go down soon 'cause inflation's transitory. Unless you vote for Donald Trump, in which case, inflation could be reignited. We'll be right back, we're gonna talk to Howie Carr, don't go anywhere. If you use scented candles, cover-up sprays or air fresheners for bad odors in your home, you're doing it wrong. You're not fooling anyone. You think you're tricking us, you're not. We come into your house, you're trying to get rid of, you know, you cooked salmon, you're trying to get rid of the smell, you light a cupcake candle, all of a sudden, my nostrils are hit with too many things. Cupcakes, salmon, it's a bad combination. What you need to do is you need to get an eat-and-pear thunderstorm 'cause what the eat-and-pear does, it uses all three molecules. It sends them out into your home or into your car or into your office and it destroys bad odors in allergens and pollutants rather than covering them up. It's going to get to the root cause of the issue. So candles and cover-up sprays, they have to be bought over and over again and they're not nearly as effective. You wanna get your hands on the 3-pack. Go to eatimpuredeals.com. To get $200 off, make sure you use Code Grace 3. Again, get your hands on this 3-pack. Go to eatimpuredeals.com. Discount Code Grace 3, we'll be right back. - You're listening to The Grace Curly Show. (upbeat music) - This is The Grace Curly Show. (upbeat music) - Welcome back everyone to The Grace Curly Show. Thank you so much for joining us today. We've covered a lot of ground here. We are still on verdict watch in the Caron Read Trial. I feel like Nancy Grace. A lot of vamping goes on when you who are waiting for a verdict. Joining us now is how we car, how we, I wanna get to the verdict form in just a second. But first I wanna ask you, does it make you nervous that this is taking a little bit longer than people originally predicted for the jurors to come back with a verdict? - I don't know, I guess I'm not really nervous yet. I wish it were over, but you know, I mean, give 'em time. I mean, they understand that they may not have been following everything, you know, moment to moment like us in the press, but they know this is a national, international case. And I think that you don't get back, you know, I haven't seen a jury come back. I don't know if I've ever seen one come back like they used to in the old days, you know, after an hour. - Yeah, yeah, yeah, and it is kind of a slap in the face to everybody if it takes nine weeks and then you don't even kind of do a little bit of a summation when you get back there with each other. - I guess, I guess, but Lally was so bad, you know, he kind of deserved the slap. - What do you think about the verdict form? Because at first Jackson makes his case about, this is ridiculous, they need an option for the lesser Chargers to be charges, to be able to say not guilty. Judge Kannoni was very argumentative, seemed like she was not gonna change her mind. And then very quickly afterwards how we we find out they are going to be changing the form for these jurors. - She was so bad and I needed to think about it. - I was forced after I heard her to tweet out her salary. - Yeah, you were forced. Do someone have a gun to your head, sir? - $207,855 a year. Never had a real job in her life, but she's a second generation hack. Her daddy worked in the Norfolk County DA's office, for a predecessor of Meatball Morrissey. She, as a Massachusetts judge, she works 35 weeks a year. 35, that's tops. And I mean, some of those weeks we're talking about, include those two day weeks that we've had the last couple of weeks. - Oh, wow. - Yeah. - So you can count that as a whole week if you come in for two days? - 35, if you count everything up, I did it one time when I was on a rampage against judges. She's 63 years old, by the way. So she will, she's got seven more years in. And then she goes on senior status and can make a pension. She can take the pension as a judge. She's probably got some kind of pension as former days as a public defender, which means she defended indigent criminals, probably a lot of whom were illegal aliens. - I loved when she said about the verdict form to Alan Jackson. This is how it's always done in Massachusetts. And he replied back and said, "I don't care how it's always done in Massachusetts." I thought finally a sane person walks into the commonwealth and tries to get things in order. - This is how it's always done in Massachusetts. An hour later, "Hey, you know what? We're changing the forms." - Yeah, it was a really strange interaction. How he's gonna have that for you. He also has great guests lined up for his show today. The judges' salary, I'm assuming, is at HowieCarsher.com. - Well, you can see, we tweeted it out. - Okay, perfect. - So make sure you follow Howie at Howie Car Show. - It only got 30,000 hits in the first hour. - There you go. We'll be right back. How he's coming up next, I'll see you all tomorrow. - Cheers and ginger.