Second Karen Read Trial Centers On O’Keefe’s Death \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ Karen Read’s second murder trial sees active jury deliberation as new questions emerge. Read is accused of killing her Boston officer boyfriend, John O’Keefe, amid conflicting narratives. The judge addressed multiple juror queries regarding evidence interpretation and charge distinctions.
Quick Looks
- Ongoing deliberations: Jury deliberates after over a month-long second trial.
- Multiple charges: Read faces second-degree murder, OUI manslaughter, and more.
- Defense narrative: Lawyers claim Read is framed in a police conspiracy.
- Prosecution stance: Prosecutors allege she hit O’Keefe while intoxicated.
- Jury confusion: Judge clarifies evidence and charge-related inquiries.
- Possible verdict split: Legal analysts suggest a compromise or mixed verdict is likely.
Deep Look
The second murder trial of Karen Read, accused of killing her Boston police officer boyfriend, John O’Keefe, has entered a critical phase, with jurors raising pointed questions regarding charges and evidence. Read, 45, stands trial again after her first case ended in a mistrial. Prosecutors allege she intentionally struck O’Keefe with her SUV during a domestic dispute in January 2022, leaving him to die in the snow outside a house party in Canton, Massachusetts.
Jury Raises Key Legal Questions
The jury resumed its second full day of deliberations on Tuesday, asking Judge Beverly Cannone—who also presided over the first trial—to clarify several aspects of the case. The first question pertained to the timeframe relevant to the charge of operating a motor vehicle under the influence (OUI). Prosecutors suggested a specific time (12:45 a.m.) to contextualize blood alcohol levels, while the defense argued against a fixed time, citing Read’s post-return alcohol consumption.
Judge Cannone ultimately left it to jurors to determine facts from the evidence presented. “You folks have all the evidence. It’s only you who decides the facts in this case. You are the fact finders,” she told the jury, emphasizing their role in shaping the outcome.
Interviews and Evidence: Jury Seeks Clarity
The second question concerned whether video clips of Read’s interviews shown during a documentary screened in court could be considered evidence. Cannone confirmed that they were, telling the jury to “weigh the defendant’s statements in the video interviews as you would any other piece of evidence.”
The third question addressed confusion around the jury slip and whether finding Read guilty on the lesser OUI charge automatically implied guilt on the associated manslaughter charge. The defense advocated for clearer instructions, prompting Judge Cannone to review and revise the jury slip before sending jurors back to deliberate.
Later in the day, a fourth question emerged: If jurors agreed on two charges but were deadlocked on a third, would that constitute a hung jury for all? Cannone responded that the hypothetical nature of the question prevented her from offering a definitive answer.
Dueling Narratives of a Tragic Death
Defense attorney Alan Jackson painted a picture of Karen Read as a victim of institutional corruption. “There was no collision,” he told the jury, arguing that O’Keefe was instead beaten, bitten by a dog, and framed in a police-orchestrated cover-up. Jackson focused heavily on discredited investigator Michael Proctor, who was fired for sending sexist and derogatory messages about Read during the case. Proctor was not called to testify in this trial, unlike in the first, which the defense argued underscored prosecutorial weaknesses.
Conversely, prosecutor Hank Brennan argued that Read deliberately left O’Keefe to die. He emphasized her high blood-alcohol content and deteriorating relationship with O’Keefe. According to Brennan, the couple had a heated argument on the way to the party, and Read’s decision to leave him outside in freezing temperatures was intentional and fatal. “She was drunk, she hit him, and she left him to die,” Brennan stated.
Potential Split Verdict Looms
Legal experts believe that the jury’s questions could foreshadow a partial or split verdict. Northeastern University law professor Daniel Medwed suggested the focus on the OUI charge indicates jurors may harbor doubts about the core allegation that Read struck O’Keefe with her vehicle. “It’s quite possible it is heading for a compromise or mercy verdict,” he said.
The defense team noted that jurors from the first trial indicated a potential acquittal on two charges but a deadlock on the third led to a mistrial. This raises the possibility that history could repeat itself in the current case.
Charges Karen Read Faces
Karen Read faces multiple charges, the most serious being second-degree murder, carrying a potential life sentence. Other charges include:
- Manslaughter while operating a vehicle under the influence: up to 20 years
- Involuntary manslaughter: up to 20 years
- Motor vehicle homicide: up to 15 years
- Operating under the influence: up to 2.5 years
- Leaving the scene of an accident causing death: up to 15 years
The outcome of the jury’s deliberations will determine whether Read is found guilty of any or all of these charges or if the case once again ends in a mistrial.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.