Karen Read's appeal denied by Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
BOSTON - The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has denied Karen Read's appeal to get some of the charges against her thrown out before her second criminal trial.
Her defense argued before the highest court in the state last November that charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene of personal injury and death should be dismissed.
The appeal was argued on double jeopardy grounds: Read's attorneys believe she shouldn't be retried on those charges because they say jurors in her first trial, which ended in a mistrial, privately voted to acquit her on those counts.
Karen Read appeal denied
The Supreme Judicial Court ruled that Judge Beverly Cannone was right to deny the defense's motion to dismiss the charges.
"In sum, we conclude that the trial judge acted within her discretion in declaring a mistrial without first inquiring about a partial verdict or offering defense counsel an additional opportunity to be heard," the court said in its 35-page ruling. "Considering the length of jury deliberations, the judge's prior efforts to encourage consensus, and the increasingly emphatic tone of the jury notes indicating deadlock, it was clear the jury had reached an impasse."
Read's first murder trial ended in a mistrial last summer with a hung jury that said they were "starkly divided." But days later, the defense said some jurors came forward to say that they had unanimously decided she was not guilty on two of the three charges, but weren't sure how to communicate that to the judge.
"Nothing suggested that the deadlock was limited to a specific charge; on the contrary, the notes contained no inkling of agreement, and the third note implied the jury were deadlocked on all charges," the high court said.
One of Read's lawyers suggested that the appeal push is not over.
"While we have great respect for the Commonwealth's highest court, Double Jeopardy is a federal constitutional right," attorney Martin Weinberg said in a statement. "We are strongly considering whether to seek federal habeas relief from what we continue to contend are violations of Ms. Read's federally guaranteed constitutional rights."
Karen Read jurors react to court ruling
A juror from Read's first trial told WBZ-TV's Kristina Rex that they were "not exactly surprised" by the high court's decision, but they felt it means "the legal process trumps the truth."
"At the end of the day there are lots of pieces to this blame pie from a process perspective, and we the jury definitely own a piece (maybe even the biggest, although we aren't exactly professional jurors and didn't know what we didn't know) by not making it clear in the jury note that we were only hung on charge 2. That was our mistake," the juror who spoke on the condition of anonymity said. "We also didn't know that it would immediately lead to a mistrial at that point without any further interaction with the judge."
The juror added that a clarifying question from the judge "would easily prevent the situation that has unfolded in the case."
Another juror who also wanted to remain anonymous shared the following statement with Kristina Rex. Rex has been in touch with the juror since the trial ended.
"After serving as a juror in the Karen Read trial and seeing the chaos that has unfolded since, it is clear to me that the criminal justice system in Massachusetts needs some work. Despite being one of the most progressive states in the nation, so many aspects of our criminal process are antiquated, confusing, and need to be updated.
It would not infringe on the role of the jury to require all trial judges to provide clear instructions that help jurors comprehend all aspects the job they are tasked with. Similarly, it would not intrude on the jury's function or the sanctity of the deliberative process to require a uniform process for delivering verdicts and verdict slips, particularly in cases involving multiple count indictments. Making these kinds of changes to ensure criminal defendants receive a fair trial seems like the bare minimum our courts owe to those whose liberty is on the line."
Legal expert on ruling
The ruling did not come as a surprise to legal experts.
"I think it really comports with the law," WBZ legal analyst Katherine Loftus said. "It's a good analysis of how the law actually works, that it's very procedural, it's very technical and the court went through case by case, line item by line item, all the issues that the defense raised."
Who is Karen Read?
Read, 44, is accused of hitting her Boston police officer boyfriend John O'Keefe with her SUV and leaving him to die in the snow in Canton, Massachusetts after a night of heavy drinking in January 2022. She is also charged with manslaughter while operating under the influence, and has pleaded not guilty to all three charges.
Read's second criminal trial is scheduled to start on April 1, 2025 in Norfolk Superior Court in Dedham. The defense has also filed to add another lawyer to her team, attorney Mark Bederow. He is representing Aidan Kearney, the blogger known as "Turtleboy," in a witness intimidation case that's connected to the Read trial.
