In a verdict that concludes a lengthy and highly publicized legal battle, Karen Read has been acquitted of the most serious charges related to the death of her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O'Keefe. The decision came down on Wednesday following a retrial that captured national attention.
Read, 45, faced charges including second-degree murder, manslaughter while operating under the influence, and leaving the scene of an accident causing injury or death. After weeks of testimony and several days of deliberation, a jury found her not guilty of all these felony counts.
However, the jury did find Read guilty of a single misdemeanor charge: Operating Under the Influence (OUI). This verdict draws a legal distinction, finding her responsible for driving while intoxicated but not for causing O'Keefe's death through her vehicle.
Background of the Case
The case originated from the death of John O'Keefe in January 2022. He was found unresponsive outside a residence in Canton, Massachusetts, during a blizzard. Prosecutors alleged that Read, his girlfriend, struck him with her SUV following a heated argument and left him to die in the cold and snow.
According to the prosecution's theory presented in court, Read and O'Keefe had been out drinking at various establishments before arriving at a house party on Fairview Road in Canton. The state contended that during or after an argument, Read, while intoxicated, backed up her vehicle, hitting O'Keefe and causing the fatal injuries.
Evidence presented by the prosecution included alleged damage to Read's SUV consistent with striking a person, as well as testimony regarding her actions and statements in the hours following O'Keefe's death.
The death of a police officer immediately heightened the case's profile, and the initial investigation led to Read's arrest and indictment on the serious charges.
The prosecution's case relied heavily on forensic evidence and witness testimony attempting to place Read and her vehicle at the scene and connect her actions to O'Keefe's injuries.
The legal proceedings that followed would prove complex and protracted, ultimately requiring two full trials to reach a conclusion on the most serious charges.
The Defense's Counter-Narrative: A Claim of Framing
From the outset, Karen Read and her legal team maintained her innocence, presenting a starkly different account of the events leading to John O'Keefe's death.
The defense's central argument was that O'Keefe was not struck by Read's vehicle but was instead injured during a physical altercation inside or near the Canton residence he was found near.
They alleged that O'Keefe was involved in a brawl with individuals present at the house, potentially including other law enforcement officers.
Crucially, the defense contended that there was a concerted effort by local and state police, motivated by a desire to protect those responsible, to frame Karen Read for O'Keefe's death.
This framing narrative became a significant element of the case, fueling public debate and drawing significant media attention. The defense presented evidence and witness testimony they argued supported this theory, including questions about the integrity of the crime scene, the handling of evidence, and alleged conflicts of interest among investigators.
The defense team aggressively cross-examined prosecution witnesses, attempting to poke holes in the state's timeline and physical evidence, and suggesting that key pieces of evidence, such as tail light fragments found at the scene, were planted or mishandled.
This adversarial framing versus vehicle-strike narrative formed the core conflict presented to both juries who heard the case.
The defense's ability to articulate and support this alternative theory proved pivotal in creating reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's claims of murder and vehicular manslaughter.
The Path to Retrial: A Hung Jury
The verdict delivered this week in the retrial follows a complex procedural history. Karen Read was first tried on the same charges in July 2024.
That initial trial ended in a mistrial after the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict on all counts.
According to reports following the mistrial, the first jury had voted unanimously to acquit Read on the charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene of an accident causing injury or death.
However, they were reportedly deadlocked 9-3 in favor of convicting her on the charge of manslaughter while operating under the influence.
Because a unanimous verdict is required for a conviction or a full acquittal on each charge in Massachusetts, the inability to agree on the manslaughter charge resulted in a hung jury and a mistrial.
This outcome meant that the state had the option to retry Read on the charges, excluding those on which the jury had already voted for acquittal if the court allowed.
The decision to proceed with a retrial on the remaining counts, or potentially all counts depending on the legal interpretation and court's ruling, underscored the prosecution's commitment to their theory of the case.
A retrial is a significant undertaking, requiring both sides to re-present their cases, recall witnesses, and incur substantial legal costs and resources.
For Read, it meant facing the possibility of a lengthy prison sentence for a second time, despite the reported acquittal votes from the first jury on the most serious counts.
The mistrial outcome, particularly the reported jury split, provided insight into which aspects of the case resonated most strongly with the first panel and likely influenced the strategies adopted by both the prosecution and defense in the subsequent proceedings.
The Retrial and Deliberations
The retrial of Karen Read commenced in April 2025. The second trial saw many of the same witnesses called by both the prosecution and the defense, re-presenting evidence and arguments that had been previously heard.
The defense continued to press its theory of a cover-up and framing, highlighting alleged inconsistencies and potential alternative suspects or scenarios.
The prosecution again sought to convince the jury that the evidence, particularly forensic findings and Read's actions immediately after O'Keefe's death, pointed conclusively to her culpability in hitting him with her vehicle.
Final arguments in the retrial concluded on Friday, and the jury began its deliberations that same afternoon.
The jury, composed of seven women and five men, deliberated through Monday and Tuesday before reaching a verdict on Wednesday.
Jury deliberations are a critical and often unpredictable phase of any trial, as jurors must weigh all the evidence presented, assess the credibility of witnesses, and apply the law as instructed by the judge.
The length of deliberations can vary greatly depending on the complexity of the case, the volume of evidence, and the dynamics among the jurors.
In this instance, the jury deliberated for parts of three different days before informing the court that they had reached a decision.
The anticipation surrounding the verdict was high, given the national attention the case had garnered and the conflicting narratives presented by the prosecution and defense.
The Verdict: Acquittal on Major Charges, Conviction on OUI
When the verdict was read in court on Wednesday, Karen Read was found not guilty of the charges of second-degree murder, manslaughter while operating under the influence, and leaving the scene of an accident causing injury or death.
This outcome represents a significant legal victory for Read and her defense team, as she avoids conviction on the felony charges that could have resulted in a substantial prison sentence, potentially for life on the murder charge.
The acquittal on the manslaughter charge is particularly notable given that the first jury had reportedly leaned towards conviction on that specific count.
However, the jury did find Read guilty of one charge: Operating Under the Influence.
This misdemeanor conviction acknowledges that the jury found sufficient evidence that Read was driving while intoxicated, but it legally separates her intoxication from causing John O'Keefe's death.
For the OUI conviction, Read was sentenced to one year of probation.
This concludes the criminal proceedings against Karen Read related to John O'Keefe's death, at least concerning the charges brought by the state in this retrial.
The verdict aligns partially with the reported findings of the first jury, particularly regarding the acquittal on the most serious murder charge, but deviates on the vehicular manslaughter count, where the second jury rendered a full acquittal.
The outcome underscores the principle of the presumption of innocence and the requirement for the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of a unanimous jury.
The case has been highly divisive publicly, with strong opinions held by supporters of both the prosecution's theory and the defense's framing claim. While the legal questions regarding Read's culpability in O'Keefe's death via vehicle strike or leaving the scene have been answered by the jury, the verdict does not necessarily resolve the intense public debate or the alternative theories surrounding O'Keefe's tragic passing.
The conviction for OUI, while a lesser charge, is a finding of criminal responsibility related to her conduct that night, independent of the cause of death.
The end of the criminal trial marks a significant turning point in this complex and closely watched case, closing a chapter on the state's attempt to hold Karen Read criminally responsible for the death of John O'Keefe on the felony charges.