CANTON, Mass. — Two jurors from the recently concluded retrial of Karen Read have shared insights into their decision to acquit her of charges related to the death of her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O’Keefe. The verdict, which followed four days of deliberation, exonerated Read of second-degree murder, manslaughter while operating under the influence, and leaving the scene of a fatal incident. However, she was convicted of operating under the influence and received one year of probation.
The jury’s ruling hinged on the evidence presented during the trial, which Read’s attorneys argued was insufficient to prove her guilt. Throughout the proceedings, she consistently maintained her innocence, alleging possible misconduct by law enforcement surrounding O’Keefe’s death. Prosecutors claimed that Read, 45, had backed into O’Keefe after a night of drinking and had fled the scene, leading to his fatal injuries.
Paula Prado, known as juror 11 and a former lawyer from Brazil, spoke about her evolving views on the case. Initial considerations led her to believe Read might be guilty of manslaughter, but as the trial progressed, she found substantial inconsistencies in the prosecution’s narrative. Prado emphasized that the jury could not conclusively link Read to the incident, stating, “There were too many holes that we couldn’t fill,” relying primarily on the scenario of her dropping O’Keefe off.
The prosecution argued that Read’s vehicle shattered O’Keefe’s tail light during the alleged incident. However, defense witnesses contended that the tail light was damaged earlier, supported by surveillance footage of Read’s actions during the night. Questions arose about injuries that did not align with being struck by a vehicle, as expert witnesses testified that O’Keefe’s death resulted from blunt force trauma, potentially unrelated to Read’s vehicle.
Another juror, identified only as Jason, echoed similar concerns regarding the tail light. He highlighted discrepancies in the video evidence observed after the supposed collision, adding to the jury’s skepticism about the prosecution’s claims. Key testimony from Dr. Elizabeth Laposata, a former chief medical examiner, confirmed that O’Keefe’s injuries did not indicate a vehicle impact.
The defense posited that O’Keefe may have endured a confrontation inside a residence belonging to former Boston police officer Brian Albert, suggesting he was injured there. This theory further complicated the narrative presented by the prosecution, leading jurors to question the validity of the charges against Read.
In light of their decision, juror Prado expressed hope for the truth surrounding O’Keefe’s death to emerge, advocating for a reopening of the investigation. She stated, “I really hope there is a way for the case to be reopened and they can investigate again and find who actually did that to John.”
The trial was a poignant reminder of the complexities surrounding criminal cases and the critical role that jurors play in determining culpability based on the evidence presented. Now, with Read acquitted of the most serious charges, the focus may shift back to understanding the circumstances of O’Keefe’s tragic death and any unresolved questions that remain.
This article was automatically written by Open AI, and the people, facts, circumstances, and story may be inaccurate. Any article can be requested for removal, retraction, or correction by writing an email to contact@publiclawlibrary.org.