$100.00
Snow, Taillights, and Reasonable Doubt: The Karen Read Murder Trial
In the freezing winter of 2022, Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe was found dead in a snowbank outside a fellow officer’s home. His girlfriend, Karen Read, was accused of killing him with her SUV and leaving him to die. What followed were two high-profile trials — the first ending in a mistrial, the second in a full acquittal — that captured national attention and became a masterclass in the art of creating reasonable doubt.
In this engaging, story-driven CLE, we’ll walk through both trials, analyze the prosecution’s and defense’s theories, compare the two proceedings, and break down the strategies that led to the ultimate not-guilty verdict. Along the way, you’ll gain practical trial tips for defending circumstantial murder cases, managing pretrial publicity, and leveraging jury instructions to your advantage.
Learning ObjectivesBy the end of this session, participants will be able to:
Compare and contrast prosecution and defense strategies in the first and second Karen Read trials.
Identify key evidentiary and procedural differences that contributed to differing outcomes.
Apply effective techniques for creating reasonable doubt in a circumstantial case.
Recognize the role of investigative bias and media influence in shaping trial narratives.
Integrate jury instructions strategically into closing arguments for maximum impact.
Early morning, Canton, MA. John O’Keefe, a respected Boston Police officer, found in the snow outside a fellow officer’s home. Injuries: head trauma, hypothermia.
Karen Read — a financial analyst, former girlfriend, last known person to see him alive.
Eyewitness fragments: late-night drop-off, SUV taillight debris, cracked rear light on Read’s car.
Early decisions in evidence collection (or lack thereof) that will haunt both trials.
The Prosecution’s Theory
Prosecutor’s circumstantial evidence approach — strengths and vulnerabilities.
How to keep a chain of circumstantial evidence unbroken (and what happens if a single link breaks).
Intent issues: murder vs. manslaughter considerations. The Defense’s Theory
O’Keefe was assaulted inside the home or nearby, not struck by Read’s SUV.
Taillight debris could have been planted or misinterpreted.
Police officers at the afterparty had motive to close ranks.
Investigators ignored key evidence that pointed away from Read.
The “alternate perpetrator” defense — when it’s powerful and when it’s risky.
Using investigative gaps to your advantage (and avoiding speculation that alienates jurors).
The tightrope between conspiracy suggestion and credible alternate theory.
Review of key witness testimony
Review of closing statements
How juror disagreement in a mistrial can foreshadow acquittal (or retrial strategy).
Media leaks, pretrial publicity, and their role in juror psychology.
Lessons from first trial mistakes: when to not overcomplicate your narrative.
Prosecutors streamline case — fewer witnesses, cleaner exhibits.
Defense sharpens expert testimony — snow temperature, injury timelines, biomechanics of SUV strikes.
Prosecution’s burden becomes more visible — each link in the circumstantial chain questioned.
Jury instructions hammer home: if any link fails, the chain is broken.
Verdict: not guilty on all counts.
Lessons Learned
How small strategic shifts flipped the outcome.
The underestimated power of concise, consistent defense messaging.
Importance of jury instruction emphasis in closing argument.
Side-by-side differences: witness credibility, expert scope, jury demeanor, press coverage.
How the defense learned to avoid overreaching and stuck to provable doubts.
How prosecution’s narrowing case actually made it easier for defense to attack individual links.
Practical Trial Tips:
Attack the weakest link early — don’t wait for closing.
Always give jurors a plausible alternative — not just “maybe it didn’t happen.”
Use experts as translators — jurors trust explanations more than raw data.
Exploit contradictions between trials — testimony shifts destroy credibility.
Make jury instructions your co-counsel — rehearse your closing around the “burden of proof” language.
Speaker:
Joel is a seasoned litigator and regular speaker to attorneys and non-attorneys alike. He currently is in private practice in Kansas City, specializing in constitutional litigation, campaign finance, sports law and appellate advocacy. He previously served as senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom at its Kansas City Regional Service Center. While at ADF, he was counsel for the Town of Greece, New York in the landmark case Galloway v. Greece. Joel argued the case before the United States District Court for the Western District of New York and the Second Circuit, and was part of the legal team presenting the case to the U.S. Supreme Court where they successfully defended the Town against a challenge to its practice of opening its sessions with an invocation.
Oster regularly litigates First Amendment issues. As lead counsel in Freedom from Religion Foundation v. Obama, Oster skillfully defended the constitutionality of the National Day of Prayer against an Establishment Clause challenge. Before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, he successfully defended the right of an organization to have a pro-life specialty license plate in Missouri in Roach v. Stouffer. In Wigg v. Sioux Falls School District, he successful represented an elementary school teacher in obtaining equal access to school facilities after contract time after she was denied that right based on the viewpoint of her speech. In addition, Oster has defended various churches based on the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, against discriminatory zoning codes and regulations. Oster also has defended various individuals, corporations, and political committees against discriminatory and unconstitutional campaign finance regulations.
Joel has also spoken to thousands of attorneys across the United States and has learned from their successful and unsuccessful legal practices. Joel brings this practical perspective to all his seminars.
Oster earned his J.D. in 1997 from the University of Kansas School of Law.Oster is admitted to the bar in Kansas, Missouri, Florida, and numerous federal courts.
Disclaimer: All views or opinions expressed by any presenter during the course of this CLE is that of the presenter alone and not an opinion of the Oklahoma Bar Association, the employers, or affiliates of the presenters unless specifically stated. Additionally, any materials, including the legal research, are the product of the individual contributor, not the Oklahoma Bar Association. The Oklahoma Bar Association makes no warranty, express or implied, relating to the accuracy or content of these materials.
-
On-Demand
Format
-
121
Min.
-
12/31/27
Avail. to
- DETAILS