Juror Reveals Shocking Mistake That Doomed Karen Read’s Murder Trial!

by

In an exclusive interview with TopMob, juror Ronald “Ronnie” Estanislao shared a significant flaw that marred the initial trial of Karen Read, as depicted in ID’s documentary series ‘A Body in the Snow’. This mistake had a profound impact on the case.

The sensational true crime case, revolving around the January 2022 demise of Boston police officer John O’Keefe, has caused a stir on social media. Subsequently, Read, who was the victim’s girlfriend, was promptly apprehended, indicted for second-degree murder, manslaughter while driving under the influence (OUI), and abandoning the scene of an injury and death incident.

In the spring of 2024, I found myself standing trial for a fateful incident. Prosecutors asserted that, under the influence, I rammed into O’Keefe and then bolted from the scene. However, my defense team countered by suggesting that some corrupt officials had set me up, allegedly orchestrating the crime themselves.

In the end, the case resulted in a mistrial because the jury couldn’t reach a unanimous decision, leading to another criminal trial scheduled for April 2025. However, one of the 12 jurors from the initial trial suggests that the outcome might have been quite different.

The single biggest mistake in Karen Read murder trial

Estanislao clarified to TopMob that the jury indeed came to a unanimous verdict for two out of the three charges, acquitting Karen Read of second-degree murder. However, they were not made aware that each charge could be considered individually, resulting in a deadlock on all three counts.

According to Estanislao’s statement, the 12 jurors collectively decided that they had sufficient reasonable doubt to rule “Not Guilty” for the charge of murder, and this also applies to charge number three, which involves failing to remain at the scene after causing personal injury or death.

They had a disagreement about just one point: whether it was manslaughter for her to have been driving while intoxicated, and if her actions behind the wheel resulted in the death of O’Keefe.

If it were made clear to the jury that each charge could be considered independently, Read would merely face a re-trial for manslaughter. However, since they did not, a fresh jury and trial will proceed for all three charges.

Estanislao pointed out a problem he referred to as a “system failure.” Specifically, he mentioned that there wasn’t any clear guidance within our legal system on how to address each charge separately. In other words, it seemed like the system didn’t have a mechanism for treating each charge individually.

The Boston-residing paramedic who was part of the jury shared his thoughts, saying, “It seemed like there wasn’t clear guidance that asking questions wouldn’t lead to any repercussions.

It appeared as though, at some stage, we hesitated to pose a query, as we were relying solely on the instructions provided on a sheet and chose to adhere to them instead.

If we’d asked for more information earlier, I believe the issue might not have arisen or taken a different course, thus avoiding this conversation altogether.

Juror calls out “travesty” ahead of retrial

Because the jury was unable to reach a unanimous decision in the trial, Estanislao thinks it’s fair that there should be a retrial. Yet, he stressed that the conditions leading to the mistrial were regrettable and shouldn’t have transpired at all.

He expressed his conviction that a new trial is necessary given the recent events, as it appears the jury could not reach a unanimous decision on any of the three charges.

To be honest, while it might seem otherwise, we didn’t technically record our votes in favor of Charge One and Charge Three on the official record. Given this legal fact, it wouldn’t be incorrect to suggest that, according to the law, we ended up as a hung jury for all three charges.

Given what has transpired, I believe the events leading up to this situation were avoidable. It’s unfortunate and alarming that the legal process didn’t provide clearer guidance, resulting in the need for a re-examination.

From March 17, 2025, you can find out more about the case “A Body in the Snow: The Trial of Karen Read” by tuning into ID or streaming it on Max over the course of three nights.

Here’s another way you could express that:

You might want to explore the latest documentaries arriving on streaming platforms this month as well, and learn more about the postponement of “American Manhunt: Osama Bin Laden” and find out what happened to Ruby Franke.

Read More

2025-03-11 18:20