The state’s highest court has ruled that Karen Read can be retried on all charges related to the death of her boyfriend, John O’Keefe, a Boston police officer. This decision comes after a lengthy legal battle that has sparked debate over the handling of the case and the potential for double jeopardy. Prosecutors have been pushing to retry Read on charges of second-degree murder, manslaughter, and leaving the scene of a crime, accusing her of fatally striking O’Keefe with her SUV during a snowstorm in January 2022 and then abandoning him. Read’s lawyers, however, argue that she has been framed to shield other law enforcement officers who may have been involved in O’Keefe’s death. The case has drawn significant attention due to its complexity and the conflicting narratives presented by both sides.
The legal drama began unfolding when a mistrial was declared in June after jurors were unable to reach a unanimous verdict. The judge overseeing the case decided to end the trial without polling the jurors to confirm their conclusions, a decision that has been challenged by Read’s legal team. According to her attorney, Martin Weinberg, five jurors later revealed that while they were deadlocked on the manslaughter charge, they had unanimously agreed that Read was not guilty of second-degree murder or leaving the scene of a crime. However, this information was not shared with the judge during the trial, leading Weinberg to argue that retrying Read would violate the principle of double jeopardy. Despite these arguments, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has now cleared the way for a new trial on all three charges.
Weinberg argued in his appeal that retrying Read would constitute double jeopardy, a constitutional protection that prevents someone from being tried twice for the same offense. He also requested an evidentiary hearing to allow jurors to testify about whether they had reached a final verdict on any of the charges before the mistrial was declared. Prosecutors, however, maintained that there was no basis for dismissing the charges, emphasizing that the defense had ample opportunity to address the issues in the trial courtroom. They further argued that Read’s lawyers should have anticipated that a mistrial was inevitable and taken steps to prevent it. The judges on the Supreme Judicial Court pressed Weinberg during oral arguments about the merits of holding such an inquiry, questioning whether it would set a problematic precedent. Associate Justice Frank Gaziano noted that such inquiries are typically reserved for extraordinary circumstances, such as racial bias in the jury room, while Chief Justice Kimberly Budd expressed concerns about opening the door for other defendants to claim that jurors had privately shared conflicting accounts of events.
The trial judge, Beverly Cannone, ruled in August that Read could be retried on all three charges, asserting that since no verdict had been officially announced in court, the retrial would not violate the principle of double jeopardy. Cannone’s decision effectively paved the way for the state’s appeal to the higher court, which has now upheld her ruling. Prosecutors have presented a timeline of events that suggests Read and O’Keefe were heavily intoxicated on the night of his death. According to their account, Read dropped O’Keefe off at a party hosted by Brian Albert, a fellow Boston police officer, and later struck him with her SUV before fleeing the scene. An autopsy concluded that O’Keefe died from a combination of hypothermia and blunt force trauma. However, Read’s defense team has painted a very different picture, portraying her as the victim of a frame-up.
The defense has argued that O’Keefe was actually killed inside Albert’s home and later dragged outside, suggesting that investigators improperly focused on Read to avoid implicating law enforcement officers. They claim that Read was a “convenient outsider” who served as a scapegoat to protect others who may have been involved in O’Keefe’s death. This narrative has contributed to the public’s skepticism about the handling of the case and raised questions about the integrity of the investigation. While the prosecution’s version of events hinges on Read’s alleged actions behind the wheel of her SUV, the defense has sought to shift suspicion onto others who were present at the party that night. The conflicting accounts have made the case highly contentious and difficult to resolve.
The Supreme Judicial Court’s ruling has significant implications for the case and potentially for future trials in Massachusetts. By allowing the retrial to proceed on all charges, the court has effectively sided with prosecutors, who argue that the case should be decided by a new jury. Weinberg and Read’s legal team have expressed disappointment with the ruling, vowing to continue fighting for her exoneration. As the case moves forward, the public will be watching closely to see how the new trial unfolds and whether the jury will reach a different verdict this time around. The outcome of the retrial could have far-reaching consequences, not only for Karen Read but also for the broader discussion about justice, accountability, and the transparency of law enforcement investigations.
