Newsletter Signup
Stay up to date on all the latest news from Boston.com
What do prosecutors have to prove to convict Karen Read of second-degree murder?
Prosecutors face a heavy burden of proof as they chase a second-degree murder conviction against Karen Read.
More than two years after prosecutors first accused Karen Read of backing her SUV into her boyfriend and leaving him to die on a snowy lawn in Canton, they face the ultimate task of proving their murder case before a jury in Norfolk Superior Court.
And in a case rife with contentious evidence and conflicting theories, the Norfolk County District Attorney’s Office carries a heavy burden of proof as it chases a second-degree murder conviction.
More on Karen Read:
Prosecutors allege that after a night out with friends, Read killed Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe while dropping him off at the home of a fellow officer on Jan. 29, 2022. Read’s lawyers, meanwhile, say she’s been framed in a cover-up and have suggested that other afterparty guests are to blame.
Advertisement:
The Mansfield woman has pleaded not guilty to charges of second-degree murder, motor vehicle manslaughter while driving under the influence, and leaving the scene of a collision causing injury and death.
The Norfolk County grand jury that indicted Read found probable cause that the 44-year-old “did assault and beat John O’Keefe, with intent to murder such person,” according to a copy of the indictment.
However, while they were able to secure indictments during the grand jury proceedings, prosecutors face a higher burden of proof when Read’s trial begins Tuesday.
What do prosecutors have to prove in the Karen Read case?
“With crimes like this, you really have to prove three things: You have to prove the action, you have to prove that the action then caused a result, and you have to prove that you acted with a particular mental state that you had a particular culpability,” explained Daniel Medwed, a criminal law professor at Northeastern University.
Advertisement:
In Read’s case, “all three of those seem to be a little tricky,” Medwed said. “I mean, if they can prove that her car was what struck him, then they can prove assault, and they can prove causation — that the assault caused his death. … But I think it might be hard to prove that given the third-party suspect evidence.”
In Massachusetts, prosecutors trying a second-degree murder case must prove not only that a defendant caused the victim’s death, but that the defendant either intended to kill the victim, intended to cause the victim grievous bodily harm, or intended to commit an act that “a reasonable person would have known created a plain and strong likelihood that death would result,” per model jury instructions listed on the court system’s website.
Given Read was seemingly unaware the morning of Jan. 29, 2022, of what had allegedly happened the night before, “proving that it was her intent to assault him and/or leave him for dead is going to be much harder, I would think,” Medwed said.
Motive is often used to prove intent, he explained. Prosecutors have pointed to Read’s reportedly fraught relationship with O’Keefe; she allegedly left him a series of heated voicemails around the time he died, screaming “John, I f—ing hate you!” and accusing him of having an affair.
What’s at stake with a possible third-party culprit defense?
Medwed also noted a possible disconnect between Read’s second-degree murder and OUI manslaughter charges.
Advertisement:
“There might be an argument that it’s sort of like the prosecutors want their cake and to eat it too, which is like, ‘She’s a cold-blooded killer who left him for dead, but she was also too drunk to really understand what she was doing, and she’s a man-slayer,’” he said. “It’s hard to square those two things, right?”
He acknowledged it’s possible for prosecutors to tell a story that weaves together both theories, but proving causation could be tricky if Judge Beverly Cannone allows Read’s lawyers to argue a third-party culprit defense (i.e. pointing the finger elsewhere).
Prosecutors have filed a motion in limine to prevent the defense team from doing just that, asserting that “the arguments set forth by the defendant in pre-trial motions contain only vague inferences, rank speculation, and scant details of who, if anyone, had the motive, intent and opportunity to kill the victim.”
That motion in limine “in many ways, I think, might be the key to the case,” Medwed said.
“No matter whether it’s the intent crime or the OUI manslaughter crime, the third-party suspect piece is going to undercut causation, that her behavior caused his death,” he explained. “So that is really the key to the whole case: Is the jury going to get to hear about this evidence pointing to third-party suspects, and … if they do get a chance to hear it, what exactly will it consist of?”
Medwed emphasized that the admissible evidence at trial and the facts available for public consumption in court documents, media reports, and blogs may not be one and the same. And contrary to TV legal dramas, “a defense lawyer just can’t throw something up on a wall and see if it sticks. The thing that they put up on the wall has to have some grounding in evidence,” he said.
Advertisement:
“The key takeaway on this is, you don’t have to prove that someone else did it,” Medwed said of the defense. “You just have to prove that there’s enough evidence that someone else could have done it, so that it creates a reasonable doubt about whether the defendant did it.”
From there, it’s up to a jury to decide.
“It’s really important, I think, to understand that just because something’s admissible, doesn’t mean it’s proven,” he said. “It just means that the defense gets to introduce it to the jury, and by introducing it to the jury, the jury gets to consider it. But that doesn’t mean the jury has to agree with it, right? Just because you sell something doesn’t mean someone has to buy it.”
‘I think it’ll be hard to convince 12 jurors from Norfolk County’
Jury selection also poses a challenge for prosecutors, given Read’s case has attracted widespread media coverage and sowed residents’ mistrust in local law enforcement.
“To find jurors who haven’t been sort of tainted by all this evidence of a conspiracy might be a challenge, too,” Medwed said.
At this point, Medwed said he’d be surprised if Read were ultimately convicted on the second-degree murder charge.
“A lot of that hinges on my belief that the third-party suspect evidence will come in,” he said. “Also, that hinges on my next-step analysis, which is that that third-party evidence is going to be fairly strong. And both of those things haven’t been shown yet.”
Advertisement:
But, he continued, “since I think those things are true, I think it’ll be hard to convince 12 jurors from Norfolk County that she intended to kill this guy beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Assuming Read’s lawyers are allowed to argue a third-party culprit defense — and depending on how compelling jurors find their evidence — Medwed said the jury could possibly acquit Read on all counts or land somewhere in the middle, acquitting on the murder charge but convicting Read of OUI manslaughter.
With a hearing on the docket for 9 a.m. Friday, Cannone may soon decide whether the defense can argue that someone else was responsible for O’Keefe’s death.
“But the bigger question, which will be unanswered until the trial, is even if the defense is allowed to sell it, will the jury buy it?” Medwed noted. “Those are totally different questions.”
To comment, please create a screen name in your profile
To comment, please verify your email address
Conversation
This discussion has ended. Please join elsewhere on Boston.com