It’s the identical courtroom, the identical choose, and practically the entire identical gamers — nevertheless it’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 all the 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 get together in suburban Canton stuffed with law enforcement officials like himself, had actually been killed inside the home, in entrance of witnesses who then staged the scene exterior within the snow.
Whereas which may look like a query that ought to be straightforward to reply, in court docket 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 together with his co-workers, together with misogynistic slurs, and appeared to view her as responsible earlier than he did any investigation — an investigation by which he allegedly lied and obscured proof. His testimony was so damning for the prosecution within the first trial that he was in the end fired, a destiny which virtually 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 have been keen to select a aspect.
The police mishandling of the case, together with a number of arguably bizarre conduct from the get together attendees, gave the protection loads of room to argue its conspiracy case in earnest. The consequence was a mistrial — although in line with 4 of the jurors, the jury truly wasn’t all that divided. They have been reportedly torn on the weakest of the costs — leaving the scene of a deadly accident — however had reportedly meant to seek out Learn not responsible on the principle prices of second-degree homicide and leaving the scene of a deadly accident. They inaccurately advised the choose that they have been deadlocked on all the costs as a substitute.
That collection of fiascos set the stage for the present retrial, and the addition of particular prosecutor Hank Brennan, who now has the benefit of understanding most of what the protection’s arguments will probably be prematurely. Nonetheless, the prosecution has to beat the specter of Proctor, in addition to what the protection, and Learn’s legions of supporters, declare as affordable doubt pertaining to almost each piece of proof within the case.
“The standard knowledge is that the second trial is healthier for the prosecution,” Mark Geragos, an lawyer 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 side of Learn’s retrial is up for debate — together with whether or not it ought to be occurring in any respect. Her protection staff 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 primary prices, 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 yet one more jury has to attempt to make sense of the weird case particulars that sophisticated the primary trial. They continue to be as confounding as ever:
- The truth that the proprietor of the house the place the get together was occurring, a retired police officer named Brian Albert, by no means got here exterior at any time that morning to see what was occurring on his personal garden.
- The issue that O’Keefe’s physique has no signal of the accidents anticipated from a automobile collision, together with an absence of lower-body bruising the place the automobile would presumably have hit him.
- The deep scratches on his arm, which the protection alleges are canine bites from an assault by the Alberts’ German shepherd that occurred inside the home.
- The largely unexplained collection of calls between a number of of the get together attendees all through the evening earlier than the discovery of O’Keefe’s physique, even supposing not a single get together attendee claims to have seen the physique on the garden as they have been leaving.
- The broken tail gentle, which can have been damaged through the evening, or might (because the protection alleges) have been smashed sooner or later within the days afterward, as soon as Proctor had custody of Learn’s SUV.
Even the information that appear simple and damning at first look are, upon nearer scrutiny, something however. The search that witness and get together attendee Jen McCabe allegedly made on her cellphone within the wee hours of the morning for “hos lengthy to die in chilly” could be a bombshell for the protection, if solely the specialists might agree on the timestamp. If she made it at 2:27 am, when the browser tab was opened, that may 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 skilled declare she did, at 6:23 am, that may 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 transferring, round 12:24 am. That is perhaps a robust indicator that O’Keefe went inside the home, as Learn claims, earlier than his exercise abruptly halted. Besides the prosecutor’s forensic analyst claims that the cellphone knowledge is inaccurate, and {that a} extra seemingly clarification is that as a substitute of climbing stairs, O’Keefe was driving in a automobile because it was going up a hill, seemingly touring to the Albert home shortly earlier than he stopped transferring.
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 transferring — certainly an indication he was exterior within the snow, proper? Flawed, in line with the prosecution’s personal analyst, who admitted on the witness stand beneath cross-examination that the cellphone might have nonetheless been inside the home whereas its temperature was dropping.
Certainly nothing may very well be extra simple than Learn herself, declaring to anybody and everybody, “I hit him, I hit him,” on the scene, proper? Not in line with the litany of precise statements given by witnesses, which have diverse wildly in consistency and accuracy about who Learn spoke these phrases to, what number of instances she stated them, and whether or not she was talking declaratively or out of panic, asking, “Did I hit him?” or “Might I’ve hit him?” or performing some mixture of the entire above.
And, in fact, there’s the shoddy investigation itself — performed throughout a blizzard by officers utilizing solo cups and plastic luggage as a substitute of proof luggage and forensic technicians. That grave mistake was overseen by Proctor, who appeared to need to wrap the case up as shortly as doable, and, as his personal textual content messages point out, with out involving the Albert household.
Might 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 lawyer most well-known for defending Boston mobster Whitey Bulger, comes throughout as dweebish within the courtroom however has a monitor report 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 circumstances for disgraced former lawyer Gary Zerola.
The protection is usually the identical. Lawyer Alan Jackson, who famously prosecuted Phil Spector, then went on to symbolize 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 means of most of it earlier than being dismissed. (She has implied her dismissal alongside that of one other juror have 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 staff and signed on to help as counsel — and that help may very well be invaluable, provided that she skilled the case being introduced 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 might nicely want all the assistance it may possibly get to counter what appears to be the prosecution’s stripped-down method to the retrial. Assistant District Lawyer Adam Lally, who oversaw the primary trial, continues to be working with Brennan on the retrial, however to date 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 more likely 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 might doubtlessly be seeing the clips as indicating her confusion over what occurred.
The protection in flip has largely centered 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 group of which O’Keefe was an element; 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 means to level to members of that group as potential alternate suspects in O’Keefe’s loss of life — which 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 chunk” principle, promising to name a forensics skilled 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 impression 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 court docket. Some legal professionals watching the trial have criticized Brennan for not confronting the albatross of Proctor’s position within the investigation immediately in his opening assertion, leaving a gap for Jackson to steer with it in his personal. Jackson described Proctor as a “malignancy” infecting all the 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” — an especially 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 normal of proof “affordable doubt” could be. As with every little thing else about Karen Learn and her case, it’s within the eye of the beholder.
