The retrial of Karen Read is unfolding in a manner reminiscent of her initial murder trial, yet several crucial differences could significantly impact the jury's decision this time around. Following the first trial, which concluded with a hung jury and a mistrial, Read has once again pleaded not guilty to serious charges including second-degree murder, vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, and leaving the scene of a collision resulting in death. Prosecutors allege that Read, now 45, drove her Lexus under the influence, striking her boyfriend, John O’Keefe, an off-duty Boston police officer, and subsequently abandoning him in a blizzard in Canton, Massachusetts, on January 29, 2022. In contrast, Read's defense claims that fellow law enforcement officers were involved in O’Keefe's death, suggesting a conspiracy to frame her in a cover-up.
One of the most notable changes in this retrial is the composition of the legal teams. The lead prosecutor from the first trial, assistant district attorney Adam Lally, has transitioned to a supporting role, with special prosecutor Hank Brennan now at the forefront. Brennan, renowned for his defense of mob boss James “Whitey” Bulger over a decade ago, was appointed by Norfolk District Attorney Michael Morrissey, who praised Brennan's extensive experience in complex law enforcement cases.
The defense team has also undergone significant changes. Robert Alessi, a New York-based attorney with a scientific and technical background, has taken on a key role in cross-examinations and motions. Additionally, attorney Victoria George, who served as an alternate juror during the previous trial, has joined Read’s defense team. Although she did not participate in deliberations, George's insights may provide the defense with a better understanding of jury dynamics.
Another striking difference in this retrial is the introduction of Read’s own statements as evidence. Unlike the first trial, where she did not testify, Read has since participated in various media interviews, including appearances on television and a documentary series titled “A Body in the Snow: The Trial of Karen Read.” During these interviews, she articulated her version of events, which the prosecution is now using to their advantage. In his opening statements, Brennan emphasized that the jury would hear Read’s admissions regarding her level of intoxication and her acknowledgment of driving the Lexus on the night of the incident.
For instance, in a clip played during the retrial, Read speculated about her potential involvement in O’Keefe’s injury, questioning whether she might have “clipped” him while driving. This statement aligns with witness accounts suggesting she expressed doubt about hitting O’Keefe the morning his body was discovered. Furthermore, prosecutors have presented clips that counter the defense’s arguments, such as Read recalling a conversation with O’Keefe’s mother about the nature of his injuries.
A significant shift in the retrial is the firing of Massachusetts State Police Trooper Michael Proctor, the lead investigator in Read’s case. During the first trial, Proctor faced scrutiny for sending inappropriate and derogatory text messages about Read, which undermined his credibility and impacted the prosecution's case. Following the mistrial announcement last July, Proctor was relieved of his duties and was later terminated for violating departmental policies.
In the retrial, the defense plans to spotlight Proctor’s conduct, asserting that he fabricated evidence and mismanaged the investigation. Defense attorney Alan Jackson stated that the case is tainted by Proctor's actions, labeling them as a “cancer” that cannot be ignored. While it remains uncertain whether Proctor will testify in this retrial, his name is included among potential witnesses.
As the retrial of Karen Read progresses, the changes in legal representation, the incorporation of her media statements, and the controversy surrounding the lead investigator are poised to influence the jury's verdict. With these significant differences from the first trial, the dynamics of the case are evolving, and the outcome remains to be seen.
