Retrial of Karen Read begins in killing of Boston police officer boyfriend

The opening data is expected to be on Tuesday in the trial of Karen Reed, who is accused of causing her boyfriend’s death to a Boston police officer, but his supporters are allegedly framing on charges of killing that she did not commit.

Prosecutors say that Read supported their SUVs to John Okif after he fell at a party and returned after hours to find him dead. Defense lawyers say she was a victim of a police conspiracy and planned, as they did in the first trial, to provide evidence to the real killer.

Nine men and nine women were chosen to serve as 12 jurors and six of the alternative.

The second -degree murder was charged, the wrong killing and the scene. A trial was announced last year after jury said they were on a dead end. The second trial will look like the first judge, with the same judge, and many of the same witnesses and many prominent defense lawyers.

A rocky relationship is subject to scrutiny

Red worked as a financial analyst and assistant professor at Bentley College before accusing him of the death of Okif, who was 46 years old when he died. The veteran was found in the police for 16 years outside the Boston police officer’s house.

After a night of drinking, the prosecutors say that the 45 -year -old reading was dropped at the home party after midnight. Prosecutors say, when she achieved a three -point role, Ociv was hit before driving. She returned hours after you would find it on a snow bank.

As in the first trial, public prosecutors will try to persuade jury that reading actions were intended. Witnesses who will describe how the couple’s relationship with tension began before Okif, including his brother and sister’s sister, who witnessed that the reading told her that the couple had argued in Aruba after she arrested Ociv to kiss another woman.

Defense blames a third party for the death of Okif

The defense is expected to depict the investigation of Okif’s death as poor and undermined by the close relationship investigators with police officers and other law enforcement agents who were in the home party.

Among the main witnesses to contact him is the former state soldier Michael Proutept, who has led the investigation but has been separated since then after a disciplinary council found that he sent sexual texts and crude about reading his family and colleagues. He is also in the list of prosecution witnesses.

Proctor’s certificate was a basic moment during the first trial, when the defense suggested its texts on reading and the case showed that he was biased and that he had identified it early in the investigation, ignoring the other potential suspects.

It is also expected that they will suggest that the reading was framing, saying that Okif had already been killed inside the house during a fight with another party owner and then dragged abroad. In the first trial, defense lawyers suggested that the investigators focused on reading because it was a “comfortable external” that saved them from having to consider law enforcement staff as suspects.

Before the second trial, the two sides set out on whether reading lawyers would be allowed to do another person who killed Okif. Judge Beverly Canon spent on Monday that lawyers could not mention the potential third -party perpetrators in their opening statements, but he will be allowed to develop evidence against Brian Albert, a retired police officer who owns a canton house, and his friend Brian Higgins. Colin Albert said the lawyers could not get involved in the son of Albert.

An audit commissioned by the city from the Canton Police Department, which was released on March 30, was found several mistakes with the investigation, but there is no evidence of cover -up. It was suggested that the first respondents had photographed Okif as he was found before being transferred and that all interviews should have been done with “computer witnesses” in the department after Ociv was transferred to the hospital.

The dual defense argument fails to danger

Soon after the trial, the reading lawyers set out for the main charges.

They argued that Judge Canon announced a trial without investigating jury to confirm their conclusions. Defense lawyer, Martin Winberg, said that five jurors, after the trial, referred to only a dead end in the number of unintentional killing and unanimously agreed that she was not guilty of second -class killing and left the scene, but they did not tell the judge.

The defense said that since the jury agreed to read, it was not guilty of death and left the scene of the accident, the restoration of its surroundings on these charges would be a double danger. But Cannone rejected this argument, as it did the highest court in the state, the judge of the Federal Court, and the Court of Appeal.

The general prosecutors urged the accuracy of the dual danger demand, saying that it was “rumors, guessing, and inappropriate dependence on the legal point of view on the subject of the jury’s deliberations.” The provincial prosecutor Adam Lali argued that jury had never indicated that they had reached a ruling on any of the charges and that the defense had a great opportunity to object to the wrong declaration.

A new public prosecutor enters

The second trial is likely to appear similar to the first. It will be held in the same court in front of the same judge, and it is expected that dozens of supporters of emotional reading will gather again. Check and primary defense lawyer and many of about 200 witnesses will be the same.

The biggest difference will be the main public prosecutor, Hank Brennan. The former public prosecutor and defense lawyer who was brought as a private prosecutor after the trial, like Brennan, like many prominent clients, including Boston’s invaders “James Wayti”, and experts believe that he may be more powerful than Lali in the argument in the case.

What evidence will be provided?

Generally prosecutors are likely to rely on eyewitnesses from the scene of the accident in the early days of the trial, while relying on a certificate of police officers and firefighters who recalled reading comments involved in the murder.

They are also likely to provide evidence of a broken rear presence on SUVs reading that the prosecution representatives argue that they were damaged when they hit O’keefe and the potential DNA of O’keefe on its car.

The goal of the defense is to raise doubts about the issue of prosecution and the cultivation of seeds that have been framing. They are expected to provide evidence of a dirty police investigation, including failure to search at home and errors in the police record.

It is also expected that they will point out that hair on the rear lights has been planted and that the police investigation was marred by conflicts of interests.