How Karen Read’s second murder trial has differed from the first

The retrial of Karen Read is shaping up to be altogether similar to her first murder trial, but there are several differences that could influence whether the jury reaches a verdict this time around. After the first trial last year ended in a hung jury and mistrial, Read again pleaded not guilty to charges of second-degree murder, vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and leaving the scene of a collision resulting in death. Prosecutors say Read, 45, drunkenly drove a Lexus vehicle into John O’Keefe, her off-duty Boston Police officer boyfriend, and then left him to die in a blizzard outside a home in Canton, Massachusetts, on the night of January 29, 2022. Her defense has argued that fellow law enforcement officers in that home killed O’Keefe, dumped his body on the lawn and conspired to pin the blame on Read in a vast cover-up. Despite that familiar backdrop, several new attorneys, Read’s media interviews and the firing of the lead investigator have combined to change the dynamics of the case. Here’s a closer look at how her retrial has differed from the first trial and what those changes could mean. New legal teams for each side The lead prosecutor in the first trial was assistant district attorney Adam Lally, but the retrial has been led by special prosecutor Hank Brennan. Brennan is best known for defending mob boss James “Whitey” Bulger during his federal racketeering trial over 10 years ago. He was appointed to retry the Read case by Norfolk District Attorney Michael Morrissey, who described Brennan as a “highly respected and skilled former prosecutor and long-time defense attorney” who “has expertise handling complex law enforcement matters.” Lally remains on the prosecution team but did not deliver opening statements, as he did in the first trial, and has taken a backseat to Brennan. The defense, too, has changed its legal team since the last trial. Robert Alessi, a New York-based attorney who did not participate in the first trial, has handled the cross-examination of some expert witnesses and argued motions outside the presence of the jury. His website notes his “scientific and technical background,” particularly in questioning experts. Further, attorney Victoria George, who served as an alternate juror in the first trial, was added to Read’s defense team. As an alternate, George did not participate in deliberations, but her perspective could help the defense better understand the jury’s perspective. Read’s media interviews used in court One of the clearest differences from the first trial is Read’s own words and commentary. Read did not testify in the first trial, but she has since spoken publicly about her case in interviews with TV reporters, in Vanity Fair and in an Investigation Discovery documentary series. (Investigation Discovery, like CNN, is owned by Warner Bros. Discovery.) “This is my version of testifying. Doing this film is my testimony,” she said in the documentary series, “A Body in the Snow: The Trial of Karen Read.” At her second trial, prosecutors have already presented some of that “testimony” to the jury as evidence against her. “You’re gonna hear from her own lips, and many of her statements, her admissions to extraordinary intoxication, her admissions to driving the Lexus, her admissions to being angry at John that night, and I dare say, her admissions that she told (others) that she had hit him,” Brennan said in opening statements. Brennan then played a video of Read speaking to “Dateline” in which she raised the possibility that she hit O’Keefe with her vehicle. “I didn’t think I hit him hit him, but could I have clipped him, could I have tagged him in the knee and incapacitated him?” Read said in the clip from the October 2024 interview. “He didn’t look mortally wounded, as far as I could see – but could I have done something that knocked him out and in drunkenness and in the cold, he didn’t come to again?” Read’s statement seemingly reinforced witnesses who say they heard her similarly wonder aloud whether she hit O’Keefe the morning his body was found. Kerry Roberts and Jennifer McCabe, both of whom helped look for the victim, testified Read pointed out she had broken her SUV’s taillight that night, and asked them, “Could I have hit him?” and “Do you think I hit him?” Prosecutors during the retrial have used other clips of Read to bolster witness testimony and refute defense arguments. For example, prosecutors played a clip from the documentary series in which Read said after O’Keefe’s death, “His mother leans over the kitchen island and says to me, ‘I think it looks like he got hit by a car.’” However, Peggy O’Keefe testified she was never in the kitchen with Read that day. In another instance, prosecutors played a clip of Read telling journalist Gretchen Voss in June 2023 that she personally picked pieces of the vehicle’s broken taillight and dropped them onto O’Keefe’s driveway. That appeared to contradict the defense’s argument that this evidence was tampered with by corrupt investigators. It’s not clear if Read will testify in the second trial. Lead investigator has been fired Another major change from the first trial is the employment status of Massachusetts State Police Trooper Michael Proctor, the lead investigator of Read’s case. In her first trial, Proctor admitted under oath that he sent a series of sexist and offensive texts about Read in a private group chat, calling her a “whack job c*nt,” mocking her medical issues and commenting to coworkers that he had found “no nudes” while searching her phone for evidence, according to CNN affiliate WCVB. Proctor apologized for the “unprofessional” comments on the stand, but the vulgar texts undermined his testimony and the prosecution’s case. Proctor was relieved of duty on the same day the mistrial was announced last July. He was then fired in March for violating four department policies, including for sending those messages. In opening statements of the retrial, the defense announced plans to focus on Proctor, saying he lied and fabricated evidence in the case. “You’ll see from the evidence in this case that this case carries a malignancy … a cancer that cannot be cut out, a cancer that cannot be cured,” attorney Alan Jackson said. “And that cancer has a name. His name is Michael Proctor.” It’s unclear if he will testify in this trial – but his name is included on a list of potential witnesses.