DEDHAM, Mass. — A jury cleared Karen Read of all but the least serious offense — drunk driving — following a lengthy trial for the murder of Boston Police Office John O’Keefe, her boyfriend.
The verdict, delivered after over 20 hours in the jury room, was anticipated ever since jurors appeared to hint at it with two notes they sent on Tuesday.
Upon hearing the verdict, Read hugged her attorneys. A crowd of supporters erupted in cheers on the streets outside the Dedham courtroom in Massachusetts.
O’Keefe’s family, which has been ever-present in the courtroom during the proceedings, filed out silently after the verdict was read.
The notes to the judge on Tuesday each addressed the idea of “lesser included” offenses, which could only be found under the OUI manslaughter charge. The least of those options was operating under the influence of liquor, or OUI.
Read, 45, of Mansfield, had faced up to life in state prison if convicted of second-degree murder, the top-level offense charged against her. She was also charged with manslaughter while operating a motor vehicle under the influence of liquor and leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death.
Following Wednesday’s verdict, prosecutor Hank Brennan recommended Read be sentenced to complete the state’s 24(d) program, which includes outpatient treatment, loss of license and probation, a sentence that is standard for first time drunk driving convictions in Massachusetts.
The charge she was ultimately convicted of, operating under the influence of liquor, was the least of three “lesser included” offenses the jury could consider under the OUI manslaughter charge — but could only be considered if they didn’t find her guilty of the definition of the major charges.
Retired state Superior Court Judge Jack Lu, who called the jury result “a stunning win for the defense” said that OUI rarely sees jail time for first time offenders.
The case
The verdict in the polarizing and highly watched case comes nearly a year after a separate jury deadlocked over Read’s involvement in the January 2022 death of O’Keefe and resulted in a judge declaring a mistrial.
Read’s lawyers have long asserted she was framed by police after dropping O’Keefe off at a party at the home of a fellow officer. Prosecutors argued Read hit O’Keefe, 46, with her SUV before driving away, but the defense maintained O’Keefe was killed inside the home and later dragged outside.
Much like during the first trial, attorneys spent months presenting their case, featuring hundreds of pieces of evidence and dozens of witnesses.
Nancy Lane/Boston Herald
A crowd show their support as Karen Read leaves court at the end of the day after jurors had finished deliberation for the day at Norfolk Superior Court in Dedham, Massachusetts, June 17, 2025. (Nancy Lane/Boston Herald)
Read’s defense said O’Keefe was beaten, bitten by a dog, then left outside a home in the Boston suburb of Canton in a conspiracy orchestrated by the police that included planting evidence.
Prosecutors have described Read as a scorned lover who chose to leave O’Keefe dying in the snow after striking him with her SUV outside the house party.
It’s the state’s second attempt to convict Read. The first Read trial ended July 1 in a mistrial due to a hung jury.
The state’s case was led by special prosecutor Brennan, who called fewer witnesses than prosecutor Adam Lally, who ran the first trial against Read.
Describing O’Keefe as a “good man” who “helped people,” Brennan told jurors during closing arguments that O’Keefe needed help that night and the only person who could provide it was Read. Instead, she drove away in her SUV.
“She was drunk. She hit him and she left him to die,” he said.
Defense attorney Alan Jackson rejected the idea that there was ever a collision at all. He and the defense called forward expert witnesses who agreed.
“There is no evidence that John was hit by a car. None. This case should be over right now, done, because there was no collision,” Jackson said during closing arguments.
Early indicator
The jury’s decision was foreshadowed by two notes they sent to Judge Beverly J. Cannone earlier in the day. The first honed in directly on OUI considerations and the second asked whether indecision on one charge by itself would mean they’re hung on all of them.
“What is the time frame for the OUI charge?” the jury’s first question stated as read by Judge Cannone. “Second, are video clips of Karen’s interviews evidence? How should we consider them? And the third, does guilty on a sub-charge mean guilty on the overall charge?”
Attorneys discussed how the questions should be answered and then Cannone brought the jury back in.
As for the first question, on the OUI charge, Cannone sided with defense attorney Alan Jackson’s recommendation: “You folks have all the evidence and remember, it’s only you who decide the facts in this case. So that’s the answer to that question. You are the factfinders.”
For the second, on video clips, Cannone said, “Yes, the videos are evidence. You should weigh the defendant’s statements in the video as you would any other piece of evidence and give them whatever weight you deem appropriate.” She did not append “if any” as the defense requested.
The third question led to an amended jury slip, which the defense had previously requested and was denied. The amendments to indictment 2, OUI manslaughter, was clarified as to how to indicate a selection for a lesser included offense.
Read, who has often talked to the media during the trial, was tight lipped when court took lunch recess following the jury answers. Her attorneys are barred by a gag order from talking. But her father offered some brief words:
“I just want my daughter home. And free,” Bill Read told reporters.
After lunch, Cannone read a second note: “If we find not guilty on two charges but can’t agree on one charge, is it a hung jury on all three charges or just one charge?”
After some back and forth, Cannone decided to respond, “This is a theoretical question, not one that I can answer.”
Defense attorney Alan Jackson said the response was “over our objection.”
“I don’t think that’s an appropriate answer to a very, very clear question that could be answered in an innocuous way that does not affect Ms. Read’s rights,” he added. “This way it does.”
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Originally Published:
