Karen Read's defense set to call its first witness in her retrial in the killing of her Boston police officer boyfriend
Karen Read's defense is set to call its first witness on Friday, marking a new phase in her retrial in the killing of John O'Keefe, her off-duty Boston police officer boyfriend whose body was found buried in the snow outside a home in Canton, Massachusetts, in January 2022.
Read – whose first trial ended with a hung jury – has already promised a 'more robust' case than the one her attorneys put on last year, when they called six witnesses for less than two full days of testimony. Their case this time is 'broader and deeper,' Read told reporters last week, saying it will include 'more witnesses' and last at least a week.
Prosecutors have accused Read of putting her Lexus SUV in reverse and striking O'Keefe with her vehicle just after midnight on January 29, 2022, after the couple went out with drinking with friends who were gathering for an after party at a home on Fairview Road.
But Read's defense argues she has been framed by other off-duty law enforcement who were inside that home, alleging they killed O'Keefe and conspired to frame her. She has pleaded not guilty to charges of second-degree murder, vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and leaving the scene of a collision resulting in death.
A key question is whether Read will take the stand. She did not testify in the first trial.
But jurors in her retrial have already heard from the defendant: Throughout their case, prosecutors – led by special prosecutor Hank Brennan – have played numerous clips taken from interviews Read gave reporters or documentary film crews, working to use her statements against her.
'This is my version of testifying. Doing this film is my testimony,' she said in Investigation Discovery's 'A Body in the Snow: The Trial of Karen Read.' (Investigation Discovery, like CNN, is owned by Warner Bros. Discovery)
'I want to say what happened,' she added, 'exactly as it happened.'
Prosecutors for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts rested their case in chief on Thursday after calling 38 witnesses over more than 20 days of testimony, including the victim's friends and family; members of state and local law enforcement who played a role in the investigation; and experts who analyzed a raft of digital and physical forensic evidence.
Notably absent from the prosecution's case was Michael Proctor, the former Massachusetts State Trooper who led the investigation into O'Keefe's death but was dishonorably discharged from the agency earlier this year for sexist and offensive text messages he sent about the suspect.
Proctor apologized for the texts during his testimony in the first trial, but Read's defense attorneys used them to paint a picture of a flawed and biased investigation – a strategy they have so far echoed in the retrial.
Proctor is included on the defense's list of prospective witnesses, but whether he will testify again remains to be seen.
This is a developing story and will be updated.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
2 hours ago
- Fox News
Navy veteran's $500M defamation lawsuit against Associated Press advances with first hearing
Zachary Young's high-stakes defamation lawsuit against the Associated Press continues to inch along in Bay County, Florida, as the U.S. Navy veteran seeks to clear his name. Young successfully sued CNN for defamation earlier this year after saying the network smeared him by implying he illegally profited from helping people flee Afghanistan on the "black market" during the Biden administration's disastrous 2021 military withdrawal. When covering the trial in January, Associated Press media reporter David Bauder wrote that "Young's business helped smuggle people out of Afghanistan." Young's legal team has said that the Associated Press article "went even further than CNN's falsehoods," and the veteran is seeking nearly $500 million in a defamation suit against the AP. On Monday, Young's legal team responded to the AP's motion to dismiss the suit. The AP had insisted Young's complaint is "without merit" and unjustly challenges the outlet's free speech rights, but the Navy veteran's legal team believes the motion failed to address "core issues." "It does not dispute that the term 'human smuggling' implies criminal conduct, nor does it offer any valid explanation for its use of that term, even though a court previously ruled that Mr. Young committed no crime. AP's own Stylebook defines 'smuggling' as illegal," Young's attorney, Daniel Lustig, wrote. "Dozens of AP articles reflect that usage. Just days before this filing, AP published a story about a man sentenced to 25 years in prison for 'smuggling people,' reinforcing that understanding," Lustig continued. "Even after receiving notice, AP refused to retract or revise the statement, not even to use a more accurate term such as 'evacuate' or 'rescue.'" Young's attorney believes the most "notable" part of the AP's motion to dismiss is that it never denied that "smuggling" refers to a criminal act. "Instead, it argues that the statement, in context, was not defamatory. That is not a defense, it is a concession. Under Florida law, if a statement is reasonably capable of a defamatory meaning, it is a question for the jury, not one to be resolved on a motion to dismiss. AP's attempt to invoke the anti-SLAPP statute to shield such a statement is both legally unsupported and fundamentally flawed," Lustig wrote. Young's legal team has also filed a motion to amend the complaint to include punitive damages. The 242-page filing suggested this case "exemplifies the very scenario in which punitive damages are warranted to punish and deter such consciously indifferent conduct by a media organization." On Tuesday, each side appeared for the first hearing in front of 14th Judicial Circuit Court Judge William S. Henry, who also presided over the CNN trial. The Case Management Conference, conducted over Zoom, was largely procedural and offered a chance for each party to explain why respective motions should be heard. Judge Henry scheduled the next hearing for July 3. He is expected to rule on both the AP's motion to dismiss and Young's amended complaint. The AP has referred to the lawsuit as "frivolous" in past statements to the press.
Miami Herald
2 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Appeals court keeps pauses on Trump's mass firings at 21 agencies
May 31 (UPI) -- An three-judge federal appeals panel has kept in place a lower court's decision to pause the Trump administration's plans to downsize the federal workforce through layoffs. Late Friday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision denied an emergency motion by the federal government to stay U.S. District Judge Susan Illston's order on May 9 that halted terminations at 21 agencies. The layoffs are called reductions in force, or RIFs. In a 45-page ruling, the appeals court in California wrote the challengers likely will win the case on the merits. The appeal panel said the Trump executive order on Feb. 13 "far exceeds the President's supervisory powers under the Constitution." The Trump administration has also asked the Supreme Court to decide and has not acted. "A single judge is attempting to unconstitutionally seize the power of hiring and firing from the Executive Branch," White House spokesman Harrison Fields told CNN in a statement. "The President has the authority to exercise the power of the entire executive branch - singular district court judges cannot abuse the power of the entire judiciary to thwart the President's agenda." Ruling for the plaintiffs were Senior Circuit Judge William Fletcher, an appointee of President Bill Clinton and Lucy Koh, selected by President Joe. Consuelo Maria Callahan, an appointee of President George W. Bush, wrote in her dissent that "the President has the right to direct agencies, and OMB and OPM to guide them, to exercise their statutory authority to lawfully conduct RIFs." Fletcher wrote: "The kind of reorganization contemplated by the Order has long been subject to Congressional approval." Illston, who was nominated by President Bill Clinton and serves in San Francisco, had backed the lawsuit by labor unions and cities filed on April 28, including San Francisco, Chicago, Baltimore and Harris County in Houston. She questioned whether Trump's administration was acting lawfully in reducing the federal workforce and felt Congress should have a role. "The President has the authority to seek changes to executive branch agencies, but he must do so in lawful ways and, in the case of large-scale reorganizations, with the cooperation of the legislative branch," Illston wrote after hearing arguments from both sides. "Many presidents have sought this cooperation before; many iterations of Congress have provided it. Nothing prevents the President from requesting this cooperation -- as he did in his prior term of office. Indeed, the Court holds the President likely must request Congressional cooperation to order the changes he seeks, and thus issues a temporary restraining order to pause large-scale reductions in force in the meantime." The coalition of organizations suing told CNN said after the appeals decision: "We are gratified by the court's decision today to allow the pause of these harmful actions to endure while our case proceeds." After Trump's executive order, the Department of Government Efficiency submitted a Workforce Optimization Initiative and the Office of Personnel Management also issued a memo. During Trump's first 100 days in office, at least 121,000 workers have been laid off or targeted for layoffs, according to a CNN analysis. There are more than 3 million workers among civilian and military personnel. Some of them have taken buyouts, "including those motivated to do so by the threat of upcoming RIFs," according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. That includes 10,000 at the Department of Health and Human Services through RIF as part of a plan to cut 20,000 employees. That includes 20% of the workforce of the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The agencies, run by Cabinet-level personnel, sued were Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Justice, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Justice, Labor, State and Treasury, Transportation, Veterans Affairs. The Education Department, which Trump wants to dismantle, was not listed, but 50% of the workforce has been let go. Six additional agencies with statutory basis elsewhere in the United States Code were named: AmeriCorps, General Services Administration, National Labor Relations Board, National Science Foundation, Small Business Administration and Environmental Protection Agency. Elon Musk, who officially left Friday as special White House adviser, was named in the suit. Copyright 2025 UPI News Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
UPI
2 hours ago
- UPI
Hamas to release 10 alive hostages in response to U.S. cease-fire plan
1 of 2 | An internally displaced Palestinian girl stands as she plays on the streets of Gaza City, northern Gaza Strip, on April 14. File photo by Mohammed Saber/ EPA-EFE May 31 (UPI) -- Militant Hamas said Saturday it would release 10 living hostages and 18 bodies in return for Israel's release of Palestinian prisoners and ending the war that began in October 2023. Steve Witkoff, who is President Donald Trump's Middle East envoy, on Thursday submitted his proposal to mediators from Qatar and Egypt. "As part of this agreement, 10 living Israeli prisoners held by the resistance will be released, in addition to the return of eighteen bodies, in exchange for an agreed-upon number of Palestinian prisoners," Hamas said in a statement obtained by CNN. The group said it came to the decision "after conducting a round of national consultations." "This proposal aims to achieve a permanent cease-fire, a comprehensive withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, and ensure the flow of aid to our people and our families in the Gaza Strip," Hamas said in a statement also obtained by The Guardian. The Hamas response is similar to an earlier proposal to release 10 hostages, as well as a number of hostages' remains during the cease-fire in exchange for 1,100 Palestinian prisoners. An unidentified Israeli official told Israeli reporters in Saturday that they are treating Hamas' response as an "effective rejection." Fifty-eight hostages are believed to still be alive. A total of 146 Israeli hostages have been freed or rescued from Gaza, including 25 during the truce. The U.S. proposal called for a 60-day pause in fighting and renewed efforts toward long-term peace, as well as guarantees from Israel that it will not resume its offensive after Hamas releases hostages. Negotiations toward a permanent ceasefire would begin immediately on the first day of the 60-day truce, according to the proposal. Israeli negotiators accepted the deal, but Hamas has not backed it. On Thursday, Hamas official Basem Naim said the U.S. proposal "does not respond to any of our people's demands," including lifting the humanitarian blockade on the Gaza Strip that has led to famine-like conditions among 2 million. Israel's Defence Minister Israel Katz on Friday threatened Hamas if it did not accept. "The Hamas murderers will now be forced to choose: accept the terms of the 'Witkoff deal' for the release of the hostages -- or be annihilated," Katz said. A cease-fire lasted from Jan. 19 to March 1. Israel refused to move to a planned second phase that could have led to a permanent end to the war. Israel began fighting, including airstrikes. In a ramped-up offensive, at least 60 people have been killed by Israeli strikes in Gaza over the last 24 hours, Hamas-run health officials said. And 72 were killed on Thursday. Negotiators have made little progress. "Negotiations are ongoing on the current proposal," Qatar's ambassador to the United Nations, Ayla Ahmed Saif al-Thani said Friday. He noted the mediators from Qatar are "very determined to find an ending to the horrific situation in Gaza." For three months, Israel's blockade has stopped virtually all humanitarian aid into Gaza. "After nearly 80 days of a total blockade, communities are starving - and they are no longer willing to watch food pass them by," the World Food Program said on Saturday. The United Nations aid agency was allowed to bring 77 trucks loaded with flour into Gaza overnight, but the trucks were stopped by crowds of hungry people. Lindsey Hutchison of Plan International said "having the military control aid and choose who they distribute it to in limited ways completely violates the way humanitarian operations are supposed to be conducted." She said the situation is not working. "We saw chaos and despair at the distribution site, which is frankly masquerading as a humanitarian aid scheme. That's not what this is," she told Al Jazeera from New York. More than 54,000 people have been killed in Gaza since the war began Oct. 7, 2023. Israel retaliated for a Hamas attack on the same da in which about 1,200 people were killed and 250 taken hostage.
