Oliver Kneen
This March, Investigation Discovery aired A Body in the Snow: the Trial of Karen Read, a five-part docuseries about Karen Read, a Massachusetts woman accused of killing her boyfriend, John O’Keefe, with her car. The documentary chronicled her first trial, which ended in a hung jury, and amplified her allegations that police mishandled the investigation and covered up the true nature of O'Keefe's death. The series aired two weeks before her second trial and earned an audience of 6.3 million Americans before jury selection even began.
Whether it takes the form of podcasts, Netflix documentaries, or television programs, the genre of True Crime is everywhere and inescapable. Read’s case is one of many that burden the judicial system with an increasingly important question—how can justice remain blind when all eyes are on the courtroom?
The case sits at the fault line between two constitutional bedrocks: the First Amendment right of the press and public to discuss criminal proceedings, and the Sixth Amendment guarantee of an impartial jury. American legal precedent favors the former. Nobody attempted to enjoin Investigation Discovery from releasing the documentary before trial—and for good reason. The landmark Supreme Court decision in Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart made it nearly impossible for American courts to impose a prior restraint on press coverage of live criminal cases, instead limiting judges to the less powerful toolbox of jury instruction and sequestration.
But the Court also acknowledges the real threat that publicity poses to fair trials. In Sheppard v. Maxwell, the Supreme Court held that a defendant’s right to an impartial jury was violated after the judge in a high-profile murder trial failed to issue a continuance, sequester the jury, change venue, limit media presence in the courtroom, restrict trial participants from speaking to the press, or order a new trial.
The American approach acknowledges pretrial publicity as a problem while keeping courts' remedial power confined to the courthouse—not the media itself. This is approach is understandable, but what happens in an era where the media is so diffuse and powerful that the prospect of shielding even a single courthouse from its influence is impractical?
Even before her first trial, Read cultivated coverage through blogger Aidan ‘Turtleboy’ Kearney, whose activism inspired an army of pink-clad ‘Free Karen’ supporters. In Read’s first trial, the court went through over 400 prospective jurors, 75% of whom already knew about the case. By the second trial, more than a thousand were summoned, 90% of whom were familiar with the facts. Jury selection spanned weeks.
The legal standard for jury selection doesn't require complete ignorance of a case—jurors must simply demonstrate impartiality and the absence of a fixed opinion. Accordingly, voir dire in this trial probed deeper into the nature of jurors’ digital exposure to the case, inquiring about what they had seen on Twitter (X), TikTok, podcasts, and TV, in addition to newspapers and other traditional sources of information. While the Court ultimately found a jury for Read’s second trial, at least one seated juror confessed to having encountered “Free Karen Read” billboards and lawn signs beforehand.
In both trials, the judge implemented buffer zones, placing demonstrators hundreds of feet from the courthouse and barring partisan signage. Still, community activists found ways to puncture that buffer notwithstanding the technical rules. For instance, Karen’s supporters all wore pink to create a visible signal of belief in her innocence, and protester chants were audible during jury deliberations in the first trial.
On June 18, Karen Read was found not guilty. Whether the verdict reflects the evidence or the influence of 6.3 million documentary viewers and countless 'Free Karen' posts remains unknowable—and this may be a problem. The legal framework established in Nebraska Press remains intact, but the Read case demonstrates the distance between constitutional doctrine and courtroom reality in the age of viral True Crime.
[1] Investigation Discovery, A Body in the Snow: the Trial of Karen Read, https://www.investigationdiscovery.com/show/a-body-in-the-snow-the-trial-of-karen-read-investigation-discovery-atve-us (last visited Oct. 2, 2025).
[2] Press Release, Investigation Discovery, A Body in the Snow: The Trial of Karen Read’ Reaches More Than 6.3 Million Viewers (Mar. 25, 2025), https://www.pressparty.com/pg/newsdesk/IvestigationDiscovery/view/451460.
[3] See Steve Clarke, ‘Inventing Anna’ to ‘The Tinder Swindler’: How True Crime’s Dark Charm Has Enticed Streamers, Variety (Apr. 2, 2022), https://variety.com/2022/global/features/true-crime-inventing-anna-tinder-swindler-1235221098/.
[4] U.S. Const. amend. I.
[5] U.S. Const. amend. VI.
[6] Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 563-70 (1976).
[7] Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 348-63 (1966).
[8] Chris Heath, Turtleboy Will Not Be Stopped, The Atlantic (Mar. 10, 2025), https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2025/04/turtleboy-blogger-karen-read-murder-trial/681764.
[9] Kristina Rex, How jury selection will work in Karen Read's high-profile second trial, CBS News (Mar. 31, 2025), https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/karen-read-jury-selection-process/.
[10]Id.
[11] Brewster Law, Karen Read Trial: Impartial Juries in the Age of Social Media (Apr. 22, 2025), https://www.brewsterlaw.com/karen-read-trial-impartial-juries-in-the-age-of-social-media/.
[12] Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 722 (1961).
[13]Here are the questions prospective jurors in Karen Read’s retrial will be asked, Boston 25 News (Mar. 31, 2025), https://www.boston25news.com/news/local/here-are-questions-prospective-jurors-karen-reads-re-trial-will-be-asked/2G67LKDO3VGQNPGWYIJUEBNBAA/.
[14] Marc Fortier, Jurors, lawyers, family: Here's everyone who's weighed in on the Karen Read verdict, NBC Boston (June 26, 2025), https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/karen-read-verdict-jurors-lawyers-family-speak/3752413/.
[15] Frank O’Laughlin, Judge extends buffer zone outside Dedham courthouse for retrial of Karen Read, Boston 25 News (Mar. 26, 2025), https://www.boston25news.com/news/local/judge-extends-buffer-zone-outside-dedham-courthouse-retrial-karen-read/MRI4PFTMYNDLJBS5MNJQNENDQI/.
[16] David Smith, Karen Read murder trial: Protesters, pink show of support and jury selection, The Patriot Ledger (Apr. 16, 2024), https://www.patriotledger.com/story/news/2024/04/16/karen-read-protesters-trial-begins-john-okeefe-braintree-ma-dedham-ma-canton-ma/73337252007/.
[17] Phil Tenser & Sera Congi, Karen Read supporters assemble outside Massachusetts court in advance of her retrial, WCVB (Apr. 22, 2025), https://www.wcvb.com/article/karen-read-supporters-outside-massachusetts-court/64550947?utm_source=chatgpt.com.
[18] Matt Schooley, A timeline of the Karen Read case and the story behind the high-profile Massachusetts murder trial, CBS News (Sept. 22, 2025). https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/karen-read-trial-timeline-john-okeefe/.