A juror from the recent trial that resulted in the acquittal of Karen Read on charges of murder and manslaughter spoke exclusively with ABC News, offering a candid perspective on the case. In an interview with Chief National Correspondent Matt Gutman, the juror expressed her belief that “a collision did not occur” and attributed the prosecution's failure to a “sloppy police investigation.”
The juror, who requested anonymity due to privacy concerns, emphasized the evidence presented at trial, stating, “I think, with the evidence presented, a collision did not occur, and that’s all I’m letting myself consider.” When pressed about her thoughts on the victim, John O’Keefe, she maintained that it “wasn’t her job to figure out” what happened to him, suggesting that pondering alternative theories would make her deliberations much more challenging.
In 2022, Read and O'Keefe, who was a police officer, were out socializing with friends at two local bars. As the night progressed, they and others decided to continue their gathering at the home of a fellow police officer in Canton, Massachusetts. According to Read, she dropped O'Keefe off outside the residence. However, prosecutors alleged that Read struck O'Keefe with her vehicle and left him to die. In contrast, defense attorneys contended that O'Keefe had been involved in a fight inside the home and was also bitten by the homeowners’ dog.
The juror noted that O’Keefe’s arm injuries appeared “a lot more like” a dog bite rather than injuries sustained from a vehicle collision. Reflecting on the prosecution's challenges, she pointed out, “The sloppy police investigation” was a significant obstacle. She elaborated, saying, “It could be tampering, that’s a possibility. It could just be bad police work. But if anyone had done their job correctly, we wouldn’t be in this position.”
During the trial, the homeowners, Brian and Nicole Albert, maintained that O'Keefe never entered their home that night. They only learned of his death when Nicole’s sister, Jen McCabe, rushed into their bedroom in distress. “She was just upset, and I immediately thought something had happened to one of her children, or one of my children,” Nicole Albert recounted. Brian Albert added, “By the time I came downstairs, the police were already in my house. John was already gone. There was nobody to save. I would have taken a bullet for John O'Keefe.”
In a dramatic moment during the trial, Judge Cannone revealed that the jury had initially delivered a verdict before rescinding it moments later. The juror described this as a “moment of reconsideration,” where all members of the jury respected the need for further discussion before reaching a consensus. “There was a moment of reconsideration that every single person respected,” she stated. She emphasized that the jury's decision was not based on just one piece of evidence but rather a collective sense of reasonable doubt.
Another juror, Paula Prado, shared her evolving opinion regarding the case. Initially leaning towards a manslaughter conviction, Prado ultimately concluded that there were “too many holes that we couldn't fill.” She noted that nothing definitively placed Read at the scene of the incident beyond dropping off O'Keefe.
The juror described Read as being “incredibly involved” throughout the trial, likening her efforts to that of the attorneys. “She was working just as hard as the lawyers,” the juror remarked, highlighting Read’s active participation in her own defense.
In light of the trial and its outcome, the Massachusetts State Police issued a statement expressing condolences to O'Keefe’s family and loved ones. The statement emphasized that the events of the past three years have prompted the department to review its actions thoroughly, commit to improved interrogation training, and enhance overall accountability. “Our focus remains on delivering excellent police services that reflect the value of professionalism and maintain public trust,” the statement concluded.
