Karen Read’s defense team’s decision to not call her to the witness stand is a gamble that could help or hinder her case after the prosecution played her damaging interview clips in her second murder trial – allowing the jury to hear Read’s version of events in her own words. 

Read is facing the possibility of life in prison for the alleged murder of her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O’Keefe. The prosecution claims Read struck O’Keefe with her Lexus SUV in a drunken argument, leaving him to freeze to death in the front yard of a friend’s house party shortly after midnight on Jan. 29, 2022. 

Read’s defense team insists her vehicle never made contact with O’Keefe and there was no collision. 

"When I first came to practice, it was ‘never put your client on stand, ever,’" New York City defense attorney Louis Gelormino told Fox News Digital. "But I tend to disagree with that sometimes. I think we have gotten our biggest wins when we put our client on the stand." 

KAREN READ'S TRUE-CRIME DOCUMENTARIES MAY IMPACT SECOND TRIAL: COURT DOCS

On Tuesday, the defense submitted the team’s proposed jury instructions that indicate Read will not take the stand in her trial. 

"As you know, Ms. Read did not testify at this trial," the instructions read. "You may not hold that against her. Ms. Read has an absolute right not to testify because, as I've explained, she is presumed to be innocent and does not have to do anything to convince you she is innocent." 

The instructions stress that the reason Read chose to not take the witness stand is not relevant to the jury’s deliberations and cannot be considered evidence in her trial. Legal experts tell Fox News Digital the choice to keep a defendant from speaking may not always be the best choice. 

KAREN READ, ACCUSED KILLER OF COP BOYFRIEND, SHOWED NO EMOTION UNTIL JURY DELIBERATIONS: DOCUMENTARY

Gelormino said he believes Read would put on a strong performance on the witness stand, but calling her to testify does not come without risks. 

"I think the reason they're hiding her is because they don't want to have to have her explain all these videos that they saw of her not acting in a good way," Gelormino said.

KAREN READ JUDGE BLOCKS SANDRA BIRCHMORE MENTIONS; EXPERT SAYS CASES SHOULD BE WAKE-UP CALL FOR POLICE

Special prosecutor Hank Brennan played numerous clips from Read's televised interviews, picking out clips that could potentially damage the defense.

"I also wonder, did I say, ‘could I have hit him,’" Read said in a 2024 interview with Investigation Discovery. "Or was it told to me that I said I hit him. And I knew I never could’ve said that, so the closest thing I must’ve said was, ‘did I hit him?’"

In the clip, Read questions if she "really [said] it as many times as law enforcement is claiming." 

KAREN READ DEFENSE FLOATS THEORY THAT ‘JEALOUS’ BRIAN HIGGINS FOUGHT JOHN O'KEEFE BEFORE DEATH

In another clip, she talked about spiking her own drinks with extra shots because they weren't strong enough.

Gelormino said the defense team likely does not want Read to be confronted about her statements on cross-examination, possibly opening the door for days of tense questioning from the state. 

"They don't want to have her explaining all of these misbehaviors or what people would think would be bad behavior," Gelormino said. 

But the choice to keep Read off the stand could potentially keep her from providing an explanation for her statements in the interviews while also clarifying her side of the story. 

LEAD DETECTIVE'S TEXT MESSAGES CAST SHADOW OVER KAREN READ MURDER TRIAL 

"There are two sides of every coin," Gelormino told Fox News Digital. "You could put her on and try to have her explain it, or you can avoid it altogether." 

Gelormino pointed to the reality that Read could appear defensive while offering an explanation for her on-camera stories, which could shift the jury’s perception of her personality. 

"As a defense attorney, you are going to have to clean that up," Gelormino said. "So you are going to be spending a lot of time defending your character there." 

GET REAL-TIME UPDATES DIRECTLY ON THE TRUE CRIME HUB

The videos pose a new obstacle for the defense, since they were not played in Read’s first trial last year. 

"The first jury almost convicted Read of manslaughter while operating under the influence," retired Massachusetts Superior Court Judge and Boston College law professor Jack Lu told Fox News Digital. "That was with no defendant video statements. Here, we have many damaging statements, and maybe a few more in rebuttal." 

FOLLOW THE FOX TRUE CRIME TEAM ON X

Lu said the defense has not attempted to address the video clips or provide context regarding Read’s version of events at this point in the trial. 

"So, the same trial plus the damaging video, where the jury almost convicted, is bad for the defense," Lu said. 

As the defense continues calling witnesses, the notable absence of Read’s own testimony will likely only be fully felt once the jury reads its verdict, with the prosecution acting as the only side that opted to include her own words in the courtroom.  

"Based on the fact that they had a hung jury the last time, [the defense has] a decent case," Gelormino told Fox News Digital. "So do you want to mess that up with having her defend her actions and character for the next two or three days on the stand? That's a tough decision." 

And you thought you had just figured out what "reconciliation" means in Congressional budget terms.

Here’s a new vocabulary term: rescissions.

You might not be able to spell it. But I can tell you what it does.

A "rescissions" bill "rescinds" money which Congress has already allocated, ex post facto.

For simplicity, I often describe rescissions legislation as "spending cancellations." Congress appropriated money. Then, under a recissions bill, Congress claws back dollars it previously appropriated. It’s kind of like a reverse appropriation.

And you thought that in elementary school, there were no takebacks.

TRUMP SENDS $9.4 BILLION DOGE CUTS PROPOSAL TO CONGRESS, TARGETING NPR, PBS

Presidential administrations send "budget requests" to Congress. This is the opposite. An administration can send a "recissions request" to Congress, too. And that’s what Budget Director Russ Vought is doing this week.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., is intent on moving fast.

"I'd like to turn it around as quickly as possible," said Johnson. "There may be multiple rescissions packages coming and we’ll process them as quickly as we can. It’s a big priority for me."

Congressional conservatives and Elon Musk were not pleased with the relative paucity of spending cuts in the Big, Beautiful Bill.

Musk told CBS he was "disappointed" in the legislation.

"Which increases the budget deficit, not decreases it. And it undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing," said Musk about the hallmark of President Trump’s agenda.

By Tuesday morning, the world’s richest man incinerated the bill on X and chastised most Republicans in Congress.

Musk characterized the legislation as "a disgusting abomination." He lectured the 215 House Republicans who voted yes, declaring "you know you did wrong."

SCOOP: HOUSE FREEDOM CAUCUS DRAWS BATTLE LINES AS WHITE HOUSE READIES $9.4B DOGE SPENDING CUTS

DOGE initially set a goal of unearthing $2 trillion in spending cuts. It then slashed the threshold to $1 trillion. DOGE finally homed in on about $150 billion in cuts by the end of next year. And many of those cuts aren’t even in effect because Congress has the power of the purse.

That’s where Congress comes in with a potential rescissions package.

Most Republicans are appreciative of the efforts by DOGE and Musk.

"I think this is the beginning and the whole conversation in Congress is changed because of it," said Rep. Mike Flood, R-Neb., on Fox.

But DOGE evaluated "discretionary" spending. Congress has the "discretion" to spend or not spend certain money each year. That comes through the annual appropriations process. That’s why GOPers are now using their "discretion." They intend to unwind some of that spending with a rescission plan.

But the largest percentage of federal spending – by about two to one – is tied to entitlements like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, plus interest on the debt. That spending is called "mandatory." House Republicans tried to address that slightly in the Big, Beautiful Bill since it dealt with Medicaid spending. But cuts to federal departments lie in the appropriations realm and falls on the discretionary side of the ledger.

However, discretionary cuts via the Big, Beautiful Bill weren’t going to happen.

"Much of what DOGE has looked at is the discretionary spending," said Flood. "This is far more complicated than just doing it in reconciliation."

WHITE HOUSE SENDING $9.4 BILLION DOGE CUTS PACKAGE TO CONGRESS NEXT WEEK

And so here we are, with Republicans in Congress looking at the first major rescissions plan since 1993.

"The House Freedom Caucus strongly supports these critical rescissions, and we will support as many more rescissions packages the White House can send us in the coming weeks and months," said the Freedom Caucus in a statement. "There is no excuse for a Republican House not to advance the first DOGE rescissions package the same week it is presented to Congress then quickly send it for passage in the Republican Senate so President Trump can sign it into law."

The law requires the president to spend money which Congress approves. However, there are some loopholes where a President can "impound" money and not spend it.

GOP REBELS FIRE WARNING SHOT IN SHUTDOWN SHOWDOWN: NO DOGE, NO DEAL

On CNN, Vought suggested that the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 "allows for a procedure called pocket rescissions later in the year to be able to bank some of these savings without the bill actually being passed."

Vought signaled that President Trump would likely lean on that tool. But he wants to start with an initial rescissions request.

A recissions plan requires a simple majority to pass the House. And, believe it or not, a simple majority in the Senate. There’s no 60-vote requirement to break a filibuster. Moreover, the "motion to proceed" to start debate on a recessions package is "privileged." That means the Senate only needs 51 votes to begin the process. Many "motions to proceed" in the Senate need 60 yeas and can be subject to a filibuster.

President Trump formally routed his recissions request to Capitol Hill on Tuesday. It aims to trim $9.4 billion dollars from public broadcasting and foreign aid programs. All of this is money which Musk targeted in his DOGE reviews. But these cuts only count if Congress approves them.

"I want make sure you take the first tranche and see if it passes," said Vought on the targeted set of proposed spending reductions. "The wider you do in terms of a package, the harder it is to pass. And if it doesn't pass, this is the real world. And we will lose flexibility that we have to use executive tools to find other ways to make the DOGE cuts permanent."

SPEAKER JOHNSON SETS EYES ON CUTTING GOVERNMENT SPENDING, VOWS TO TAKE A 'BLOWTORCH' TO THE 'REGULATORY STATE'

Lawmakers are starting to process the rescissions proposal. Especially since Republicans often talk a good game about slashing spending.

"We'll see if Congress can step up to the plate," said Rep. Chip Roy, R-Tex., noting the political consequences of not green lighting the rescissions package. "(Members will have) to go campaign on why they want to continue to fund PBS, NPR, and a whole bunch of foreign policy and foreign funding that most Americans don't like. So you go explain it."

Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., represents one of the most-Democratic leaning districts in the country. He worries about the PBS and NPR cuts.

"I have a great rapport with Nebraska Public Radio and TV. I think they've been great to work with. And so that would be one I hope they don't put in," said Bacon.

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, flagged reductions to PEPFAR, short for the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief.

"I consider that to be possibly the most successful public health program that has ever been used in Africa and other parts of the world. So I do not support the reduction in PEPFAR," said Collins.

It’s unclear whether this opening bid to cut spending – minimal as it is – can make it through Congress. Lots of Republicans will sweat this. And these are just negligible cuts. Republicans extolled the work of DOGE. But if they want to eliminate spending, they have to put their vote where their favorite program is.

We’ll know more in a few weeks whether Republicans can approve the recissions package and rescind what some characterize as wasteful spending. Otherwise, they may need to rescind those campaign promises.