Re-trial of Karen Read case to commence next week

The retrial of Karen Read, the Massachusetts woman suspected in the January 2022 murder of Boston Police Officer and Canton resident John O’Keefe, will proceed next week as scheduled after the presiding judge on Tuesday rejected a bid by the defense to have the entire case thrown out based on claims of “extraordinary governmental misconduct.”

The ruling by Judge Beverly Cannone, which she outlined in great detail in a 27-page memorandum, came on the heels of a string of failed motions by Read’s team, including requests at the state and federal levels to have two of the three charges against their client dismissed based on double jeopardy grounds, as well as multiple attempts to delay the start of her new trial.

Read, 45, stands accused of intentionally striking O’Keefe in her Lexus SUV in front of the home of fellow BPD officer Brian Albert following a night of bar hopping in Canton Center. Prosecutors allege that Read rammed into O’Keefe while traveling in reverse at a high rate of speed and then fled the scene, only to return hours later where she claimed to discover his body. In stark contrast to the commonwealth’s theory of the crime, Read maintains that she is innocent of all charges and is herself a victim of a massive conspiracy and cover-up involving several prosecution witnesses and members of law enforcement.

Her first trial lasted nearly 10 weeks and was streamed by a global audience before Judge Cannone declared a mistrial, citing communications from jurors indicating they were hopelessly deadlocked. But even that decision was not without controversy as several jurors subsequently came forward to allege that they had in fact been in unanimous agreement on a not guilty verdict for the charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene of a fatal accident. The only disagreement, the jurors said, was over the second charge of manslaughter while operating under the influence.

An initial bid by Read’s lawyers to have Judge Cannone throw out the first and third charges based on the jurors’ statements was dismissed in August 2024, and a subsequent appeal was also denied by the state Supreme Judicial Court. Earlier this month, Read’s team argued their case in federal district court and was again denied, and they have since filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals in the First Circuit.

In a pre-trial hearing last week, Attorney Alan Jackson asked Cannone to delay the start of the trial until April 25, citing the pending appeal before the First Circuit.

“If the First Circuit were to take some action on counts one and three … then that puts the entire case in jeopardy,” argued Jackson, adding that a trial with a murder charge calls for a “very different trial strategy” than one involving just the second charge.

Special Prosecutor Hank Brennan said that the commonwealth was also not opposed to a “short continuance” in hopes that the federal matter may be resolved in the interim, but Judge Cannone denied the request, saying she wants to commence with jury selection on April 1 as planned.

“We have jurors coming in that were summonsed months ago,” the judge explained, adding that it would take a “minimum of 10 weeks” to organize another jury pool of sufficient size for a case as high-profile as this one.

She did, however, leave the door open for a delay depending on how long it takes to seat the jury. “If we get a jury before April 25, I’ll re-hear you on your motion,” she told Jackson. “We won’t swear the jury because that’s obviously when jeopardy attaches, and we’ll take it from there.”

As for the defense’s claims of “extraordinary governmental misconduct,” Cannone found that while there were instances of discovery violations related to the late disclosure of evidence by prosecutors, none of it “rose to a level that would justify the most draconian sanction of dismissal.”

In its motion for dismissal, the defense had alleged that the commonwealth withheld portions of surveillance footage from the Canton Police Department’s sally port showing Read’s SUV being brought into the station and examined by state investigators. They also alleged that other portions of the footage were destroyed and/or doctored, which was a key issue during Read’s first trial, particularly during the testimony of Mass. State Police Sgt. Yuri Bukhenik, when it was revealed that the footage shown to the jury had been inverted.

The defense has alleged that former Trooper Michael Proctor of Canton, who was the lead investigator on the case, tampered with Read’s right rear taillight to bolster the state’s theory that Read had struck O’Keefe, and they have pointed to footage that they claim shows Proctor approaching the taillight in question while in the CPD garage.

However, in her ruling, Cannone noted that, “Assuming, without deciding, that the footage is actually useful to the defense, dismissal is not warranted because defense counsel actually used this evidence to advance the tampering theory at the first trial and can do so again at the re-trial.”

Regarding defense claims that prosecutors were late in disclosing that Jennifer McCabe, a key witness in the case, had visited the home of CPD Sgt. Michael Lank — one of the first officers to arrive at the scene and a friend of the Albert family — Judge Cannone agreed that the information should have been shared sooner but that the “facts before the court do not depict a concerted and intentional attempt by the prosecution team to deprive the defendant of discovery which would have aided her case.”

On the final allegation, involving the judge’s dismissal of a juror shortly before closing arguments in the first trial, Cannone found that the defendant’s claims — namely that MSP Lt. John Fanning had targeted the individual for dismissal because the juror was sympathetic to Read — were “baseless.”

In her ruling, Cannone also chastised Read’s team for repeatedly characterizing Lt. Fanning as the “commander of jury security.”

“To suggest without factual support that a Mass. State Police officer had influence over the court and the jury in the first trial is to invite unwarranted public speculation and distrust about the integrity of the Massachusetts judicial system,” Cannone wrote. “It can also be seen as an improper attempt to influence potential jurors in advance of the re-trial.”

In other trial news:

* During the final pre-trial hearing on Tuesday, prosecutors made their case for why the judge should bar Read’s team from using a “third party culprit” defense, claiming their evidence for suggesting that others may have killed O’Keefe was “feeble” and “insufficient” to meet the legal standard. Brennan insisted that the three potential culprits identified by the defense — Brian Albert, his nephew, and Albert’s friend, ATF agent Brian Higgins — had their characters baselessly attacked in the first trial, which placed the commonwealth in the position of having to defend the accusations instead of focusing on prosecuting Read. The defense countered that the courts have given attorneys wide latitude to advance a third-party culprit argument and outlined what they feel is strong evidence to suggest that the three individuals had the motive, opportunity and intention to commit the murder. Judge Cannone took the commonwealth’s motion under advisement and is expected to rule on the issue in the coming days.

* Trooper Proctor, who came under fire during the first trial for disparaging and sexist statements he made about Read in text messages with fellow officers, was fired by the Mass. State Police last week. The decision was made by a state police trial board after a three-day hearing that concluded on March 13. Proctor was ultimately found guilty of two charges: unsatisfactory performance and violating policy on alcoholic beverages. The trial board also determined that Proctor, who defended his work on the case in a public statement, provided “sensitive and/or potential investigative steps in the investigation to non-law enforcement personnel.”

* Judge Cannone ruled earlier this week to approve the commonwealth’s request to set up a 200-foot buffer zone around the courthouse during Read’s upcoming re-trial that will be off limits to protesters. Also included in the buffer zone will be some additional areas where protesters congregated during the first trial. The decision has faced criticism from First Amendment advocates but was deemed necessary by Cannone to protect all parties’ rights to a fair trial.

Short URL: https://www.thecantoncitizen.com/?p=131267

Posted by Jay Turner on Mar 27 2025. Filed under Top Stories. Both comments and pings are currently closed.