Karen Read, at the center of a tumultuous legal saga, has formally requested to postpone the wrongful death lawsuit filed against her by the family of John O’Keefe. Read, who is accused of causing O'Keefe's death by hitting him with her SUV and leaving him exposed to the elements, is currently entangled in both civil and criminal proceedings, creating complex legal challenges for her defense.
The lawsuit, which remains unscheduled, is being pursued by O'Keefe's family amid significant controversy. Read’s legal team has pointed out the potential for prejudice against her if the civil trial were to take place before her second criminal trial, which is set to begin this January. According to court records, the civil case must reach completion by August 26, 2027.
Allegations surrounding O'Keefe’s death are severe and multifaceted. Read maintains her innocence, asserting she was framed and insisting O'Keefe died from injuries sustained at another location. She has stated her ability to present her defense during the criminal case would be “substantially prejudiced” if the civil proceedings continue concurrently.
One of the central issues at play is Read's constitutional right under the Fifth Amendment, which protects individuals from self-incrimination. If the civil trial were to proceed, the risk arises where her decision not to testify could be misinterpreted by jurors, unlike her criminal trial where this consideration is strictly protected. This dilemma is compounded by the burden of proof disparities: jurors only require 5 out of 6 votes to achieve a verdict in civil cases, compared to the higher threshold necessary for criminal convictions.
Read’s lawyers stress the conflict between her choice to invoke her rights and the need to speak out about her case. They argue her potential testimony could harm her defense strategy should the civil court render findings before criminal judicial proceedings are resolved. Conversely, attorneys for O'Keefe's family have contested this claim, pointing to Read's media appearances as evidence of her willingness to disseminate her narrative surrounding the events leading to O'Keefe's death.
During her first trial, which ended without resolution, several jurors reportedly indicated they believed she was guilty of manslaughter—a finding the family of O'Keefe views as significant leverage for their civil case. The previous jurors' comments add weight to the family's assertion, indicating they might have grounds to sway other jurors if the civil case were to result from the same evidence presented initially.
“The right not to self-incriminate does not come with the right of self-promotion,” states one of the filings from O’Keefe’s representatives. They allege Read's public statements could be seen as attempts to shape public perception and, by extension, influence potential jurors, challenging the integrity of fair trial principles.
To complicate matters, the Waterfall Bar & Grille, where Read and O'Keefe were last seen together before his death, has also responded to being named as one of the defendants. The bar denies any wrongdoing, contesting claims of negligence for serving alcohol, labeling the accusations as baseless. This is part of the broader narrative where different entities seek responsibility and accountability around O'Keefe’s tragic end.
The stakes are high as Read navigates this challenging terrain of overlapping court battles. A hearing on her request for delaying the civil proceedings has yet to occur. Meanwhile, whether she can effectively disentangle the threads of public scrutiny, possible jury bias, and her legal battles remains to be seen. The upcoming months will be pivotal for Read as she prepares for her second trial and awaits the court's decision on her extension request.
