The death of Officer John O’Keefe has created two separate legal battles
A criminal case where the state accuses Karen Read of killing O’Keefe
A civil case where the O’Keefe family sues Read for wrongful death and emotional distress while Read sues police officers and witnesses for civil rights violations and malicious prosecution
Even though both cases involve the same night and the same central question what happened to John O’Keefe the two trials operate under completely different rules. That means different evidence is allowed different standards apply and juries hear different things.
This explanation uses this case to show exactly how civil and criminal trials differ especially in terms of what evidence comes in.
1. Burden of Proof Criminal vs Civil
Criminal Case
Standard Beyond a reasonable doubt
The prosecution must prove that Karen Read caused O’Keefe’s death with near certainty. Any reasonable doubt must lead to an acquittal.
Why it matters
Evidence must be extremely reliable and legally admissible. Judges exclude anything that could unfairly influence a jury.
Civil Case
Standard Preponderance of the evidence
The plaintiff only needs to prove the claim is more likely than not true.
Why it matters
More evidence comes in because civil courts allow a wider range of testimony documents text messages and witness statements.
Result
Evidence too weak or too prejudicial for a criminal jury can still be used in a civil trial.
2. Differences in What Evidence Is Allowed
Here are the real differences as applied to the issues already debated in the Karen Read litigation.
A. Expert Testimony
Criminal Trial
Experts must meet strict reliability standards. The prosecution must show
The expert is qualified
The methods are scientifically valid
The testing and analysis are reliable
Example in this case
A biomechanical expert claiming a tail light caused the injuries must show scientific rigor. If the method is questionable the judge can exclude the testimony entirely.
Civil Trial
The bar is much lower. Civil courts allow broader expert opinions as long as they are helpful.
Result
Both sides can present more experts with more flexible theories and broader interpretations of the evidence.
B. Hearsay Evidence
Criminal Trial
Hearsay is mostly excluded. Statements made outside court cannot be used to prove guilt unless they fall within narrow exceptions.
Example
A text message saying I think she hit him would almost always be excluded in a criminal case.
Civil Trial
Civil judges allow more hearsay because the consequences involve money not prison.
Result
Emails texts witness conversations and statements that would be excluded in a criminal trial can be admitted in a civil trial.
C. Evidence of Character or Prior Conduct
Criminal Trial
Very limited
Prosecutors cannot introduce evidence showing someone acted badly in the past just to argue they acted badly again.
Civil Trial
Civil courts have more flexibility
Character evidence may come in if it relates to credibility emotional distress or state of mind.
Example in this case
Public statements made by Karen Read after O’Keefe’s death could be allowed in a civil emotional distress claim even if a criminal judge kept them out of the criminal trial.
D. Police Misconduct Evidence
Criminal Trial
The defense may argue police mishandled evidence but judges often limit this unless it directly affects guilt or innocence.
Civil Trial
In Read’s civil rights lawsuit police conduct is the core of the case. Allegations of
Evidence tampering
Failure to investigate
Coordination among witnesses
are directly relevant and therefore admissible.
Civil judges allow much wider testimony about investigative failures.
3. Differences in Witness Testimony
Criminal Case
Witnesses cannot speculate
Cannot give opinions outside their personal knowledge
Cannot describe things they heard unless an exception applies
Civil Case
Witnesses may give broader testimony including
Reputational statements
Emotional impact
Background conversations
Timeline inconsistencies
Civil judges allow this because the stakes are different.
4. Motive and Alternative Suspects
Criminal Trial
The defense can point to another suspect only if they have specific evidence linking that person to the crime. Speculation is not allowed.
Civil Trial
Alternative suspect theories are allowed under
Negligence
Failure to investigate
Conspiracy
Emotional distress
Civil rights violations
Example
In Read’s civil suit she can argue witnesses had motives or opportunities or that investigators ignored leads even if none of that would be allowed in the criminal courtroom.
5. The Bottom Line Why the Evidence Looks So Different
Criminal Trial
Freedom is at stake
Evidence rules are strict
Judges limit anything unreliable prejudicial or speculative
Civil Trial
Money and liability are at stake
Judges allow much more evidence
The threshold for relevance is lower