Karen Learn trial verdict: Not responsible of second-degree homicide

Editor’s be aware, June 18, 2025, 4:15 pm ET: On June 18, Karen Learn was discovered not responsible of second-degree homicide, and located responsible of drunk driving in John O’Keefe’s loss of life. The story beneath was initially printed on Could 3, 2025.

It’s the identical courtroom, the identical decide, and almost all the identical gamers — but it surely’s a complete completely different environment inside Norfolk County Superior Court docket in Massachusetts, for the retrial of Karen Learn, who’s accused of murdering her boyfriend John O’Keefe.

Final 12 months’s explosive trial divided town of Boston, and ultimately the whole nation, over the query of whether or not Learn backed into and ran over O’Keefe within the early hours of January 29, 2022 — or whether or not O’Keefe, who was headed to a late-night home celebration in suburban Canton filled with cops like himself, had the truth is been killed inside the home, in entrance of witnesses who then staged the scene exterior within the snow.

Whereas which may seem to be a query that ought to be straightforward to reply, in courtroom it was something however, thanks primarily to a botched police investigation led by now-former state trooper Michael Proctor. Proctor’s conduct shifted an alleged case of lethal home violence right into a public referendum on Boston police corruption: He made reprehensible feedback about Learn in texts along with his co-workers, together with misogynistic slurs, and appeared to view her as responsible earlier than he did any investigation — an investigation through which he allegedly lied and obscured proof. His testimony was so damning for the prosecution within the first trial that he was finally fired, a destiny which nearly by no means befalls troopers in Massachusetts.

In contrast, Learn was a ready-made trigger celèbre, a “woman subsequent door” faculty professor turned outspoken advocate for her personal innocence. Relying in your perspective, she was both an harmless sufferer of the system or a manipulative femme fatale — and audiences had been keen to select a aspect.

The police mishandling of the case, together with a number of arguably bizarre conduct from the celebration attendees, gave the protection loads of room to argue its conspiracy case in earnest. The consequence was a mistrial — although in keeping with 4 of the jurors, the jury really wasn’t all that divided. They had been reportedly torn on the weakest of the fees — leaving the scene of a deadly accident — however had reportedly supposed to search out Learn not responsible on the primary fees of second-degree homicide and leaving the scene of a deadly accident. They inaccurately advised the decide that they had been deadlocked on all the fees as an alternative.

That sequence of fiascos set the stage for the present retrial, and the addition of particular prosecutor Hank Brennan, who now has the benefit of realizing most of what the protection’s arguments can be upfront. Nonetheless, the prosecution has to beat the specter of Proctor, in addition to what the protection, and Learn’s legions of supporters, declare as cheap doubt pertaining to just about each piece of proof within the case.

“The traditional knowledge is that the second trial is healthier for the prosecution,” Mark Geragos, an legal professional giving his perspective as a spectator to the retrial, advised Information Nation. “I don’t suppose that’s the case right here.”

Let’s break down what’s new, what’s modified, and what’s nonetheless contentious in a case that continues to be a hotbed of controversy.

All the identical proof, all the identical battle

Each single facet of Learn’s retrial is up for debate — together with whether or not it must be taking place in any respect. Her protection group appealed the retrial all the way in which as much as the US Supreme Court docket, arguing that since jurors within the first trial had reportedly reached a unanimous “not responsible” verdict on the 2 fundamental fees, retrying her was double jeopardy. The issue? The jurors by no means formally recorded that verdict. The Supreme Court docket rejected Learn’s petition simply because the retrial was getting underway.

And so one more jury has to attempt to make sense of the weird case particulars that difficult the primary trial. They continue to be as confounding as ever:

Even the information that appear simple and damning at first look are, upon nearer scrutiny, something however. The search that witness and celebration attendee Jen McCabe allegedly made on her cellphone within the wee hours of the morning for “hos lengthy to die in chilly” can be a bombshell for the protection, if solely the specialists may agree on the timestamp. If she made it at 2:27 am, when the browser tab was opened, that might imply she knew O’Keefe was on the garden hours earlier than anybody claims to have seen him there. But when she made it when each she and the prosecution professional declare she did, at 6:23 am, that might come after she and Learn found the physique.

Then there’s the mysterious health monitoring knowledge that formally recorded O’Keefe climbing stairs shortly earlier than his cellphone stopped shifting, round 12:24 am. That may be a robust indicator that O’Keefe went inside the home, as Learn claims, earlier than his exercise immediately halted. Besides the prosecutor’s forensic analyst claims that the cellphone knowledge is inaccurate, and {that a} extra seemingly rationalization is that as an alternative of climbing stairs, O’Keefe was using in a automotive because it was going up a hill, seemingly touring to the Albert home shortly earlier than he stopped shifting.

The prosecution’s strongest argument this time round is arguably the recorded temperature of O’Keefe’s cellphone battery, which they declare started to quickly fall in temperature shortly after O’Keefe stopped shifting — absolutely an indication he was exterior within the snow, proper? Incorrect, in keeping with the prosecution’s personal analyst, who admitted on the witness stand underneath cross-examination that the cellphone may have nonetheless been inside the home whereas its temperature was dropping.

Absolutely nothing might be extra simple than Learn herself, declaring to anybody and everybody, “I hit him, I hit him,” on the scene, proper? Not in keeping with the litany of precise statements given by witnesses, which have various wildly in consistency and accuracy about who Learn spoke these phrases to, what number of instances she mentioned them, and whether or not she was talking declaratively or out of panic, asking, “Did I hit him?” or “May I’ve hit him?” or performing some mixture of all the above.

And, in fact, there’s the shoddy investigation itself — performed throughout a blizzard by officers utilizing solo cups and plastic luggage as an alternative of proof luggage and forensic technicians. That grave mistake was overseen by Proctor, who appeared to wish to wrap the case up as rapidly as potential, and, as his personal textual content messages point out, with out involving the Albert household.

May the legal professionals make the distinction on this case?

On condition that the case itself stays a trainwreck, what, then, is new? Primarily the particular prosecutor. Brennan, an legal professional most well-known for defending Boston mobster Whitey Bulger, comes throughout as dweebish within the courtroom however has a monitor document of hard-hitting and efficient trial ways.He received an acquittal for ice skater Nancy Kerrigan’s brother Mark Kerrigan within the 2010 loss of life of their father, in addition to controversial acquittals in two rape instances for disgraced former legal professional Gary Zerola.

The protection is usually the identical. Legal professional Alan Jackson, who famously prosecuted Phil Spector, then went on to characterize Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey, has dealt with the opening statements and a lot of the cross-examinations himself. But the protection isn’t with out its personal potential new lawyerly ace card: Victoria George, a Princeton-educated lawyer, who was chosen as an alternate juror for Learn’s first trial and sat by most of it earlier than being dismissed. (She has implied her dismissal alongside that of one other juror had been indicators of Choose Beverly Cannone’s bias towards Learn; the precise causes for his or her dismissal have by no means been made public.)

After the primary trial concluded, George reached out to Learn’s protection group and signed on to help as counsel — and that help might be invaluable, provided that she skilled the case being offered to her in actual time by the legal professionals, as jurors are seemingly experiencing it now. “It’s unbelievable, the perception you get from the jurors after they’ve sat on (a jury),” Geragos advised Information Nation about his personal experiences working with earlier jurors like George.

The protection could effectively want all the assistance it could get to counter what appears to be the prosecution’s stripped-down strategy to the retrial. Assistant District Legal professional Adam Lally, who oversaw the primary trial, continues to be working with Brennan on the retrial, however to this point Brennan has been dealing with a lot of the presentation and cross-examination himself, focusing primarily on forensic knowledge that he claims is irrefutable, commonsense proof that Learn did it. (It’s additionally the proof least prone to be tainted by Proctor himself.)

The prosecution has additionally been utilizing Learn’s personal interviews with media, given throughout and after the primary trial, towards her. Over the protection’s repeated objections, Cannone has allowed clips to be proven from Learn’s interviews with retailers like 20/20 and Dateline that embrace her discussing her preliminary concern that she hit O’Keefe. Brennan believes they present Learn’s “consciousness of guilt,” however the jury may probably be seeing the clips as indicating her confusion over what occurred.

The protection in flip has largely targeted on undermining witness testimony by highlighting altering recollections and inconsistencies throughout their statements given in police interviews, on the grand jury, and the earlier trial. One other theme the protection has known as out repeatedly is the close-knit Canton neighborhood of which O’Keefe was a component; everybody from the police to the primary responders on this case appears to know everybody else. Learn, the protection insists, was an outsider to the insular group that’s now accusing her.

Cannone has restricted the protection’s potential to level to members of that neighborhood as potential alternate suspects in O’Keefe’s loss of life — that means the emphasis on a mysterious group conspiracy that underpinned the protection at Learn’s first trial is basically absent. As an alternative, the protection has leaned closely on the “canine chew” principle, promising to name a forensics professional to testify that the gouges on O’Keefe’s arm got here from an assault by the Alberts’ canine, Chloe, who was abruptly rehomed not lengthy after his loss of life.

It seemingly received’t be clear what an affect these modifications by either side may have on the trial till Proctor, who’s listed as a possible witness for either side, takes the stand. Nonetheless, his presence looms over the courtroom. Some legal professionals watching the trial have criticized Brennan for not confronting the albatross of Proctor’s position within the investigation straight in his opening assertion, leaving a gap for Jackson to guide with it in his personal. Jackson described Proctor as a “malignancy” infecting the whole case.

One other surprising second from Brennan’s opening assertion got here when he remarked casually, whereas recounting the expertise of a firefighter on the accident scene, that Learn’s claims to have hit the sufferer “didn’t reconcile with the accidents” — a particularly stunning admission for the prosecutor to make.

That even the prosecutor himself can’t assist introducing ambiguity into his personal arguments reminds us what a irritating customary of proof “cheap doubt” will be. As with every part else about Karen Learn and her case, it’s within the eye of the beholder.