Karen Read Found Not Guilty in Boston Officer Death: A Stunning Courtroom Victory After Years of Public Turmoil

Dedham, Massachusetts — In a trial that captivated the nation and divided public opinion, a Massachusetts jury on Wednesday found Karen Read not guilty of all major charges in the 2022 death of Boston police officer John O’Keefe. The verdict ended a turbulent legal saga marked by mistrials, conspiracy allegations, and a deeply polarized community.

Read, a former financial analyst, was acquitted of second-degree murder, manslaughter while operating a vehicle under the influence, and leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death. The jury did find her guilty on a lesser charge—operating under the influence of liquor—for which she received a sentence of one year of probation, standard for a first-time offense.

The decision came nearly a year after Read’s first trial ended in a mistrial in July 2024, when jurors failed to reach consensus. Since then, the case has evolved into a media spectacle and a flashpoint in discussions about police integrity, prosecutorial conduct, and the power of public narratives.

Cheers Outside the Courthouse, Tears Inside

As the not guilty verdicts were read aloud in Norfolk Superior Court, Read cried and embraced her defense team, including lead attorney Alan Jackson. Cheers erupted from dozens of supporters gathered outside the courthouse, many of whom had been rallying on her behalf since the early days of the trial. Some waved signs, others shed tears.

“I’m overwhelmed. I’m grateful,” Read told reporters outside the courthouse. “No one has fought harder for justice for John O’Keefe than I have—and my team. This has been nearly four years of hell.”

The Case That Split a Community

The case centered on the tragic events of January 29, 2022, when John O’Keefe was found dead in the snow outside the Canton, Massachusetts home of fellow officer Brian Albert. Prosecutors alleged that Read had struck O’Keefe with her SUV after a night of drinking, then drove away, leaving him to die in a blizzard.

But Read’s defense team countered with a much different—and far more sensational—story. They argued that O’Keefe was attacked by a dog and assaulted inside the home by partygoers before being thrown outside, unconscious and fatally injured. They painted Read as a scapegoat, ensnared in a cover-up orchestrated by law enforcement insiders and protected figures.

The defense’s narrative gained traction on social media, spawning hashtags like #JusticeForKaren and #FreeKarenRead, and turning her into a folk hero among some groups who saw her as a victim of institutional corruption.

A Verdict Years in the Making

The jury deliberated for five days after closing arguments on June 13, sending multiple questions to the judge about legal procedures and evidentiary scope. One question asked whether a split decision on individual charges would result in a hung jury across the board. Another asked if video clips of Read’s interviews should be considered evidence.

Judge Beverly Cannone, who also presided over the first trial, declined to answer the jury’s “theoretical” question, maintaining strict legal boundaries during the tense final hours of deliberation.

In a dramatic moment midday Wednesday, Cannone informed the courtroom that the jury had initially signaled a verdict had been reached—only to later report they had not finalized it. The sealed slip was set aside. About 30 minutes later, a second note confirmed the jury was ready. The verdict was read aloud soon after.

A Divisive Outcome

While Read’s supporters celebrated, the verdict stunned others—particularly witnesses who testified against her and the family of John O’Keefe.

In a joint statement, members of the Albert and McCabe families condemned the verdict as “a devastating miscarriage of justice.”

“Today, our hearts are with John and the entire O’Keefe family. They have suffered through so much and deserved better from our justice system,” the statement read. “We mourn with John’s family and lament the cruel reality that this prosecution was infected by lies and conspiracy theories spread by Karen Read, her defense team, and some in the media.”

Legal Hurdles and Supreme Court Appeal

After the first mistrial, Read’s legal team filed a series of appeals—including one to the U.S. Supreme Court—arguing that retrying her on charges the first jury had allegedly voted to acquit her of would constitute double jeopardy. The high court declined to intervene.

Her attorneys also filed two motions for mistrial during the second trial, both of which were denied.

Interestingly, one of the alternate jurors from the original trial, Victoria George, joined Read’s defense team for the retrial. George, a licensed civil attorney, reportedly believed in Read’s innocence and used her legal training to support the team’s strategy.

No Testimony, Just Strategy

Read, as in her first trial, chose not to take the witness stand in her own defense. “I am not testifying,” she told reporters earlier this month. “They’ve heard my voice. They’ve heard enough of me.”

Instead, the defense relied heavily on cross-examination, expert testimony, and what they described as inconsistencies in the prosecution’s narrative. They also leaned into the idea that police officers and insiders had a motive to shift blame onto Read to protect their own.

What’s Next for Karen Read?

Despite the acquittal, Read’s legal troubles may not be entirely over. Civil litigation could still follow, and the media scrutiny isn’t likely to end anytime soon.

ABC’s 20/20 will air a special episode titled “Karen Read: The Verdict” on Wednesday evening, with exclusive behind-the-scenes footage and interviews with members of her legal team. The program is expected to reignite debate around the case and its wider implications.

A Symbol of a Larger Conversation

The Read case became more than just a trial—it evolved into a reflection of how distrust in institutions, viral media, and true-crime fandoms are shaping modern justice.

In courtrooms across the country, defense attorneys are now citing the Read case when discussing the role of public perception in high-profile prosecutions. Some legal scholars say it could be a turning point in how cases involving law enforcement and public figures are tried and viewed.

As the courthouse crowd slowly dispersed Wednesday evening, one sign lingered in the wind: “Truth won today.”