Federal judge denies Karen Read's request to drop 2 charges, question jurors
A federal judge has denied Karen Read's request to drop two charges against her.
The habeas corpus petition stemmed from Read's Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court appeal, in which the highest state court denied her request to drop two charges. Read's lawyers argued that a mistrial declaration in her first trial was not necessary and that jurors privately voted to acquit Read.
Read previously asked state court to dismiss two of her charges after jurors came forward and said they had voted to acquit her of murder and leaving the scene after her first trial ended in mistrial last summer. The state court denied it, and she appealed to the SJC, which sided with the state court.
Read filed a new petition for habeas corpus, asking the federal court for relief from the charges, claiming it would be double jeopardy to make her face trial again on the charges if jurors voted to acquit her in the first trial.
Federal court ruling
Chief District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV ruled Thursday that Judge Beverly Cannone was not wrong in declaring a mistrial in the first trial, there is no case law to support that jurors reached a verdict, and that it would be inappropriate to call back jurors to interview them.
Read is accused of killing her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O'Keefe, by hitting him with her SUV in Canton on January 29, 2022. She is charged with second degree murder, manslaughter while operating under the influence of alcohol and leaving the scene where there has been personal injury and death.
She has pleaded not guilty and accuses multiple people, including law enforcement, of trying to frame her.
Mistrial declaration
Karen Read's first murder trial ended after a "starkly divided" hung jury failed to reach a verdict, forcing Judge Cannone to declare a mistrial.
"This Court sees no basis to conclude that the trial judge's decision to declare a mistrial was incorrect or improper," Judge Saylor said in the court filing.
Judge Saylor noted that the jury had deliberated for nearly 30 hours and sent three notes indicating they were deadlocked.
Counts 1 and 3
Read contended she was actually acquitted on two of the three charges, after jurors came forward after the first trial.
Judge Saylor said there is no basis to conclude that any agreement was final, because it was not reported in open court.
"Accordingly, and as a matter of federal constitutional law, petitioner was not actually acquitted of any of the relevant offenses," Saylor said.
Whether interview of jurors is appropriate
In federal court last week, Read's attorney Martin Weinberg asked the judge to require the state court to bring back jurors from her first trial to poll them and determine if they had acquitted Read on two charges.
Judge Saylor said, "a federal-court voir dire of the state-court jurors-a voir dire that would necessarily subject their private deliberations to intense public scrutiny-is probably unlawful and certainly ill-advised."
The judge granted Read a "certificate of appealability" saying she made the necessary "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." She has already appealed to the First Circuit of Appeals.
The Norfolk District Attorney's Office had no comment on the ruling Thursday.
Read's second state trial is scheduled to begin on April 1, 2025.
