Karen Read Trial: The Charges, the Evidence, and the Holes No One Can Ignore
At Pena Law, we know how critical it is to prove your case—not with theories or pressure, but with facts, evidence, and a clear narrative. That’s what we do in civil court every day. And that’s exactly where the prosecution in the Karen Read trial is falling short.
Forget the conspiracy talk for a minute. Let’s strip this case down to the actual charges and what the state must prove—because even without the swirling drama, the legal foundation here is deeply flawed. One thing we have learned is that you MUST be able to tell the jury the WHY and the HOW it happened. If you leave them without a story, they won’t convict.
1. Second-Degree Murder
To convict Karen Read of second-degree murder, the state has to prove she acted with malice aforethought—meaning she either had intent to kill, or she committed an intentional act so dangerous that it showed a conscious disregard for human life.
But what do we actually have?
-
No eyewitness.
-
No surveillance footage.
-
No credible motive.
-
No confession or damaging statement.
The idea that she backed her SUV into her boyfriend—outside his colleague’s house—without anyone seeing or hearing it, and then drove off knowing what she did, stretches the bounds of plausibility. There is no clear theory why she would have done this, and no physical evidence showing that she did. And without a clear mechanism for the injuries (we’ll get to that), the intent element simply doesn’t stand. Most importantly, THE VOICEMAILS. End of story- this is a huge factor that causes us to doubt that she intentionally killed him, knew she killed him, or at a bare minimum- knew she even hit him. Nobody leave that many deranged voicemails after knowingly killing/hitting them. She was highly intoxicated and obviously not in her right mind.
2. Motor Vehicle Manslaughter While Under the Influence
This is where things get even more problematic for the prosecution. To secure a conviction, they must show:
-
That Read was operating the vehicle under the influence,
-
That she did so negligently, and
-
That this conduct caused John O’Keefe’s death.
Let’s skip the debate about alcohol levels and hone in on the real issue here: causation.
Even if—if—she hit him with her car, the prosecution hasn’t proven that this caused his death.
-
Which skull fracture was fatal—front or back?
-
Were the injuries consistent with being hit by a vehicle, or could he have fallen?
-
Could he have sustained the injuries after being dropped off?
-
Did hypothermia play a role?
He was drunk. He was found in the snow hours later. He had multiple injuries, none of which scream “classic pedestrian impact.” In fact, the pattern of trauma isn’t consistent with being struck by a reversing SUV at all- the medical examiner even stated this. The Prosecution attempted to clear up this testimony by specifying it wasn’t consistent with a front end collision as opposed to a side swipe or rear end, however the medical examiner also didn’t testify one way or another.
As personal injury attorneys, we regularly bring in biomechanical engineers to explain causation—because understanding how an injury happened is essential. Without that explanation, you’re asking the jury to guess. And that’s not how justice works. Interestingly, the prosecution never even hired this expert in the first trial and we really question WHY.
The state hasn’t ruled out other explanations. They haven’t connected the dots in a way that excludes reasonable doubt. And in a criminal trial, that’s fatal to their case.
3. Leaving the Scene of a Fatal Collision
This charge hinges on proving that Read knew she had struck someone and intentionally left without calling for help. But again, what’s the evidence?
-
No admission of guilt.
-
No cover-up or concealment.
-
No physical signs of impact on the car.
There’s simply no proof that she was aware a collision occurred—because again, it’s not clear that one even did. You can’t leave the scene of a crime you didn’t know happened. And the state hasn’t closed that loop. And again- THE VOICEMAILS. We think these directly contradict the argument she knew she hit him and she left the scene knowing she had hit him.
The Bottom Line
Intent matters. Causation matters. Proof matters.
The Karen Read trial should be about evidence—not emotion. And when you examine the charges individually, the evidence just isn’t there. There is no clear story of what happened. There is no expert tying the injuries to her vehicle. There is no explanation for how O’Keefe’s injuries occurred, let alone proof that Karen Read caused them.
In civil court, this case could possibly get a verdict because the standard is what is more likely than not. However, in criminal court, it shouldn’t survive beyond a reasonable doubt.
If the jury follows the law, they can’t convict based on what we have seen at this point.
Don’t get us wrong. We aren’t a fan of Karen Read and her semantics. She isn’t like-able. She may not be a good person. We are simply looking at this from purely a legal standpoint only.