The Karen Read murder case judge is set to rule on a number of final matters before the trial begins with jury selection on Tuesday, with the third-party culpability theory topping the list.
Judge Beverly Cannone heard this morning arguments on a number of final requests from the Read defense team and the prosecution regarding what will be allowed during the trial. The hearing is set to resume at 2 p.m., when Cannone said she will rule on as many of the motions as she can.
Read, 44, of Mansfield, was indicted in June of 2022 for second degree murder, motor vehicle manslaughter and leaving the scene of a collision causing death in the Jan. 29, 2022, death of John O’Keefe, 46, a 16-year member of the Boston Police Department and Read’s boyfriend of two years. Prosecutors say she struck him with her Lexus SUV outside a Canton home after a night of heavy drinking and left him to die in the cold.
While many of the argued motions were uncontested, there were several requests that were hotly contested during this morning’s hearing, including whether testimony or evidence implicating either Read’ or any witnesses’ “bad character” is allowed, whether defense experts can cite scientific studies or “anecdotal experiences” and, most controversial of all, whether the defense can invoke the third-party culpability theory on which they have based their arguments.
Defense attorney David Yannetti said that both his team’s expert witness as well as experts retained into the federal probe of the Read investigation have “corroborated that O’Keefe’s injuries are not consistent with being hit by a car.”
“So, your honor, if Mr. O’Keefe was not hit by a car, then the defendant did not kill him,” Yannetti said. He added later that, “If you want to point the finger in a third-party culpability defense, you have a constitutional right to do so.”
Yannetti said that “It is not our job to solve this case for the prosecution. They had the opportunity to do that but failed.”
Instead, he said, he has identified three people the defense team said had both “motive and opportunity” to have killed O’Keefe in those early morning hours. He then named Boston Police Sgt. Brian Albert, then-owner of 34 Fairview Road in Canton where O’Keefe’s body was discovered on the lawn; Colin Albert, Brian Albert’s then-16-year-old nephew; and Brian Higgins, a federal special agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) who maintains an office at the Canton Police Department.
Yannetti said all three were present at the home at the time O’Keefe was killed.
He said Higgins had a prior romantic relationship with Read and seemed to suggest jealousy as a motive to kill O’Keefe. He added that despite a retention order, Higgins destroyed his cell phone following O’Keefe’s death.
Then came Colin Albert, who Yannetti said has a demonstrated history of “bad blood” with O’Keefe, over Colin Albert apparently driving through O’Keefe’s yard and throwing beer bottles or cans in his bushes, “and John O’Keefe was not happy about that.”
Then Brian Albert, who Yannetti said also has “expressed hostility toward O’Keefe.” He said that as a police officer, Brian Albert is “duty-bound to help someone in trouble” and that even though he knew as other first responders came to his home to tend to O’Keefe, Brian Albert “did nothing,” indicating “consciousness of guilt.”
Prosecutor Adam Lally responded that, “What counsel just went through is a list of rank speculation and is not evidence.”
“What I’m concerned with is believability,” Lally said. “Now is the time where counsel is going to be relegated to what is actually relevant, admissible evidence.”
“It has to be specific. It has to be a specific person who has motive or opportunity,” Lally continued, “and as it stands I have seen no evidence.”
Lally said that the majority of what Yannetti brought up comes from the federal probe, which is also on the chopping block for admissibility at trial, based on an exclusion motion Lally filed.
Lally said that the details of the federal probe are not known, and so the parties just have a vague idea of what is under investigation. Because of that, he argued, bringing the federal probe up directly is “simply inadmissible.” He also alleged the federal probe helped to launch and shape the federal investigation.
“The federal government, your honor, is perfectly capable of deciding its own investigation,” defense attorney Alan Jackson said in response. He said that it is “critical to give this jury the proper contact of the evidence and how it came to light.”
This is a developing story.