Additional Coverage:
Canton, MA — The defense team for Karen Read, accused of murdering Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe, has opted not to call Read to the stand in her second trial. This strategic gamble comes after prosecutors presented potentially damaging video clips of Read’s interviews, allowing the jury to hear her account of the night in question directly from her.
Read faces a life sentence if convicted. The prosecution alleges that during a drunken argument on January 29, 2022, Read struck O’Keefe with her SUV, leaving him to die in the snow outside a friend’s house. Read maintains her vehicle never hit O’Keefe.
The defense’s proposed jury instructions, submitted Tuesday, confirm Read will not testify. The instructions emphasize her constitutional right not to testify and direct the jury not to hold this against her. However, legal experts suggest that preventing a defendant from speaking can be a double-edged sword.
While calling Read to the stand could offer her a chance to explain her side of the story and clarify potentially damaging statements made in prior interviews, it also carries significant risks. New York City defense attorney Louis Gelormino notes that the defense likely seeks to avoid subjecting Read to intense cross-examination about these statements and other aspects of her behavior.
The prosecution presented several clips from Read’s televised interviews. In one clip, Read questions whether she actually said she hit O’Keefe or if it was suggested to her.
In another, she discusses adding extra shots to her drinks. Gelormino suggests that the defense is trying to avoid having Read explain these statements, potentially leading to days of difficult questioning that could negatively impact the jury’s perception of her.
The decision not to testify presents a stark contrast to the prosecution’s strategy, which has relied heavily on Read’s own words. This is a new challenge for the defense, as these video clips were not presented in the first trial, which ended with a hung jury.
Retired Massachusetts Superior Court Judge and Boston College law professor Jack Lu notes that the previous jury nearly convicted Read of manslaughter, even without the video evidence. He suggests the addition of these potentially damaging statements makes a conviction more likely this time around.
As the trial progresses, the absence of Read’s testimony becomes increasingly significant. The jury will ultimately deliver their verdict having heard the prosecution’s case, bolstered by Read’s own words, but without hearing her personal testimony or explanation of events. Only time will tell whether this gamble will help or hinder her defense.