Karen Read Trial: Juror Perspectives and Key Factors in Acquittal

This briefing document synthesizes insights from multiple jurors involved in the Karen Read murder retrial, offering a comprehensive overview of their deliberations, reasons for acquittal, and criticisms of the prosecution's case.

I. The Verdict: Not Guilty and the Quest for Justice for John O'Keefe

The jury unanimously acquitted Karen Read of all major charges, including manslaughter and leaving the scene of a deadly accident. The foreman stated, "The jury clearing Karen Read of manslaughter and leaving the scene of a deadly accident." This decision was emotionally impactful for the jurors, with one expressing sadness for John O'Keefe's family, believing "horrible for the family he seemed to be a very nice guy... I feel bad for them and I really wanted them to get justice for Donkey for real."

While finding Read "not guilty," the jury's decision does not necessarily equate to believing her "factually innocent." As Juror 11, Paula Prado, clarified, "not guilty meaning prosecutors didn't prove it that's the standard in in our courtrooms." The core of the verdict was the prosecution's failure to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

II. Critical Flaws in the Investigation and Prosecution

Jurors consistently highlighted numerous deficiencies in the investigation and the Commonwealth's presentation of the case:

• Poor Investigation and Missing Evidence: A recurring theme was the perception of a "poor investigation" with "too many flaws, too many holes that we couldn't fill in no reports." Specific issues included:

• Missing Reports: Lack of documentation.

• "Glint" on Video: Unexplained visual anomalies in critical video evidence, suggesting manipulation or incompleteness.

• Missing Ring Light Video: A crucial segment of video from John O'Keefe's house was missing, raising suspicions.

• Unprofessional Conduct/Misleading Information: Jurors felt that some police officers and witnesses were "not correct, not precise" and potentially "misleading." Juror 11 noted, "I felt some witnesses hide information not sure if they lied and stand but hide information for sure." There were strong reactions to Officer Kelly Dever's testimony, with comments about "lying cop Kelly Dever who either lied on the stand or lied to the feds."

• Lack of Thoroughness: The jury foreman indicated that if there had been a dead body on the front steps of their own homes, their houses would have been "stormed," implying a lack of thoroughness in the initial investigation at the crime scene in comparison to what would typically occur. This suggests a perceived disparity in law enforcement's approach to the investigation.

• Lack of Connection Between Injuries and Narrative: Jurors struggled to reconcile the nature of O'Keefe's injuries with the prosecution's narrative of being struck by Read's SUV. Juror 11 stated, "the injury don't connect with the tail Right... the shape of the whole soul, Matt raise suspicion to me and reasonable doubt." The absence of expected severe injuries from a 24 mph collision, such as broken bones or large bruises, was a significant point of doubt. "If a car hit our arm we’d have a huge bruise or broken bones. They are allowed to use their experience in their judgment, and the commonwealth didn’t give them proof that it was possible for this to happen without any sign other than scrapes."

• Suspicions of Evidence Tampering/Planting: The jury harbored suspicions regarding the placement of evidence, particularly the taillight pieces. Juror 11 speculated, "maybe he broke the he was bad and he could have told the glass. On the tail light and break Another thing... time enough for someone to just show up and drop a piece of tail light at the scene." This indicates a "reasonable possibility that someone could have planted the [evidence]." The extremely tiny red shards of taillight found on O'Keefe's clothing were also questioned due to their size and the difficulty in connecting them definitively to the incident as presented.

• Unconvincing Expert Testimony and Witnesses:

• Mock Demonstrations: Jurors found the mock collision demonstrations presented by the prosecution unconvincing, especially considering the lack of consideration for speed, size, and weight differences between the dummy and O'Keefe. "wasn't a good enough compared to what our co-presented to was that seems very unprofessional."

• Witness Credibility: Juror 11 found some witnesses "didn't behave as we sit we expected," noting they "do not answer directly" and appeared to "hide information." The most important witnesses for Juror 11 were "both of the engineers" but also "officer devore and the officer became Nick and how they interact with the lawyers in court that also was very important to me." The jurors felt misled at various points by both attorneys and witnesses.

• Uncalled Witnesses: Jurors expressed a strong desire to hear from specific individuals who did not testify, including "right he does and bring Albert or to call all that. Was a surprise to all of us that none of them where I have come to the stand I didn't know their faces they just heard their names."

III. Juror Deliberations and Process

• Focus on Evidence: The jury emphasized sticking strictly to the presented evidence during deliberations. "We looked at all the evidence that we was presented with, and we made our decision off of that." They resisted going "down these rabbit holes where we're just getting lost and what all these other things that was thrown at always in court."

• Avoiding a Hung Jury: Unlike the first trial which resulted in a deadlocked jury, the current jurors were determined to reach a unanimous decision. "we definitely didn't want to hang this jury we were very positive that we going to discuss everything as much as we can."

• Lack of External Influence: Jurors affirmed they were not influenced by external factors, including "the cutting wood supporters that we are hearing them and we felt pressure something we couldn't."

• Judge's Conduct: Juror 11 described Judge Cannone as "pleasant" and "very kind," acknowledging her flexibility with their schedules. However, some jurors noted a perceived bias, with comments like "felt Cannone was biased towards the prosecution." Juror 11 observed an imbalance in the judge's rulings on objections from the defense and prosecution attorneys.

• Juror's Personal Background: Juror 11, with a law background from Brazil, understood the legal system and expressed surprise that some evidence was withheld, viewing it as "suspicious" and potentially beneficial to the defense.

IV. Perceptions of Karen Read

Juror 11's initial impression of Karen Read "wasn't that good" due to her calm demeanor and lack of outward emotion during the trial. However, this evolved into "I learned how to admire her." The juror noted Read's active participation and sharpness during the trial, suggesting she was "a great help to to the liars [lawyers]."

V. Impact and Future Implications

The financial cost of the trial was a concern for jurors, with one stating, "the amount of money spent in this trial made me very upset and I'm sure made my fellow jurors upset too."

The acquittal has sparked calls for further investigation into the death of John O'Keefe. Jurors expressed hope for the case to be reopened to "find who actually did that to John." The jury's critique of the police investigation and witness credibility raises serious questions about potential corruption and incompetence within law enforcement in Norfolk County, as highlighted by various social media discussions.

convert_to_textConvert to source