On Wednesday, a jury acquitted Karen Read of second-degree murder and manslaughter charges in the tragic death of her Boston police officer boyfriend, John O’Keefe, which occurred in 2022. This case captivated a multitude of true crime enthusiasts, who erupted in joyous cheers outside the courtroom upon hearing news of the acquittal. Simultaneously, after at least 22 hours of deliberation since June 13th, the same jury convicted Read of the lesser offense of drunken driving.
As the verdict was being read aloud, the cheers from the enthusiastic crowd gathered outside echoed within the courtroom. Accompanied by her gleeful supporters, attorneys, and family, Read exited the courthouse with a sense of triumph. This was indeed a monumental victory for Read’s legal team, who had steadfastly maintained her innocence, asserting that she had been framed by the police after dropping O’Keefe off at a party hosted by a fellow officer.
The prosecution had argued that Read, aged 45, had struck O’Keefe, 46, with her SUV and fled the scene. However, the defense team insisted that O’Keefe had been killed inside the home and subsequently moved outdoors. Read herself declared, “No one has fought harder for justice for John O’Keefe than I have.” Meanwhile, members of O’Keefe’s family left the courtroom with heads bowed, deep in sorrow.
This verdict arrived nearly a year after another jury had failed to reach a consensus in Read’s involvement in O’Keefe’s January 2022 death, resulting in a mistrial. Initially, Read faced charges of second-degree murder, manslaughter, and leaving the scene in Boston. A conviction for second-degree murder would have meant a life sentence. Instead, she will now serve a year of probation for the drunken driving conviction.
Outside the courthouse, Read’s father, Bill Read, expressed a sense of relief and expressed his “tremendous thanks” to God upon hearing the verdict.
"We must piece our lives back together, and we shall succeed," he declared with resolve. When questioned about the differing verdict in the second trial, he elaborated, "Another year has passed with information circulating widely among the public, heightening awareness of the events that transpired."
Several witnesses involved in the case issued a statement on Wednesday, expressing their heartfelt sympathy for John and the entire O'Keefe family. Among the signatories were Jennifer McCabe, who was present with Read and O'Keefe on the fateful night, and Brian Albert, the homeowner where the party took place. "While we may share more in the future, today we mourn alongside John's family and lament the harsh reality that this prosecution was tainted by lies and conspiracy theories perpetuated by Karen Read, her defense team, and certain media outlets. The outcome is a heart-wrenching denial of justice," the statement lamented.
Outside the courthouse, an atmosphere akin to a sports victory celebration prevailed among Read's supporters, adorned with pink confetti. T.D. Floras of Nashua, New Hampshire, stood by the courthouse barrier, cradling Lucy, her chorkie—a delightful blend of a chihuahua and yorkie. The dog sported a sign around its neck reading "Free Karen." Floras professed her immense excitement and delight regarding the verdict. "I would gladly serve her probation myself," she enthused. "It has been a long journey, so let's now move past this so she can find peace in her life."
The trial, much like its predecessor, saw attorneys meticulously presenting their cases over months, showcasing a multitude of evidence and numerous witnesses. Read's defense claimed that O'Keefe was brutalized, bitten by a dog, and abandoned outside a Canton home—a Boston suburb—in a police conspiracy that involved planting evidence. Prosecutors painted a picture of Read as a spurned lover who left O'Keefe to perish in the snow after striking him with her SUV.
Shira Diner, a Boston University Law School lecturer, observed that the verdict "affords us a moment to reflect on how differently this case might have unfolded had Karen Read not been a privileged white woman with resources." She continued, "The criminal justice system is riddled with inequalities, and the defendant's ability to post bail and remain free during the pendency of the case made a profound impact. She could collaborate directly with her lawyers, something incarcerated defendants cannot do. She granted interviews and crafted a public narrative that those without resources cannot. All these efforts contributed to the verdict, a privilege denied to most individuals charged with second-degree murder."
Daniel Medwed, a law professor at Northeastern University, interpreted it as a verdict of mercy or compromise, where jurors opt for acquittal on the gravest charges but convict on lesser offenses when they harbor doubts about the case yet wish to hold the individual accountable.
"The evidence presented here—encompassing the defendant's own confessions—unequivocally demonstrated her intoxicated driving, rendering an Operating Under the Influence (OUI) verdict a foreseeable conclusion for the jury," Medwed elaborated. A blogger, an ardent advocate for Read's innocence who faced separate charges of witness intimidation in relation to her case, conveyed to the Associated Press an overwhelming surge of emotion post-verdict.
"Two and a half arduous years have culminated in this moment. It's finally at an end. Karen Read is free," Aidan Kearney exclaimed. "Every effort I exerted was justified, and justice has prevailed at last. We have successfully laid this harrowing ordeal to rest."
Leading the state's prosecution was special prosecutor Hank Brennan, who summoned fewer witnesses compared to Adam Lally, who oversaw Read's initial trial. Brennan painted O'Keefe as a "benevolent soul" who "assisted others" and stressed to the jury during his closing remarks that O'Keefe desperately needed aid that fateful night, with Read being the sole individual capable of providing it.
"She was inebriated. She struck him and deserted him to his fate," Brennan asserted.
The defense team rejected the notion of any collision ever occurring, supported by expert testimonies that concurred. "Absolutely no evidence exists to suggest that John was struck by a vehicle. None whatsoever. This case should have concluded instantaneously on account of the absence of a collision," attorney Alan Jackson emphasized in his closing arguments.
