The bombshell mistrial declaration in the Karen Read case has taken another dramatic turn. Read, accused of killing her Boston police officer boyfriend John O’Keefe, now faces a legal battle centered around claims that the jury had already unanimously acquitted her of two of the three charges before the mistrial was declared. This raises significant double jeopardy concerns and questions the validity of a potential retrial.
Karen Read smiles with her attorneys outside of court.Karen Read, right, smiles as defense attorney David Yannetti, left, speaks to reporters in front of Norfolk Superior Court, Monday, July 1, 2024, in Dedham, Mass. A judge declared a mistrial Monday after jurors deadlocked in the case of Read, who was accused of killing her Boston police officer boyfriend by striking him with her SUV and leaving him in a snowstorm. (AP Photo/Steven Senne)
Read’s month-long trial, which captivated public attention, culminated in a hung jury and a mistrial declared by Judge Beverly Cannone on July 1, 2024. Read was charged with second-degree murder, motor vehicle manslaughter while driving under the influence, and leaving the scene of a collision causing injury or death. However, a recent motion filed by Read’s defense team alleges a critical procedural misstep that could bar retrial on two of the counts.
The defense motion asserts that the jury had reached a unanimous not guilty verdict on both the second-degree murder charge and the charge of leaving the scene of a fatal crash before informing the judge of their deadlock. This claim is supported by communications received by the defense team from three jurors after the mistrial was declared. They reportedly stated that the jury had firmly agreed 12-0 on Read’s innocence on these two charges.
The defense argues that the court’s failure to poll the jury regarding their specific findings on each charge, combined with the alleged pre-mistrial acquittal, raises serious double jeopardy implications. The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects individuals from being tried twice for the same crime after a verdict is reached. If the jury did indeed acquit Read on two charges, retrying her on those same charges would violate this fundamental constitutional right.
The motion further criticizes the judge’s decision to declare a mistrial without allowing the defense counsel to be heard or inquiring about the jury’s specific points of deadlock. This procedural omission, the defense argues, prevented crucial information from being entered into the court record and may have led to a premature and unwarranted mistrial declaration.
This development adds a new layer of complexity to an already intricate case. The absence of a formal jury poll leaves the court with the challenge of determining the jury’s true standing on each charge before the mistrial was declared.
The defense team has requested that the court either dismiss the two charges outright based on the juror communications or, alternatively, conduct a voir dire of the jury or an evidentiary hearing to verify the alleged acquittal. A voir dire process would involve questioning the jurors under oath to ascertain their deliberations and final decisions on each charge. An evidentiary hearing would allow the presentation of evidence, including testimony from jurors, to establish the facts surrounding the alleged acquittal.
The prosecution has yet to respond formally to the defense’s motion. Their response and the judge’s subsequent ruling will be crucial in determining the future of the case. If the judge grants the defense’s motion, the prosecution may face significant limitations in pursuing a retrial. Conversely, if the motion is denied, the case could proceed to a second trial, potentially focusing solely on the manslaughter charge.
This situation highlights the importance of procedural safeguards in criminal trials and the critical role of jury polling in ensuring a clear and accurate record of jury decisions. The outcome of this legal battle will have significant implications for Karen Read’s future and will likely serve as a precedent for handling similar situations in future cases. The legal community, as well as the public, will be watching closely as this case unfolds.
The central questions now are: Did the jury truly acquit Karen Read on the murder and leaving the scene charges? How will the court ascertain the jury’s pre-mistrial decisions? And ultimately, will the double jeopardy clause prevent a retrial on these charges? The answers to these questions will determine the future trajectory of this highly publicized and legally complex case.
