DEDHAM, Mass. (AP) — The jury asked the judge three questions relating to charges and evidence Tuesday in the second murder trial of Karen Read, who is charged with killing her Boston police officer boyfriend.

Jurors began deliberations late last week, more than a month after the trial started. The second full day of deliberations began Tuesday morning.

Read, 45, is accused of striking John O’Keefe with her car outside a suburban Boston house party and leaving him to die in the snow in January 2022. She has been charged with second-degree murder, manslaughter and leaving the scene.

Read’s lawyers say O’Keefe, 46, was beaten, bitten by a dog, then left outside a home in Canton in a conspiracy orchestrated by the police that included planting evidence against Read.

Read’s second trial followed similar contours to the first, which ended in a mistrial last year.

Jury asks judge to clarify evidence, charges

The jury asked the questions of Judge Beverly Cannone, who oversaw the first Read trial and this one. Both sides discussed the question in open court.

The first question related to the time frame of an operating a motor vehicle under the influence charge. Prosecutors wanted Cannone to instruct the jury to consider a time of 12:45 a.m., while the defense didn’t want a time specified. The defense argued during the trial that Read returned home and kept drinking, which would have influenced her blood alcohol level. Cannone said she would advise the jury that they are the finders of fact and to make their own decision based on the evidence.

On the second question, the jury asked whether video clips of interviews Read did in a documentary that were presented at the trial constituted evidence. The judge advised that they were.

The third question pertained to the jury slip, specifically whether a guilty verdict on a lesser charge of driving under the influence meant guilt on the main charge, which is manslaughter while operating a motor vehicle under the influence. The defense argued amendments should be made in the jury slip to make it clearer and Cannone was considering that.

Cannone returned to the courtroom with the jury present and answered the three questions, emphasizing this was their case to decide. “You folks have all the evidence. It’s only you who decides the facts in this case. You are the fact finders,” she said.

She then turned to the second question, saying they should treat Read’s interviews as evidence. “Yes, videos are evidence. You should weigh the defendant’s statements in the video interviews as you would any other piece of evidence and give them the weight you deem appropriate,” she said.

Cannone then went through the amended jury slip with jurors before releasing them to continue their deliberations.

Daniel Medwed, a law professor at Northeastern University who is not involved in the case, said it’s “quite possible it is heading for a compromise or mercy verdict, a split verdict” in light of the questions.

“My take is that the jury might be homing in the OUI charge, suggesting they might have doubts about whether she struck him at all,” Medwed said.

Defense argues Read was framed

Defense attorney Alan Jackson began his closing argument Friday by repeating three times: “There was no collision.” He told the jury that Read is an innocent woman victimized by a police cover-up in which law enforcement officers sought to protect their own and obscure the real killer.

He repeatedly attacked the lead investigator in the case, former Massachusetts State Trooper Michael Proctor, who was fired after sharing offensive and sexist texts about Read with friends, family and co-workers. He said Proctor’s “blatant bias” tainted every aspect of the corrupt and flawed investigation and noted how prosecutors refused to put him on the stand, as they did during the first trial.

Proctor, he said, ignored leads, planted evidence and failed to consider anyone other than Read as a potential suspect.

“Michael Proctor went far beyond just insulting Karen Read. He dehumanized this woman,” he told jurors. “He betrayed her as a human being. He was fired for this blatant bias. If the Massachusetts State Police can’t trust him, how can you trust him with this investigation, with your verdict and with Karen Read’s life?”

Jackson was limited in this trial to arguing that someone other than Read killed O’Keefe. Rather than suggesting as many as three people could have killed O’Keefe as he did during the first trial, Jackson singled out Brian Higgins, a federal agent who worked in Canton and had exchanged flirtatious texts with Read. Jackson suggested Higgins was agitated at a bar after Read didn’t respond to his text and had coaxed O’Keefe over to the Canton house party where he was beaten up.

“What happened inside that house, that basement or that garage? What evidence was there for investigators to look into? What did they ignore?” Jackson asked, noting the “obvious dog bites” on O’Keefe’s arm and the head injury from his falling backward onto a hard surface.

Prosecutors argue Read chose to leave O’Keefe to die

Prosecutor Hank Brennan opened his closing argument Friday by saying Read callously decided to leave O’Keefe dying in the snow, fully aware that he was gravely injured. He argued that she made the “choice to let” O’Keefe die, going further than prosecutors in the first trial in spelling out a motive.

Brennan said Read’s blood-alcohol level was two to three times the legal limit, after the couple downed multiple drinks at two Canton bars. The couple, whose “toxic” relationship was “crumbling,” had an argument on the way to the house party that increased tensions and ultimately led to O’Keefe’s death, the prosecutor said.

“She was drunk, she hit him, and she left him to die,” Brennan said.

Pointing to data on Read’s SUV, Brennan said it showed Read starting to drive off before reversing and accelerating. He admitted they can’t say how Read hit O’Keefe, but that she left “tons” of pieces of her taillight behind in the front yard and that O’Keefe’s DNA was found on the vehicle. Data from O’Keefe’s phone, he said, showed O’Keefe barely moved after getting out of the SUV, challenging the idea that he made it into the house party.

He also pointed to Read’s own words — shown in a video interview for a documentary — and testimony from the scene in which she told first responders that she “hit him.” He said this evidence may not correspond to the idea that there was a vast conspiracy led by the “boogeyman” Proctor and “everyone setting up the girl,” but he said these witnesses should be trusted.

As for Proctor, Brennan said the jury shouldn’t be influenced by the fact he didn’t testify. Brennan argued he wasn’t needed and that there is no evidence that he did anything to corrupt the investigation.

“I’m not saying you shouldn’t be disgusted by the text messages. You should. They are not defensible,” Brennan said. “I don’t stand here and defend impropriety. I don’t. But that doesn’t change the physical evidence, the scientific evidence and the data.”

Read’s pink-clad supporters

Dozens of Read supporters, dressed mostly in pink, are camped out waiting for the verdict. They gather behind barricades and across the courthouse each morning to catch a glimpse of Read. Once she has passed, the crowd retires to beach chairs where they swap stories and details about the case.

The crowd, some of whom come waving American flags or posters supporting Read or denigrating the prosecution, say they are here because Read could have been one of them. The tight-knit group of mostly women argues the Read case woke them up to a corrupt justice system, and they hope their movement can reform it. Some of them have been out here long before the first trial started.

The once-boisterious crowd has mostly quieted down, fearful that any noise they make might hurt Read’s case. They have swapped chants and cheers for a hand sign for love that they flash to Read as she walks past. Read often smiles and acknowledges her supporters.

There are no opponents of Read outside the court or supporters of O’Keefe. At the end of the first trial, some supporters of O’Keefe came out to the court to support the family and argue for Read’s conviction.

What are the charges Read faces?

Read faces several charges, the most serious being second-degree murder. If she is convicted, she would face a maximum sentence of life in prison. She also faces manslaughter while operating a motor vehicle under the influence, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.

She is also charged with involuntary manslaughter, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison; motor vehicle homicide, which carries a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison; as well as operating under the influence and leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death. They carry maximum sentences of 2 1/2 years and 15 years, respectively.

Whittle reported from Scarborough, Maine.