Back-to-back hearings on Wednesday in Karen Read case

Wednesday continued a busy week in the Karen Read case, with two hearings scheduled for one day, sending the murder suspect from federal court in Boston to Norfolk Superior Court in Dedham.

Here's what happened in both hearings.

Read's double jeopardy case in federal court

At the heart of the hearing in Moakley Federal Courthouse was an unprecedented request: for federal Judge Dennis Saylor to essentially review and question the actions of a state court judge. Read's attorney, Martin Weinberg, argued that Norfolk Superior Court Judge Beverly Cannone made a critical error by declaring a mistrial in Read's initial trial without thoroughly exploring alternative options.

Weinberg tried to persuade the federal judge to conduct a voir dire hearing, a private questioning of the jurors from the first trial. He asserted that at least four jurors had communicated to the defense directly, and a fifth indirectly, that they unanimously agreed to acquit Read on second-degree murder and leaving the scene of an accident.

"He's not bound in terms of the voir dire issue by any adverse precedent, and we consider that to be an important factor in his weighing the basic equities," Weinberg told reporters after the hearing. "And that was the argument that was made today to Judge Saylor."

The defense's argument hinges on the Fifth Amendment's double jeopardy clause, which protects individuals from being tried twice for the same crime. Weinberg contended that, because the jury had allegedly reached an acquittal on two counts, retrying Read on those charges would be a violation of her constitutional rights.

Legal expert Michael Coyne said that because such habeas petitions historically have a "very low rate" of success, he expects the defense's chances will be equally low at the federal level.

"There is some attraction to the argument that the constitutional protections of double jeopardy should trump a state procedural matter," Coyne said. "The argument that there wasn't manifest necessity to declare the mistrial — that's what's required in order to ensure that double jeopardy doesn't bar the retrial."

The prosecution, represented by Caleb Schillinger, countered that Cannone acted appropriately by waiting until the third note from the jury, which included emphatic language that they were deadlocked on all charges. He also argued that questioning the jurors would be coercive.

Read's team remains optimistic about what Coyne called an "uphill battle," especially considering the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently upheld Cannone's decision on the same argument last month. 

"We're cautiously optimistic that the importance of these issues in terms of the overall double jeopardy jurisprudence will lead to a favorable result," Weinberg said.

Coyne also pointed out that, even if the federal court doesn't rule in Read's favor before the trial, the double jeopardy argument could still be used as grounds for appeal if she is convicted.

The federal judge presiding over the case has stated that he will issue an opinion as quickly as possible, allowing both sides the opportunity to appeal before the retrial, which is scheduled to begin April 1. 

The decision will be closely watched, as it could set a precedent for future cases, Coyne added. 

Motions hearing in Norfolk Superior Court

Read lawyer Alan Jackson made his arguments to have the case dismissed — something the team did before the first trial, but they’re hoping video from the Canton Police Department will make a difference this time around.

"The conduct in this case is so egregious. It’s so pervasive and it’s so deliberate that prejudice must be presumed," Jackson said in the afternoon hearing.

The motion to dismiss, "for extraordinary governmental misconduct," was originally filed in Norfolk Superior Court under seal. It was released with redactions Thursday — large portions of the document, 147 pages with appendices, are blacked out.

Read’s vehicle in the Canton police sallyport is at the center of her team's efforts to have the case thrown out. In the first trial, 42 minutes of video were found to be missing and inverted. The defense said newly surfaced video shows ATF agent Brian Higgins outside Canton police headquarters the night John O’Keefe died, and Read’s attorneys say the video exonerates their client.

Special prosecutor Hank Brennan shot back that the defense's claims are baseless.

"There’s no evidence that any videotape was ever tampered with. they say it, but there’s none."