The high-profile retrial of Karen Read, a 45-year-old former adjunct professor from Mansfield, Massachusetts, entered its first full day of jury deliberations in Norfolk Superior Court, Dedham. Accused of killing her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe, in January 2022, Read faces charges of second-degree murder, manslaughter while operating under the influence, and leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death. Her first trial in 2024 ended in a mistrial due to a hung jury, and the retrial, which began on April 22, 2025, has captivated national attention with its allegations of a police cover-up and intense courtroom drama. As jurors deliberate, Read’s defense team pushes for a simplified verdict slip, while supporters and media await a verdict.
This post breaks down the case, key witnesses, charges, and what’s at stake in this gripping legal saga.
Overview of the Karen Read Case
- Who is Karen Read?: A former adjunct professor at Bentley University, Read was arrested in February 2022 for the death of her boyfriend, John O’Keefe, a 46-year-old Boston police officer.
- The Incident: On January 29, 2022, after a night of drinking, Read allegedly struck O’Keefe with her Lexus SUV outside a house party at 34 Fairview Road, Canton, Massachusetts, leaving him to die in a snowstorm.
- Prosecution’s Claim: The Commonwealth alleges Read, intoxicated and angry after an argument, intentionally hit O’Keefe and fled, supported by taillight debris and Read’s alleged statements like “I hit him.”
- Defense’s Argument: Read’s attorneys claim she was framed in a police cover-up, asserting O’Keefe was beaten inside the home, possibly bitten by a dog, and dumped outside.
- First Trial Outcome: The 2024 trial ended in a mistrial after jurors, described as “starkly divided,” couldn’t reach a unanimous verdict after 27 hours of deliberation.
- Retrial Timeline: Jury selection for the retrial began April 1, 2025, with 18 jurors selected (12 deliberating, 6 alternates). The trial featured 50 witnesses over 31 days.
Charges and Verdict Slip Details
- Second-Degree Murder: Carries a potential life sentence with parole eligibility; requires proof of intent to kill or cause serious harm.
- Manslaughter While Operating Under the Influence: Alleges Read was intoxicated (blood alcohol level estimated at 0.135%–0.292%) and caused O’Keefe’s death through negligence or OUI.
- Leaving the Scene of an Accident Resulting in Death: Claims Read fled after hitting O’Keefe, failing to aid him or call 911.
- Verdict Slip Controversy:
- Defense’s Request: Read’s team, led by David Yannetti, moved to simplify the manslaughter verdict slip, seeking a “not guilty” option for each lesser-included offense (involuntary manslaughter, motor vehicle homicide by OUI or negligence) to avoid confusion seen in the first trial.
- Judge’s Ruling: Judge Beverly Cannone rejected the defense’s motion to amend the verdict slip on June 16, 2025, sticking with a format similar to the first trial.
- First Trial Issue: Jurors later revealed they were unanimous on acquitting Read of murder and leaving the scene but were confused about reporting a partial verdict, leading to the mistrial.
- Lesser-Included Offenses:
- Involuntary Manslaughter
- Motor Vehicle Homicide (OUI Liquor and/or Negligence)
- Operating Under the Influence of Liquor
Key Witnesses in the Retrial
- Prosecution Witnesses:
- Kerry Roberts: O’Keefe’s longtime friend testified about searching for him with Read, recalling Read saying her taillight was broken.
- Jennifer McCabe: A party attendee at 34 Fairview Road, her testimony about the night’s timeline and Read’s alleged statements was scrutinized by the defense for inconsistencies.
- First Responders: Several testified hearing Read say “I hit him” at the scene, though defense challenged why these remarks weren’t in initial reports.
- Robert Gilman: Weather expert from Precision Weather Forecasting described the January 2022 blizzard, noting poor visibility and snow accumulation, impacting the crime scene analysis.
- Dr. Irini Scordi-Bello: Medical examiner testified O’Keefe died from blunt head injuries and hypothermia, possibly from falling on frozen ground, but couldn’t confirm the exact manner of death.
- Defense Witnesses:
- Andrew Rentschler, Ph.D.: A biomechanist from ARCCA, the final defense witness, testified O’Keefe’s injuries (arm abrasions, head trauma) were inconsistent with being struck by Read’s SUV, using crash-dummy tests.
- Dr. Elizabeth Laposata: Former Rhode Island chief medical examiner, insisted O’Keefe’s injuries didn’t align with a vehicle strike; barred from directly claiming dog bites but suggested alternative causes.
- Dr. Marie Russell: Dog bite expert, faced heated cross-examination; her testimony on O’Keefe’s arm injuries sparked a defense motion for a mistrial over improper DNA questioning.
- Matt DiSogra: Director of engineering at DeltaV, a crash reconstruction firm, testified to support the defense’s claim of no collision.
- Jonathan Diamandis: Friend of disgraced Trooper Michael Proctor, read Proctor’s derogatory texts about Read, highlighting investigative bias.
- Notable Absences:
- Trooper Michael Proctor: Lead investigator in the first trial, fired for biased texts (e.g., calling Read a “whackjob”). Not called in the retrial, a point defense attorney Alan Jackson emphasized in closings.
- Brian Albert and Brian Higgins: Homeowner and party attendee, respectively, were implicated as possible culprits by the defense but not called as witnesses, leading to the defense abandoning a “missing witness” instruction.
Closing Arguments: Prosecution vs. Defense
- Prosecution (Hank Brennan):
- Argued Read, intoxicated and angry, hit O’Keefe with her SUV and left him to die in the snow.
- Presented SUV data and O’Keefe’s phone, claiming it supported their timeline of events.
- Highlighted Read’s alleged statements, like “I hit him,” and dismissed defense experts as unreliable.
- Showed a photo of O’Keefe, saying, “He is not an ‘it.’ John O’Keefe was a person, and he was murdered by Karen Read.”
- Defense (Alan Jackson):
- Repeated “there was no collision” three times, arguing O’Keefe’s injuries didn’t match a vehicle strike.
- Alleged a police cover-up, pointing to Proctor’s absence and failure to search 34 Fairview Road.
- Criticized the investigation as “broken and corrupt,” urging jurors to deliver justice with a “not guilty” verdict.
- Highlighted Higgins’ flirty texts with Read and his suspicious visit to Canton police station that night.
Jury Deliberations and Verdict Watch
- Deliberation Start: Began June 13, 2025, after 75-minute closing arguments from each side and Judge Cannone’s instructions.
- Initial Deliberation: Jurors deliberated for ~90 minutes on Friday before being dismissed for the weekend.
- First Full Day: On June 16, 2025, jurors resumed at 9 a.m., with cameras off during deliberations but live on Court TV for any courtroom developments.
- Jury Composition: 7 women, 5 men, with 6 alternates separated. Juror in seat No. 1 is the foreperson.
- Evidence in Deliberation Room: Includes O’Keefe’s clothes, Read’s taillight, and books of reports.
- Judge’s Instructions: Cannone emphasized the prosecution’s burden of proof and clarified partial verdicts to avoid another mistrial.
- Defense Concerns: Yannetti renewed a “not guilty” motion, denied by Cannone, and expressed ongoing issues with the verdict slip’s clarity.
What’s Changed Since the First Trial?
- Expanded Defense Team: Added Robert Alessi and a juror from the first trial, alongside Yannetti, Alan Jackson, and Elizabeth Little.
- New Prosecution Strategy: Special prosecutor Hank Brennan, a former defense attorney, was brought in, opting not to call Proctor or present rebuttal witnesses.
- More Witnesses: Defense called 11 witnesses (vs. 2 in 2024), including more experts on biomechanics, forensics, and dog bites. Prosecution also expanded its witness list.
- Verdict Slip Focus: Defense pushed for clearer instructions after first trial jurors’ confusion led to the mistrial.
- Federal Investigation: Concluded without charges against police, weakening defense’s cover-up claims in court but not public perception.
- Public Support: Read’s supporters, often in pink, grew vocal, with some holding “Framed” signs and using ASL “I Love You” gestures.
Public and Media Reactions
- Supporter Sentiment:
- Hundreds gathered outside the courthouse, predicting a quick “not guilty” verdict.
- Brandi Magnoli, a live streamer, said, “Not guilty in less than two hours.”
- Supporters prayed and used silent gestures to comply with court buffer zone rules.
- Media Coverage:
- Court TV: Provides live updates and analysis, with clips of closings and witness testimony.
- Boston Globe: Reported on deliberations and Read’s interactions with supporters, noting courtroom drama like sidebars and juror impatience.
- NBC Boston: Highlighted closing arguments and juror Ronald Estanislao’s insights from the first trial on verdict slip confusion.
- Fox News: Covered defense’s push to simplify the verdict slip, emphasizing ongoing legal disputes.
- X Sentiment:
- @CourtTVnoted Read’s decision not to testify and shared closing argument clips, asking followers which was more compelling.
- @LoveLaughChaosexpressed shock at initially dismissing the defense’s “framed” claim but now supporting Read after evidence.
- @KristinaRexreported a defense mistrial motion over improper DNA questioning, reflecting courtroom tensions.
What’s at Stake?
- For Karen Read:
- Conviction: Faces life in prison (murder), 5–20 years (manslaughter), or 10 years (leaving the scene).
- Acquittal: Could clear her name but faces a civil wrongful death suit from O’Keefe’s family.
- Financial Strain: Sold her home and liquidated retirement funds for $5 million in legal fees, relying on supporter donations.
- For the Prosecution:
- A conviction validates their narrative and restores trust in the investigation despite Proctor’s misconduct.
- A second mistrial or acquittal could fuel public distrust in law enforcement and the judicial system.
- For the Defense:
- A not guilty verdict would be a major win, vindicating their cover-up claims and Read’s innocence.
- Failure risks further legal battles and public scrutiny of their strategy.
- For the Community:
- Canton remains divided, with “a lot of distrust” over allegations of police corruption.
- O’Keefe’s family seeks closure, while Read’s supporters demand justice for her.
What to Expect Next
- Deliberation Timeline: Jurors are expected to continue Monday, with Cannone allowing up to 5:30 p.m. sessions. A verdict could come within hours or days, with WBZ-TV anticipating a one-hour notice once reached.
- Courtroom Dynamics: Cameras are off during deliberations but resume for any judicial issues or verdict announcements, streamable on Court TV and NBC Boston platforms.
- Potential Outcomes:
- Guilty on one or more charges
- Not guilty on all charges
- Partial verdict (e.g., acquittal on murder, guilty on lesser charges)
- Another mistrial if jurors remain deadlocked
- Post-Verdict:
- Conviction: Read faces sentencing and likely appeals.
- Acquittal: Read may address the civil suit and public narrative.
- Mistrial: Prosecutors must decide whether to pursue a third trial.
Why the Karen Read Case Matters
- National Attention: The case’s mix of alleged police corruption, a tragic death, and courtroom drama has drawn comparisons to high-profile cases like Aaron Hernandez’s.
- Trust in Institutions: Allegations of a cover-up, amplified by Proctor’s texts, fuel debates about law enforcement integrity.
- Jury Challenges: The retrial highlights issues with verdict slip clarity and juror confusion, prompting calls for judicial reform.
- Community Impact: The case has polarized Canton, with supporters on both sides clashing over justice and accountability.
- Media Influence: Extensive coverage by Court TV, Boston Globe, and others shapes public perception, with X posts reflecting shifting sentiments.
Conclusion
The Karen Read retrial is a pivotal moment in a case that has gripped Massachusetts and beyond. As jurors deliberate, the outcome will determine whether Read is held accountable for John O’Keefe’s death or vindicated as a victim of a flawed investigation. With compelling witness testimony, a contentious verdict slip dispute, and a polarized community, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Follow Court TV, NBC Boston, and the Boston Globe for live updates, and share your thoughts on the verdict watch below. Will justice be served, or will this case remain unresolved?
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
_(cropped)%20(1).jpg)
.jpg)
0 Comments