Karen Read is found not guilty of murder in retrial
Category: News & Politics
Via: perrie-halpern • last year • 15 commentsBy: Tim Stelloh
Karen Read, the Massachusetts woman whose widely watched murder trial ended with a hung jury last year, wasacquitted of second-degree murder Wednesday after prosecutors retried her in the 2022 death of her boyfriend, a Boston police officer.
A Norfolk County jury also acquitted Read of two lesser charges — motor vehicle manslaughter while driving under the influence and leaving the scene of a collision that caused the death of John O'Keefe.
Read, 45, was convicted of operating under the influence of liquor. She was sentenced to one year of probation immediately after the verdict was read.
Cheers could be heard from outside the courtroom, where dozens of Read's supporters were positioned across the street. Read tearfully hugged her family and defense team.
From the steps of the courthouse, Read thanked those who she said had provided financial and emotional support.
"No one has fought harder for justice for John O'Keefe than I have," she said.
The prosecutor did not immediately comment on the verdict.
Several people who knew O'Keefe said in a statement that the result was "a devastating miscarriage of justice." Read's defense lawyers had identified some who signed the statement as possible suspects who were not properly investigated in O'Keefe's death.
"Today, our hearts are with John and the entire O'Keefe family," they said. "They have suffered through so much and deserved better from our justice system. While we may have more to say in the future, today we mourn with John's family and lament the cruel reality that this prosecution was infected by lies and conspiracy theories spread by Karen Read, her defense team, and some in the media."
Karen Read and John O'Keefe.via Dateline
The verdict came on the fourth day of deliberations, after nearly two months of testimony and after Norfolk County Superior Court Judge Beverly Cannone summoned prosecutors and defense lawyers to the courtroom for an unusual announcement: The jurors said they had reached a unanimous decision, she said, then reversed themselves and said they had not.
The trial featured dozens of witnesses, including a series of experts who, at times, offered highly technical testimony. Those specialists aimed to fill in an evidentiary record that included no eyewitness accounts or video of the events that left O'Keefe mortally wounded outside the suburban home of a now-retired Boston police sergeant during blizzard-like conditions on Jan. 29, 2022.
O'Keefe, 46, died of blunt force trauma to the head, according to the medical examiner's report. Hypothermia was listed as a contributing factor.
Prosecutors alleged that Read, fueled by intoxication and anger over her crumbling relationship, reversed her SUV into her boyfriend and left him for dead in the front yard of the former sergeant, Brian Albert.
Read had just dropped O'Keefe off at Albert's home for a gathering when, the prosecution said, she struck him.
"She could have broken up with him," special prosecutor Hank Brennan told jurors in his closing argument. "She doesn't drive away. She takes that 6,000-pound Lexus and she makes a decision. The decision is, she steps on the gas after banging it into reverse."
Among the key pieces of evidence Brennan cited was data gathered from Read's SUV. He called a biomechanical engineer who testified that at 12:32 a.m., outside Albert's home, her Lexus was captured driving forward 34 feet, then suddenly accelerating backward for 53 feet at 24 mph.
No direct evidence of the hit was presented at trial, but the engineer testified that dozens of cuts on O'Keefe's right arm were "consistent" with injuries caused by the Lexus' broken taillight. The prosecutor presented crime scene photos that showed what he called a "debris field" — bits of red plastic scattered around the site of the apparent collision.
He also pointed to Read's own words as evidence of her guilt. Read found O'Keefe's body shortly after 6 a.m., and first responders recalled her repeatedly saying, "I hit him."
Read rejected those allegations and said she watched O'Keefe enter Albert's home. Her attorneys said that her words had been twisted into a confession and that she was the victim of law enforcement misconduct and a tunnel-vision investigation.
In the first trial, Cannone, the judge, allowed Read's lawyers to present a third-party culprit defense — or an alternative theory of the crime — and identify Albert and a federal agent, Brian Higgins, as possible suspects in a conspiracy that sought to frame Read for O'Keefe's death. (Both men have denied that.)
Cannone ruled Thursday that the attorneys had not met the threshold to do so in the recent proceedings and barred the defense from identifying them as such in their closing argument. But she allowed the lawyers to argue that authorities failed to properly investigate Higgins, an agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives who'd been at the Jan. 29 gathering at Albert's home.
The defense introduced a lengthy series of text messages between Higgins and Read in the weeks before O'Keefe's death that showed the two flirting. But she stopped texting him on Jan. 23 — a move defense attorney Alan Jackson previously suggested could have prompted Higgins to hurt O'Keefe.
Both Higgins and Albert testified during the first trial. Neither appeared at the retrial.
The defense instead focused much of its attention on challenging the circumstantial evidence cited by the prosecution. An accident reconstruction expert testified that neither the damage to Read's SUV nor the injuries to O'Keefe's arm were consistent with a collision. A pathologist testified that his arm injuries appeared to be dog bites.
"There was no collision," Jackson said repeatedly during his closing argument.
Some of the defense's most powerful testimony came from a snowplow driver who passed Albert's home several times in the hours after the alleged collision. Asked if he saw a 216-pound, 6-foot-1 man lying in the yard, he responded flatly, "No."
One of the most notable details about the proceedings was the absence of former Massachusetts State Police Trooper Michael Proctor. Proctor led the investigation into O'Keefe's death and was fired over revelations that emerged in the first trial that he shared investigative details with non-law enforcement personnel and made derogatory comments about Read.
Defense lawyers argued that he led a biased and "corrupt" investigation — an allegation Proctor denied in the first trial — and although he was listed as a possible witness for both the prosecution and the defense, neither called him to testify in the retrial.
"That should stop you in your tracks," Jackson said in his closing argument. "Wouldn't you want to hear from the lead investigator?"
"Michael Proctor was clearly radioactive," he added. "The commonwealth stayed away from him."
In his closing argument, Brennan, the special prosecutor, said he didn't need Proctor's testimony to prove Read's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
"I'm not saying you shouldn't be disgusted by the text messages," he said. "You should. But that doesn't change the physical evidence, the scientific evidence and the data."
"He was terminated," Brennan added. "He was held responsible for what he did. He should have been. But that doesn't mean you get a free pass. That doesn't change the facts."
Tags
Who is online
111 visitors

Very confusing case
I watch an ABC affiliate in Boston (WCVB-TV) for local news. This case was on all the time and after a while it got a little sickening, especially when you consider that most of the people involved were drunk when the incident happened.
I watch too much Court TV and I watched this case closely the first time and regularly this time. The state never really proved anything except that they were drunk. It did seem kind of odd that with the video from the Waterfall of all of those people who drove to the party drinking that only Karen got tested and charged with drunk driving. That was the only charge that stuck, drunk driving. Thing is ALL those people who went to that party were drinking and driving. There is video evidence as well as testimony. Only 1 drunk driving charge though.
As for the second degree murder, the state, well commonwealth, never proved intent. Never came close. Best they had was angry, quarrelsome, drunken voice mails. And the biggest problem for the state was the wounds on his arms. There is just no way those wounds came from being hit by a car. That whole thing with the dog, especially the way the family quickly got rid of it afterward just stunk. Well, actually the biggest problem for the state was a tainted and biased investigation. Micheal Proctor, he single handedly lost this case for the state.
As for leaving the scene, if she didn't get convicted of hitting him, she couldn't have been guilty of leave the scene of a crime that never happened.
My take on it, for what it's worth. There was a snow storm. 2 drunks were driving in the storm and went to that house party. Something bad happened after one of the drunks got out of the car. The state leaned heavily into his phone never entering the house but his phone wasn't found on him. If he dropped it then we can say for sure the phone never entered the house. But a phone is not a body part. Another problem for the state was the snow plow driver's testimony. He was very believable. He said he didn't see a body in the yard. Defense came down hard on that point. "So you're sure you didn't see an 6'3'' ,215 lb man lying in that yard?."
"No, I did not."
Very good assessment.
Yeah, this trial was really only a symptom though. The way that community gelled around this it became clear that they have a problem with the police. It's not race based I think. The town is mostly white, the cops are mostly white. There was some commentary about this during the first trial, but they quit putting the protesters on air. I think it was OK as long as the protesters were just going with "Free Karen Read". But when they started airing some other grievances with law enforcement I guess it started edging too purely political for Court TV. Those protesters smart, they were organized and they would NOT give up.
I do think that the fact that all those cops and wives and girlfriends seemed to get a free pass to drive drunk is a part of what the people are upset about. Boston cops seem to think that law is for them to enforce, but not to follow. I've seen a lot of reports of this kind of thing and apparently it came home to roost with this case.
I do feel sympathy for the O'Keefe family. These 2 trials were horrible for them and they must be bitterly disappointed. But in my opinion the blame lies almost exclusively with the state.
Plus Karen had a kick ass legal team.
Did they test her broken tail light for his DNA?
it's hard to break over 2 centuries of tradition ...
The problem there was he was wearing a long sleeved hoody and even if she DID hit him the hoodie was not torn on the arm so no DNA transfer could have occurred. IF she hit, which the state never really proved. Another point, they had been dating for years, it would not be unthinkable that his DNA could have been found anywhere on the vehicle. As was highlighted in the second trial the state tried an fast one. There WERE some holes in the sleeves but they were made by a technician taking samples, looking for dog DNA as a matter of fact. The state, in a really childish display, presented the hoodie to a witness as though the holes were made by the tail light. Defense smashed that in about 2 minutes.
And about that broken taillight. First, security footage from her garage shows her backing out and hitting another car on that same side as the broken tail light. This was the before the went to the Waterfall. As an aside, she does seem to have a drinking problem IMHO. Also pictures indicate that there was some additional damage done to the tail light AFTER it was taken to the impound. Defense really ripped the state for poor procedures in dealing with the vehicle both before and after it was impounded.
The state just really blew this case on every level. She had top notch lawyers and they ripped the state's case up!
Thanks for answering my question. You got a lot out of watching that trial!
at one time she was probably way too pretty to ride any cops ... wtf?
Twice,
Yeah, this thing has been going on for years now and she's showing some strain. The O'Keefe family is bringing a civil suit so it's not over completely. But she's not going to jail.
I started watching the Max series of the first trial. It was obviously most reported from her side, but it was also obvious the investigation was biased from the beginning.
I couldnt care less about "true crime' stories, and did not follow this at all, but I do think after reading some of the summaries that this was a textbook case of reasonable doubt, which is the way it should be.
pulling passed out drunks out of snow drifts was a regular weekend occurrence for me during colorado winters in the 70's ...