ABC6 legal analyst on Read retrial: ‘I don’t think they’ll get a verdict’

DEDHAM, Mass. (WLNE) — With no verdict after the first full day of jury deliberations in the Karen Read retrial, ABC6 legal analyst Ken Schreiber is weighing in on the case.

Read is accused of hitting her Boston police officer boyfriend, John O’Keefe, with her car back in 2022, and leaving him to die in the snow.

“There’s no doubt about it she was there,” Schreiber said. “What the prosecution tried to do here, and I think they did a better job of it is, through inferences and reconstruction experts, show that John O’Keefe, before he died, some of his DNA was found on that SUV.”

Schreiber said one of the key differences this time around was the prosecution’s use of Karen Read’s voice through television interview clips, even though she never took the stand.

“When you can put more of a face and a voice to a name that can give a juror, or the entire jury, more of a position to infer certain things,” Schreiber said.

Another strategic move by the prosecution, according to Schreiber, was the decision not to have trooper Michael Proctor take the stand.

Proctor was the lead investigator on the case, but was fired after the first trial, where he was questioned over inappropriate texts about Read.

“Certainly Proctor, in terms of looking into the investigation, had already disqualified himself as being an impartial unbiased figure,” Schreiber said.

Accident reconstruction became a focal point of the retrial, which Schreiber said led to a slew of expert testimony.

“Wasn’t just one [expert] here, and both sides had theirs,” he said. “Remember the resources in this case being used, massive resources, that’s what makes this case different from so many other cases.”

On top of all the testimony, jurors now have to weigh a multi-faceted verdict slip.

On that form are three serious charges: second degree murder, manslaughter while operating under the influence, and leaving the scene of an accident with death resulting.

“The way the judge had sent out the instructions, the defense objected to that and they wanted it to be more precise,” Schreiber said. “So that the jury understood there were lesser included offenses incorporated in that charge, and each one should be spelled out individually.”

But a request to simplify the verdict slip was denied.

“I think that’s a question for appeal,” Schreiber said. “I think at some point in time, the defense may ask the individual jurors to be examined as to how they understood what the explicit meaning of the instructions meant.”

As for deliberations, Schreiber said he was not expecting a verdict anytime soon.

“I think there’s going to be a lot of back and forth dialogue and discussion between these jurors,” Schreiber said. “Over the long haul, maybe they get to a verdict, but I’m still putting my chips in as a mistrial, I don’t think they’ll get a verdict.”

If the outcome is indeed a mistrial, Schreiber said he believes the Commonwealth would try Read again for a third time.