The High Cost Of Speaking Out: How Public Comments Are Shaping Karen Read’s Retrial

 

In a courtroom where every word matters, defense attorneys stress that a defendant’s right to remain silent is invaluable.

Karen Read, facing her second trial in the death of Boston police officer John O’Keefe, chose not to testify during her first trial. However, interviews she gave to media outlets and statements made in a recent documentary have resurfaced — and prosecutors are using them to their advantage.

Defense attorneys warn that speaking publicly can seriously impact a case. Misty Marris, a defense attorney and co-managing partner at Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani’s New York office, explained that a defendant’s silence is meant to protect them from self-incrimination.

“You open yourself up when you start making extrajudicial statements," Marris said. "Suddenly, there’s a lot of information out there that a jury would otherwise never hear, and that is always risky.”

This isn’t an isolated problem. Other high-profile defendants, including Robert Durst and Sam Bankman-Fried, have faced similar challenges after making public remarks.

Public Comments Come Back to Court

Read’s first trial ended in a mistrial due to a hung jury. In the meantime, she participated in a five-part documentary series titled "A Body in the Snow: The Trial of Karen Read," featuring interviews with her and her legal team before, during, and after the original trial.

In the series, Read firmly denied striking O’Keefe with her vehicle, as prosecutors allege. Yet, in a separate October 2024 interview with NBC’s Dateline, Read considered another possibility:

“Could I have clipped him? Could I have tagged him in the knee and incapacitated him?” she said. “Could I have done something that knocked him out, and in his drunkenness and in the cold, he didn’t come to again?”

Special Prosecutor Hank Brennan highlighted these conflicting remarks during his opening statement in the retrial, telling jurors they would hear Read’s own words about her level of intoxication, her relationship with O’Keefe, and events of the night in question.

Even during the retrial itself, Read has continued to speak publicly. Despite a gag order placed on attorneys, Read commented to reporters outside the courthouse that she felt the first day of the trial "went well."

Extrajudicial Statements and Their Risks

Before the retrial began, prosecutors signaled their intent to use Read’s past media interviews. At a hearing, Brennan pointed out that in the documentary, Read introduced new information, such as witnessing O’Keefe entering a house the night he died — a detail not previously mentioned.

Marris warned that even seemingly harmless statements can become problematic during unpredictable trials. "Everything a defendant says can be brought into the courtroom," she said. "It can be used to confront them. It can be used to create doubt about their story."

So far, prosecutors have strategically played clips to challenge the defense's arguments. For example, Read’s recorded comments about her broken taillight contradicted claims made by her defense that police planted evidence at the crime scene.

Inconsistencies Can Hurt

Public statements can also create inconsistencies, which prosecutors use to paint defendants as unreliable.

In Read’s case, prosecutors played a documentary clip where she recalled O’Keefe’s mother saying, "I think it looks like he got hit by a car." But when O’Keefe’s mother testified, she denied ever making that comment — exposing a significant discrepancy.

Other defendants have faced similar pitfalls. Sam Bankman-Fried’s numerous apologies and public comments before his indictment were cited as evidence against him. Legal experts called his media strategy a form of "litigation suicide."

Robert Durst, too, suffered from his public words. His comments during the documentary "The Jinx" were heavily used against him in court — even though it later emerged the infamous "Killed them all, of course," quote had been spliced and edited out of order.

The Risk to Attorney-Client Privilege

Public statements can even endanger attorney-client privilege. Marris explained that when a defendant discusses legal strategies or case details in public, it can open the door for prosecutors to request privileged communications.

In the Read case, prosecutors argued that her public discussions partially waived her attorney-client privilege, seeking access to text messages. Although the judge ruled in Read’s favor, Marris noted, “It was a close one.”

“If privilege is breached, it can completely change the dynamic of the trial," she added. "It gives prosecutors insight they would never otherwise have into a defense’s strategy and weaknesses.”

A Dangerous Line

For defense attorneys, public commentary by a client is a nightmare scenario. Every statement a defendant makes outside of court becomes potential ammunition inside the courtroom — fueling cross-examinations, undermining credibility, and even exposing privileged conversations.

While Karen Read’s retrial continues to unfold, her own words — spoken outside the walls of the courtroom — may prove to be among the most powerful evidence against her.