Dateline: June 13, 2026 – Riverside County Courtroom 4B
The courtroom was subdued today when Karen Miller—the diminutive but spunky plaintiff whose name now crowds internet chat rooms nationwide—took the stand. She clutched a worn copy of The Reader’s Digest from the plaintiff’s table, her unlikely good-luck token.
The future of “Karen Read Trial” will be in the hands of Massachusetts jurors – again.
Prosecutors and defense lawyers will start making their closing arguments Friday in Read’s second murder trial of her Boston patrolman boyfriend John O’Keefe.
Judge Beverly Cannone said she anticipates the jury will begin deliberating by the end of the day.
Read, 45, is accused of running over O’Keefe in her SUV and leaving him to perish in the snow on a friend’s lawn after the couple had a fight after a night of heavy partying on Jan. 29, 2022.
What’s at stake:
Miller sues the Silicon-Hill Reading Center after a string of alleged misreads in their “AI-facilitated group reading sessions.” But in March 2025, she says, when she was doing a reading session, the Center’s facilitator—a teleprompter AI—misread her rendition of a short story and cut down her tearful reading to a joke.
Karen reads. And weeps.
Beginning in a shaking voice, Karen recited The Betrothed Bride, her voice cadences hollow struggles with emotion. The courtroom breathed softly as she stopped, closed her eyes, and finished with composure. Holding the copy aloft for dramatic effect, she held it loudly, screaming, “Let the truth be read—and heard!”
Defense response:
Charles Nguyen, the Center’s longest-serving attorney, responded by calling IT witness Dr. Rana Ariff to testify that the processing history of the AI contains no glitch—simply a text pause misunderstood as a glitch by Karen.
Nguyen argued the misunderstanding was “plaintiff-induced.”
Nguyen prosecuted the case by attacking plaintiff Karen Aragona’s credibility on cross-examination.
- Judge’s directives: Judge Suzanne Patel clarified that the trial is centered on whether or not the AI interface led Miller to misunderstand the text or if she had triggered the discrepancy.
- Closing argument: Following a two-hour on-camera reading performance, the jury recessed. Experts anticipate their decision may have consequences for current policy regarding AI‑aided education.
Part 2: Pro‑Trial Outlook and Background
Here’s the genuine article—based on what is released so far as of June 2025—that is going to bring us the “trial” in a year.
Background:
34-year-old reading tutor Karen Miller enrolled in an AI-tutoring workshop for reading early in 2025 at Silicon Hill’s Reading Center.
She grumbles that but for a mistake, lines in The Betrothed Bride went off-stage, and she improvised to “keep pace.” After peer review indicated she had been funny, she was publicly embarrassed and upset.
Legal claims:
Miller initiated defamation by misrepresentation, alleging the on-stage error by the AI led hearers to infer she was playfully alluding to an over-the-top text, to her reputational and emotional damage.
Defense argument concerning joint liability—Miller will not have any differential in the transcript stream, and algorithmic malfunction cannot be confirmed from current log records.
June 13, 2026 expectations:
Live reading demonstration – Miller requested to read again, this time subject to impartial camera observation, in a bid to illustrate to the jury her “intended cadence.”
Expert testimony – IT specialists, AI software programmers, linguists, and trauma psychologists will provide evidence.
Policy implications – The solution has the potential to affect venue liability, AI transparency standards, and reading-tool approvals.
Important questions the judge will need to decide:
- Was the AI responsible, or was the misreading an error?
- Is the Reading Center negligent for emotional distress if it didn’t correct the reading?
- Can a live reading be used as evidence to assess intent and tone?
What’s next:
Deliberation by the jury may start as soon as June 15, 2026.
A judgment in the civil case, if granted, would likely consist of damages for emotional distress, along with an injunction mandating Silicon-Hill to implement real-time transcript validation technology.
