Karen Read's case will not be reviewed by U.S. Supreme Court
The United States Supreme Court will not take up Karen Read's appeal of the verdict in her first trial on grounds of double jeopardy. Justices met in private to review Read's appeal on Friday, and their decision was announced Monday.
Testimony began last week in Norfolk Superior Court for Read's second trial on charges of second-degree murder, manslaughter while operating under the influence of alcohol, and leaving the scene of personal injury and death. Her first trial ended in 2024 with a mistrial due to a hung jury.
Supreme Court's Karen Read decision
The Supreme Court did not add any other comment other than saying it denied Read's request.
Read is accused of killing Boston police officer John O'Keefe, who she was dating at the time, with her SUV after a night of heavy drinking and leaving him to die in the cold outside a Canton home. Her defense says she is being framed by a group of people, including law enforcement.
Attorneys for Read have argued that the murder and leaving the scene charges should be dropped because jurors have said that behind closed doors, they unanimously agreed to acquit Read on those charges. Those discussions were never revealed in open court before the mistrial was declared.
After exhausting all lower level appeal efforts, Read's attorneys turned to the Supreme Court.
Why did Karen Read appeal to the Supreme Court?
Read was asking the Supreme Court specifically to decide two questions about her her case.
1. Whether a final and unanimous, but unannounced, decision by a jury following trial that the prosecution failed to prove a defendant guilty of a charged offense constitutes an acquittal precluding retrial under the Double Jeopardy Clause.
2. Whether a defendant who produces credible evidence of such a final, unanimous, and unannounced acquittal is entitled to a post-trial hearing to substantiate the fact of such acquittal.
Read's legal team previously asked the Supreme Court for a delay in her state trial until a decision was made on whether the appeal would be heard.
