Karen Read is seeking the dismissal of two of the three charges against her.
Prosecutors in the high-profile Karen Read case submitted their response to her team's appeal to Massachusetts' highest court Wednesday to have two counts in her murder case dismissed.
Read is accused of killing her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe, with her SUV during a snowstorm in Canton in January 2022, but after a mistrial was declared in the initial trial, her legal team filed to have the charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene of a crash resulting in death dismissed on grounds of double jeopardy. They claim that after the mistrial, several jurors revealed to them that the jury was actually in agreement that Read was not guilty on those two charges and were only in disagreement on the charge of manslaughter while driving under the influence.
WATCH ANYTIME FOR FREE
 |
>Stream NBC10 Boston news for free, 24/7, wherever you are. |
In the 77-page document filed with the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, the prosecution argued its key points: that the judge's declaration of a mistrial was reasonable given the information provided by the jury in notes on three separate occasions, that the defendant consented to the mistrial (as defense counsel was given an opportunity to speak about the declaration of a mistrial and pushed for that result), and that Read was never acquitted on any charges in formal court.
“The defendant was not acquitted of any charge because the jury did not return, announce, and affirm any open and public verdicts of acquittal. That requirement is not a mere formalism, ministerial act, or empty technicality. It is a fundamental safeguard that ensures no juror’s position is mistaken, misrepresented, or coerced by other jurors. It also protects each juror’s right to rethink their position and to change their vote before reaching a final verdict,” the prosecution wrote.
Get updates on what's happening in Boston to your inbox. Sign up for our >News Headlines newsletter.
The jury in Read's first trial began deliberations on June 25 and expressed that they were deadlocked to the judge on three occasions - on June 28, and in two separate occasions on July 1, the day Judge Beverly Cannone ultimately declared the mistrial. None of those notes, the prosecution points out, indicated that they had come to an agreement on any of the charges.
Karen Read's defense attorney Martin Weinberg responded Thursday afternoon, saying his team intends to file a reply brief.
"We continue to strongly believe that the trustworthy and uncontradicted statements of 5 of 12 jurors that there was a unanimous vote of not guilty should not be ignored given the core concerns of the historic Double Jeopardy protections safeguarding citizens against multiple prosecutions for the same charge," he wrote.
Read the Karen Read prosecution's full argument to the SJC
Read's team got a major ally in her case Wednesday, when the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts filed a brief arguing that the Supreme Judicial Court should toss Cannone's decision and at least have her hold a hearing involving the evidence that the jury was in agreement.
The ACLU's lawyers said that the Constitution's prohibition of double jeopardy — you can't be tried twice for the same crime — applies in this case. They also argued that courts in Massachusetts regularly ask juries questions after a mistrial is declared, as well as hold hearings to address irregularities after a verdict is declared.
"Almost 400 years ago, the Massachusetts colony enacted the first formal prohibitions against double jeopardy on American soil. In accordance with this tradition, the Court should require an evidentiary hearing to ensure that Appellant’s double jeopardy rights are not violated by a second trial on counts for which the jury already agreed to acquit her and for which the trial court did not have manifest necessity to declare a mistrial," the ACLU's brief said.
NBC10 Boston legal analyst Michael Coyne believes that Read's argument won't win out after the Supreme Judicial Court hears arguments in the case on Nov. 6.
Read's lawyers' will have several days to respond to the prosecution's filing. Read is set for a retrial in January.
