What happened: Karen Read's retrial and being acquitted of murder
The case that captured the attention of people across the country has finally come to a conclusion: Karen Read was acquitted of the 2022 death of her boyfriend, John O'Keefe.
To a screaming crowd of hundreds outside the Norfolk Superior Court in Dedham, Massachusetts, on Wednesday, Read thanked her legal team and supporters.
Her second murder trial was a was a victory for Read after the first ended in a hung jury last year. This time, though, jurors found Read guilty of drunk driving — but not guilty of second-degree murder, manslaughter and leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death. She was sentenced to one year of probation.
CNN correspondent Jean Casarez has been closely following the trial.
Here she breaks down some of the key pieces of the retrial and what could have changed for Read this time around.
Some of the answers have been edited for length and clarity.
Q: What was the biggest difference between the first trial and this one? What witnesses and pieces of evidence stand out to you as being most consequential?
A: There were many differences between the first trial and this trial. First of all, let's look at the side of the prosecution: They brought in Special Prosecutor Hank Brennan, who was a noted trial attorney, but normally he is a defense attorney. He was stellar in his presentation in that courtroom. He examined and cross-examined almost every single witness and he did it with precision and knowledge and finesse. So that was the number one difference; the prosecution went to a much higher level.
The second thing was, between the first trial and the second trial, Karen Read had done numerous television interviews and even one that was just audio. Brennan was allowed to bring in these interview clips of Read herself saying things against her interest and there were many of them.
On the defense side, their theory in the first trial was that Karen Read was framed. Now, that was still in this second trial, but what really became paramount was reasonable doubt and the defense hammered home every chance they got: reasonable doubt.
One of their greatest strengths were the arm injuries on John O'Keefe – where did they come from? The prosecution couldn't really show that beyond a reasonable doubt because you don't know exactly how John O'Keefe was standing. There were taillight fragments in his clothing that were found by the forensics experts, but you couldn't show how those injuries got on that arm and I think that helped the defense. Every opportunity they had to show reasonable doubt of this circumstantial case, they did so.
Q: There were notably some witnesses who did not take the stand this time around, including lead investigator Michael Proctor. Brian Albert, a Boston police officer who owned the home Read said she dropped O'Keefe off at, and Brian Higgins, an ATF agent who was there the night O'Keefe died also did not testify. However, the jury still heard about them and even saw text messages from them. Why did neither side put them on the stand?
A: In the first trial, Proctor, Albert and Higgins, a romantic interest of Karen Read, all took the stand for the prosecution. But in this trial, a strategic decision was made by the Commonwealth to not put them on the stand at all. They didn't feel they needed them, so they didn't put them on.
That left the defense to call them and the defense did not want to do direct examinations on these individuals. So the evidence came in other ways. Sexist texts from Proctor did come into this trial through a childhood friend who was on the group chat where Proctor sent the messages about Read right at the beginning of this case. That strategy of not calling them to testify may have worked in the eyes of some jurors, but it didn't help the prosecution in the end.
Q: Legal experts were concerned Read's public comments and interviews would hurt her case. How do you think the jurors weighed that?
A: We know that jurors had a question once they started their deliberation: 'Are these clips evidence?' So at that point, they may have not even considered them. The judge told them, 'Yes, they are evidence.'
Then they deliberated all day Wednesday. Did they look at those clips? How much did they consider those clips? Or was their mind already made up even by the time they sent that question about whether they were evidence? We don't know at this point how much emphasis they placed on the defendant herself speaking, ultimately to that jury, through those interviews.
Q: Like Proctor and other key players in this case, Read also didn't testify during the retrial, even though the jury was hearing her public comments. Can you explain the thinking behind that decision for the defense?
A: I think the defense thought it was way too risky to put her on the stand. Not only would she be subject to intense cross examination by Hank Brennan that may not prove to be helpful to the defense's case, but they would also risk her saying things that aren't helpful, as she did in the interviews.
She even said in one of the interviews that this was her testimony. She wanted to talk. They were probably concerned about what she might say and they decided their case was strong enough – they don't have to prove anything, they were showing reasonable doubt and they didn't have to put her on the stand to rebut those interview clips.
Q: Read has famously and publicly claimed to be the target of a cover-up. But her defense attorneys did not argue a third-party culprit theory in court. Why wouldn't they go there?
A: They wanted to. They desperately wanted to. They filed a motion saying they wanted that instruction of third-party culprit to go to the jury and before the trial began, but Judge Beverly Cannone said she needed to see if they could develop this theory during the trial to be able to get that instruction. Well, with Michael Proctor, Brian Albert and Brian Higgins not taking the stand, the defense could not develop that. They did not get that instruction. So conceivably, it could have really hurt the defense but they didn't need it in the end.
Q: The commonwealth did have some strong evidence against Karen Read. What was it and why wasn't that enough?
A: John O'Keefe's body was found in the snow, near the flagpole and close to the street. On the day that all of this happened, late in the afternoon, the Massachusetts CERT team — that was their emergency team — came out. The blizzard had ended but the mounds of snow were very high. They stood in a grid line with sifters and sifted through the snow close to where his body was found and they started finding broken pieces of taillight, O'Keefe's shoe and a broken cocktail glass O'Keefe took out of Read's car when he got out.
At the time, law enforcement had just gotten custody of that car and the prosecution tried to make the point that, based on the timeline, there's no way they could have planted all that evidence where John O'Keefe's body was.
The second piece of evidence was O'Keefe's cell phone. An expert testified about the Apple Health steps that O'Keefe took. That expert went behind the data that you and I see on our phone and determined after O'Keefe got out of Karen Read's car — because the steps began again at that point on his phone — and then they ended just a few minutes later. His phone never moved again until the next morning when O'Keefe's body was found. The defense's theory is that O'Keefe walked into the house, was killed inside that house, and his body was brought back outside. Well, that phone would have had to move again. It never moved after he got out of Karen Read's car.
But the jury had to assess that, and even if they felt that was strong evidence, they had to believe that that reasonable doubt was greater than what appeared to be conclusive evidence of guilt.
Q: Read's supporters have always brought a lot of public attention to this case. When she walked out of the courthouse on Wednesday after the verdict was read, hundreds of people taking over the street cheered and celebrated. Who are her supporters and why have they rallied around her all this time?
A: Her supporters were very real people from this community, even some from outside this community. I got to know some of them. They're very nice people, they were very respectful to the court. This was a grassroots movement that began with very small numbers and it just started to grow.
This grassroots movement was based on the belief that Karen Read was framed, but also focused on what they believed was corrupt law enforcement that did not follow the law, that manufactured evidence or tampered with evidence. They believed it was rampant in their community. And not only law enforcement, government on all local levels. Karen Read, I believe, became their symbol for that corruption that they felt was tainting their community.
Q: Before coming to a final decision on Wednesday, the jury had a verdict false alarm. The jurors indicated they had a verdict — only to change their mind. But, the judge directed the court officer to place the verdict slip into a sealed envelope. Do you think the first sealed slip said the same thing as the final verdict? Will we ever know?
A: We don't know why there was this false call at the beginning and then minutes later there was a verdict. We may find out in time, but if the judge had believed there was a concern, an issue of integrity — I believe there would have been more to the finality of this trial than there was. There was a verdict, the judge accepted it, the jury determined it was a true and honest verdict and that it was unanimous.
Q: What happens now?
A: There's a big question if the victim in this case, the person who lost his life, John O'Keefe, will he and his family ever get justice? Is there someone else that committed this crime? Will there be an investigation? Will there be a prosecution? I guess time will tell.
I can tell you that it didn't come in the trial, but there was an investigation of law enforcement involved with this case — and Brennan said in court that the investigation ended without any criminal charges.
So we have to only hope there will be answers because if there are not answers for the O'Keefe family, for this community and for everyone else in this country who cares, what happened to John O'Keefe will remain a mystery. And no one wants his death to go unanswered.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
9 minutes ago
- Washington Post
D.C. attorney general alleges violence intervention nonprofit misused funds
The District's attorney general has alleged that a nonprofit group hired by the city misappropriated funds that were supposed to go toward preventing gun violence in the Congress Heights neighborhood. In a lawsuit filed this week by D.C. Attorney General Brian L. Schwalb, the city is seeking to recoup more than $250,000 in government funds that went to Women in H.E.E.L.S. (Healing, Elevation, Empowerment, Love, Support) Inc. The group signed an agreement with the attorney general's office in March 2022 to operate one of four new violence-reduction program sites as part of the office's Cure the Streets program, according to the suit.
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘Million Dollar Beach House' Alum Sara Burack Dead at 40 After Hit and Run: Reports
Sara Burack, a real estate agent featured on Netflix's Million Dollar Beach House, has reportedly died. She was 40. Burack had been found unconscious on the Montauk Highway in the Hampton Bays on early Thursday, June 19, according to News12 Connecticut. Local Southampton Town Police officers confirmed to the outlet that Burack had been hit by a vehicle. Greater Long Island further reported that Burack had been found by law enforcement officials with injuries that indicated she was struck by a car. They had received a 911 call at 2:45 a.m., alerting them of an unconscious woman. Upon arrival, Burack was transported to a local hospital for treatment, where she ultimately died. An investigation into the incident is ongoing, with the police claiming that the driver fled the scene. Further information has not yet been shared. Do Selling Sunset's Stars Actually Sell Homes — And How Much Do They Make? Burack worked for Nest Seekers International, a Manhattan-based brokerage featured on 2020's Million Dollar Beach House. 'Viewers will be taken into the world of the Hamptons where they will see not only beautiful multimillion-dollar beach homes and estates, but will be shown summer in the Hamptons pre-COVID,' Burack told in 2020 ahead the reality TV series' premiere. 'With scenes from broker open houses, polo games, yacht life and more, there is sure to be an 'Awww' from viewers.' Burack had spent time in the Hamptons for 11 years, eventually turning her passions for real estate into a career. "My family has a commercial construction material sales business that I spent many years of my life working for,' she told the outlet. 'I have always been intrigued by real estate projects and decided to become a broker after my experience as a summer property manager in the summer house I would rent.' She added, 'The Hamptons market has primarily been a second home market, many buyers use their properties as a getaway or an investment property, so they are purchasing homes to reflect this. Buyers go all out with these homes.' According to Burack, many of her NYC-based clients were 'looking for space and yards' in a second home. "With the ability to work from home, many New York City residents are spending more time in the Hamptons and by default want to be able to have their families with them,' she said. 'Selling the Hamptons' Returns for Season 2: Inside $150 Million Mansions and Billion Dollar Deals After the end of Million Dollar Beach House, Burack sold properties in Miami. "Picture perfect water views from this property. Live in your paradise,' she wrote via Instagram in 2021. Burack also was licensed to sell yachts to luxury clients. 'Our Next New Adventure!!! Let's goooo!!! Yacht Broker,' she wrote via Instagram in July 2022. Nestseekers' brand replied with a '🙌' emoji.
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Police issue appeal five years after double murder at lockdown party
Murder squad detectives have made a fresh appeal for information on the fifth anniversary of a double killing at a lockdown party. Cheriff Tall, 21, and father of three Abayomi 'Junior' Ajose, 36, were shot dead at a 'spontaneous' party attended by 400 people in Moss Side, Manchester, in the early hours of June 21 2020. The event, with a DJ and PA system, took place in a car park in the middle of a block of flats hours after a Black Lives Matter protest. Detectives are appealing for information if witnesses know or saw someone there who was wearing a black Icon cap with a white logo and a white Nike Air T-shirt with a small black logo over the left side of the chest. A £50,000 reward remains available for key information that leads to the discovery and conviction of the killer, who police believe is from Birmingham. Detective Chief Inspector Neil Higginson, from Greater Manchester Police's (GMP) Major Incident Team, said: 'This year marks five years since Cheriff and Junior went out to a party but sadly never returned home to their loved ones. Their families have been left devastated by their loss, and they deserve justice. 'We will never be able to bring back their beloved Cheriff and Junior, but we can see that their killer is brought to justice. We need members of the community to get in touch and help us with some key information. 'There were hundreds of people in the car park that night and we are sure that there are people who saw the incident, even if it was just part of it. 'However, there has been a reluctance for witnesses to come forward with information. 'I understand that people might be scared, and that is normal given what has happened, but there is a range of measures that we can put in place to keep witnesses safe. 'Evidence can be given on video or behind a screen. It could also be that we could apply to the courts for the witness to be anonymous if there are grounds to do so. 'I'd just ask for you to come forward and we can have an honest chat about what we can do, as you don't have to commit to giving a statement in the first instance. 'The person responsible for these murders we believe is from Birmingham. He is not a member of the local Moss Side community, and he should not be protected. 'Anyone who comes forward in this case is not a 'grass' for helping the police, they are simply doing what is right for two families who have had their loved ones taken from them in awful circumstances. No one deserves that. 'When we have worked together in the past, we have achieved great results and if we work together again, we can get justice for Cheriff and Junior. It's not too late to do the right thing.' Anyone with information, however small or insignificant, should contact GMP in confidence on 0161 856 2035, quoting incident number 221 of 21/06/20. Alternatively, reports can be made in confidence to the independent charity Crimestoppers on 0800 555111. Information, including pictures and videos, can be uploaded anonymously to the Major Incident Public Portal for Operation Tarnbrook at
