Sign up for the Today newsletter
Get everything you need to know to start your day, delivered right to your inbox every morning.
Karen Read’s lawyers appeal to the SJC in bid to dismiss two charges
Read's lawyers are appealing to the state's highest court in their effort to drop charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene of a fatal accident.
Karen Read is appealing to the state’s highest court in her bid to drop two of the three criminal charges she’s facing in the death of Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe.
Lawyers for the Mansfield woman filed a 37-page petition with the Supreme Judicial Court Wednesday, reiterating their argument that state and federal double jeopardy rules prohibit prosecutors from retrying Read on charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene of a fatal accident. The defense attorneys also allege they had no opportunity to weigh in before the case ended in a hung jury and Judge Beverly Cannone declared a mistrial on July 1.
Advertisement:
Read’s lawyers are now appealing Cannone’s recent refusal to dismiss the two disputed charges, and they’re seeking oral arguments before the SJC.
As it stands, Read will face retrial on Jan. 27 on charges “that a jury of her peers has already unanimously agreed the Commonwealth failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt following trial,” the defense wrote.
Karen Read’s motion to dismiss
Read’s lawyers said they began hearing from jurors the day after the mistrial, “indicating in no uncertain terms that the jury had a firm and unwavering 12-0 agreement that Ms. Read is not guilty of two of the three charges against her, including the charge of murder in the second degree.”
More on Karen Read:
Prosecutors allege Read intentionally backed her SUV into O’Keefe, her boyfriend of two years, following a night of bar hopping in Canton in January 2022. But as one of the jurors allegedly told defense attorney David Yannetti after the mistrial, “No one thought she hit him on purpose or even knew that she had hit him.”
Advertisement:
Read is also charged with manslaughter while operating a motor vehicle under the influence, which carried lesser included offenses of involuntary manslaughter and motor vehicle homicide.
In all, the defense allegedly received information from five deliberating jurors — four directly, one indirectly. One purported juror also reached out to prosecutors to say the jury was unanimous on two of the charges.
“Given the central importance that acquittals have held in our criminal justice system for hundreds of years, the defense respectfully submits that the jury’s unanimous agreement precludes re-prosecution of Ms. Read on Counts 1 and 3 and mandates dismissal of those charges,” Read’s lawyers asserted in Wednesday’s petition.
‘Surely, that cannot be the law’
In her decision last month, Cannone asserted that the defense had “multiple opportunities” to voice an objection to the mistrial, “if they in fact had one.”
“Where there was no acquittal on any of the charges in the defendant’s first trial, there is no risk of subjecting the defendant to double jeopardy by retrial on all charges,” the judge wrote.
While the Norfolk County District Attorney’s Office hailed Cannone’s decision as one “consistent with almost 200 years of case law,” Read’s lawyers hold another view. They contend that under Cannone’s reasoning, even affidavits from all 12 deliberating jurors attesting to a unanimous decision would not be enough to trigger double jeopardy.
Advertisement:
“Surely, that cannot be the law,” the defense attorneys wrote. “Indeed, it must not be the law. And, in the context of this highly publicized case, it strains credulity to suggest that, if the unequivocal statements of five jurors quoted above did not, in fact, represent the unanimous view of all 12, the remaining jurors would allow the inaccuracy to go uncorrected.”
Read’s lawyers also pushed back on Cannone’s assertion that a post-trial inquiry would get into the substance of jury deliberations, in violation of Massachusetts case law.
“The relevant inquiry could be accomplished by a single ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question posed to jurors: did you unanimously acquit Karen Read of the charges in Counts 1 and 3?” the defense attorneys wrote.
The Norfolk DA’s office has not yet filed a response to the appeal.
To comment, please create a screen name in your profile
To comment, please verify your email address
Conversation
This discussion has ended. Please join elsewhere on Boston.com