Jury begins deliberations in Karen Read’s retrial for the death of John O’Keefe

By Dakin Andone, Jean Casarez, CNN

(CNN) — After nearly eight weeks of testimony, jury deliberations began in the retrial of Karen Read for the death of John O’Keefe, following closing arguments from Massachusetts prosecutors and defense attorneys presenting competing narratives about how the off-duty Boston cop died in January 2022.

They now face the task of reaching a verdict that will decide Read’s fate.

Prosecutors have accused Read of hitting O’Keefe, a Boston police officer, with her SUV during a night out drinking with friends, alleging she struck O’Keefe while driving in reverse and left him to die outside a home in Canton, Massachusetts. Read – whose first trial ended with a hung jury – insists on her innocence, and has pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder, vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and leaving the scene of a collision resulting in death.

“You folks are the last line of defense … between an innocent woman,” defense attorney Alan Jackson told jurors Friday, “and a system that has tried to break her, that falsely accused her, that tried mightily, mightily to bury the truth.”

Read, 45, has claimed to be the target of a cover-up, alleging off-duty law enforcement inside that home were responsible for O’Keefe’s death and that they conspired to frame her. But her defense at trial has been more broadly focused on undermining the police investigation and offering jurors alternative theories for what, other than Read’s SUV, might have killed O’Keefe.

Special prosecutor Hank Brennan, tapped by the Norfolk District Attorney’s Office to prosecute the retrial, dismissed Jackson’s claims in his own closing Friday. “She was drunk, she hit him and she left him to die,” he said.

Defense attorneys Thursday indicated they would not argue a so-called “third-party culprit” defense. Rather, the judge is allowing them to argue the crime scene was not secure, to raise questions about the chain of custody of the evidence and bias in the investigation.

Jackson immediately highlighted those arguments in his closing, telling jurors, “This case was corrupted from the start. It was corrupted by biases, conflicts and personal loyalties that you heard about.

“And most fatally, it was corrupted by a lead investigator whose misconduct infected every single part of this case, from the top to the bottom,” he said, alluding to former Massachusetts State Trooper Michael Proctor, who was dishonorably discharged from the agency in March for sexist texts he sent about the defendant during the investigation.

In his own closing, Brennan pointed to the digital evidence in the case – taken from the black box of Read’s SUV and O’Keefe’s cell phone – likening it to a historian that tells a story about the couple’s journey from a local bar to the home at 34 Fairview Road, where O’Keefe’s body was found the next morning.

That evidence shows the couple’s relationship was deteriorating, Brennan said, alleging the couple was fighting on the way to the house. Once O’Keefe got out of the vehicle, he said, the data shows Read put her 6,000-pound Lexus in reverse and pressed on the gas.

“That data tells a story that can’t be changed,” he said.

The closing arguments Friday mark the apex of not one, but two trials that have divided these suburbs south of Boston for the better part of three years, spawning a vocal contingent of court watchers who fiercely advocate for the defendant, echo her allegations of police corruption and chant, “Free Karen Read.”

Each side had one hour and 15 minutes on Friday to sum up their cases. Prosecutors tried to synthesize the many threads they explored into one compelling story, while the defense worked to seed enough “reasonable doubt” in jurors’ minds to convince them the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden of proof.

Both will be hoping their version resonates and leads jurors to render a verdict in their side’s favor – something each side was denied at the conclusion of the first trial last July, when the jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict after four days of deliberating, forcing Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Beverly Cannone to declare a mistrial.

Read did not testify in either trial, though she appeared to consider the idea throughout the retrial. Prosecutors presented clips taken from interviews Read gave the media, trying to use her words against her to highlight inconsistencies in her account and bolster their theory.

Prosecutor claims an ‘inconvenient’ truth

The case centers on a window of time that started late on January 28, 2022, and stretched into the early morning hours of the following day.

That evening, Read and O’Keefe went out with friends to two bars in Canton, as the region braced for a historic snowstorm. The party eventually moved to a home at 34 Fairview Road, and while Read has said she dropped O’Keefe off, witnesses who testified for the prosecution said he never came inside.

It is the prosecution’s theory that O’Keefe exited the vehicle, and that Read put her SUV in reverse and pressed on the gas at about 75% of the throttle. According to testimony presented at trial, prosecutors allege Read hit O’Keefe at a speed of about 24 mph, shattering her SUV’s taillight, sending the victim to the ground and causing him blunt force trauma injuries to his head that incapacitated him, leading to his death.

When Read returned to the scene the next morning with two other women, they found O’Keefe lying in the snow near a flagpole in the yard of the home. In the prosecution’s telling, when a paramedic who responded to treat O’Keefe asked what happened, Read responded, “I hit him, I hit him, I hit him.”

“She is now coming to terms with the moment,” Brennan said Friday. “Her fear is realized: She hit him, she clipped him, she didn’t think he was mortally wounded. She panicked.”

Read’s statement “doesn’t reconcile with the boogeyman Proctor and the bad government … I know it doesn’t reconcile with everybody setting up the girl,” Brennan said. But he derided the defense’s suggestion of a conspiracy.

“It’s inconvenient,” Brennan added. “But the truth has a way of seeping up to the daylight.”

Brennan also addressed Proctor’s involvement in the case, calling his conduct “distasteful” and “dishonorable.” But Proctor was held responsible for it, Brennan said, and he argued the former trooper’s behavior is ultimately irrelevant.

“There’s not one piece of evidence, not one that we can look at and say this was tampered with, this was planted, this was distorted,” Brennan said.

‘We are after the truth,’ defense says

Read’s attorneys rejected this theory, arguing no collision occurred: Their experts testified some of O’Keefe’s injuries – specifically cuts and scratches on his arm – were caused by a dog, and that the damage to Read’s taillight was inconsistent with it striking a person.

The defense worked to undermine confidence in the investigation, highlighting Proctor’s text messages about the defendant. Proctor was never called to testify.

On Friday, Jackson pointed to Brian Higgins, who had exchanged flirtatious text messages with Read prior to the night in question, according to evidence presented at trial. Jackson tried to suggest Higgins – who was part of the group that got together on January 28, 2022 – had the motive to attack O’Keefe, but was never looked at as a suspect.

Higgins has not been charged in the case, and his attorney, William Connolly, has denied any wrongdoing by his client. “The idea that Brian Higgins — a former firefighter, combat veteran, decorated federal agent, Tactical Medic and Emergency Medical Technician who has dedicated his life to service over self — participated in the murder of John O’Keefe is absurd,” he told CNN in a statement.

Both sides have emphasized the scientific evidence backs their theory of the case: On Friday, Jackson repeatedly mentioned the science and data, calling it “that silent witness,” which he said failed to prove O’Keefe was struck by a vehicle.

“We are after the truth in this courtroom. You’re entitled to it – demand it,” Jackson said, adding the Commonwealth knows “what their experts know: There was no collision.”

“Reasonable doubt is not a sliding scale, it’s a wall. If the Commonwealth cannot get over every one of these dozens of walls, you have to acquit Karen Read,” he said. “The truth is, Karen Read is not guilty.”

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2025 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.