The high-profile case of Karen Read, accused of murdering her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe, takes another dramatic turn as her legal team appeals to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) to dismiss murder charges ahead of her retrial. Read’s appeal centers on double jeopardy claims following a mistrial in the spring of 2024.
Read, 44, initially faced charges of second-degree murder, motor vehicle manslaughter, and leaving the scene of an accident causing death. Her first trial ended in a mistrial after the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict on any of the charges. However, in the weeks following the mistrial, several individuals claiming to be jurors contacted both the prosecution and defense, asserting that the jury had actually reached a consensus on two of the three charges – acquitting Read of second-degree murder and leaving the scene of a deadly accident – and were only deadlocked on the manslaughter charge.
Karen Read sits in courtKaren Read in court during her first trial. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa, Pool, File)
Despite these claims, Judge Beverley Cannone denied Read’s post-trial motion to dismiss the charges based on double jeopardy. Judge Cannone ruled that no official verdict had been delivered and scheduled a retrial for January 2025.
Undeterred, Read’s legal team filed a petition with the SJC, the highest court in Massachusetts, seeking to overturn Judge Cannone’s decision. The petition argues that a second trial would violate Read’s constitutional protection against double jeopardy. It further highlights that following the initial motion to dismiss, two additional jurors contacted the defense, corroborating the previous accounts and bringing the total number of jurors who alleged a verdict discrepancy to five.
Adding another layer of complexity to the case, Read’s attorneys draw parallels to the Alex Murdaugh murder trial and his subsequent appeals based on allegations of jury tampering by Clerk of Court Becky Hill. They contend that, similar to Murdaugh’s case, Read’s presentation of credible evidence of a potential constitutional violation post-trial warrants a thorough investigation and potential dismissal of the charges.
Justice Elizabeth Dewar of the SJC has ordered the case to be heard by the full bench, comprising six justices and a chief justice. Read’s legal team, now bolstered by the addition of appellate specialist Martin Weinberg, has until September 25th to submit their brief, with the Commonwealth’s response due by October 16th.
The legal arguments put forth by Read’s defense delve into the complexities of double jeopardy and the sanctity of jury deliberations. They argue that the reported accounts of juror unanimity on two of the three counts constitute a valid verdict, even if not formally announced. The defense emphasizes the potential for irreversible prejudice if Read is forced to endure a second trial, particularly given the significant media attention and public scrutiny surrounding the case.
The prosecution, on the other hand, maintains that the absence of a formally declared verdict negates any claims of double jeopardy. They assert that the judge’s decision to declare a mistrial was appropriate given the jury’s inability to reach a unanimous decision on all counts. The prosecution is expected to argue that the alleged juror communications are insufficient to overturn the judge’s ruling and that a retrial is necessary to ensure justice is served.
The upcoming oral arguments before the SJC, scheduled for November 2024 or a date determined by the full court, are highly anticipated. The court’s decision will have significant implications, not only for Read’s future but also for the interpretation of double jeopardy in Massachusetts. The SJC’s ruling will determine whether the alleged jury discrepancies warrant the dismissal of charges or if Read will face a second trial in the death of John O’Keefe. This complex legal battle continues to raise important questions about the integrity of jury trials and the constitutional rights of defendants.
This high-stakes appeal underscores the intricacies of the American legal system and the challenges faced by both the defense and prosecution in navigating the complexities of double jeopardy. The SJC’s decision will undoubtedly have a lasting impact on legal precedent in Massachusetts and beyond.
The central question remains: will the SJC uphold Judge Cannone’s ruling and pave the way for a retrial, or will they side with Read’s defense and dismiss the charges, effectively ending the prosecution’s case? The answer hinges on the court’s interpretation of double jeopardy and their assessment of the credibility of the alleged juror communications. The legal community and the public await the SJC’s decision with bated breath. The future of Karen Read hangs in the balance.
