Karen Read case timeline shows Boston officer's death and retrial fallout

Around midnight on Jan. 29, 2022, Karen Read and John O’Keefe left Waterfall Bar & Grille in Read’s black Lexus SUV as a winter storm moved through New England. O’Keefe’s death became one of Massachusetts’ most closely watched trials, with prosecutors alleging a fatal SUV strike and the defense arguing a coverup protected the real killers.

The night in Canton that set everything in motion

The night began on Jan. 28, 2022, when Read and O’Keefe went drinking in Canton at C.F. McCarthy’s and then Waterfall Bar & Grille. The people around them that night included Boston police officer Brian Albert, Albert’s sister-in-law Jennifer McCabe, and ATF agent Brian Higgins.

A winter storm was moving through New England at the same time, bringing heavy snowfall and blizzard-like conditions as the group left the bars and headed to Albert’s home on Fairview Road.

The timeline quickly became the heart of the dispute. Multiple witnesses later recalled a dark SUV arriving at the house between about 12:15 a.m. and 12:30 a.m.; McCabe said she saw the vehicle pull up around 12:30 a.m., remain for roughly 15 minutes, and then leave around 12:45 a.m.

How the evidence turned into a public fault line

The defense built its earliest theory around the idea that O’Keefe was injured inside the Canton home, not struck outside by the SUV. Read’s lawyers pointed to phone records and argued that O’Keefe’s last four texts, sent between 12:31 a.m. and 12:45 a.m., went unanswered, while prosecutors maintained that Read hit him and left him in the snow.

O’Keefe was later found outside the home and rushed to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

One of the most contentious pretrial fights involved a dog that lived at the Canton home. Beverly Cannone allowed Read’s lawyers to pursue evidence involving the dog after they argued that a dog bite could support their theory that O’Keefe had been injured inside the house; prosecutors rejected that line of defense as a baseless distraction and said the defense was fishing for evidence. The defense also sought cellphone-related records and pressed a broader claim that investigators had protected the wrong people.

The first trial, the mistrial, and the juror dispute

The first trial ended in a mistrial after the jury could not reach a verdict. That outcome did not settle the case, because some jurors later said they had been unanimous that Read was not guilty on two counts, a claim that sparked a fight over what the mistrial really meant and pushed the case toward the Supreme Court.

The retrial that reopened every question

The Norfolk County District Attorney’s Office retried the case in 2025, and the retrial jury was seated on April 15, 2025. By then, the case had already spent more than three years in the public eye, with motions, witness disputes, and nonstop scrutiny of the investigation.

Deliberations began after closing arguments on a Friday, and jurors sent several questions to the judge. One asked whether failing to agree on one charge would make the whole case hung.

Cannone told the parties that jurors had reported reaching a verdict and then taken it back before the final decision was read at about 3 p.m. on June 18, 2025. Outside the courthouse, Read’s supporters erupted in cheers, while John Jackson, a close friend of O’Keefe, rejected Read’s post-verdict claim that she had fought hardest for justice for O’Keefe.

The verdict and what it changed

Read was found not guilty of murder and not guilty of leaving the scene, but guilty of operating under the influence, and she received one year of probation.

Supporters pointed to the acquittals as proof that the prosecution had overreached, while O’Keefe’s friends and family continued to challenge Read’s public framing of the case and to insist that the death of a Boston police officer had been wrongly recast as a conspiracy.

The investigation itself became part of the story

The Massachusetts State Police trooper who led the investigation was fired in March 2025 after becoming a target of criticism over alleged bias. By 2026, that same investigator was also facing a state police trial board and a federal civil rights lawsuit tied to the case.