The Karen Read Case Heads to the Jury: What It Reveals About Massachusetts Criminal Trials

On June 13, 2025, the second-degree murder trial of Karen Read entered its most critical phase: jury deliberations. The Norfolk Superior Court case — now in its second trial after a mistrial in 2024 — has gripped Massachusetts and raised deep questions about how we investigate, charge, and try serious crimes when law enforcement itself becomes part of the story.

The Charges and the Allegations

Karen Read stands accused of killing her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O’Keefe, by backing into him with her SUV and leaving him to die in the snow outside a fellow officer’s home in January 2022. Prosecutors allege she was intoxicated, reckless, and later admitted guilt to emergency responders, quoting her as saying, “I hit him. I hit him.”

The defense tells a different story: that O’Keefe was attacked inside the house and that Read has been framed in a cover-up involving local police officers who mishandled the investigation, overlooked exculpatory evidence, and allowed forensic contamination to go unchecked.

Key Evidence Under Scrutiny

This case is a study in contested forensic interpretation:

• Vehicle damage and taillight fragments: Prosecutors say they prove a hit; defense experts suggest they were staged or planted.

• Injury patterns on O’Keefe’s body: Medical experts disagree on whether they’re consistent with a vehicle strike or an assault.

• Cell phone and text message data: Heavily analyzed by both sides to establish timeline, intent, and intoxication levels.

For lawyers and observers alike, the trial highlights just how fragile physical evidence can become when filtered through competing expert witnesses, inconsistent police reports, and intense media attention.

Why This Case Matters

This isn’t just about Karen Read. It’s about:

• Transparency and trust in police-led investigations when officers are connected to the alleged crime.

• The role of public pressure, media narratives, and social media activism in shaping trial dynamics.

• The importance of jury instructions and burden of proof in a high-emotion, circumstantial case.

Whether the jury convicts, acquits, or deadlocks again, the Read case is now a touchstone in Massachusetts criminal law — a reminder that trials aren’t just about facts; they’re about how those facts are framed, who the public trusts to present them, and what jurors believe beyond a reasonable doubt.

Massachusetts Criminal Defense Attorneys Walk Off the Job—Here’s Why It Matters to You

On May 28, 2025, hundreds of criminal defense attorneys across Massachusetts staged a work stoppage. This wasn’t a publicity stunt or a political protest—it was a necessary stand for the integrity of our legal system. We did it because the Commonwealth has failed to pay public defenders a livable wage, and justice is already starting to suffer.

If you've ever faced a criminal charge in Massachusetts and couldn’t afford a private lawyer, you were probably represented by a bar advocate. These are private attorneys—like me—who contract with the state to defend indigent clients in district and superior court. The work is demanding, often urgent, and absolutely essential to make the Sixth Amendment a reality.

But here’s the problem: the rates haven't kept up with inflation, with rising overhead, or with the complexity of modern criminal practice. Right now, the base hourly rate for bar advocates in district court is just $65 per hour. For that, attorneys are expected to respond to emergencies, juggle crowded dockets, and provide the same level of care we would offer to any private client. By contrast, Maine currently receives $150 per hour, New Hampshire $125 per hour and Rhode Island $112 per hour.

It’s not sustainable. And more importantly, it’s not fair to the people caught in the system. Chronic underfunding means fewer attorneys are taking bar advocate cases, and the ones who remain are overworked. That leads to delays, overloaded dockets, and worse outcomes for the accused. Justice delayed is justice denied.

If the state wants to keep promising the right to counsel, it needs to actually fund it. Until then, we’ll keep raising our voices.

—

I was proud to stand with my fellow attorneys in this effort. If you have questions about your rights or need help navigating the criminal legal system in Massachusetts, I’m here to help.

Source: Massachusetts private attorneys, seeking pay raise, refuse criminal defense work

A Troubling Case Against a Wisconsin Judge

On May 15, 2025, Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan pleaded not guilty to federal charges of obstructing immigration enforcement. Prosecutors allege that she helped Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a man reportedly in the country without legal status, leave the courthouse through a nonpublic exit to avoid arrest by ICE agents. The battery case against Flores-Ruiz had just been dismissed. Now, based on minimal evidence—including vague security footage and a court deputy’s account—Judge Dugan faces a criminal trial.

Her legal team has moved to dismiss the charges, arguing that she acted within her lawful discretion as a judge and is immune from prosecution. The case raises significant concerns about federal overreach and the politicization of immigration enforcement. It is virtually unprecedented to prosecute a sitting judge for a split-second decision made within the courthouse, and many see this as an attempt to intimidate the judiciary.

Beyond the courtroom, this indictment sends a chilling message: that federal prosecutors may criminally charge state judges whose actions—however legal—conflict with ICE’s objectives. Whether or not one agrees with Judge Dugan’s conduct, the prosecution threatens to erode judicial independence and weaponize immigration enforcement in ways that undermine basic principles of due process and state sovereignty.

Source: AP News – Wisconsin Judge Pleads Not Guilty to Helping Man Evade ICE

SCOTUS Block Trump’s Attempt to Deport Venezuelans Under Wartime Law

In a major ruling this week, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked the Trump administration from using a centuries-old wartime law to deport Venezuelan migrants without proper legal procedures. The administration claimed national security concerns, but many targeted individuals had no criminal records—and at least one man was deported despite a court order protecting him.

As a criminal defense attorney, I see this decision as a powerful reminder: due process isn’t optional. Whether you’re facing criminal charges or immigration proceedings, the government must follow the law. No one should be detained or deported without a fair opportunity to respond.

This case underscores why legal representation matters—and why courts still serve as an essential check when the government overreaches.

Source: Reuters - U.S. Supreme Court maintains block on Trump deportations under wartime law

How the Donnell Decision Could Overturn Gun Possession Convictions in Massachusetts

Massachusetts SJC Strikes Down “May Issue” Firearms Law for Out-of-State Residents: What It Means for Defendants

In the wake of a major decision issued this month, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has struck down the Commonwealth’s former “may issue” gun licensing scheme for out-of-state residents. In Commonwealth v. Donnell, 495 Mass. 471 (2025), the Court ruled that the discretionary license process violated the Second Amendment. For anyone charged under M.G.L. c. 269 §§ 10(a) or 10(h), this ruling may open the door to significant relief—even vacating a conviction entirely.

What Was the Issue?

Massachusetts previously required out-of-state residents to obtain a temporary license to carry a firearm through a process that gave wide discretion to the licensing authority. Under the now-invalidated law, the colonel of the State Police could deny applications “based on such terms and conditions as [they] may deem proper.” The SJC found this discretionary scheme unconstitutional under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, which requires gun regulations to be consistent with the nation’s historical traditions.

Who Is Affected?

If you’re an out-of-state resident who was charged under §10(a) or §10(h) after Bruen (June 23, 2022) but before the legislature changed the law (August 10, 2022), you are in the same position as Mr. Donnell and are entitled to dismissal of those charges.

Even if you were charged before Bruen, you might still be eligible for relief—as long as your conviction wasn’t final when Bruen came down. This primarily applies to defendants convicted after trial who had an appeal pending as of June 2022.

What About Massachusetts Residents?

The Donnell decision only addressed out-of-state residents, but its reasoning could soon extend to in-state residents who were subject to similar discretionary licensing schemes. The SJC is currently reviewing that issue in Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, with a decision expected later this year. Depending on that outcome, in-state defendants convicted under §10(a) between 2015 and 2022 may also have grounds for relief.

What Should You Do?

If you’re serving a sentence for unlawful firearm possession as an out-of-state resident—or were convicted but haven’t exhausted your appeals—now is the time to act. The Donnell decision could be the key to dismissing your case or overturning your conviction.

If you think your case might be affected, I’m happy to review your record and help determine whether a motion to vacate or dismiss is appropriate.