The jury in the Karen Read trial heard drastically different closing arguments Friday before deliberations began at Norfolk County Superior Court in Dedham, Massachusetts. 

As crowds gathered outside the courthouse, prosecutor Hank Brennan and Read's attorney Alan Jackson were each given an hour and 15 minutes to present their cases. But, Judge Beverly Cannone allowed each of them to exceed the limit. Jackson spoke for an hour and 26 minutes and Brennan went an hour and 20 minutes.

After a lunch break, Cannone gave the case to the jury to decide. 

"You are the most important people in this room. It all begins and ends with your function. You will determine the facts in this case. And that is your job and yours alone. You are the sole and exclusive judges of the facts," she said.

Jurors deliberated for approximately 90 minutes Friday afternoon before being sent home for the weekend.

Read said her team has done "everything we can" to avoid another mistrial. "The instructions, the verdict slip," Read said as she left the courthouse. "You've seen us fighting in court."

Alan Jackson's closing argument

Jackson went first, telling the jury three times right away, "there was no collision," in the death of Read's boyfriend, Boston Police officer John O'Keefe, in January 2022. She's accused of running him over with her SUV after dropping him off at a home in Canton and leaving him to die in a snowstorm.

Watch: Alan Jackson's entire closing argument

"This case was corrupted from the start," Jackson told the jury. "It was corrupted by a legal investigator whose misconduct infected every single part of this case from the top to the bottom," he said, alluding to fired Massachusetts State Police trooper Michael Proctor, who led the initial investigation in the case. Proctor did not testify in this trial.

Michael Proctor never called to testify 

"If the Massachusetts State Police can't trust him, how can you trust him? With this investigation, with your verdict and with Karen Read's life," Jackson said. "The lead investigator in a murder trial was never called to testify. Think about that. That should stop you in your tracks. Wouldn't you want to hear from Michael Proctor? Wouldn't you want to hear from the lead investigator in the case?"

"Their investigator was corrupted from the start by bias and personal loyalties," Jackson said. "Not a single medical expert called by the defense or called by the Commonwealth has testified that John was hit by a car. Not one. Think about the irony. Not one. It's not just significant. It's literally the most important point in the entire trial."

"Remember, Mr. Brennan's opening statement. He made some promises to you. He said, 'This case is about the data.' He stressed it over and over again. They've had three-and-a-half years to get this right. The Commonwealth has had this case for three-and-a-half years to get it right," Jackson told jurors, saying there was plenty of evidence that O'Keefe died in a fight.

Michael Proctor was fired by the Massachusetts State Police in March 2025 for his actions during the investigation of Karen Read. The board found him guilty on two charges, unsatisfactory performance and violating policy on alcoholic beverages.

Proctor was originally suspended for text messages he sent about Read to friends and family on his personal cellphone. Some include expletives, and saying that "hopefully she kills herself." He has since said he regrets the texts.

"No evidence that John was hit by a car"

"This is the central fact in the case. The only fact that matters is literally uncontested by every medical expert. Uncontested, undisputed. There is no evidence that John was hit by a car. None. How much more reasonable doubt could there be?" Jackson said.

"You have a man lying dead in the yard, and here are the undisputed facts that those officers were confronted with. Black eyes, obviously, black eyes are consistent with a fight. Bloody nose, also consistent with a fight. Bleeding from the face, consistent with a physical altercation. A cut over the right eye, consistent with a punch. No coat in the freezing cold, not dressed for outside, dressed for inside, and one shoe on. I wonder where the other shoe could be? I don't know, maybe in the house 30 feet away. And then you find a broken and shattered drinking glass next to him, the type of glass you might find, I don't know, let me think about this... in a kitchen in a house 30 feet away."

He also told the jury that investigators never searched the house and that prosecutors failed to prove Read was driving drunk that night.

"It wasn't a confession. It was confusion."  

As for testimony that Read said "I hit him" when she found O'Keefe the next morning, Jackson said, "Sergeant Bukhenik also testified that the only statement Karen Read made at the scene, according to his conversations with the first responders, was 'Could I have hit him? Did I hit him?' It wasn't a confession. It was confusion."

"We are after the truth in this courtroom. You're entitled to it. Demand it," Jackson said. "Let your voice be heard not in whispers but in truth. Let the community feel through your verdict that justice cannot be bent and that it will not be buried. Find Karen Read not guilty, not guilty, not guilty."

Hank Brennan's closing argument

When Jackson was done, prosecutor Hank Brennan addressed the jury, saying twice about Read, "she was drunk, she hit him, then she left him to die."

Watch: Hank Brennan's entire closing argument

"Now the government doesn't have to prove that she was drunk. It's either she's over the legal limit, .08, or she had enough alcohol to affect her ability to operate a motor vehicle safely. You will know she was far beyond the legal limit. After the retrograde analysis, almost two to three times the legal limit," Brennan said.

He proceeded to play a clip from one of Read's TV interviews for the jury in which she said, "I shouldn't have been driving."

Brennan emphasized that O'Keefe and Read's relationship was not healthy and "nearing its end." Text messages from before the party on January 28, 2022, were read during the trial. O'Keefe texted Read that he was "sick of always arguing and fighting."

"The relationship is almost over. The tensions are simmering beneath the surface. They are not getting along. She believes Mr. O'Keefe is already halfway out of the relationship. He's not into it anymore. You saw them. This relationship was unstable and at its end. So fast forward this night, after the discord, after the arguing, they go out, and what do they do? They drink. And they drink a lot," Brennan explained.

He then focused on the moments when O'Keefe got out of Read's SUV that night after a tense ride from the Waterfall bar to the home at 34 Fairview Road in Canton.

"What this case is about"

"It's the first time he has moved since they got to the flagpole, and it will be the last time he moves in his life," Brennan said. 

"He's separate from her. He's safe. And then she makes a decision. That's what this case is about. Then she makes a decision. She could have driven home. She could have broken up with him. They could have talked about it the next day. But like knocking on the door, like (John O'Keefe's neice) said, getting in the last word. She doesn't drive away. She takes that 6,000 pound Lexus and she makes a decision. And the decision is that she steps on the gas after banging it into reverse."

Brennan then explained to the jury why Read is charged with second-degree murder. 

"It sounds ominous; it is. It's a serious charge, second-degree murder. When most people think murder they think shooting or stabbing somebody. It's natural to think that. Second-degree murder is different. It's not first-degree murder. I told you at the beginning of this case, I told you that we were not going to suggest or try to prove that Ms. Read intended to kill John O'Keefe. That was never part of this case; we're not claiming that. I told you that we were not ever going to prove that she even intended to hit him. We never suggested we would try to prove that, and we are not trying to prove that she intended to hit him. We're not," Brennan said.

"She intended that act"

"What we are obligated to prove and what we have proven from the evidence in this case of second-degree murder is that she intended an act. And that is putting the car in reverse and heading back towards John O'Keefe. She intended that act," Brennan told jurors.

"When Ms. Read hits John O'Keefe, hits John O'Keefe, collides with John O'Keefe. We don't know if he went in the air a foot. We don't know how much of a clip it was; we don't know if he stumbled back. But we know there's a collision. There's no doubt there's a collision because her taillight is all over the yard."

"There was an eyewitness, there was a guide. And that eyewitness tells us that she knew. And that eyewitness is Karen Read herself. She tells you that she knew," Brennan said before playing another video clip from a Read TV interview.

"Could I have hit him? Did I hit him?," Read said in the video. "I didn't think I hit him, but could I have clipped him?"

"He's not in a fight"

"He's not at a party; he's not wrestling Brian Higgins. He's not in a fight... if he's in a fight, his cell phone would be moving. There would be healthcare data. There'd be steps," Brennan said of John O'Keefe.

"If he got into the house in 20 seconds and his cellphone is found under his body the next day, then how did he get back outside? There would be more steps because his phone is working. The data is the data. There's nothing wrong with it. It's registering everything," Brennan said. "His phone never moves again."

"We didn't need Trooper Proctor"

Brennan also addressed one of Jackson's major points Friday - why Proctor didn't take the stand in this trial, after he testified in the first one.

"He was terminated. He paid a penalty. He was held responsible for what he did, he should have been," the prosecutor said.

"We didn't need Trooper Proctor in this case. We don't need Trooper Proctor to prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt."

"He was murdered by Karen Read"

Brennan concluded his argument by showing the jury a photo of John O'Keefe.

""He is not an 'it.' John O'Keefe is not a body. John O'Keefe was not a 'buffalo on a prairie." John O'Keefe was a person, and he was murdered by Karen Read," Brennan said.

Jury deliberations begin

After the lunch break, jurors were given instructions and Cannone selected a jury foreman before deliberations began. 

Eighteen jurors were seated during the trial, but only twelve are allowed to deliberate. The other six became alternates in a random selection by the court clerk. 

Friday's session was scheduled to begin at 8:45 a.m. but it was delayed about an hour by two sidebars and a recess. Cannone began the day by apologizing to the jury and reminding them that "closing arguments are not evidence." She asked them to put away their notebooks.

Jurors were sent home at about 4:30 p.m. Friday. They were warned by Cannone not to talk to anyone about the case this weekend. They will be back Monday morning for more deliberations. 

Closing arguments "almost the whole thing"

WBZ-TV legal analyst Katherine Loftus said closing arguments play a "huge role" in the trial.

"Closing arguments are almost the whole thing. It sounds a little wild to think that you've put all of this evidence in, but lawyering is about the art of persuasion. You have two really, really skilled lawyers here," she said of Brennan and Jackson.

"I think both of them are very good at persuading but in different ways. Their styles are different. Their tones are different."

Karen Read trial jury

The jury heard from 49 witness during 31 days of testimony over eight weeks in Read's second trial. 

"I just hope they were listening, that's all I can ask for. They were in the same room I was," Read told reporters outside court on Wednesday after the defense rested its case.

The jury will deliberate in a room with boxes of evidence including books of reports, John O'Keefe's clothes and the taillight from Read's Lexus SUV.

The verdict slip and jury instructions will get extra attention this time, so, unlike in Read's first trial, jurors understand that they can come forward with a split decision to prevent another mistrial.

Karen Read's second trial

Read, 45, is accused of killing O'Keefe, by hitting him with her SUV and leaving him to die in the snow outside a home in Canton, Massachusetts after a night of heavy drinking in January 2022.

Her attorneys have said she's being framed by law enforcement and that O'Keefe died during a fight inside that home at 34 Fairview Road and was then dragged outside and left in the yard.

But in this trial, they argued that the police investigation was so substandard Read can't be found guilty.

"I think it's the smarter and straighter path to a 'not guilty' for them," Loftus said.

Read is charged with second-degree murder, manslaughter while operating under the influence of alcohol, and leaving the scene of bodily injury and death. If convicted of second-degree murder, she could face life in prison with the possibility of parole.

Her first trial ended in a mistrial in July 2024 with a "starkly divided" hung jury.

The retrial, which started on April 22, has had no shortage of courtroom drama with combative witnesses, air conditioning issues, an and a jury and a judge who appeared, at times, to be impatient.

The defense called for a mistrial twice this month, but the judge denied both requests.

The jury this time around is much younger and more diverse so many are curious to see how that impacts deliberations. 

• Karen Read
• Canton News