After two trials and months of gripping testimony, a Massachusetts jury has acquitted Karen Read of second-degree murder and manslaughter in the death of her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O’Keefe. In a case that drew national attention—fueled in part by a Netflix documentary—Read was found guilty only of driving under the influence. Her sentence: one year of probation. Prosecutors argued that after a night of heavy drinking, Read struck O’Keefe with the rear of her SUV outside a friend’s home, then left him injured in a blizzard, where he died from exposure. But Read’s defense told a very different story—one of police missteps, flawed forensics, and a possible coverup. They raised the specter O’Keefe was harmed inside the house and that fellow officers framed Read to protect one of their own. Jurors told Boston media the prosecution simply failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. This was Read’s second trial. The first ended in a hung jury last summer. On this episode of Next Witness…Please, retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Thomas Hodson break down the legal complexities behind the verdict. They explore why prosecutors retry cases after hung juries, who gains the advantage in a second trial, and how each side handled its courtroom strategy. The judges also examine how the not-guilty verdicts may impact a pending civil wrongful death suit filed by O’Keefe’s family—and they explain the crucial differences between criminal and civil standards of proof. Finally, Byers and Hodson consider whether Read might turn the tables by filing her own civil claims against police for a botched investigation—or even against prosecutors for malicious prosecution.