Karen Read attorneys seek to delay wrongful death civil lawsuit

Attorneys for Karen Read want a judge to delay proceedings in the civil case against her until her second criminal trial concludes.

Read is facing criminal charges in the death of her former boyfriend and Boston Police Office John O’Keefe. Her first criminal trial ended this summer with a hung jury. Prosecutors plan to re-try Read in January.

At the same time, O’Keefe’s family has filed a civil lawsuit against Read. Attorneys for the O’Keefes oppose any delay.

In court documents, Read’s attorneys say moving forward with the civil case before the criminal case will hurt her chances for a fair trial.

“Ms. Read’s ability to vigorously defend herself from criminal prosecution would be substantially prejudiced should this civil litigation proceed while her criminal trial takes place,” Read’s attorneys claim.

Read’s attorneys also note: “the privileges afforded to Ms. Read under the Fifth Amendment would be substantially impacted should this action proceed while the criminal prosecution is ongoing.”

In criminal trials, a jury cannot hold it against a defendant should they choose not to testify. However, in civil trials, a jury or judge is allowed to make a negative inference if a defendant pleads the Fifth. Legal experts also say if Read were to testify under oath in the civil case before the conclusion of her criminal case, her testimony could be used in both.

“She has not yet testified under oath, which her right to do,” says Boston 25 legal analyst Peter Elikann. “She wouldn’t want that used against her in a court of law.”

Elikann says the request to delay the civil proceedings is not uncommon or unreasonable. But attorneys for the O’Keefe family disagree, and accuse Read of trying to “control the narrative” by choosing when, where, and with whom she speaks.

“Karen Read has spoken publicly in interviews… with NBC’s Dateline, ABC’s Nightline, ABC’s 20/20, Vanity Fair, NBC’s Today, and a yet-to-be-disclosed Netflix documentary,” O’Keefe family attorneys write. “In light of her open willingness to speak publicly, Ms. Read’s current reliance on her Fifth Amendment right to silence appears to be less about avoiding self-incrimination and more about controlling the narrative to suit her interests.”

But Elikann says it’s not so simple.

“There is a difference between making statements outside of the courtroom and testifying in a courtroom where you are speaking under oath,” he says.

1 of 64