The Karen Read Trial: A Case that Divides, Intrigues, and Impresses Legal Experts

It’s a key question in the case that has launched a thousand theories: Will Karen Read walk free, or will she end up behind bars? It’s all up to jurors now.

Deliberations began Tuesday after the prosecution and defense offered up their closing arguments. And following more than eight weeks of witness testimony, jurors are left with security footage, text messages, a broken taillight, and two vastly different theories of what happened to Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe.

On the one hand, there’s the state’s argument that Read drunkenly and intentionally backed her SUV into O’Keefe – her boyfriend of two years – one snowy morning in Canton. Prosecutors allege the couple’s deteriorating relationship and Read’s jealousy drove her to kill as she dropped O’Keefe off at a house party sometime after midnight on Jan. 29, 2022.

Read’s lawyers have another theory: That O’Keefe walked into 34 Fairview Road that morning and was viciously beaten, attacked by the homeowners’ dog, and left to die in a blizzard. They say Read was framed in a conspiracy meant to protect a well-connected local family, and that law enforcement officials were in on the coverup.

Though the jury’s verdict remains undecided, several legal experts who spoke with Boston.com ahead of closing arguments agreed: For better or for worse, Read’s trial has left a lasting impression.

“The entire case is unusual from my perspective – John O’Keefe is not the typical victim and Karen Read is not the typical defendant,” attorney [Name] said in an email interview. She pointed specifically to Read’s unprecedented media campaign and accusations of a cover-up and “lazy police work.”

[Name], a criminal law professor at Northeastern University, noted the growing public fascination in Read’s case.

Read’s lawyers, he added, were impressive in their effective cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. He pointed to an old law school adage, “a brick is not a wall,” and said prosecutors have an uphill battle to keep their proverbial “wall” from crumbling.

One notable example of this came during the testimony of the lead Massachusetts State Police investigator, Trooper Michael Proctor, who admitted he “dehumanized” Read in text messages sent to friends, family, and colleagues. [Name], a professor of criminal law and evidence at Suffolk University Law School, said those texts “really significantly compromised” his testimony.

Read’s next steps will depend on the verdict she receives. She could file an appeal in the event of a conviction, and [Name] noted that the defense team’s allegations of police misconduct may be key.

A trickier question is whether prosecutors would retry Read’s case if a hung jury results in a mistrial. While [Name] suggested prosecutors would “most certainly take the ‘second bite at the apple,’” [Name] was more doubtful.

Regardless of the trial’s outcome, [Name] said the “skilled lawyering” from Read’s attorneys “has hopefully had a positive effect even beyond this single trial.”

Loftus, meanwhile, described the trial as a “fascinating” window into the division pervasive in the U.S. today.