Crime Karen Read stands as jurors depart the court to continue with deliberations, June 28, 2024. Charles Krupa / AP, File

By Abby Patkin

updated on March 18, 2025 | 1:05 PM

Karen Read’s lawyers received a stern warning Tuesday from the judge overseeing her murder case, who said the attorneys have made “repeated misrepresentations” regarding crash reconstructionists who previously testified for the defense. 

The defense team faced scrutiny for its handling of experts from ARCCA Inc., an engineering consulting firm initially hired by federal authorities to look into the case. While Read’s lawyers previously indicated the experts were working independently and hadn’t been paid by the defense, they later admitted to paying the experts nearly $24,000 following Read’s mistrial last year. 

“Based on all the evidence, I conclude that … the candor required of all lawyers has not been demonstrated here,” Judge Beverly Cannone said Tuesday. “I find that there have been repeated misrepresentations made to the court by defense counsel, and I conclude that they were deliberate concerning the relationship with the ARCCA witnesses.”

Cannone further found a “flagrant violation” of the defense team’s Rule 14 obligations for sharing pretrial discovery, though she called Read up for a sidebar before discussing possible sanctions. Noting Read’s “strong desire” to keep her legal team as-is, the judge ultimately declined to revoke permission for Read’s out-of-state attorneys to continue practicing law in Massachusetts.

Cannone also denied prosecutors’ motion to keep the ARCCA witnesses from testifying at Read’s upcoming retrial, though she concluded her remarks with a sharp admonishment for the defense. 

“Candor with the court is essential,” Cannone said. “It’s the bedrock obligation of all lawyers who appear in this court and all courts in Massachusetts. A lawyer is only as good as his or her word, and I need to be able to take counsel at their word. So I’m not going to tolerate false statements, any stretching of the truth, no misleading distortions. There’s no place for that in the courtroom.”

The prosecution and defense were in court Tuesday to tie up loose ends ahead of Read’s retrial next month. Dozens of outstanding motions remain, including a flurry of pretrial requests both sides filed over the last week. Many of them are motions in limine, which help determine the evidence, witnesses, and arguments the prosecution and defense will be allowed to present to the jury. 

Read, 45, is charged in the January 2022 death of her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe. Prosecutors allege she was driving drunk following a night of bar-hopping and deliberately backed her SUV into O’Keefe while dropping him off at the Canton home of fellow Boston officer Brian Albert. 

However, Read’s lawyers argue she was a “convenient outsider” framed in a law enforcement conspiracy to protect the Alberts, a well-connected local family. The defense has floated an alternate theory that O’Keefe entered the home for an afterparty and was beaten, attacked by the family’s dog, and ultimately dumped outside in the snow. 

Read’s first trial ended with a hung jury last July. She is due to stand trial again next month. 

As the second trial inches nearer, prosecutors are once again seeking to bar Read’s team from raising a third-party culprit defense to blame someone else for O’Keefe’s death. The defense, meanwhile, has asked Cannone to keep certain witnesses out of the courtroom before and after they testify. Brian Albert and other witnesses, including his sister-in-law Jennifer McCabe and his nephew Colin Albert, sat with members of O’Keefe’s family during closing arguments in last year’s trial. 

“At least one juror who was seated in this case indicated to a reporter at Vanity Fair that she felt intimidated by their presence at closing arguments,” defense attorney Elizabeth Little said Tuesday. 

Little requested witnesses be sequestered from the courtroom “in order to protect there from being any sort of undue influence or intimidation or even just the potential that a juror might feel that way, as we know at least one did in this case.” 

Special prosecutor Hank Brennan argued the request “doesn’t seem to have any basis in law, in justness, in courtesy.”

Both sides also agreed Tuesday not to coach witnesses after they’ve begun their testimony. Another defense request seeks to keep Norfolk District Attorney Michael Morrissey and the Massachusetts State Police out of contact with jurors. 

The defense further sought to bar mention of an incident that happened during a group trip Read and O’Keefe took to Aruba over New Year’s Eve in 2021. During Read’s first trial, two of O’Keefe’s family friends, sisters Laura and Marietta “Etta” Sullivan, testified that Read angrily accused O’Keefe of cheating on her during the trip.

While prosecutors previously pointed to the Aruba incident as evidence the relationship was in turmoil, defense attorneys argued it isn’t relevant to Read’s murder case. This time around, Brennan said prosecutors do not intend to introduce evidence about the Aruba incident in their case in chief.

Another request from the defense seeks to exclude any mention of the harassment witnesses in the case have purportedly faced due to their connection. Several witnesses testified they have been harassed by people not involved in the case, and defense attorney Alan Jackson called their testimony “inadmissible and highly, highly prejudicial.” 

“There were very obviously vile acts that were described during the course of the first trial in these witnesses’ testimony,” Jackson said. “To the extent that they did occur, they are obviously in no way — in no way — condoned by the defense, by Ms. Read, or anybody connected with the defense in this case. And they’re in no way connected to Ms. Read or the defense.”

Brennan said he could understand the basis for Jackson’s request, “but to convert that into a speech that absolutely defies reality and grossly misstates the history and facts of this case is beyond me.”

He pointed to Read’s communications and information sharing with controversial Turtleboy blogger Aidan Kearney, a staunch defender of her innocence. Someone “would have to choose to be oblivious” to believe that information wasn’t used to intimidate and harass witnesses, Brennan argued.

He also said the defense team’s cross examination last year “opened the door” to testimony about harassment, which would not otherwise be part of prosecutors’ case. Jackson said defense attorneys would be mindful moving forward and might seek Cannone’s guidance before asking certain questions. Cannone did not immediately weigh in on the request Tuesday.

Separately, prosecutors and defense attorneys have filed dueling motions over whether to admit the results of a blood test Read took at Good Samaritan Medical Center in Brockton the morning O’Keefe died. A former state forensic scientist previously testified that a retrograde analysis of the test results put Read’s blood alcohol content between 0.135% and 0.292% around the time prosecutors say O’Keefe was mortally wounded. 

Prosecutors have also asked Cannone to reestablish the 200-foot buffer zone she set around Norfolk Superior Court during Read’s last trial. However, they’re requesting an extended buffer on one side of the courthouse after they say protesters could still be heard inside during jury deliberations. Prosecutors are also asking for an enforcement mechanism to ensure the buffer does its job. 

Before the hearing ended for the day, Jackson asked Cannone to push back the start of the trial in light of Read’s pending federal appeal. The defense is seeking to dismiss two of Read’s charges, arguing the jury in her first trial informally agreed to acquit her of second-degree murder and leaving the scene of a fatal accident.

The matter is now before the United States Court of Appeals after a federal judge and the state’s Supreme Judicial Court denied Read’s earlier petitions.

If the federal appeals court takes action on Read’s case, “that would set the trial into upheaval,” Jackson argued. While both sides intend to have their briefs filed by early next week, it’s unclear how long it might take the court to weigh in. 

Cannone did not immediately rule, though she expressed concern about the time and resources that have gone into preparing for jury selection in April. 

“Months and months ago, we got the jury commissioner’s office on this to get us the amount of jurors we need starting April 1,” she said. “That process will take additional months … if we change the date. So that’s very problematic.”

The lawyers are expected to discuss the matter further on Thursday. 

Separately, Brennan said prosecutors’ case is expected to take about three-and-a-half weeks, or about 24 days, to present at trial. Jackson estimated the defense’s case may go for a week-and-a-half or two weeks.

Livestream via NBC10 Boston.

Get everything you need to know to start your day, delivered right to your inbox every morning.