Witnesses sued by Karen Read try to toss her lawsuit: 'Act of revenge'

Rick Sobey, Boston Herald on Jan 26, 2026

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

BOSTON — The Canton group that was sued by acquitted murder defendant Karen Read is trying to toss her civil lawsuit, calling Read’s legal action an “act of revenge.”

After Read was found not guilty last year for the murder of Boston cop John O’Keefe, she sued witnesses from her high-profile case, who she argues framed her in connection with her boyfriend’s death.

Five of those witnesses — Brian Albert, Nicole Albert, Brian Higgins, Jennifer McCabe, and Matthew McCabe — were inside the infamous Canton home at 34 Fairview Road on the night that O’Keefe died.

Those “house defendants” are now fighting back in federal court. Their attorney recently filed a motion to dismiss Read’s lawsuit.

“Ms. Read’s Complaint against each individual Commonwealth Witness is intended to deflect from her own liability in a pending civil wrongful death action filed by Officer O’Keefe’s family and is a transparent act of revenge against these individuals simply for providing truthful information to the police back in early 2022,” their lawyer wrote in the motion.

“Moreover, the Complaint is a work of conspiratorial fiction devoid of supporting evidence,” the attorney added. “Regardless, even putting aside the Complaint’s conspiratorial, conclusory and speculative allegations—which are entitled to no deference on these motions to dismiss—Ms. Read’s claims against these fact witnesses are virtually unprecedented under both state and federal law and fail on several grounds.”

Read was indicted in June 2022 on charges of second-degree murder, motor vehicle manslaughter and leaving the scene of a collision causing O’Keefe’s death.

She was tried twice, first in 2024, which ended in a mistrial, and then in a second trial, which ended last June when a jury acquitted her on all the indicted charges. She was convicted of drunk driving.

Prosecutors accused Read of backing up into O’Keefe with her SUV, leaving him to freeze and die on the front yard of the Canton home then owned by Brian Albert, a Boston Police colleague.

Read’s defense argues that O’Keefe was beaten to death inside the home, with parties then dragging his body outside to the front yard, making it appear he was hit by a vehicle during the blizzard that early morning in late January 2022.

In addition to the Canton defendants, Read’s complaint targets disgraced ex-statie Michael Proctor, the lead MSP investigator in O’Keefe’s murder. MSP Sgt. Yuriy Bukhenik and MSP Lt. Brian Tully are also being sued in the complaint.

Read in her lawsuit is seeking to hold each witness civilly liable for her arrest, indictment, and prosecution under five counts: conspiracy to deprive Read of her Fourth Amendment rights; violation of the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act; malicious prosecution; intentional infliction of emotional distress; and civil conspiracy.

The attorney for the “house defendants” is arguing that Read’s suit violates the Massachusetts’ anti-SLAPP statute.

“Talking to the police is core protected petitioning activity safeguarded by the Massachusetts anti-SLAPP statute,” their lawyer wrote. “Moreover, Ms. Read cannot meet her burden under the anti-SLAPP statute that each Commonwealth Witness’s statements to the police had no basis whatsoever in fact.”

The allegations against each witness are almost four years old, and her claims have a three-year statute of limitations period, her lawyer argued.

“Ms. Read’s unfounded malicious prosecution theory does not alter the claims’ accrual dates since the allegations against the Commonwealth Witnesses relate to Ms. Read’s purported wrongful arrest,” the attorney wrote. “Under such circumstances, courts parse identical civil rights claims for purposes of analyzing a statute of limitations defense. Because Ms. Read’s claims accrued in early February 2022, they are all time-barred.”

The attorney for Tully — the MSP lieutenant — is also trying to toss the lawsuit.

“Plaintiff has failed to plead allegations that Lt. Tully’s actions amounted to reckless or callous indifference to the constitutional rights of others,” Tully’s lawyer wrote.

Read’s arrest was supported by probable cause, the attorney added.

“The Plaintiff alleges that she was seized and deprived of her liberty without probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment despite the fact that a magistrate found probable cause sufficient to issue a criminal complaint in District Court, a Grand Jury found probable cause to charge the Plaintiff with specific criminal acts, that she was arrested pursuant to a warrant, that there was a jury trial, and that she was ultimately found responsible for operating under the influence,” the lawyer wrote. “As a consequence, Plaintiff’s Count I for violation of … malicious prosecution should be dismissed.”

_____