Jurors have delivered a verdict in the retrial of Karen Read, accused of murdering her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O’Keefe, during a drunken hit-and-run amid a blizzard on January 29, 2022. This trial, which spanned over 30 days of testimony and four days of deliberation, revolved around serious charges, including second-degree murder, drunken driving manslaughter, and fleeing the scene of a deadly accident. Read’s first trial ended in confusion, as jurors were unable to reach a verdict, leading to this retrial with heightened scrutiny and a restructured legal team.
In this retrial, the Commonwealth appointed a special prosecutor, and Read engaged a notable defense attorney, Hank Brennan, alongside a strong legal team that included New York attorney Robert Alessi and two others from Los Angeles and Boston. The trial’s narrative heavily featured the moments leading up to the incident. Early on the morning of January 29, Read found O’Keefe unresponsive in the snow near a residence where they had partied the previous evening. Two friends who were with Read, Jennifer McCabe and Kerry Roberts, testified against her, revealing alarming statements made during the chaotic aftermath.
Witness McCabe reported that Read repeatedly exclaimed, “I hit him” when they spoke earlier that morning. This aspect of Read’s behavior was underpinned by the testimony of Paramedic Timothy Nuttall, who affirmed that he overheard her making similar admissions. The couple, along with others, had been drinking in downtown Canton before attending an after-party at Brian Albert’s home, where O’Keefe was later found. Although Read’s car was spotted at the scene, both she and O’Keefe were absent during the gathering, raising questions about the events that unfolded that night.
Notably, Read chose not to testify in her defense during the retrial, but she engaged with media afterward, asserting that she observed O’Keefe entering the house before she left. The prosecution’s narrative hinged on the assertion that Read hit O’Keefe with her vehicle and subsequently drove home without him. In contrast, the defense put forth a theory that denied this, suggesting that O’Keefe’s injuries were a result of a dog attack or an altercation at the party rather than any actions taken by Read.
Throughout the trial, Brennan strategically introduced recorded interviews of Read with journalists, providing jurors with insights into her perspective on the incident as well as her comments about spiking drinks at the bar before O’Keefe’s death. This tactic aimed to contextualize her state of mind and the chain of events leading to O’Keefe’s fatal injuries. The defense’s narrative attempted to shift blame away from Read by emphasizing potential alternative explanations for O’Keefe’s condition at the time of his discovery.
The conclusion of the trial confirmed the gravity of the situation, presenting a complex case where public opinion, witness statements, and the intricacies of legal representation converged. The deliberation process was extended, reflecting the contentious nature of the trial, and underscoring the lasting implications of both the verdict and the surrounding circumstances. The case not only highlighted the tragic end of O’Keefe’s life but also brought to the forefront the challenges faced by individuals entangled in legal battles fraught with emotional and reputational stakes.
