Karen Read Trial: Key Themes and Developments

1. Mistrial and Retrial: The initial trial, which began in April 2024, ended in a mistrial on July 1, 2024, due to a "starkly divided" hung jury. "Jurors sent a note to Judge Cannone, telling her they are deadlocked. The judge responded that she did not believe they had deliberated long enough, and asked them to continue trying to reach a verdict." When they remained "deeply divided" in a second note, a mistrial was declared. The second trial commenced on April 1, 2025, with jury selection. Karen Read has appealed her case to the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking to delay her state trial.

2. Central Disagreement: Car Impact vs. Fall/Other Injury: The core of the prosecution's case is that Karen Read struck John O'Keefe with her SUV and left him to die. The defense argues that O'Keefe died from injuries sustained from a fall and a dog attack inside the house at Fairview Road, and his body was subsequently moved outside.

• Prosecution's Stance: Relies heavily on accident reconstruction expert Judson Welcher, who testified that O'Keefe was struck by a vehicle. Welcher's analysis included data indicating O'Keefe's cellphone stopped moving when Read's SUV was moving in reverse.

• Defense's Counter-Narrative:No Broken Bones: Dr. Marie Russell, a dog bite expert, and Dr. Elizabeth Laposata, a former Chief Medical Examiner of Rhode Island, testified for the defense. Dr. Laposata, a key defense witness, stated that X-rays of O'Keefe showed "no notable injuries to O'Keefe's forearm, wrist, hand, or upper arm," and "no indication on these X-rays of any fractures or any trauma or any type of injury to the bones or the joints." This directly challenges the prosecution's car impact theory, as it suggests the injuries were not consistent with being hit by an SUV.

• Disputed X-rays: A significant point of contention has been the existence and disclosure of O'Keefe's X-rays. While prosecution witness Judson Welcher previously stated he had not seen X-rays, the defense revealed their existence through Dr. Laposata. This has led to accusations of a "Brady violation" (withholding exculpatory evidence) and questions about why the X-rays were not brought up earlier.

• Dog Bite Theory: The defense has pursued a theory that O'Keefe sustained injuries from a dog bite. However, prosecution expert Teri Kun, a veterinary forensic specialist, testified that swabs from O'Keefe's shirt tested negative for "canine DNA," though "for both the swabs we did see pig," which could indicate food like cooked pork or bacon.

• Crash Reconstruction Expert Andrew Rentschler: The defense's final witness, Andrew Rentschler, a crash reconstruction expert, testified that O'Keefe's arm injuries were "inconsistent with striking the tail light or being produced as a result of contact with the tail light." He also stated, "If you can't prove that the impact happened, than everything after that doesn't actually matter, does it?"

3. Allegations of Police Misconduct and Conspiracy Theories: The defense has consistently raised concerns about alleged misconduct and a potential cover-up by law enforcement and witnesses.

• Witness Harassment: Norfolk County District Attorney Michael Morrissey slammed what he called "absolutely baseless" harassment of witnesses, stating, "Conspiracy theories are not evidence. The idea that multiple police departments, EMTs, Fire personnel, the medical examiner, and the prosecuting agency are joined in, or taken in by, a vast conspiracy should be seen for what it is - completely contrary to the evidence and a desperate attempt to re-assign guilt."

• Inappropriate Text Messages: Trooper Michael Proctor, a lead investigator, was involved in group chats with inappropriate text messages, leading to a misconduct hearing and Sgt. Yuri Bukhenik, another lead investigator, forfeiting five vacation days for being in one of these chats.

• Disputed Google Search: Jennifer McCabe, a witness who was with Read when O'Keefe's body was found, made a Google search for "hos long to die in the cold" (with a typo). The defense has questioned the timestamp of this search, implying a potential cover-up or foreknowledge.

• Destroyed Evidence/Slow Disclosure: The defense has accused ARCCA (the engineering consulting firm providing crash reconstruction expertise) of destroying text messages with the defense that they were ordered to give to prosecutors, and of slow-walking discovery disclosures. They also claim the Canton Police Department did not preserve video footage, leading to wasted time for a defense expert.

• Impact on Jurors: Criminal defense lawyer Mark J. Geragos commented, "The forensics battle, while interesting to jurors, will hardly negate the outright corruption already exposed."

4. Courtroom Dynamics and Legal Strategy:

• Judge Beverly J. Cannone: Judge Cannone has overseen both trials. She has been noted for admonishing the defense team for "repeated misrepresentations" but did not remove any lawyers. She also denied a defense request for a mistrial with prejudice, and on June 9, 2025, denied another mistrial request after the defense accused the prosecution of a "stunt" regarding holes in O'Keefe's sweatshirt. She has also made choices to manage the volume of evidence, preferring digital copies of X-rays over large physical ones.

• Defense Team's Performance: The defense attorneys, including Alan Jackson and Hank Brennan, have been praised by some for their ability to clearly explain complex information to the jury. One Reddit user noted, "I’m continuosly impressed by the defense in this case. They’ve been up against significant headwinds in what Cannone will allow which, is not much for the defense and a blank check for the CW. If they get not guilty (they desrve it), it will be that much more impressive."

• Prosecution's Cross-Examination: Special prosecutor Adam Lally and Hank Brennan have been observed to be aggressive in their cross-examinations, particularly with defense experts. Brennan has been criticized for being "snarky" and "editorializing."

• Karen Read Not Testifying: Karen Read has stated she will not testify in her own defense, a decision she also made in her first trial.

5. Public Interest and Media Attention: The case has generated significant public interest, with high security costs ($258,278.94 for the first trial). There is a visible divide in public opinion, with "KR supporters" present outside the courtroom. The jury is shielded from media and supporters, being "bussed in from a second location." The case has been extensively covered by various news outlets and true crime podcasts.

convert_to_textConvert to source