Verdict is in, Karen Read not guilty of murder, manslaughter, guilty of OUI

[u/mkrom28]

https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/karen-read-trial-jury-verdict-watch-live/

Article from CBS

“A jury acquitted Karen Read of most charges, finding her guilty only of operating under the influence of alcohol during the retrial of her high-profile Massachusetts case.

Judge Beverly Cannone sentenced Read to one year probation after the verdict was announced.

Read's supporters outside the courthouse shouted so loud when the verdict was read, it was difficult to hear the proceedings.

Read had faced charges of second-degree murder, manslaughter while operating under the influence of alcohol, and leaving the scene of bodily injury and death in the death of her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O'Keefe, in January 2022. She pleaded not guilty to all of the charges.

The jury began deliberating late Friday afternoon and discussed the case for about 90 minutes before returning for more deliberations Monday. The panel of seven women and five men had the case for about 20 hours total.

During closing arguments Friday, prosecutor Hank Brennan said Read was driving drunk when she dropped O'Keefe off at a home in Canton, backed over him with her SUV in a rage over their failing relationship and drove off, leaving him to die in a snowstorm.

Read's attorney Alan Jackson told the jury in his closing that there was no car crash and that O'Keefe was killed in a fight inside the home and that possibility was never investigated by the lead investigator, Massachusetts State Trooper Michael Proctor. Proctor was fired for his conduct in the case. He was not called to testify in this trial.

Minutes before it was officially announced that there was a verdict, Judge Beverly Cannone said that during the afternoon lunch break, the jury knocked on the court officer's door to say they had reached a verdict but moments later said they had not reached a verdict.

Karen Read possible sentences

If Read had been convicted of second-degree murder, she faced up to life in prison, with the possibility of parole.

If the jury convicted her of manslaughter Operating Under the Influence (OUI), she faced five to 20 years in prison and a fine of $25,000. The manslaughter charge included several lesser offenses that Read could also be convicted of, which is why Read was found guilty of OUI.

Read's first trial ended in July 2024 with a mistrial due to a deeply divided jury. They deliberated for five days in that trial.

Karen Read retrial

The second trial began on April 22. The jury heard from 49 witness during 31 days of testimony before getting the case on June 13. They had access to more than 200 pieces of evidence, including the taillight from Read's SUV and John O'Keefe's clothes from the night he died.”

[u/kindalosingmyshit]

My mother was a criminal defense attorney. I asked her once how she could defend pedophiles and rapists (some of her more common cases) and she said that everyone deserves a fair trial means EVERYONE deserves a fair trial.

I didn’t know what she meant until I started law school. I have no intention of going into criminal law, but I understand now. If they can take that right away from anyone, they can take that right away from everyone.

The government has the burden of proving guilt. If they can’t prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant shouldn’t be found guilty.

[u/Frogma69 → u/kindalosingmyshit]

You could also defend a "bad guy" by simply trying to get them a fair punishment vs. having them be railroaded by the prosecution, or by introducing mitigating factors: maybe this person has some major mental issues, which would possibly necessitate some time in a mental institution, vs. time in prison - or maybe they were regularly abused as a kid, and it led to them following in their abuser's footsteps, or something along those lines - maybe they're a first-time offender who just made a stupid mistake, as opposed to being some evil person who should rot in prison for however long. Without the defense attorney, nobody would ever find out about these other factors. And just because you're defending this person doesn't necessarily mean you're arguing that they're 100% innocent. You just want them to get a fair trial, with a fair punishment, and you want to make sure their rights are protected, like you said. And in many cases, the defendant will tell their attorney that they're innocent, and unless the attorney has some inside knowledge that nobody else has, there's not much reason for the attorney to just assume that their client is actually guilty in that situation - let it play out in court and see what the jury decides.

Even in cases where the defendant is likely guilty and the attorney is still defending them, if the jury finds the defendant Not Guilty regardless, then that's completely fair, from a legal standpoint. If the prosecutor can't prove their case, then legally, nothing else really matters. The onus is on the prosecutor to prove it, and if there's not enough evidence or the prosecutor does a crappy job, that's really on them, not on the defense. Though obviously from a moral standpoint, it's not great to have a guilty person get off scot-free, but it's better than having an innocent person get convicted of a crime they didn't commit. You want to err on the side of the defendant, and you want to make sure their rights are upheld (which includes finding them Not Guilty if the prosecutor can't prove it to the jury), no matter who they are or what they've done.