Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Verdict Reached in Karen Read Retrial; Karen Read Found Not Guilty of Second-Degree Murder in Retrial; Karen Read Acquitted of Killing Her Police Officer Boyfriend; Israel and Iran Trade Strikes as U.S. Considers Intervention; Trump: Haven't Decided Yet on Whether to Strike Iran. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired June 18, 2025 - 15:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:01:59]

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) ...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you. Specifically, number 5, operating under the influence of liquor. By operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 or greater, correct?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So say you Mr. Foreman (ph).

FOREMAN: Guilty.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So say you all?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: 003, what say you as the defendant at the bar, leaving the scene after accident resulting in death? Defendant not guilty or guilty?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Not guilty.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So say you Mr. Foreman?

FOREMAN: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So say you all?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Jurors, hearken your verdict as the court records, that you, upon your oath, say the defendant on 001 is not guilty, on 002 is guilty of operating under the influence of liquor, and 003 not guilty. Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: All right. Jurors, everybody please be seated. Jurors, we thank you for your service. We're going to send you back to service (INAUDIBLE) complete. I'd like to come back and talk to you here a little bit afterwards. So, thank you very much.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All rise. (INAUDIBLE) ...

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: All right. The verdict is in and Karen Read has been found not guilty of the most serious charges against her. Let's go right to CNN's Jean Casarez, who is outside court.

Jean, your response to what we just heard from the jury foreperson.

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think the response here speaks for it all. The crowd is going crazy right here. The hundreds of people that have stood out here day in and day out for Karen Read. They heard that verdict. They know the outcome, and they are now showing their exuberance, their joyful exuberance.

I let that sound speak for itself. These were counts that carried second-degree murder, a maximum of life in prison. Second degree was up to 25 years of the manslaughter. It was the lesser included that people wondered on. Now, this is a mixed verdict, I do understand. And that mixed verdict, the operating under the influence, drunk driving. It appears as though there was a conviction on drunk driving. What that amounts to is a fine and suspension of your license for a few months. It has nothing to do with John O'Keefe. They do not believe that Karen Read caused the death of John O'Keefe.

[15:05:00]

That loyalty is now being rewarded by that jury's verdict.

CROWD: Free Karen Read. Free Karen Read. Free Karen Read.

CASAREZ: And this is what their motto has been, "Free Karen Read." They picked the pink color because pink was Karen's favorite color. And early on, Karen was asked, what color do you want your supporters to wear and they - she said, I want pink. And Rita Lombardi is the one that started this movement. And she grew it from the grassroots up. But that does not mean that the jury's verdict will reflect that. They had to look at the evidence. They had to assess the evidence.

Now, the John O'Keefe family is in that courthouse right now. They want justice for their victim, John O'Keefe. His life was taken. His life is gone. And now the question remains, who did this? Because the jury has determined that Karen Read, beyond a reasonable doubt, did not cause his death, that there was reasonable doubt that she did this.

So, now the quest for justice remains and will this community be vested in finding the true answers to this horrible, horrible killing?

TAPPER: All right. Jean Casarez, thank you so much.

Let me bring back former litigator Lisa Bonner.

And, Lisa, there's obviously this huge crowd outside the courthouse in Dedda, Massachusetts, which is just outside Boston. And for folks who have not been following the Karen Read trial, folks who do not know why there is a crowd there and why they are cheering this - basically, she has been found not guilty in the most serious charges. Obviously, she was found guilty of driving while intoxicated, but that's nothing compared to the other charges involving manslaughter.

Can you explain to our viewers why there is this crowd and this wellspring of support for Karen Read, the defendant?

LISA BONNER, ENTERTAINMENT ATTORNEY & FORMER LITIGATOR: That's a great question, Jake. There has been so much hoopla around this case since the first juror - excuse me, the first jury ended in a mistrial. There was a lot of speculation whether or not she would - whether or not Karen Read actually did this or not. And there was a lot of prosecutorial misconduct in the first trial in terms of the investigator who was, you know, not giving truthful evidence. And there was just a lot that went on that did not sit well with not only the jurors, but the public in general.

And so, the fact that it was a hung jury and they could not come to a conclusion on this, really set in the minds of the public that something might not have been right. There was a - something was amiss. And so, when the prosecution decided to retry this case, the defense really needed to come up and step up and put on a vigorous defense, which they did this time. There have been infinite number of documentaries of who've done it, internet sleuths talking about there was a conspiracy to frame Karen Read. And this has been debunked and looked into by, like I said, internet sleuths, people on TikTok. And the whole entire world seemed to have a really vested interest in this.

And so, I think because the defense came back and put on a very, very vigorous defense and really poked holes in the mind of the jurors and really definitely gave some jurors some food for thought to come back and return a unanimous verdict on the most important charges, which could have placed Karen Read behind bars for a very long time.

TAPPER: Why do you think this verdict was different from the first trial, which resulted in a hung jury?

CASAREZ: Well, the defense put on a vigorous cross-examination of the prosecution's witnesses. I think that they went a lot harder. And what they did specifically with the gentleman who was a snowplow driver, they brought him to the forefront and they really, you know, said, listen, you did not see a body on the yard. And he was like, no, I drove past several times.

So, they really were poking holes in that. They presented alternative evidence in terms of this was not consistent with what a car accident victim would have looked like. It was perhaps bitten by a dog. There was a lot of police misconduct that was brought to the front. So, I think in terms of the defense seemed to learn from the mistakes that they made last time and really just thinking that they might have had it in the bag and really came back and vigorously put on a defense where they gave you only need one to come up with reasonable doubt.

[15:10:07] And they provided enough evidence it seems to really talk about and come back with a verdict that said, no, she did not do these things. Now, was she driving under the influence? That seemed to be pretty clear. But in terms of did she or did she not, was she framed or was she not? Was there police misconduct? There was certainly that.

And they came back and they really, really provided enough evidence. And that's all you need is one person. And, you know, to hold out. And it looks like it was a very vigorous defense and it looks like it was a very effective defense.

Remember, they only put on a day and a half of defense for the first trial. And this time it was much longer. So, I think they really got into the meat of the case.

TAPPER: Let's go back to CNN's Jean Casarez outside the courtroom there in Dedham, Massachusetts.

Jean, tell us more about what's happening outside court.

CASAREZ: Well, right now, everyone is waiting for Karen Read and her attorneys to come out of this courthouse. There have been some members of the defense families, friends that have come out. And the crowd has gone wild. And what they have just been chanting right now is, "Karen is free. Karen is free." And so, they have this unison about them.

And this is what's interesting. This is the buffer zone. This is where they cannot make a sound. During the course of the trial, they were told originally, they had to stand back there. But they went to court. And because of their First Amendment rights, were able to stand here. They could wear their pink and their pink shoes and their pink hats. But they could not have any signage that said Karen Read.

So, every time she would come out of the courthouse, they would merely do this. Hundreds of people in silence. Well, now with a verdict, they can shout as much as they want. And just wait until Karen Read exits that courthouse with her attorneys. We expect them to speak because the attorneys have had a gag order. This will be the first time.

The last time they spoke was one year ago. I was here. It was a mistrial. And they said at that time, we will keep fighting. We will never give up. And that takes us to the point we are at today. And so, as we await Karen Read and her attorneys coming out, that is when I think we will have more action, we could say, or the comments, the initial comments by the defense. Because this was a tough case. This was a complex case.

This case had evidence in it that was very, very sophisticated on both sides. Accident reconstruction, body mechanics. It involved a dog bite expert on the side of the defense. It involved iPhone data merging with Waze data on a car. The intricacies of all that technology right there. And that's what the jury had to consider with those three charges, beginning with second degree murder.

And I do understand that the lesser included of drunk driving that she was convicted on, that that is now a probationary offense, probation for one year. And that is what the jury decided on.

You can hear that they are singing the Star-Spangled Banner.

TAPPER: Jean, do you think that the jury ruled the way it did because of reasonable doubt or do you think that the defense's case that she was being set up was strong enough that people actually believed that theory of the crime?

CASAREZ: Well, I'll tell you that we would have to speak with the jurors themselves because the defense was able to bring in reasonable doubt, a lot of reasonable doubt. But I will tell you there was evidence that showed that she did clip him. It was there. There was a debris field around his body with broken taillights, a shoe embedded in the snow, his baseball cap embedded in the snow. It was the worst blizzard in history for this area on January 29, 2022. A broken drinking glass with a straw. He was carrying one when he got out of the car. And that was right around him right when they were getting custody of that car. How did that happen?

There was also the iPhone data where there were - the last steps he took based on the health data and the intricacies from the expert testimony behind that iPhone health data. That phone never moved. After he got out of the car about a minute to two minutes later, it never moved again. And that - those - that was strong evidence for the prosecution.

[15:15:02]

But the defense, with their creativity in mounting their cross- examinations and the reasonable doubt based on corruption of the investigation, because the lead investigator, he was fired, Massachusetts State Police relieved him of his duty after a trial within the Massachusetts State Police Department, in part because of the inappropriate conduct, meaning a text chain, where he put down Karen Read, called her terrible names. It was terrible on the day of the hit, allegedly - the alleged hit by her car. And that was right when he was beginning as the lead investigator.

So that reasonable doubt was permeated in the jury's mind. And then the defense closing was so emotional about reasonable doubt and that Karen Read cannot be a part of this. There cannot be a conviction.

And the jury, obviously, with over 20 hours of deliberation, they looked at everything. They had to have in that time. But this was the resolution that they reached. But another jury could have found something else. You know, it's interesting because I think one question is the force of these supporters. The whole community knows about these supporters. Everyone knows the strength, the passion, the intent. It shouldn't influence juries at all because they base their verdict on the evidence. But did that have an impact? Did the strength of these supporters - because I've never seen this before.

I've covered so many trials. And there are very high-profile trials that have massive crowds like this. But they always hate the defendant. Casey Anthony hated her. Scott Peterson, California, absolutely disdained for him. Jodi Arias in Arizona. This is the first time I have ever seen a massive crowd supporting the defendant. That's what makes this case unusual.

What they're saying right there, Morrissey sucks. Let me tell you who Morrissey is. Morrissey is the district attorney of this county. He is the originator that even brought these charges.

TAPPER: Jean, are you surprised that the verdict came after 20 hours - 21 hours of deliberation? Is that a lot of time, do you think, for this case? Not particularly much time? What's your take on it?

CASAREZ: You know, you base deliberations normally on how long the trial was. This was a two-month trial. This was a long trial. And when the judge was instructing the jury before they began their deliberations, she said, my advice to you is take your time. This was a long trial with complex evidence. Don't rush to a judgment.

So, a little over 20 hours is probably about right. Last year it was about 27 hours. And that included the time when they told the judge three different times they could not come to unanimous decision on the verdict. And so, it's probably equated to almost the same. But I think it is normal in this situation. Too fast of a verdict would be suspect in a sense because there was a lot of evidence. And it was not easy to conceptualize, to understand, to remember the numbers, the physics that was involved with the accident reconstructionist.

So, we don't know exactly where they went, but hopefully this jury does speak out and we hear a little bit about what they felt was the most important in this deliberation.

TAPPER: All right, we're going to squeeze in one quick break while we wait for Karen Read and her attorneys to come out and face her fans, supporters. Stay with us. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:23:37]

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR, THE SOURCE: There's been a change from when you were pursuing a diplomatic negotiation.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Yes.

COLLINS: Now, you seem very open to the idea of potentially taking U.S. action. Obviously, you're not going to tell us that. Can you walk us through what contributed to that change? How you got to where you are in making your decision now?

TRUMP: Well, I think it started the first night. I mean, you know, that first night was devastating. And it really knocked the one side off, as you know. Devastating - devastating evening - day - and it pretty much proceeded that way. I have a meeting in the War Room in a little while - Situation Room as some people call it.

So, we're going to meet. We're going to see. We're in the midst of a - it's a terrible thing. I hate to see it - I hate to see all that death. So much death and destruction. But death primarily is what I hate to see.

COLLINS: Does that mean you haven't made a decision yet on what to do or have you made a decision?

TRUMP: I have ideas as to what to do, but I haven't made a final. I like to make the final decision one second before it's due. Because things change, I mean, especially with war. Things change with war. It can go from one extreme to the other. War is very bad. There was no reason for this to be a war. There was no reason for Russia and Ukraine. A lot of wars there was no reason for. You look right up there, I don't know if you see the Declaration of Independence. And I say, I wonder if you - you know, the Civil War always seemed to me maybe that could have been solved without losing 600,000 plus people.

[15:25:06]

So, a lot of - it's very sad to see. It's very sad to see what's happening. But with that being said, I would say right now, Israel, from the standpoint of winning a war, is doing pretty well. Yeah, please.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. President ...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. President, in your ...

TAPPER: CNN's Kaitlan Collins pressing President Trump there on whether or not he has made a decision yet as to whether the United States should militarily strike inside Iran against the nuclear weapons program. That is alleged to be specifically at the - for now - site. With me now is Dana Stroul. She served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East. Also joining me is Kevin Carroll, a former senior Department of Homeland Security official and also served as a CIA case officer.

Dana, what risks are you concerned about if President Trump does decide to order this military strike? Obviously, there are secondary and tertiary effects from that that we can't even predict. What are your worst fears?

DANA STROUL, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR THE MIDDLE EAST: Well, President Trump is right that any loss of civilian life is tragic. But right now, in the past five days of this Israeli operation, the collateral damage on both sides is relatively low. And what's clear is that the Iranians have held off on how much damage they could cause. They have not directed their militias in Iraq and Syria to target U.S. forces. They have not turned their missiles on energy infrastructure in the Gulf, on Gulf populations, on the 10s of thousands of U.S. forces at bases across the Middle East.

So, it's pretty constrained and limited right now. But this, the spillover effects and the possibility of expanding the war are really serious. And a lot of that hinges on whether or not the United States becomes a co-combatant with Israel in offensive operations in Iran.

TAPPER: And, Kevin, you served as a U.S. Army officer in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't know that the American people have a firm idea of just how many U.S. service members there are vulnerable to the attacks that Dana was just talking about, potentially, that militias or the Iranians or Hezbollah or Hamas or the Houthis could carry out. Tell us about that.

KEVIN CARROLL, FORMER SENIOR DHS OFFICIAL: There's plenty. I mean, there's many thousands at Al Udeid Air Force Base in Qatar, which is right across the Gulf from Iran. There's many at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, at Al-Asad Airbase in Iraq, where I served. So, there are certainly opportunities for the Iranians to respond either with militias or terrorist groups, as Dana said, or with ballistic missiles against our forces.

TAPPER: And I think it was actually January 2024 that one of these militias sent a, I think it was a drone, and killed some American service members in Jordan, right?

CARROLL: Tower 22 on the Syrian-Jordanian border. It was a pretty sophisticated attack, and they killed several Americans and wounded dozens.

TAPPER: So, you don't buy the idea that the Iranians are depleted and they have nothing left to do. You think that they're holding back from escalating this even further.

STROUL: The Iranians have to make decisions about how many thousands of ballistic missiles and cruise missiles they have left in their arsenal and how many they sent to Israel. So, what we've seen over the past couple days is less and less missiles in each salvo headed at Israel. And the question is whether this is a tactical decision by the Iranian leadership to preserve or whether it's also about the Israeli Air Force being so successful in taking this out.

But Iran has a lot of other ways to retaliate. Sleeper cells all across the world. Militias that are not completely defeated across the Middle East. Cyber options, there's all sorts of asymmetric ways in which this could go really bad, and the Iranians have not decided to do any of those yet.

TAPPER: Yeah, I mean, it's an interesting thing, because when we - when pollsters ask the American people what they think about taking out the Iranian nuclear program, what do they think about a strike, it's not with, and therefore these 15 things are going to happen, right? It's just, well, of course I don't want the Iranian nuclear program to exist. But as the Zen master said, we'll see.

Is it even possible to confirm that the nuclear program, the nuclear weapons program of Iran has been destroyed? Let's say, for example, the enrichment facility at Fordo without boots on the ground?

CARROLL: Yes. I think that's exactly what you need. You would need special operators on the ground doing sensitive side exploitation. It really is a practical matter putting explosives in there to make sure that things are just destroyed completely. And then you'd have to have some pretty good intelligence sources in whatever is left of the Iranian government to give confirmation that you had actually gotten the job done. It's not just a matter of dropping one of these massive earth penetrators.

TAPPER: And who sends that? Is that the secretary of defense sends that, or the president? How does that work?

STROUL: Ground forces, I think certainly the U.S. military owes a really serious risk assessment to the President before U.S. lives are put on the line like that. It doesn't have to be ground forces that are American.

[15:30:02]

There are other options for those ground forces, and of course there has to be sensitive side exploitation. It doesn't have to be U.S. military.