Karen Read: A Frame or a Fatal Mistake?
What the Jury’s Questions Reveal and What’s Likely to Happen Next.
NEWSFLASH: As I predicted below, Karen Read was just found NOT GUILTY of murder. She was only found guilty of Driving Under the Influence. The verdict is no surprise to this writer. See my rationale (written an hour before the verdict was announced), below:
As the second trial of Karen Read enters a tense fourth day of jury deliberations, all eyes are once again on Norfolk County. Months of conflicting testimony, fiery courtroom exchanges, and a defense narrative of a police-driven frame job have set the stage for a pivotal verdict. Will Read be convicted for the death of Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe—or walk free?
If the jury’s questions are any indication, this retrial may end just as the first one did: divided.
A Recap of the Case That Gripped Massachusetts
Read, a former financial analyst, is accused of striking O’Keefe—her boyfriend—with her Lexus SUV in the early-morning hours of January 29, 2022, after an argument. Prosecutors allege she was drunk, angry, and reckless. They say she hit him outside a fellow officer’s home in Canton, drove away, and left him to die in the snow.
The defense tells a radically different story—one built not merely on reasonable doubt but on the assertion of an outright police frame-up. They claim O’Keefe was beaten inside the house by other officers, then dumped outside. Read, they argue, became the perfect scapegoat: a civilian, emotionally volatile, and easy to blame.
That narrative has gained traction in certain corners of the public sphere. On Reddit threads, in comment sections, and on courthouse sidewalks, “Free Karen Read” signs abound. But does it resonate in the jury room?
What the Jury Is Telling Us—Without Speaking
After days of deliberation, jurors in this retrial have already sent multiple notes to Judge Beverly Cannone. Their questions—about lesser-included offenses, the definition of manslaughter, and whether they must reach consensus on all counts—echo the first trial, which ended in a hung jury.
One note reportedly asked if they could acquit on some charges while remaining undecided on others. That isn’t the question of twelve people homing in on a unanimous verdict: it’s the question of a group looking for a procedural exit from gridlock.
In Read’s first trial (2023), jurors seemed ready to acquit on second-degree murder and leaving-the-scene—but deadlocked on vehicular manslaughter. Seeing the same pattern now tells us something critical: reasonable doubt still permeates the room.
The Power—and the Risk—of the Defense’s Narrative
Read’s legal team, led by Alan Jackson, leaned hard into the frame-job theory. They questioned the credibility of State Trooper Michael Proctor, criticized chain-of-custody lapses in key evidence (taillight fragments, cellphone data), and highlighted injuries they say don’t match the prosecution’s timeline.
Most persuasively, they noted how investigators homed in on Read from the start—allegedly overlooking alternate scenarios that might implicate fellow officers.
Yet there’s a danger in invoking a sweeping conspiracy. Jurors may wonder: Could dozens of officers, scientists, and prosecutors truly coordinate a cover-up? Conspiracy narratives raise eyebrows, but do they raise enough doubt? That answer lies in each juror’s willingness to believe that the system itself might be corrupt. The defense theory of the case reads like one of my Zachary Blake novels.
The Prosecution’s Best Evidence
The Commonwealth built a more conventional, forensic-heavy case:
Shattered taillight shards found near O’Keefe’s body match Read’s SUV.
High BAC readings suggest Read was well over the legal limit.
Injuries are, according to experts, consistent with a vehicular strike.
Cell-site data place Read near the scene when O’Keefe was injured.
Lead prosecutor Adam Lally hammered these points in closing, playing Read’s frantic 911 call and emphasizing O’Keefe’s blunt-force trauma and hypothermia. But is that enough to unify twelve skeptical jurors?
So, What Happens Next?
Here are the three most plausible outcomes—ranked from most to least likely:
Hung Jury on Manslaughter, Acquittal on Other Counts
The jury’s questions mirror 2023: they appear comfortable acquitting on murder and leaving-the-scene but remain split on criminal negligence. A mistrial on manslaughter would force District Attorney Michael Morrissey to decide whether a third trial on a single lesser charge is worth the political and financial cost.Split Verdict: Guilty of OUI Manslaughter, Not Guilty on Others
If jurors compromise, they might convict Read of operating under the influence—manslaughter while clearing her of murder and leaving-the-scene. This resolves the deadlock without forcing yet another trial but still exposes Read to prison time (though far less than a murder conviction).Full Acquittal (Long Shot—but Not Impossible)
Should even one juror accept the defense’s conspiracy theory—or simply see reasonable doubt in the forensics—Read could walk entirely. This would devastate the prosecution and likely spur civil litigation from the O’Keefe family.
The Bottom Line
If this jury behaves like the last, expect a mistrial on the manslaughter charge and acquittals on the more serious counts. That would be a moral victory for Read’s defense and a thorny dilemma for prosecutors: pursue a third trial on a lesser charge, cut a plea, or walk away.
Karen Read’s fate is now in the hands of twelve Massachusetts jurors wrestling with fact versus speculation, accident versus intent, and justice versus doubt.
Stay tuned—this story is far from over.
Did this analysis help you understand the trial? Forward it to a friend and subscribe for more legal deep dives from “And Justice For All.”