Karen Read learns her fate in second trial. See timeline of John O' Keefe murder case.

After two trials, hours of testimony and impassioned protests on both sides of the case, Karen Read has been found not guilty of killing her Massachusetts police officer boyfriend, John O'Keefe.
The jury found Read not guilty on two more serious charges: second-degree murder and leaving the scene of a collision resulting in death. She was found guilty of operating a vehicle under the influence and sentenced to one year's probation.
A 12-person jury handed down the verdict on June 18 after roughly 20 hours of deliberating and more than 30 days of testimony, marking a conclusion in the case that captured nationwide attention through years of court proceedings. Read's first trial ended in a hung jury last year.
O'Keefe died in Canton, Massachusetts, a suburb 15 miles south of Boston, after being found unresponsive on a fellow officer's lawn on Jan. 29, 2022.
Prosecutors alleged Read hit O'Keefe with her SUV and left him for dead. Read's defense claimed a cover-up by some of O'Keefe's fellow officers.
The 45-year-old pleaded not guilty to three charges: second-degree murder, vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and leaving the scene of a collision resulting in death.
Here's a full timeline of the case, as reported by USA TODAY and the USA TODAY Network.
Catch up on Karen Read trial Who is Karen Read and why is she on trial again?
Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe, his girlfriend Karen Read and a group of other friends, including fellow officers, went out drinking at C.F. McCarthy's bar in Canton, Massachusetts at around 9 p.m. A major snowstorm had begun.
Around 11 p.m., the group moved to the nearby Waterfall Bar & Grille.More: Sign up for USA TODAY's Witness true crime series
After leaving the bar, a group decided to meet at the house of Brian Albert, a fellow Boston Police Department officer. Read drove O'Keefe to the home, despite having been drinking, which she admitted in interviews later.
Between 12:15 and 12:45 a.m., multiple witnesses inside the home reported seeing a dark SUV outside. Read said she dropped O'Keefe off and watched him enter the home, while witnesses inside the home said that he never entered.
Read began calling and texting O'Keefe to see if they would be staying, but did not receive a response. She returned to his house and continued calling him, to no response.
Around 5 a.m., O'Keefe's niece called Jennifer McCabe, one of his friends who had been with the group earlier that night. The niece said O'Keefe hadn't returned home and Read thought she had left him at the Waterfall, McCabe testified. By 5:30 a.m., McCabe, Read and another friend, Kerry Roberts, went out to look for O'Keefe.
Around 6 a.m., the women spotted O'Keefe lying unresponsive in the snow on Albert's lawn. Phone records show McCabe Googled "hos (sic) long to die in cold" at some point that morning. McCabe said Read asked her to search it when they found O'Keefe's body; the defense said she searched it hours before his body was found.
First responders were called. Upon their arrival, McCabe and a paramedic testified in both trials that Read said, "I hit him, I hit him, I hit him." However, Read — and McCabe's previous testimony to a grand jury — said she instead asked, "Could I have hit him?"
O'Keefe was taken to an area hospital and pronounced dead at 7:59 a.m.
According to the medical examiner's autopsy of O'Keefe's body, his cause of death was consistent with blunt force trauma to the head and hypothermia, with no "obvious signs of an altercation or a fight."
O'Keefe's manner of death was ruled 'undetermined.'
Prosecutors later alleged Read hit O'Keefe with her SUV, killing him. The defense said other cops beat him up and framed her for his killing, citing marks on his arms resembling those of an animal attack.
Read is arrested and charged with motor vehicle homicide, manslaughter and leaving the scene of a motor vehicle collision causing death. She pleaded not guilty the following day and was released after posting $50,000 cash bail.
O'Keefe's funeral is held at St. Francis of Assisi Church in Braintree, Massachusetts. Hundreds of people, including dozens of Boston police officers, gathered to pay their respects, and a large American flag hung outside the church.
"Moving forward, I will do my best to continue his legacy of caring and supporting others ... even though I know I will never come close to the way he did," Paul O'Keefe said in the eulogy for his brother.
Read is indicted by a grand jury on charges of second-degree murder, manslaughter while operating under the influence of alcohol and leaving the scene of personal injury and death.
She pleaded not guilty at Norfolk Superior Court and posted $100,000 bail.
First Karen Read trial See a full timeline of key moments in first John O'Keefe murder trial
The first trial of Karen Read in the murder of John O'Keefe began with jury selection on April 16, 2024. Opening statements were delivered in the case on April 29, 2024, with testimony beginning that day.
After nearly two months of testimony, the prosecution rested its case on June 21, 2024. The defense rested its case three days later, on June 24, 2024.
On June 25, 2024, both sides delivered closing arguments, and the jury began deliberations.
After five days of deliberations, on July 1, 2024, Judge Beverly Cannone declared a mistrial after the jury said they were "deeply divided."
Read's defense attorneys filed a motion seeking to dismiss the charges for second-degree murder and leaving the scene of an accident with injury or death.
The attorneys said the jury had agreed unanimously that Read was not guilty of those charges, so a retrial on those counts would violate double jeopardy protections.
Prosecutors argued that the defense had the chance to object to the declaration of a mistrial at the time and did not. Cannone ruled Read could be retried on all charges.
Read's defense team later appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to review the petition.
O'Keefe's estate filed a wrongful death civil lawsuit in Plymouth Superior Court against Read and Canton bars C.F. McCarthy's and the Waterfall.
The suit is seeking at least $50,000 in damages and alleges that Read "outrageously created a false narrative."
Read's counsel filed a motion to stay the civil case until the end of the criminal case. Judge William White Jr. ordered a pause on any other discovery directly related to Read in November 2024.
The second trial began with jury selection on April 1. The selection process took 10 days, with hundreds of people being summoned to Norfolk Superior Court during that timeframe.
Nine women and nine men were seated on the jury, including six who would ultimately serve as alternates. They were told the case would take between six to eight weeks.
Prosecutor Hank Brennan's opening statements recounted a paramedic who said he heard Read say, "I hit him. I hit him. I hit him."
"It was at that time that she, the defendant, admitted what she had done that night. That she had hit John O'Keefe," Brennan said. "John O'Keefe was killed by the actions and conduct of the defendant Karen Read."
Defense attorney Alan Jackson's opening arguments started with, "There was no collision with John O'Keefe." Jackson went on to say the police investigation was marred by "bias," "incompetence" and "deceit."
Two witnesses took the stand on the first day, including Roberts and one of the paramedics who responded to the scene.
More than 40 witnesses testified over 30 days in the second Read trial. Here's a full list:
After 30 days of testimony, the prosecution and defense laid out their closing arguments.
Brennan started by laying out the commonwealth's case in three sentences: 'She was drunk. She hit him. And she left him to die." He told jurors that Read and O'Keefe had a 'toxic relationship,' asserting that the data presented in the case backs Read as the sole perpetrator for O'Keefe's death.
Jackson's closing arguments also started with a pointed statement: 'There was no collision. There was no collision." He said they were being asked to 'stare down injustice' and were the 'last line of defense between an innocent woman and a system that has tried to break her.'
Cannone read the jury instructions for their deliberations and the group had about two hours to begin discussing the case.
The jury returned on June 16 for a full day of deliberations. The following day, they asked four questions of the judge:
The first question asked about the time frame for the operating under the influence charge.
The second question asked whether Read's video interviews are evidence and how they can be considered.
The third question asked whether convicting on a lesser charge would be a conviction on the overriding count.
The fourth question asked whether they would be considered a hung jury if they found Read not guilty on two charges but couldn't agree on a third.
Around 2 p.m. local time on June 18, the jury notified a court officer that they had reached a verdict. Before the parties were called back into the courtroom, however, the jury reversed course and said they had not reached a verdict.
Shortly after Cannone announced that the initial verdict slip would not constitute a final say from the jury, they came to a decision.
After just under 20 hours of deliberating, the 12-person jury found Read not guilty on charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene of a collision resulting in death.
She was found guilty of operating a vehicle under the influence and sentenced to one year's probation.
Cheers erupted from outside the courthouse as the clerk read the charges shortly before 3 p.m. local time. Read hugged her legal counsel, while O'Keefe's family quickly left the courtroom.
Contributing: Mary Walrath-Holdridge, USA TODAY
Melina Khan is a national trending reporter for USA TODAY. She can be reached at melina.khan@usatoday.com.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Karen Read timeline: Key moments in John O'Keefe murder case

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

14 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Judge: Prosecutor broke the rules, but Crumbleys still not getting new trials

Editor's note: This story has been updated with new information A judge has denied James and Jennifer Crumbley new trials, concluding the parents of the Oxford school shooter both got fair trials even though prosecutors intentionally withheld from the defense secret agreements it struck with two key witnesses who testified against them. In ruling against the Crumbleys, Oakland County Circuit Judge Cheryl Matthews on June 11 expressed concern with the prosecution not disclosing the agreements, stating: "The lack of disclosure which is mandatory ... is disturbing." But, Matthews concluded, the prosecution's actions did not "rise to the level" to justify new trials, stressing that given the "significant" evidence facing the Crumbleys, the parents likely still would have ended up being convicted, even if they had been given the agreements brokered with the witnesses. The Crumbleys, who made history last year after a jury held them responsible for the Nov. 30, 2021, Oxford High School massacre committed by their then-15-year-old son, were trying to get their involuntary manslaughter convictions dismissed, or new trials, based on alleged prosecutorial misconduct grounds. Oakland County prosecutors have long argued that they engaged in no misconduct, and that the Crumbleys were convicted fair and square. Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald, who made history in holding the first parents in America criminally liable for a mass school shooting committed by their child, praised the judge for her decision. 'Today, Judge Cheryl Matthews upheld the guilty verdicts of James and Jennifer Crumbley and denied their requests for new trials,' McDonald said in a statement. 'These cases have always been about just one thing: justice for Madisyn Baldwin, Tate Myre, Hana St. Juliana, Justin Shilling and the other Oxford victims. Judge Matthews' ruling makes clear that no issue raised by the defense affected the trial or the jury's verdict." She continued: 'Now that the juries' verdicts have been reviewed and upheld, it is time to turn our attention away from the Crumbleys and refocus on the Oxford victims. The bottom line is both James and Jennifer Crumbley were convicted by juries of their peers after receiving a fair trial.' The defense, however, isn't giving up as it blasted the judge's ruling and vowed a vigorous fight in the Michigan Court of Appeals. "What a hypocritical example of justice," defense attorney Michael Dezsi, who represented Jennifer Crumbley in her appeal, said in a statement after the order came down. At issue for Dezsi, he said, is that the judge concluded the prosecutors violated court rules, but let them get away with it. 'So, the prosecution intentionally cheated and violated the court rules, but they didn't cheat hard enough for the court to do anything about it,' Dezsi said in a June 11 statement after the ruling was issued. "Jennifer Crumbley was never going to get a fair trial in Oakland County as demonstrated by the court's actions in the last six months, and its decision finding the prosecutor's actions 'disturbing' but harmless should shock the public." Dezsi added: "I will immediately appeal to a higher court the denial of Jennifer Crumbley's motion for bond pending appeal. The court's decision today (June 11) was only the first step in a lengthy appeal process that is only now just getting started. I am confident that a higher court will find the prosecutor's actions were not only disturbing but also grounds to overturn Jennifer Crumbley's conviction. This legal battle is just starting." Alona Sharon, James Crumbley's lawyer, echoed similar concerns, saying she is "disappointed" with the judge's decision and the message it sends. "Judge Matthews found that Karen McDonald and her office violated a discovery rule that is designed to guarantee the right to a fair trial and due process. But, despite their intentional violations they will pay no price," Sharon said in a statement. "This opinion writes a blank check permitting prosecutors throughout the state to skirt the rules and laws that that are designed to ensure integrity in our justice system. And, that consequence should terrify everyone." At issue in this contentious legal battle is whether the prosecution unlawfully withheld from the defense confidential agreements that it reached with two key school witnesses who were promised early on that their statements to investigators would not be used against them, and who later testified against the Crumbleys at their trials. The agreements — known as proffer agreements — offered some immunity to the two school officials and key witnesses in the Crumbleys' historic trials: They were promised that whatever statements they made to investigators would not be used against them. Attorneys for the Crumbleys had argued that those agreements should have been provided to the defense before trial, which would have allowed the defense to argue to jurors that the school witnesses were under the threat of prosecution themselves, and therefore not credible. But the jury never got to hear that. The two school witnesses were the dean of students and a counselor — the last two officials who spoke with the shooter and the parents on the morning before the massacre, and made the controversial decision to let him return to class despite the teen's troubling behavior: He had drawn a gun on a piece of paper, a human body bleeding and the words, "The thought's won't stop. Help me." The defense argued both school witnesses tailored their testimony to make the parents look bad, and protect themselves in the process. But they were already protected by the proffer agreements, they argued, only the defense didn't learn about the agreements until the Free Press disclosed them in an investigation last March, after the shooter's parents both had been convicted in separate trials. The prosecution has argued that it was under no obligation to provide the proffer agreements to the defense because — it maintains — no immunity was provided. Prosecutors also long argued that it was the Crumbleys, more than anyone else, who could have prevented the massacre had they done the "smallest of things," like put a cable lock on the gun that their son snuck out of the house and used to shoot up his school, tell the school officials that their son had access to a gun when they were summoned over his troubling behavior, or taken him home from school when they saw his drawing with the troubling message: "The thought's won't stop. Help me." The Crumbleys though, went back to their jobs after seeing that message. Their son went back to class, with school officials concluding he wasn't a threat to himself or anyone else. Two hours later, he fired his first shot. In the end, prosecutors argued to the jurors, it was the Crumbleys' own actions and inactions that would cost four students their lives: Tate Myre, 16; Hana St. Juliana, 14; Madisyn Baldwin, 17, and Justin Shilling, 17. As McDonald said in her closing arguments at the dad's trial: "Remember that he didn't just fail in his duty to his son ... he failed in his duty to protect Hana, and Justin and Madisyn and Tate. I don't say their names to evoke sympathy. I say their names because they matter. They matter!" McDonald said, her voice growing loud. "And that is why we are here ... because if James Crumbley had done even the smallest of things, like the 10-second cable lock or gone home or took responsibility for his kid who was in trouble, those kids wouldn't have been shot and killed in that school on that day." More: Defense: Prosecutor paid 3rd PR firm thousands to 'smear' the Crumbleys Jennifer and James Crumbley have long argued that they had no idea their son was going to shoot up his school, that they saw no signs that their son was mentally ill, that gun at issue was hidden in an armoire unloaded, and that the bullets were stored in another drawer. The shooter pleaded guilty to all his crimes and is serving a life-without-parole sentence. He also is appealing. Contact Tresa Baldas: tbaldas@ This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Judge denies parents of Oxford school shooter new trials

CBS News

16 minutes ago

• CBS News

Man found dead near roadway on DuSable Lake Shore Drive in Lakeview

Chicago police are investigating after a man was found dead early Saturday morning on the city's North Side. They said the man was found near the street, in the 3600 block of North DuSable Lake Shore Drive, shortly after 3:30 a.m., unresponsive, and was pronounced dead at the scene. The exact age of the victim is unknown. The Office of Emergency Management and Communication said northbound lanes are closed from Recreation Drive to Irving Park Road for investigation. Drivers are advised to seek an alternate route. Area 3 detectives and the Major Accidents Investigation Unit are investigating. No further information was available. CBS News Chicago will continue to update.

Yahoo

27 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Love triangle ends in fatal shooting at Fresno home, police say. Suspect arrested

A love triangle ended in a shooting death Thursday night at a Fresno home, police said in an update Friday morning. Officers responded to a shooting just before 11 p.m. at the 4900 block of East Floradora Avenue, near Olive and Winery avenues, and found 43-year-old Sevastion Prado unresponsive with a gunshot wound to the upper body. He was taken to the hospital where he died a short time later, police said. Police Chief Mindy Casto said Prado lived at the location in the garage and his ex-girlfriend came to visit. During the visit, a man knocked on the door — who Casto said is the woman's current boyfriend. When Prado answered the door, a single gunshot was fired, striking him in the upper body. Casto identified the suspected shooter as 46-year-old Michael Jacintho. Jacintho left the location but he was later arrested at First Street and Clinton Avenue. He was booked into Fresno County jail on suspicion of multiple offenses, including parole violation. Casto said the shooting was not gang-related, but stemmed from a love triangle. It is unknown if words were exchanged. Officers knew who the suspect was based on information given by the woman, Casto said. Jacintho was also wearing an ankle monitor, the chief said. Anyone with information is asked to call police at 559-621-7000.