On June 13, 2025, the Norfolk County Superior Court in Dedham, Massachusetts, witnessed a dramatic turning point in the highly contentious murder retrial of Karen Read, a 45-year-old woman accused of fatally striking her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O'Keefe, with her SUV after a night of drinking in January 2022. After weeks of gripping testimony and intense courtroom exchanges, jurors began deliberations but left for the weekend without reaching a verdict, set to resume on June 16.
The case, which has captivated the Boston area and beyond, centers on whether Read intentionally or recklessly ran over O'Keefe outside a house party in Canton, Massachusetts, leaving him to die in the snow. Read faces charges of second-degree murder, manslaughter while operating under the influence, and leaving the scene of an accident causing injury or death. Conviction on the most serious charge could mean life in prison.
Special prosecutor Hank Brennan and defense attorney Alan Jackson presented sharply contrasting closing arguments before the jury, each allowed more than the allotted 75 minutes due to the complexity and high stakes of the trial. Judge Beverly Cannone reminded jurors of their critical role as sole judges of the facts and cautioned them to avoid discussing the case outside deliberations or engaging with social media about it.
Brennan’s prosecution painted a somber picture of a toxic relationship spiraling into tragedy. He described O'Keefe as a "good man" who needed help on that fateful night but was abandoned by Read, who was intoxicated and made the fatal decision to reverse her 6,000-pound Lexus SUV toward him. "She was drunk. She hit him and she left him to die," Brennan said emphatically, repeating the phrase twice to underscore the prosecution’s narrative.
To bolster the case, Brennan referenced Read’s own words from a voluntary television interview, in which she admitted uncertainty but acknowledged she might have "clipped" O'Keefe with her vehicle. First responders testified that they heard Read say "I hit him" multiple times at the scene, which Brennan argued was her coming to terms with the reality of her actions. A video clip played in court showed Read questioning if she had said "I hit him" so many times, reinforcing the prosecution’s claim she knew the truth.
Brennan also addressed the controversial role of former Massachusetts State Trooper Michael Proctor, the lead investigator in the case who was fired after a disciplinary board found he sent sexist and crude text messages about Read. While Brennan condemned Proctor’s misconduct, he insisted that the physical and scientific evidence remained untainted. "We don’t need Trooper Proctor to prove this case," Brennan stated, emphasizing the integrity of the remaining evidence.
The physical evidence included a broken cocktail glass found near O'Keefe’s body and shards of Read’s broken rear taillight scattered at the scene. Brennan highlighted data from Read’s SUV showing she reversed and accelerated after dropping O'Keefe at the party, reinforcing the prosecution’s timeline. Furthermore, Brennan pointed to cellphone data indicating O'Keefe was stationary near the flagpole outside the house after the alleged collision, contradicting the defense’s theory that he was inside the house engaged in a fight.
In a poignant moment, Brennan closed his argument by showing the jury a photo of a smiling John O'Keefe, humanizing the victim and declaring, "John O’Keefe was a person and he was murdered by Karen Read."
On the other side, Alan Jackson’s defense was equally compelling, beginning his closing argument by repeating three times, "There was no collision." Jackson challenged the prosecution’s narrative by asserting that no medical expert testified O'Keefe was hit by a car. He described the injuries on O'Keefe’s face and arm—black eyes, a bloody nose, a cut over his right eye, and dog bites—as consistent with a physical altercation, not a vehicular strike.
Jackson accused the investigation of being "corrupted from the start," focusing heavily on Proctor’s misconduct and the failure of law enforcement to thoroughly investigate the scene, especially the house at 34 Fairview Road, where O’Keefe was found. He questioned why investigators never entered the home or secured key evidence, suggesting a police cover-up to protect their own. Jackson highlighted flirtatious text messages between Read and federal agent Brian Higgins, who was present at the party, insinuating possible motives and conflicts ignored by investigators.
Jackson also attacked the prosecution’s evidence regarding the taillight damage, arguing that the taillight was cracked when Read’s SUV hit O’Keefe’s car earlier that morning and that the fragments found at the scene were planted. He criticized the prosecution’s crash reconstruction expert and their use of outdated studies, calling one of the experiments a "ridiculous blue paint kindergarten experiment."
He portrayed Read’s statements of "I hit him" as expressions of shock and confusion rather than confession, emphasizing the emotional turmoil she experienced upon discovering O'Keefe’s condition. Jackson urged the jury to "demand the truth" and to acquit Read, stating, "Your sworn obligation under the law is to acquit Karen Read. Not just because you can, because you must."
The defense also called upon Andrew Rentschler, a biomechanical engineer, who testified that the abrasions on O'Keefe’s arm were inconsistent with being struck by Read’s SUV. Rentschler concluded that O'Keefe’s injuries did not align with a vehicular collision, a critical point for the defense.
Outside the courtroom, more than 100 supporters of Karen Read gathered, many wearing pink, expressing their belief in her innocence and condemning what they call a flawed investigation. Kim Blinn, a police supporter from Belmont, praised Jackson’s closing argument, saying, "If you believe just one of the things he said — and all of them are believable — she’s innocent."
Judge Cannone carefully instructed jurors on the law, emphasizing the importance of reasonable doubt and the necessity for unanimous decisions on each charge. She explained Read’s absolute right not to testify and clarified the charges, including lesser-included offenses like involuntary manslaughter. The jury selected a foreperson and six alternates before beginning deliberations.
The trial’s backdrop includes a previous mistrial declared in July 2024 after a hung jury, underscoring the case’s complexity and divisiveness. This retrial has featured 49 witnesses over 31 days of testimony, with both sides presenting expert testimony and challenging the credibility of evidence and investigation.
As the jury returns to deliberate, the community remains divided, with some demanding justice for a fallen officer and others decrying what they perceive as a miscarriage of justice fueled by police misconduct and insufficient evidence. The outcome of this trial will not only determine Karen Read’s fate but also test public trust in law enforcement and the justice system.
Whatever verdict emerges, the case of Karen Read and John O'Keefe will be remembered as a deeply complicated and emotionally charged legal battle, revealing the intricate interplay between love, law enforcement, and the pursuit of truth.
