In the ongoing trial of Karen Read, a Massachusetts woman accused of hitting her boyfriend with an SUV and leaving him to die in a snowstorm, the prosecution encountered a significant setback during the cross-examination of an investigator. Prosecutors now have a three-day weekend to strategize and recover from the challenging questioning.

Karen Read, 44, of Mansfield, has pleaded not guilty to charges of second-degree murder and other offenses. Prosecutors are working to convince the jury that she struck John O'Keefe with her black SUV outside a home in Canton during a snowstorm on January 29, 2022, after a night of drinking. They argue that the impact of the collision broke the passenger-side taillight of the vehicle.

However, Read's defense is planning to present an alternative theory, suggesting that someone else is responsible for O'Keefe's death. The trial has now reached a critical point as Defense attorney Alan Jackson questioned Massachusetts State Police Sgt. Yuriy Bukhenick about a video that depicts Read's SUV inside the Canton Police Department's garage.

During the cross-examination, Jackson noted writing on another vehicle in the garage and on a garage door. Bukhenick confirmed that the video was "mirrored," but he struggled to explain why. The sergeant clarified that the jurors were viewing the driver's side of the car and not the passenger's side, where a video presented to the jury appeared to show a damaged taillight.

Jackson addressed reporters outside the courthouse, stating, "So the video is inverted. Completely inverted. It's a mirror image, which suggests that the driver side is the passenger side and vice versa, but the timestamp across the bottom is not inverted, which means somebody had to put that on the inverted, the manipulated, the altered video on purpose."

The unexpected testimony from Sgt. Bukhenick has raised concerns about the credibility of the prosecution's case. Northeastern law professor Daniel Medwed expressed his belief that the jury may feel deceived or tricked as a result of this cross-examination.

The video evidence is crucial for the prosecution, as it supports their claim that Read's passenger-side taillight would have been damaged during the incident and by the time it arrived at the Canton Police Department's garage.

Moving forward, Assistant District Attorney Adam Lally is expected to question Sgt. Bukhenick during re-direct when the trial resumes on Monday. The Norfolk District Attorney's Office has chosen not to comment on the video at this time.

Speculating on the events, Professor Medwed suggests that the prosecution may have inadvertently overlooked the fact that the video was inverted until it was pointed out in court by the defense. Intentionally misleading the jury would be a high-stakes maneuver with potential repercussions for both the case and the prosecutor's career.

"My instinct is it was probably a mistake," Medwed said. "The risk that this subterfuge, if it was a subterfuge, would be revealed - as it was - was so extreme. Why would the prosecution take this risk?"

The prosecution now faces the challenge of recovering from this setback, with the jury left to ponder the implications of the crossed-examination regarding the credibility of the video evidence.