Judge in Karen Read case denies defense's demand for mistrial

Flint McColgan, Boston Herald on Jun 3, 2025

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

DEDHAM, Mass. — Karen Read‘s defense team demanded that the judge declare a mistrial because of what they allege is questioning by the prosecution that is so improper there is no other way to fix it. The judge denied the motion.

“What has just happened is antithetical, abhorrent to a fair trial,” defense attorney Robert Allessi said outside the jury’s presence. “The only remedy — the only remedy — is a mistrial with prejudice.”

Read, 45, of Mansfield, faces charges of second-degree murder, manslaughter while operating a motor vehicle under the influence, and leaving the scene of a collision causing death.

Alessi was responding to special prosecutor Hank Brennan cross-examination of a defense expert who testified she believes wounds to the victim’s arms were caused by a dog bite and not a vehicle strike.

Brennan asked Dr. Marie Russell if she was aware that there was no dog DNA found on the hooded sweatshirt O’Keefe was wearing at the time of his death.

Alessi immediately objected and court went into a sidebar session, where attorneys discuss a matter privately with the judge. The vehemence of the objection was made clear and Judge Beverly J. Cannone dismissed the jury for their morning break so the parties could argue in open court but without the jury present.

Alessi claimed that this was the first time the idea of dog DNA on the clothing was brought up in court and that it was introduced for the first time. He said because it wasn’t brought up in the prosecution’s own case presentation, the defense “has been incredibly assiduous and meticulous about not mentioning DNA in any fashion directly or indirectly.”

“He has introduced it and brought it in for the very first time front of the jury,” Alessi said. “Based upon that intentional mention of DNA, the defense moves strongly, vigorously, for a mistrial with prejudice. A mistrial with prejudice.”

Brennan countered that asking about the absence of DNA “is not only proper and permissible, it’s essential.”

“The commonwealth is entitled on cross examination to explore theories and facades that the defense creates if there is actual evidence that undermines or contradicts the representations that they are trying to portray to this jury,” Brennan said.

He said he wanted to be “clear” about two things: “the defense is on notice that there is no dog DNA in the sweater of John O’Keefe” and that while he didn’t “try to disprove all of their various theories in our case in chief but if they were going to propose theories that we thought were unsubstantiated we would do so in rebuttal.”

Judge Cannone took some 30 minutes to consider the motion and allowed the line of questioning. However, she will not allow Brennan to introduce as evidence another doctor’s report that disagrees with Russell’s assessment.

-------------