The trial of Karen Read, charged with the second-degree murder of her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe, took a dramatic turn Tuesday as defense attorneys leveled accusations of prosecutorial misconduct and witness collusion. The defense argued for dismissal of the indictment and sanctions against the Norfolk District Attorney, citing alleged “distortions” of evidence presented to the grand jury and undisclosed relationships between key witnesses.
O’Keefe was found dead in the snow outside the home of fellow Boston Police Officer Brian Albert in January 2022, after a night of drinking. Prosecutors allege Read struck O’Keefe with her car and left him to die, while the defense maintains O’Keefe died from injuries sustained in a fight inside the Albert residence, and that police conducted a flawed investigation and subsequent cover-up.
Defense Claims “Known Lies” and “Deceptions” in Grand Jury Proceedings
Defense attorney Alan Jackson launched a blistering attack on the integrity of the grand jury proceedings, arguing that the presentation was riddled with “known lies” and “deceptions.” Jackson pointed to information uncovered through a still-open federal grand jury investigation into the case, alleging that investigators deliberately concealed crucial relationships between witnesses.
One such relationship, Jackson claimed, involved State Trooper Michael Proctor, who led the investigation, and the Albert family. Jackson presented text messages showing Proctor had communicated with Julie Albert about babysitting his child just days before O’Keefe’s death. Further, Jackson revealed a text exchange between Proctor and his sister three days after O’Keefe’s death, in which Proctor’s sister mentioned Julie Albert’s intention to give him a “thank-you gift.”
Karen Read appears in court for a motions hearing on March 12, 2024. (Court TV)
Jackson also highlighted the long-standing relationship between Canton Police Sgt. Michael Lank, the first officer inside the Albert home after O’Keefe’s body was discovered, and the Albert family. He alleged Lank has a history of protecting the Alberts, referencing a 2002 bar fight incident.
Furthermore, the defense argued that prosecutors withheld evidence of a Google search for “how long to die in cold” made by party attendee Jennifer McCabe at 2:27 am. While the prosecution contended the search occurred the morning after O’Keefe’s death, Jackson insisted phone records show searches both before and after.
Crucially, Jackson revealed that federal investigators hired an independent accident reconstructionist who concluded O’Keefe’s injuries were inconsistent with the damage to Read’s vehicle, and vice versa. This challenges the prosecution’s central claim that Read struck O’Keefe with her car.
Motion to Disqualify and Sanction District Attorney
In a separate motion, the defense sought to disqualify and sanction Norfolk District Attorney Michael Morrissey, alleging “unprecedented” unethical conduct. Defense attorney David Yanetti accused Morrissey of publicly vouching for witness credibility while disparaging the defense, and of misleading the court about his knowledge of the federal investigation.
Defense attorney Alan Jackson argues his client’s case. (Court TV)
Assistant District Attorney Adam Lally countered that Morrissey’s public statement was a response to witness harassment by blogger Aidan “Turtleboy” Kearney, who allegedly exchanged numerous communications with Read. Lally also accused the defense of instigating the federal probe and criticized their claim of being “sandbagged” by it.
Assistant District Attorney Adam Lally addresses the court. (Court TV)
Judge Reserves Ruling, Trial Date Looms
Norfolk Superior Court Judge Beverly J. Cannone reserved ruling on the defense motions. The defense indicated they would also file motions concerning alleged discovery violations. Read’s trial is currently scheduled to begin April 16. This complex case continues to unfold, with significant questions remaining about the circumstances surrounding O’Keefe’s death and the integrity of the investigation. The upcoming trial promises to be a closely watched legal battle, with potentially far-reaching implications.
The accusations of misconduct and cover-up, coupled with the conflicting accounts of the night’s events, paint a picture of a deeply contested legal battle. The admissibility of the federal investigation’s findings, the credibility of witnesses, and the interpretation of the physical evidence will undoubtedly be central to the jury’s deliberations. As the trial date approaches, the stakes remain high for both the prosecution and the defense.
