DEDHAM, Mass. (Court TV) — Karen Read and her attorneys returned to court on Tuesday to fight to keep their expert witness’ testimony in her upcoming retrial.
Karen Read appears in court during a Daubert hearing on Jan 7, 2024. (Court TV)
Read is facing several charges, including second-degree murder, in the death of her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe. O’Keefe was found dead in the snow following a night out drinking with Read and his friends in January 2022. While prosecutors say Read hit O’Keefe with her car and left him to die in the snow, Read has argued that she is the victim of a wide-ranging coverup. Read’s first trial on the same charges ended with a mistrial in July 2024 when the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict.
Tuesday was the continuation of a hearing known as a Daubert hearing, which examines whether a proposed expert witness meets the five foundational requirements for admission into court. The hearing, which began on Dec. 12 and was continued on Tuesday, concerned a piece of expert testimony that prosecutors seek to exclude from Read’s retrial: the testimony of Dr. Marie Russell. During Read’s first trial, Russell opined that the scratches and cuts on O’Keefe’s arm were the result of a dog attack.
READ MORE | Prosecutors want Karen Read expert’s ‘debunked opinions’ out of trial
Prosecutor Hank Brennan came out swinging during his cross-examination of Russell, challenging not only her opinions but the methods she used to form them. Russell conceded that there is no standard model she knew of by which to evaluate dog bites. “Because there is no methodology, no standard, you have to rely almost virtually on your personal experience treating wounds,” Brennan said. But Russell fired back, saying, “No, you’re mischaracterizing it. I’m relying on my personal experience plus what I’ve learned from these numerous articles.”
When Brennan asked Russell what evidence she had reviewed in the case, Russell revealed that she had never been to the crime scene and had not read all the case reports.
Brennan: “When you were considering [excluding a car accident as a cause of the wounds], did you know from reports that shards of broken taillight were littered in his sweater?”
Russell: “I did not know that.”
Brennan: “When was the first time you learned that?”
Russell: “Right now.”
When Brennan asked Russell if the new information changed her opinions, she was clear: “No, it doesn’t change my conclusion that those abrasions were caused by a dog bite.”
Chloe, the dog who lived at the property where O’Keefe’s body was found, was rehomed by its owners before the first trial. On Tuesday, Brennan revealed that prosecutors had tracked Chloe down and made molds of her jaw and paws for comparison. Russell said she was aware of the molds but did not think they would help form her opinions.
Russell previously worked as an emergency room physician and a forensic pathologist, and she testified that she relied on aspects of her training for all three in determining that O’Keefe’s injuries were the result of a dog attack. Russell conceded during cross-examination that she had not peer-reviewed her findings in the case but explained further during redirect, “I wouldn’t even know who to send it to because I don’t know anyone with such experience.”
Judge Beverly Cannone has taken the issue under advisement but did not indicate when she might issue a ruling.
The attorneys are scheduled to return to court for another Daubert hearing on Jan 31. The Commonwealth is challenging the defense’s testimony regarding digital evidence. Read’s retrial is scheduled to begin on April 1.
