Things to know about the retrial of Karen Read in the killing of her police officer boyfriend
Things to know about the retrial of Karen Read in the killing of her police officer boyfriend
The prosecution rested its case Thursday in Karen Read ‘s second murder trial after a battery of witnesses and presentation of new evidence.
Read, 45, is accused of fatally striking her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe, 46, with her SUV and leaving him to die in the snow outside another officer’s home after dropping him off at a party in January 2022. Her lawyers say she was framed in a police conspiracy and that someone inside the house killed him.
A mistrial was declared last year. Read’s second trial for second-degree murder, manslaughter and leaving the scene outside Boston has so far followed similar contours to the first.
Prosecution rests its case
Prosecutors rested their case Thursday after playing a brief clip from a documentary series about the case. In the clip, Read talks about asking her lawyers whether she could have struck O’Keefe.
Read’s defense has denied that the documentary clip constitutes a confession. They will have the chance to make their case against Read’s guilt in the coming weeks.
Prosecutors have spent much of the trial building their case through evidence from the scene. Like before, they started by introducing several law enforcement witnesses who were among the first responders and recalled hearing Read repeatedly say “I hit him” after she found O’Keefe.
Defense questions a forensic expert’s methods
Judson Welcher, an expert with the forensics company Aperture LLC, testified Wednesday to the prosecution that damage to Read’s SUV was “consistent with a collision” involving O’Keefe if the vehicle was moving faster than 8 mph (13 kph). Welcher returned to the witness stand Thursday and faced cross-examination.
Under cross-examination, defense attorney Robert Alessi pressed Welcher about the $325,000 the state is paying his firm for its analysis and challenged his decision to cite a 1979 study in a PowerPoint presented to jurors the day before. The study says head injuries were the most common in pedestrian crashes, but Alessi asked Welcher if he was aware that more recent data indicates that lower-extremity injuries are more common.
Welcher said he’d need to see that data.
Alessi also scrutinized Welcher’s suggestion that a cut on O’Keefe’s face could have come from the SUV’s spoiler. Welcher based his theory on O’Keefe being at street level, not on a 4-inch berm separating the street from the yard.
“I absolutely considered the berm,” Welcher said, adding that there wasn’t enough information to determine where exactly O’Keefe had been standing that night.
The back-and-forth questioning stretched throughout Wednesday and into Thursday, with Alessi probing the methods Welcher used to assess cuts on O’Keefe’s arm and his theory on how O’Keefe might have fallen after being struck.
On Thursday, Alessi asked Welcher to confirm that Read backed her vehicle into O’Keefe’s parked vehicle when she pulled out of her driveway to search for him after he didn’t come home the night of the party. Welcher confirmed that the vehicles touched.
Prosecutors have pointed to Read’s broken taillight as evidence she hit O’Keefe with her vehicle. Read’s defense team has attempted to show the taillight could have been damaged another way.
Judge clarifies buffer zone rules
A federal judge issued a decision Wednesday clarifying the way a court-ordered buffer zone is enforced by police. The judge specified that the zone is “not a people-free zone.”
The judge in the murder trial expanded a buffer zone around the courthouse to prevent demonstrators from potentially influencing the trial. Opponents of the buffer zone sued in federal court because they believe it is unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge Myong Joun ruled the buffer zone can stand, in part because “jurors may be improperly influenced by such messages” as those displayed by sign-holding demonstrators outside court. But Joun also ruled law enforcement officers can’t be allowed to enforce the buffer zone in an arbitrary way.
“Prior to enforcement, law enforcement officers must be able to clearly articulate, without speculation, how any individual violated the Buffer Zone Orders, consistent with this decision,” Joun wrote. He also wrote “the record shows a persistent pattern of arrests or threats of arrest to protesters and non-protesters alike who are complying with the Buffer Zone Orders.”
Prosecution moves to cut another expert’s résumé
Separately from Wednesday’s testimony, Read’s defense team filed a motion to strike the résumé of digital forensics analyst Shannon Burgess, who testified last week and also works for Aperture.
During cross examination, Burgess acknowledged he does not hold a bachelor’s degree in mathematics and business administration, despite the claim appearing on Aperture’s website. Versions of his CV submitted by the defense state that he is “currently pursuing” the degree.
In response, prosecutors argued Wednesday that Burgess’ résumé should not have been entered into evidence, saying they weren’t given a chance to review it beforehand.
By KIMBERLEE KRUESI and PATRICK WHITTLE
Associated Press
