Prosecutors have a three-day weekend to consider how they will try to recover from the cross-examination of an investigator who struggled to answer questions about "mirrored" video evidence in the trial of Karen Read, the Massachusetts woman accused of hitting John O'Keefe, her boyfriend, with an SUV and leaving him to die in a snowstorm.Read, 44, of Mansfield, has pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder and other charges.Prosecutors are trying to convince the jury that she hit O'Keefe with her black SUV outside of a home at 34 Fairview Road in Canton during a snowstorm on Jan. 29, 2022, following a night of drinking. They argue that the SUV's passenger-side taillight was broken by the impact.Read's defense plans to argue that someone else is responsible for killing O'Keefe.On Thursday, Defense attorney Alan Jackson questioned Massachusetts State Police Sgt. Yuriy Bukhenick about a video that shows Read’s SUV inside the garage of the Canton Police Department.Jackson pointed out writing on another vehicle in the garage and on a garage door. Bukhenick said the video was “mirrored,” however he could not explain why.The sergeant explained that what the jurors were seeing was the driver’s side of the car, and not the passenger’s side, which appeared to have a damaged taillight in another video shown to the jury."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," Jackson told reporters outside the courthouse.Northeastern law professor Daniel Medwed said the prosecution could pay a price with the jury because of this cross-examination. "The jurors may have felt a little bit tricked or deceived," he said. The video is important because, according to prosecutors, Read's passenger-side taillight would have been damaged by the time it arrived at the Canton Police Department's garage.Assistant District Attorney Adam Lally is expected to question Bukhenick on re-direct when the case resumes on Monday. So far, the Norfolk District Attorney's Office has declined to comment on the video. Medwed speculates that the prosecution probably didn't realize the video was inverted until the defense pointed it out in court. Intentionally deceiving a jury would be risky 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?"