Topline: The second trial over the death of Officer John O’Keefe enters its final phase as jurors begin weighing sharply divided accounts.
Published: June 14, 2025 8:00 am ET
Must Read
DEDHAM, MA — A jury has begun deliberations in the closely watched second trial of Karen Read, a Massachusetts woman accused of killing her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O’Keefe, in a 2022 incident that has gripped the region with its twists, controversies, and allegations of police corruption.
Read, 45, stands accused of backing into O’Keefe with her SUV during a snowstorm outside a fellow officer’s home in Canton, then leaving him to die in the blizzard. Prosecutors allege the incident occurred after a night of drinking and argue that her vehicle was the weapon that killed him.
But the defense paints a very different picture: they claim Read is being framed, and that O’Keefe was actually attacked—beaten and possibly mauled by a dog—inside the home of Brian Albert, the host of the party that night and a fellow Canton police officer. He was then, they argue, thrown outside in the snow, where he died from his injuries and exposure.
This is the second time Read is facing these charges in court. Her first trial ended in a hung jury last July, after five days of deliberations failed to yield a unanimous verdict.
As reported by The Patriot Ledger, Judge Beverly Cannone ultimately declared a mistrial, following repeated attempts to nudge the jury toward consensus, including a so-called Tuey-Rodriguez charge—an instruction designed to encourage deadlocked jurors to reconsider their positions.
According to Read’s legal team, at least four jurors from that first trial have confirmed that the jury had already acquitted her on two of the three charges: second-degree murder and leaving the scene of personal injury and death. The panel remained split only on the charge of manslaughter while operating under the influence. Despite appeals reaching all the way to the state Supreme Court, Read’s efforts to block a retrial on the previously “resolved” counts were unsuccessful.
In a departure from the first trial, one of the most controversial figures in the case—former Massachusetts State Police investigator Michael Proctor—was not called to testify this time around. Proctor, who led the original investigation, became a lightning rod during the first trial after being accused of bias and misconduct.
As reported by ABC News, Proctor was later fired following revelations that he exchanged inappropriate and derogatory messages about Read with Kevin Albert, a Canton police officer and brother of the party’s host. The defense also previously accused Proctor of improper searches, including attempts to locate nude photos on Read’s phone. Despite the firestorm surrounding him, Proctor has been notably absent in the retrial proceedings.
Tensions in the Courtroom
Tensions boiled over on more than one occasion in the retrial. Read’s attorneys twice requested a mistrial—both motions were denied by Judge Cannone.
One flashpoint came when prosecutors asked a defense expert witness whether dog DNA had been found on O’Keefe’s clothing. According to ABC News, this led to a heated exchange after it was revealed that the sweatshirt in question had not yet been entered into evidence for the jury. Prosecutors claimed they intended to introduce the DNA discussion during rebuttal, but the defense challenged the integrity of the entire process, including the handling of the evidence.
Then came what the defense described as a prosecutorial “stunt.” During cross-examination of forensic pathologist Dr. Daniel Wolfe, Assistant District Attorney Hank Brennan showed the back of O’Keefe’s sweatshirt and asked if holes there could have come from the car impact. Defense attorney Robert Alessi pushed back forcefully, saying the holes were not caused during the incident but rather by a prosecution expert during lab analysis.
Brennan later admitted he had made a mistake in presenting the exhibit. Still, Judge Cannone denied the mistrial motion, though she instructed the jury to disregard Brennan’s questioning and allowed the defense’s evidence on the issue to stand.
The Defense Rests Without Karen Read Taking the Stand
Just as in her first trial, Karen Read chose not to testify in her own defense.
“I am not testifying. The case is — it’s our last witness. [The jury] has heard my interview clips. They’ve heard my voice,” Read told reporters outside the courthouse last week, as quoted by ABC affiliate WCVB.
Her legal team concluded their case Wednesday, and the prosecution opted not to present any rebuttal witnesses. Now, after months of testimony and legal maneuvering, the jury has been handed the case and faces the formidable task of deciding whether Read is guilty of manslaughter or the victim of a cover-up.
According to WBTS, the jury began deliberating Friday afternoon but wrapped up for the day roughly two hours after receiving the case. The jury will resume deliberations on Monday.
Presumption of Innocence: A presumption of innocence means that any defendant in a criminal trial is presumed to be innocent until they have been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. The defendant in this case is only accused of the charges set forth in the criminal complaint. They are innocent until proven guilty.
Editor Picks
Latest Articles
Fate of Karen Read Now Rests with the Jury
The second trial over the death of Officer John O’Keefe enters its final phase as jurors begin weighing sharply divided accounts.
By Jacob Charles
Published: June 14, 2025 8:00 am ET
DEDHAM, MA — A jury has begun deliberations in the closely watched second trial of Karen Read, a Massachusetts woman accused of killing her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O’Keefe, in a 2022 incident that has gripped the region with its twists, controversies, and allegations of police corruption.
Read, 45, stands accused of backing into O’Keefe with her SUV during a snowstorm outside a fellow officer’s home in Canton, then leaving him to die in the blizzard. Prosecutors allege the incident occurred after a night of drinking and argue that her vehicle was the weapon that killed him.
But the defense paints a very different picture: they claim Read is being framed, and that O’Keefe was actually attacked—beaten and possibly mauled by a dog—inside the home of Brian Albert, the host of the party that night and a fellow Canton police officer. He was then, they argue, thrown outside in the snow, where he died from his injuries and exposure.
This is the second time Read is facing these charges in court. Her first trial ended in a hung jury last July, after five days of deliberations failed to yield a unanimous verdict.
As reported by The Patriot Ledger, Judge Beverly Cannone ultimately declared a mistrial, following repeated attempts to nudge the jury toward consensus, including a so-called Tuey-Rodriguez charge—an instruction designed to encourage deadlocked jurors to reconsider their positions.
According to Read’s legal team, at least four jurors from that first trial have confirmed that the jury had already acquitted her on two of the three charges: second-degree murder and leaving the scene of personal injury and death. The panel remained split only on the charge of manslaughter while operating under the influence. Despite appeals reaching all the way to the state Supreme Court, Read’s efforts to block a retrial on the previously “resolved” counts were unsuccessful.
In a departure from the first trial, one of the most controversial figures in the case—former Massachusetts State Police investigator Michael Proctor—was not called to testify this time around. Proctor, who led the original investigation, became a lightning rod during the first trial after being accused of bias and misconduct.
As reported by ABC News, Proctor was later fired following revelations that he exchanged inappropriate and derogatory messages about Read with Kevin Albert, a Canton police officer and brother of the party’s host. The defense also previously accused Proctor of improper searches, including attempts to locate nude photos on Read’s phone. Despite the firestorm surrounding him, Proctor has been notably absent in the retrial proceedings.
Tensions in the Courtroom
Tensions boiled over on more than one occasion in the retrial. Read’s attorneys twice requested a mistrial—both motions were denied by Judge Cannone.
One flashpoint came when prosecutors asked a defense expert witness whether dog DNA had been found on O’Keefe’s clothing. According to ABC News, this led to a heated exchange after it was revealed that the sweatshirt in question had not yet been entered into evidence for the jury. Prosecutors claimed they intended to introduce the DNA discussion during rebuttal, but the defense challenged the integrity of the entire process, including the handling of the evidence.
Then came what the defense described as a prosecutorial “stunt.” During cross-examination of forensic pathologist Dr. Daniel Wolfe, Assistant District Attorney Hank Brennan showed the back of O’Keefe’s sweatshirt and asked if holes there could have come from the car impact. Defense attorney Robert Alessi pushed back forcefully, saying the holes were not caused during the incident but rather by a prosecution expert during lab analysis.
Brennan later admitted he had made a mistake in presenting the exhibit. Still, Judge Cannone denied the mistrial motion, though she instructed the jury to disregard Brennan’s questioning and allowed the defense’s evidence on the issue to stand.
The Defense Rests Without Karen Read Taking the Stand
Just as in her first trial, Karen Read chose not to testify in her own defense.
“I am not testifying. The case is — it’s our last witness. [The jury] has heard my interview clips. They’ve heard my voice,” Read told reporters outside the courthouse last week, as quoted by ABC affiliate WCVB.
Her legal team concluded their case Wednesday, and the prosecution opted not to present any rebuttal witnesses. Now, after months of testimony and legal maneuvering, the jury has been handed the case and faces the formidable task of deciding whether Read is guilty of manslaughter or the victim of a cover-up.
According to WBTS, the jury began deliberating Friday afternoon but wrapped up for the day roughly two hours after receiving the case. The jury will resume deliberations on Monday.
Presumption of Innocence: A presumption of innocence means that any defendant in a criminal trial is presumed to be innocent until they have been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. The defendant in this case is only accused of the charges set forth in the criminal complaint. They are innocent until proven guilty.
Editor's Note: ThePo makes every effort to accurately transcribe the contents of affidavits of probable cause contained in criminal complaints. Often, the complaints themselves are copies of copies of faxed copies, and are difficult to read. To confirm the accuracy of our transcription, contact the Magisterial District Court listed above and request a copy of the criminal complaint. It's a public record to which you are entitled.
Must Read
Editor Picks
Latest Articles
Fate of Karen Read Now Rests with the Jury
The second trial over the death of Officer John O’Keefe enters its final phase as jurors begin weighing sharply divided accounts.
By Jacob Charles
Published: June 14, 2025 8:00 am ET
DEDHAM, MA — A jury has begun deliberations in the closely watched second trial of Karen Read, a Massachusetts woman accused of killing her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O’Keefe, in a 2022 incident that has gripped the region with its twists, controversies, and allegations of police corruption.
Read, 45, stands accused of backing into O’Keefe with her SUV during a snowstorm outside a fellow officer’s home in Canton, then leaving him to die in the blizzard. Prosecutors allege the incident occurred after a night of drinking and argue that her vehicle was the weapon that killed him.
But the defense paints a very different picture: they claim Read is being framed, and that O’Keefe was actually attacked—beaten and possibly mauled by a dog—inside the home of Brian Albert, the host of the party that night and a fellow Canton police officer. He was then, they argue, thrown outside in the snow, where he died from his injuries and exposure.
This is the second time Read is facing these charges in court. Her first trial ended in a hung jury last July, after five days of deliberations failed to yield a unanimous verdict.
As reported by The Patriot Ledger, Judge Beverly Cannone ultimately declared a mistrial, following repeated attempts to nudge the jury toward consensus, including a so-called Tuey-Rodriguez charge—an instruction designed to encourage deadlocked jurors to reconsider their positions.
According to Read’s legal team, at least four jurors from that first trial have confirmed that the jury had already acquitted her on two of the three charges: second-degree murder and leaving the scene of personal injury and death. The panel remained split only on the charge of manslaughter while operating under the influence. Despite appeals reaching all the way to the state Supreme Court, Read’s efforts to block a retrial on the previously “resolved” counts were unsuccessful.
In a departure from the first trial, one of the most controversial figures in the case—former Massachusetts State Police investigator Michael Proctor—was not called to testify this time around. Proctor, who led the original investigation, became a lightning rod during the first trial after being accused of bias and misconduct.
As reported by ABC News, Proctor was later fired following revelations that he exchanged inappropriate and derogatory messages about Read with Kevin Albert, a Canton police officer and brother of the party’s host. The defense also previously accused Proctor of improper searches, including attempts to locate nude photos on Read’s phone. Despite the firestorm surrounding him, Proctor has been notably absent in the retrial proceedings.
Tensions in the Courtroom
Tensions boiled over on more than one occasion in the retrial. Read’s attorneys twice requested a mistrial—both motions were denied by Judge Cannone.
One flashpoint came when prosecutors asked a defense expert witness whether dog DNA had been found on O’Keefe’s clothing. According to ABC News, this led to a heated exchange after it was revealed that the sweatshirt in question had not yet been entered into evidence for the jury. Prosecutors claimed they intended to introduce the DNA discussion during rebuttal, but the defense challenged the integrity of the entire process, including the handling of the evidence.
Then came what the defense described as a prosecutorial “stunt.” During cross-examination of forensic pathologist Dr. Daniel Wolfe, Assistant District Attorney Hank Brennan showed the back of O’Keefe’s sweatshirt and asked if holes there could have come from the car impact. Defense attorney Robert Alessi pushed back forcefully, saying the holes were not caused during the incident but rather by a prosecution expert during lab analysis.
Brennan later admitted he had made a mistake in presenting the exhibit. Still, Judge Cannone denied the mistrial motion, though she instructed the jury to disregard Brennan’s questioning and allowed the defense’s evidence on the issue to stand.
The Defense Rests Without Karen Read Taking the Stand
Just as in her first trial, Karen Read chose not to testify in her own defense.
“I am not testifying. The case is — it’s our last witness. [The jury] has heard my interview clips. They’ve heard my voice,” Read told reporters outside the courthouse last week, as quoted by ABC affiliate WCVB.
Her legal team concluded their case Wednesday, and the prosecution opted not to present any rebuttal witnesses. Now, after months of testimony and legal maneuvering, the jury has been handed the case and faces the formidable task of deciding whether Read is guilty of manslaughter or the victim of a cover-up.
According to WBTS, the jury began deliberating Friday afternoon but wrapped up for the day roughly two hours after receiving the case. The jury will resume deliberations on Monday.
Presumption of Innocence: A presumption of innocence means that any defendant in a criminal trial is presumed to be innocent until they have been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. The defendant in this case is only accused of the charges set forth in the criminal complaint. They are innocent until proven guilty.
Editor's Note: ThePo makes every effort to accurately transcribe the contents of affidavits of probable cause contained in criminal complaints. Often, the complaints themselves are copies of copies of faxed copies, and are difficult to read. To confirm the accuracy of our transcription, contact the Magisterial District Court listed above and request a copy of the criminal complaint. It's a public record to which you are entitled.
Must Read
