In the second murder trial of Karen Read, her defense’s strategy to exclude her from taking the witness stand has raised eyebrows, especially after the prosecution aired damaging interview clips that could influence the jury’s perception. Charged with murdering her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O’Keefe, the prosecution alleges that Read struck him with her Lexus SUV during a drunken argument, leading to his death outside a friend’s house after freezing overnight. The defense maintains that there was no collision between Read’s vehicle and O’Keefe. This strategic decision not to have Read testify may either bolster or undermine her case, as it keeps her from clarifying her perspective directly amidst the adverse narrative being presented by the prosecution.
Legal experts, like New York City defense attorney Louis Gelormino, indicate that the choice not to place Read on the stand carries risks. While historically, some defense attorneys have preferred to avoid having clients testify, Gelormino argues that many successes have stemmed from permitting clients to explain themselves. In the current situation, the defense submitted jury instructions emphasizing Read’s right not to testify and the presumption of her innocence, counters that could be crucial in how the jury deliberates her case. However, the instructions also underline that her absence from the stand shouldn’t be interpreted as an implication of guilt.
The prosecution took advantage of Read’s absence by playing clips from her prior interviews where she appears to question the validity of the accusations against her and her behaviors that night. In one compelling moment, she reflects on her drinking habits, admitting to spiking her own drinks, which raises further questions about her state during the incident. Gelormino speculates that her team might have opted to keep her off the stand to avoid rigorous cross-examination that could paint her in an unfavorable light, thus shielding her from having to defend potentially damaging statements and behaviors.
The defense’s choice not to engage with these harmful video clips allows the prosecution to shape the narrative without opposition, a tactical decision that could have dire consequences given the clips were absent in Read’s first trial. Retired Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Jack Lu points out that the previous jury nearly convicted Read of manslaughter despite a lack of video evidence; now, the additional damaging material could sway the jury further against her. The defense has yet to provide a counter-narrative or context for the clips, a factor that could leave the jury unaddressed and possibly hostile toward Read.
Furthermore, the spotlight on the videos introduces a new variable to this trial, and the absence of Read’s own testimony could become notably significant in the eyes of the jury. Since the prosecution presented clips directly depicting her words and actions, they have fortified their case, leaving the defense to maneuver solely based on witness testimony rather than Read clarifying her stance. This approach may prove insufficient if the jury focuses on the emotional and damning content of her recorded statements without a narrative explanation from her.
Ultimately, the decision to keep Read off the witness stand may reflect a calculated risk by the defense with serious implications. In a trial where the last outcome was a hung jury, the choice not to clarify Read’s actions or character could lead to another unfavorable verdict. If the jury weighs the prosecution’s clips heavily against her without hearing the context from Read, it could severely impact her chances of acquittal and lead to a life sentence for the accused in a case that already carries heavy implications.
