A Massachusetts murder trial that drew nationwide attention has ended in a mistrial.
After five days of deliberations, the jury tasked with deciding the fate of Karen Read, the 44-year-old former college lecturer accused of killing her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O'Keefe, could not reach a verdict.
Ms. Read was accused of running over him with her car one wintry night in a fit of anger and leaving him for dead in the driveway of another Boston police officer. The jury informed Judge Beverly Cottone on July 1 that they could not reach a verdict.
“Despite our rigorous efforts, we continue to find ourselves at an impasse,” the jury wrote in a statement to the judge.
“Our perspectives on the evidence are starkly divided. Some members of the jury firmly believe that the evidence surpasses the burden of proof, establishing the elements of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
“Conversely, others find the evidence fails to meet this standard and does not sufficiently establish the necessary element of the charges.”
The jury, which on June 28 had first indicated that it was unable to reach a verdict, added that “its deep division is not due to a lack of effort or diligence, but rather a sincere adherence to our individual principles and moral convictions.”
“To continue to deliberate would be futile and only serve to force us to compromise these deeply held beliefs,” the six-man, six-woman jury said.
This concluded a four-month trial that was riddled with allegations of police coverup and a litany of evidence presented by the defense that swayed many in Ms. Read’s favor. It developed an almost cult-like following.
A group that adopted the hashtag #FreeKarenRead camped daily outside the Norfolk County Superior Court in Dedham, Massachusetts, where testimony about planted evidence, a rehomed dog, missing camera footage, and an unexplained internet search performed on the phone of a Boston cop’s wife.
The query was about how long it takes to die in the cold. This contrasted with the state’s case that included testimony from witnesses who said they heard Ms. Read admit she hit him. Mr. O'Keefe died on Jan. 29, 2022.
On June 28, the #FreeKarenRead group got into an altercation with another group that showed up outside the courthouse calling for Ms. Read’s conviction.
Clashes have also taken place online, where the New England murder trial sparked a national campaign to wear pink, Ms. Read’s alleged favorite color.
The trial garnered enough international attention that a couple flew to Boston from the United Kingdom to join friends they had made online within the pro-Read encampment. The pair came, as they wrote in their X posts, “in solidarity” to support Ms. Read.
In addition to national coverage of the trial, Ms. Read made appearances on major national television networks maintaining her innocence. NBC’s popular show “Dateline” recently announced that it is producing a segment on the whodunnit case.
Peppering the intrigue is the presence of Ms. Read’s defense attorney, former Los Angeles prosecutor Alan Jackson. He became a celebrity by winning a guilty verdict against music producer Phil Spector in 2009 in the shooting death of actress Lana Clarkson.
It remains unclear if the prosecution will retry the case. Judge Cottone indicated that she will schedule a hearing later this month.
Ms. Read was facing a conviction of second-degree murder, which carries a life sentence. The jury also was presented with the option of convicting Ms. Read with the lesser charges of involuntary manslaughter.
In a statement following the mistrial, David Traub, a spokesman for the Norfolk County District Attorney’s office said the state plans to retry Ms. Read.
“First, we thank the O’Keefe family for their commitment and dedication to this long process. They maintained sight of the true core of this case—to find justice for John O’Keefe,” Mr. Traub said in the statement.
Karen Read’s attorneys Alan Jackson and David Yannetti held a brief press conference outside the courthouse after the hung jury announcement and the state’s announcement it will retry their client. In quoting an old Boston phrase, both Mr. Jackson and Mr. Yanette responded “we ain’t got no quit.”
Mr. Jackson said that the state based the case on “spurious charges, a comprised investigation, investigators, and witnesses” and that the state “failed miserably and will continue to fail.”
Mr. Yanetti also commended Ms. Read on her “strength and courage” and that it was a “privilege” to represent her. In addressing her supporters, he told them their support for Ms. Read “was invaluable.”
The date of hearing to decide the merits of retrying the case was set by the judge for July 22.
