Digital Forensics vs. Reasonable Doubt: Lessons from the Karen Read Retrial
If the name Karen Read sounds familiar, it’s because the first trial was the focus of a hugely popular Netflix miniseries that I have to admit to binging. Compelling TV doesn’t usually guarantee compelling evidence, proving up that sometimes the truth can get in the way of a good story.
The case: The prosecution leaned heavily on cellphone forensics—testifying that John O’Keefe’s phone stayed immobile in the front yard from ~12:30 a.m. until his body was discovered. On screen, that sounds darn damning.
Under scrutiny, the cracks showed: Defense attorneys reminded jurors that cellphone tower data is circumstantial—accurate to a general area, but not to the exact spot. The defense expert emphasized that while cellphone data can build context, can only indicate that a device was in a certain neighborhood . . . not whether it was inside a house, outside, or somewhere nearby.
In court, defense attorneys used this exact limitation to their advantage—highlighting that the phone’s stationary readings outside the house were far from definitive proof of guilt, particularly when the prosecution’s expert also had credibility issues during cross-examination.
The prosecution’s expert admitted to résumé inconsistencies and even confused bytes with bits under cross-examination—small slips that can and did create big doubt.
The takeaway: Credibility is everything in forensics. Circumstantial data needs airtight context, and every claim must survive aggressive challenge—not just make for gripping documentary footage.
When a case goes public, the evidence needs stand up to both the jury’s scrutiny and the Netflix treatment. But mostly the jury’s scrutiny.