Karen Read Retrial FaQ's (Updated Today)

1. What is the Karen Read trial about, and what are the main accusations?

The Karen Read trial involves Karen Read, an adjunct professor at Bentley University, who is accused of second-degree murder and other charges in connection with the 2022 death of her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O'Keefe. Prosecutors allege that Read hit O'Keefe with her SUV during a snowstorm after a night of drinking. However, the defense claims that Read was framed by the police and that O'Keefe's death resulted from him being beaten inside a house party, possibly bitten by a family dog, and then left outside as part of a conspiracy. This is a retrial, as her first trial ended with a hung jury.

2. What is the current status of the Karen Read trial?

As of mid-June 2025, the defense has rested its case after 31 days of testimony. A procedural hearing to finalize jury instructions and verdict forms was scheduled, with closing arguments expected to begin on Friday. The jury is anticipated to begin deliberations shortly after closing arguments conclude, potentially leading to a verdict within a couple of days.

3. What are the key arguments and evidence presented by the defense?

The defense largely focuses on discrediting the prosecution's theory and suggesting an alternative scenario. Key elements include:

• Lack of Vehicle Impact: Defense expert Dr. Andrew Rentschler, a biomechanical engineer, testified that there is no scientific evidence to show O'Keefe was hit by Read's SUV. He pointed to the lack of bone breaks or fractures, or even minimal bruising, despite the significant force a 6,000lb vehicle would exert. Rentschler also critiqued the prosecution's "blue paint test," stating it lacked scientific certainty.

• Alternative Cause of Injury: Dr. Elizabeth Laposata, a former medical examiner called by the defense, testified that O'Keefe's injuries were consistent with blunt force trauma to the back of the head, but his eye wounds were not consistent with being hit by Read's SUV. She did not believe O'Keefe was hit by the SUV at all.

• Conspiracy and Planted Evidence: The defense put forth a theory that O'Keefe was beaten inside the home where a party took place, bitten by a family dog, and then left outside. They also attempted to show a conspiracy involving police, including the planting of evidence against Read.

• Police Bias: Defense attorneys used text messages from Trooper Michael Proctor, a key witness in the first trial who was later fired for sexist and crude messages, to argue that he was biased and ignored other potential suspects.

• FBI Involvement: It was revealed that the FBI was involved in investigating the initial investigators in the case, suggesting that the federal government was looking into potential improprieties, which the defense implies supports their claims of a botched investigation. The jury, however, is not allowed to be told about the FBI's involvement directly due to potential prejudice.

4. How does the current trial differ from the first one, and what were the issues with the previous verdict?

The first trial ended in a mistrial due to a hung jury, meaning they could not reach a unanimous verdict on the charges. One key difference in the retrial is the focus on clarifying the verdict slip for the jury. Legal expert Peter Elikann noted that the judge has the option to instruct the jury that they don't have to reach an all-or-nothing decision, and can find Read guilty on some counts, not guilty on others, or be unable to agree on some while deciding others. Karen Read herself emphasized the importance of getting the verdict slip right, stating she "learned the hard way" from the first trial. The prosecution also initially indicated they planned to call rebuttal witnesses after the defense rested, but later decided against it, which is a significant change in strategy.

5. What role do expert witnesses play in this trial, and how do their testimonies conflict?

Expert witnesses are central to both the prosecution and defense cases. The trial features a "battle of the experts," with each side presenting professionals whose opinions contradict the other. For instance, the prosecution's expert, Dr. Judson Welchure, conducted a "blue paint test" to support their theory of a vehicle collision, while the defense's Dr. Andrew Rentschler systematically dismantled Welchure's methodology, stating it lacked scientific certainty. Similarly, the defense's medical examiner, Dr. Elizabeth Laposata, contradicted the prosecution's analysis regarding O'Keefe's injuries and the likelihood of vehicle impact. The jury's challenge is to evaluate the credibility and scientific basis of these dueling opinions.

6. Why did the prosecution decide not to call rebuttal witnesses?

The prosecution had stated for months that they planned to call rebuttal witnesses after the defense rested. However, it appears they ultimately decided against it. Legal analysts suggested that the Commonwealth might feel they have already presented a "tremendous case" and that "enough was enough," believing their existing evidence is strong enough to secure a conviction if the jury finds their witnesses credible. One attorney noted that while they generally want the "last word" in court, they may not have had a helpful witness, like the dog bite expert, or didn't want to expose their accident reconstruction expert to further cross-examination.

7. What is the atmosphere like in the courtroom, and how has it affected the proceedings?

The courtroom atmosphere has been tense, particularly as the trial nears its conclusion. There have been heated exchanges between defense attorney Alan Jackson and special prosecutor Hank Brennan, pushing the boundaries of civility. The judge has had to intervene frequently with sidebars to rein in the lawyers. This constant arguing and the numerous sidebars have also impacted the jury, who are observed to be getting "done with it" and exhibiting signs of impatience. The legal experts noted that the "male alpha energy" and shouting in the courtroom might influence how the jury perceives the testimony, with some suggesting that female jurors reacted more favorably to female expert witnesses who presented their testimony calmly.

8. What are the next steps in the trial, and what could be the potential outcomes?

The next crucial steps are the charge conference, where the judge and attorneys will finalize jury instructions and verdict forms, followed by closing arguments. Each side will be allotted 75 minutes for their closing statements. After closing arguments, the case will go to the jury for deliberations. If the jury cannot reach a unanimous verdict, another mistrial could be declared, and each individual juror could be polled about their verdict. The potential outcomes are a guilty verdict on one or more charges, a not-guilty verdict, or another hung jury resulting in a mistrial.

convert_to_textConvert to source