DEDHAM, Mass. — A jury cleared Karen Read of all but the least serious offense — drunk driving — following a lengthy trial for the murder of Boston Police Office John O’Keefe, her boyfriend.

The verdict, delivered after over 20 hours in the jury room, was anticipated ever since jurors appeared to hint at it with two notes they sent on Tuesday.

Upon hearing the verdict, Read hugged her attorneys. A crowd of supporters erupted in cheers on the streets outside the Dedham courtroom in Massachusetts.

The notes each addressed the idea of “lesser included” offenses, which could only be found under the OUI manslaughter charge. The least of those options was operating under the influence of liquor, or OUI.

Read, 45, had faced up to life in state prison if convicted of second-degree murder, the top-level offense charged against her. She was also charged with manslaughter while operating a motor vehicle under the influence of liquor and leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death.

Following Wednesday’s verdict, prosecutor Hank Brenna recommended Read be sentenced to  complete the state’s 24(d) program, which includes outpatient treatment, loss of license and probation, a sentence that is standard for first time drunk driving convictions in Massachusetts.

The charge she was ultimately convicted of, operating under the influence of liquor, was the least of three “lesser included” offenses the jury could consider under the OUI manslaughter charge — but only if they didn’t find her guilty of the definition of the primary crime.

Retired state Superior Court Judge Jack Lu, who called the jury result “a stunning win for the defense” said that OUI rarely sees jail time for first time offenders.

Cannone will “almost certainly” sentence Read to something called the “24(d) program,” which includes a loss of driver’s license, outpatient treatment and probation. He says “the sentence is almost automatic it is imposed so often.”

Early indicator

The jury’s decision was foreshadowed by two notes they sent to Cannone earlier in the day. The first honed in directly on OUI considerations and the second asked whether indecision on one charge by itself would mean they’re hung on all of them.

“What is the time frame for the OUI charge?” the jury’s first question stated as read by Judge Cannone. “Second, are video clips of Karen’s interviews evidence? How should we consider them? And the third, does guilty on a sub-charge mean guilty on the overall charge?”

Attorneys discussed how the questions should be answered and then Cannone brought the jury back in.

As for the first question, on the OUI charge, Cannone sided with defense attorney Alan Jackson’s recommendation: “You folks have all the evidence and remember, it’s only you who decide the facts in this case. So that’s the answer to that question. You are the factfinders.”

For the second, on video clips, Cannone said, “Yes, the videos are evidence. You should weigh the defendant’s statements in the video as you would any other piece of evidence and give them whatever weight you deem appropriate.” She did not append “if any” as the defense requested.

The third question led to an amended jury slip, which the defense had previously requested and was denied. The amendments to indictment 2, OUI manslaughter, was clarified as to how to indicate a selection for a lesser included offense.

Read, who has often talked to the media during the trial, was tight lipped when court took lunch recess following the jury answers. Her attorneys are barred by a gag order from talking. But her father offered some brief words:

“I just want my daughter home. And free,” Bill Read told reporters.

After lunch, Cannone read a second note: “If we find not guilty on two charges but can’t agree on one charge, is it a hung jury on all three charges or just one charge?”

After some back and forth, Cannone decided to respond, “This is a theoretical question, not one that I can answer.”

Defense attorney Alan Jackson said the response was “over our objection.”

I don’t think that’s an appropriate answer to a very, very clear question that could be answered in an innocuous way that does not affect Ms. Read’s rights,” he added. “This way it does.”