Special prosecutor admits evidence mistake in Karen Read murder retrial
Defense attorney Robert Alessi once again called for a mistrial in Karen Read’s murder trial, citing “intentional misconduct” from special prosecutor Hank Brennan. This move came after a prior motion for a mistrial was denied. Alessi, visibly frustrated, slammed his palms on the podium and argued that Brennan’s questioning of a defense witness regarding holes in the back of the victim’s sweatshirt was misleading.
The defense team vehemently denies the prosecution’s assertion that Read killed her former boyfriend, Boston cop John O’Keefe, by backing into him with her SUV and then fleeing the scene. They maintain that the vehicle never struck O’Keefe and that his injuries were caused by something else. Alessi’s bold move for a mistrial quickly gained traction among true crime enthusiasts on X, with many praising his tenacity in defending his client.
Legal experts not involved in the case commended Alessi for his strategic maneuver, with New York City defense lawyer Louis Gelormino noting that prolonging the trial could work in Read’s favor. Gelormino suggested that a third trial might become financially burdensome for the county, potentially leading to a plea deal for Read. The longer the trial drags on, the more advantageous it may be for the defense.
The defense’s motion for a mistrial followed a contentious exchange between Alessi and Brennan during a hearing without jurors present. Brennan acknowledged that a state criminologist had created the holes in O’Keefe’s sweatshirt, contradicting earlier claims made by the prosecution. While Brennan requested that the judge instruct the jury about the error, Alessi pushed for a mistrial.
Despite the defense’s repeated calls for a mistrial, Judge Beverly Cannone denied the motion, as well as a routine request to have Read declared not guilty after the prosecution rested its case. This trial marks Read’s second attempt at defending herself against murder charges, following a previous mistrial due to a deadlocked jury.
Critics have raised doubts about Brennan’s handling of the case, questioning whether the misstep regarding the sweatshirt holes was truly an innocent error. Some have suggested that the prosecution’s investigation lacks credibility, pointing to a series of mishaps by law enforcement officials involved in the case.
As the trial continues, the defense remains steadfast in its assertion that Read is innocent of the charges against her. With expert testimony supporting the defense’s theory that O’Keefe’s injuries were not caused by a vehicle impact, the outcome of the trial remains uncertain. Dr. Elizabeth Laposata’s testimony regarding the victim’s skull fracture and head wound adds another layer of complexity to the case.
Ultimately, Read faces the possibility of life in prison if convicted of second-degree murder, as well as charges of drunken driving manslaughter and leaving the scene. As the trial progresses, both the defense and prosecution are poised for a fierce legal battle that could determine Read’s fate.
