Highest court in Massachusetts hears arguments in Karen Read’s bid to dismiss murder charge

BOSTON — An attorney for Karen Read argued Wednesday in the state’s highest court that retrying her on several charges in connection with the death of her Boston police officer boyfriend amounted to double jeopardy and should allow jurors to to be questioned about the verdict.

Read is accused of ramming John O’Keefe with her SUV and killing him in a snowstorm in January 2022. Read’s attorneys claim she is being framed and that other law enforcement officers are responsible for O’Keefe’s death. A judge declared a mistrial in June after finding that jurors could not reach an agreement. A new trial on the same charges will begin in January, although both sides on Monday asked for a postponement until April. 1.

“Today’s appeal addresses the core issues surrounding double jeopardy protections that protect defendants, in this case Ms. Read, from the risk of prosecution for the very same crimes for which a previous jury was dismissed,” Read’s attorney told me, Martin Weinberg, to the judges. in the Massachusetts Supreme Court.

Weinberg further said that four jurors and the fifth came forward indirectly after her mistrial to say that they were deadlocked only on the manslaughter count and agreed that she was not guilty of the other charges of charges of second-degree murder and leave the scene. But they didn’t tell the judge.

As a result of the revelations about the jurors, Weinberg advocated that the court hold an evidentiary hearing in which jurors could be asked whether they had been definitively found not guilty on any charges.

The judges questioned Weinberg about the merits of the investigation. Associate Justice Frank Gaziano noted that such investigations are typically reserved for “extraneous information” such as “racism in the jury room,” while Chief Justice Kimberly Budd questioned the limits of allowing an investigation, which she said would open the door could open up for other defendants to According to them, a juror came up to them and said, “That’s not really what happened.”

Other judges expressed concern about requiring juries to discuss their deliberations during an investigation, while others questioned the merits of initiating an investigation when three juror notes made it clear they were at an impasse.

“You have an exhausted jury writing this very eloquent message saying that we have done our best, but we have not yet been able to reach a verdict on the charges,” Judge Scott Kafker said. “There is no presumption that they have made a judgment on the charges or that this only relates to the second charge.”

Weinberg also argued that Judge Beverly Cannone abruptly announced the mistrial in court, without first asking each juror to confirm their conclusions on each count or giving the defense a chance to intervene.

But Associate Justice Serge Georges said Read had seasoned defense attorneys who must have sensed a mistrial was possible when Cannon gave juries a so-called Tuey-Rodriguez indictment, a last-ditch effort to get them to reconsider their positions before a mistrial was proclaimed.

“There’s not a lawyer worth their salt who wouldn’t think they could get a mistrial on this,” George said, refuting the contention that the defense had not had a chance to be heard. Keep in mind that you need to know that a mistrial will be on the table. What obligation does counsel have to say, “Hey, before you declare a mistrial, let’s talk about alternatives to that.”

In August, a judge ruled that Read can be retried on these charges. “Absent a verdict announced in open court here, a new trial of the suspect would not violate the principle of double criminality,” Judge Beverly Cannone said in her ruling.

Prosecutors have maintained there is no basis to dismiss charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene of an accident. They argued in court that the defense should have sensed that a mistrial was “inevitable or unavoidable” and that they had every opportunity to be heard.

Still, Gaziano asked Assistant District Attorney Caleb Schillinger whether Cannone had “the discretion or duty to ask the jury after the last note for continued deliberation or a verdict on a lesser offense.”

Schillinger responded that Cannone had no obligation to question jurors further, although he acknowledged she had discretion. But argued that the Cannone had “no doubt” based on the jury’s comment that they had “not reached an agreement on any charge” and that further investigation risked forcing the jury to reach a verdict.

“You have a jury that has been through a grueling 10-week trial, almost a hundred witnesses, hundreds of pieces of evidence now deliberating for four or five days,” Schillinger said. “They have returned three times and indicate that they are at an impasse and that they do not want to deliberate further.”

But George said Schillinger’s argument supported the idea that Cannone would tell the lawyers about the final note and get their thoughts.

“You have put a lot of time, energy, money, fear and anxiety into this process,” George said. “Why not talk about what we could possibly do short of declaring a mistrial? Let’s start again.”

Prosecutors said Read, a former adjunct professor at Bentley College, and O’Keefe, a 16-year member of the Boston Police Department, had been drinking heavily before dropping him off at a party at the home of Brian Albert, a fellow Boston officer . . They said she hit him with her SUV before driving away. An autopsy revealed that O’Keefe died of hypothermia and blunt force trauma.

The defense portrayed Read as the victim, saying O’Keefe was actually murdered in Albert’s home and then dragged outside. They argued that investigators focused on Read because she was an “easy outsider” who kept them from considering law enforcement officers as suspects.