What makes a good closing argument? Jurors in the Karen Read retrial are about to find out.

Write to us at startingpoint@globe.com. To subscribe, sign up here.

When prosecutors wrapped up the first trial of Karen Read last year, they declared that “all of the testimony” indicated she had caused the death of her boyfriend, John O’Keefe, during a blizzard in Canton in 2022.

That closing argument, for at least some jurors, wasn’t convincing; after the jury deadlocked and failed to reach a verdict, the judge declared a mistrial.

Now, as Read’s second trial nears its conclusion, both prosecutors and the defense are readying new closing arguments, their last chance to convince the jury of her guilt or innocence.

“It’s equal parts art and science,” said Chris Dearborn, a professor at Suffolk Law School. “It’s about persuasion, trying to tell a better story than the other side. And some of those basic principles of persuasion are really fundamentally no different, whether it’s a barroom argument, a closing argument, or a toast or speech.”

Several attorneys and legal professionals who spoke to the Globe were unanimous: one of the worst things that attorneys can do in their closing arguments is appear underhanded or insincere.

“If you do something that loses you credibility, it really can hurt you,” Dearborn said. “On close cases, on the margins, being the side that the jury trusts or likes the most can make a difference.”

Losing credibility can happen easily by failing to mention what Dearborn referred to as “bad facts” — ignoring evidence or threads that are detrimental to your case.

Some of those facts involve Michael Proctor, the former State Police trooper who led the Read investigation. At the first trial, the defense excoriated Proctor’s crude and misogynistic text messages about Read. Prosecutor Hank Brennan did not call Proctor to testify in the second trial.

“In his opening statement, Hank Brennan never talked about Trooper Proctor,” Dearborn said. “I think it’ll be a mistake if he doesn’t own that issue in his closing. Because it can look like he’s trying to hide something.”

Even if the facts of the case are fully and accurately addressed, attorneys still run the risk of appearing to be insincere.

“If you are not a person who raises your voice, then don’t do that in the closing,” said Boston-based attorney J.W. Carney, Jr. “Or if you are a person who’s sometimes a little insecure, it’s okay, you can show that. The jurors have gotten to know who you are through the trial. You don’t want to change that personality.”

Good lawyers balance their own personality, whether flashy or more methodological, with a measure of accessibility when speaking to jurors.

“You have to be very mindful of the jury’s intelligence and be very careful not to potentially insult them or suggest that they don’t have the ability to be, both individually and collectively, discerning,” said attorney Brad Bailey.

At the end of the day, that means delivering the argument like a regular person, clearly and articulately without being overly wordy or extravagant.

“You should talk like you are at Thanksgiving dinner, talking to your grandmother,” said Jack Lu, a retired Superior Court judge and lecturer at Boston College Law School. “Zero legalese, zero police language, and zero lawyer language.”

That’s not to say there’s no room for emotion, he added.

“If there is not blood on the floor, meaning rhetorically, at the end of the closing argument, you have not used raw emotion,” Lu said.

Throughout the trial, attorneys from both teams have been making note of what testimony or threads of evidence resonate with jurors, Bailey said.

“You can bet there’s a lot of conversation behind closed doors about what seemed to work,” he said. “You may see direct eye contact being made with particular jurors that could have reacted to certain things.”

Carney, who worked alongside Brennan while representing James “Whitey” Bulger more than a decade ago, said the lead prosecutor in the Read case would address the jurors directly.

“Some lawyers act as if they’re giving a closing argument as an orator in the Roman Coliseum,” Carney said. “Hank talks to individuals in the jury. What he’s doing is speaking to a single juror at a time. And that juror during the deliberations will remember the point that Hank gave.”

The defense, meanwhile, will seek to convince the jury that the prosecution did not meet the burden of proof in establishing Read’s guilt.

“They not only have to lay out why they believe that the crimes have not been proven and why they think the jury ought to have multiple reasonable doubts, but they also anticipate upfront and try to rebut in advance what they believe the prosecution is going to say [in the rebuttal],” he said.

Carney pointed to one recent case — the murder trial of Ingolf Tuerk, a Dover physician accused of killing his wife — in which the defense attorney thanked the jury, and even apologized for being “too hard” on a particular witness. The jury ultimately dismissed the murder charge, settling for a lesser conviction of voluntary manslaughter — “a great surprise to everyone in the courthouse, and especially the prosecutor.”

“When it was done, I spoke to my two partners and said, ‘Here is the website on which you can watch [the attorney’s] closing argument, it’s brilliant,’” he said.

Dearborn said the closing arguments from Read’s first trial “were a little too long, a little bit too scattershot.” But there were a few key phrases — particularly from the defense — that he said probably resonated with the jury.

“Those are the things that sometimes jurors talk about because there’s only so much attention span out there,” he said. “So if you’re not aware of that when you’re talking to a jury, you can lose the jury.”

Related story: Revisit 10 pivotal moments from Read’s retrial.

🧩 7 Across: Library ID | ⛅ 76° Cloudy with streaks of sunshine

Boston and Massachusetts

• Mishap: The FAA is investigating after a JetBlue flight landing at Logan Airport veered off the runway. No one was injured.
• Judge me not: Testifying at her civil disciplinary hearing, Judge Shelley Joseph denied helping a man evade ICE in her Newton courtroom in 2018.
• Baker-off: Two Republicans who worked for former Governor Charlie Baker are running against each other for governor.
• Back home: BJ’s will open a store in Springfield, its first in Massachusetts in 13 years.

Trump administration

• Takebacks: House Republicans voted to rescind federal funding for public media, USAID, and a program that fights global HIV. The measure now heads to the Senate. (The Hill)
• Parades and protests: Soldiers and tanks will parade through Washington D.C. tomorrow to mark the Army’s 250th birthday — on the same day as Trump’s 79th. Activists are planning nationwide anti-Trump protests. (WaPo 🎁)
• Kseniia Petrova: Federal officials released a Russian cancer researcher at Harvard detained for bringing frog embryos into the US for research. She still faces criminal charges and deportation.
• Poor conditions: Detainees at a Burlington ICE facility say they’ve been sleeping on concrete floors.
• RFK Jr.: Experts say a form of science denialism called “terrain theory” explains the health secretary’s views on vaccines and disease.
• Climate change: Massachusetts and 10 other states sued after Trump canceled minimum sales requirements for electric vehicles.
• Excise tax: Senate Republicans confirmed Billy Long, who as a congressman sought to abolish the IRS, to lead the agency. (AP)

The Nation and the World

• SCOTUS: The justices ruled unanimously for a girl with epilepsy in a case that could make it easier to sue schools for better disability accommodations. (SCOTUSblog)
• Harvey Weinstein retrial: The judge declared a mistrial after the jury foreman refused to deliberate over a rape charge. (NBC)
• Israel-Hamas war: A Gaza aid group said Hamas gunmen had killed eight of its personnel and might have taken others hostage. (Times of Israel)
• Air India crash: A British national was the only survivor after a plane crashed into a residential area of northwestern India shortly after takeoff, killing 241 people on board and at least five on the ground.

Living in fear: In Globe Opinion, an undocumented Milford High student and classmate of Marcelo Gomes da Silva asks Americans for empathy — and a pathway to citizenship.

Modest proposal: Boston’s two NPR-affiliated radio stations, GBH and WBUR, are both facing financial and political pressure. Why not merge them? Jill Abramson asks in Globe Opinion.

Send us your viewpoint: Massachusetts lawmakers are debating which transportation- and education-related policies to fund using revenue from the state’s “millionaires tax.” Email your suggestions to startingpoint@globe.com and we may feature them in a future newsletter.

📚 Reader recommendations: Check out Teresa Hanafin’s summer reading list of books for kids and young adults, as suggested by readers of the Fast Forward newsletter (which you can sign up to receive here.)

❤️ Dinner with Cupid: For this pair, pearls of conversation led to sparks over shellfish.

🔵 Egyptian blue: The color, found on ancient artwork, is the oldest known synthetic pigment. Scientist have now recreated it. (Smithsonian)

🎥 Da-dum: In honor of its 50th anniversary, here’s where to stream “Jaws” (and its sequels).

🍽️ Old school: A Madrid tavern that dates to 1725 says it’s the world’s oldest continuously operating restaurant. The owners of a nearby establishment are trying to prove theirs is. (Euro Weekly News)

🌅 Sunup to sundown: Have the perfect summer day in Gloucester.

🐠 Fishy situation: Someone converted a car outside a Yalta hotel into a koi-filled aquarium. (NY Post)

Thanks for reading Starting Point.

This newsletter was edited by Kathy McCabe and Jennifer Peter and produced by Ian Prasad Philbrick.

❓ Have a question for the team? Email us at startingpoint@globe.com.

✍🏼 If someone sent you this newsletter, you can sign up for your own copy.

📬 Delivered Monday through Friday.

Camilo Fonseca can be reached at camilo.fonseca@globe.com. Follow him on X @fonseca_esq and on Instagram @camilo_fonseca.reports.