DEDHAM, Mass. — Defense attorneys representing Karen Read have responded to the prosecution’s argument against dismissing two of three criminal charges that she faces, reiterating their double jeopardy claims in a new Supreme Judicial Court filing on Wednesday.
Massachusetts’ highest court agreed to review the Karen Read murder case in September and is slated to hear oral arguments in November from Read’s attorneys, who are seeking to overturn Norfolk Superior Court Judge Beverly Cannone’s most recent case ruling, where she denied a request from the defense to dismiss charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene of a deadly crash.
In a 77-page brief filed last Wednesday, prosecutors stated that there’s no basis for dismissing the charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene of the accident, arguing that the state’s retrial cannot be double jeopardy.
Read’s lawyers claim several jurors came forward to report that they unanimously agreed to find Read “not guilty” on both charges during her first trial, which ended with a hung jury on July 1 after the foreman told Judge Cannone the panel was hopelessly deadlocked.
Read, 44, of Mansfield, is accused of ramming John O’Keefe, her Boston police officer boyfriend, with her SUV and leaving to die in a snowstorm outside of the Canton home of former Boston police officer Brian Albert in January 2022.
The defense’s new 51-page filing presents three key arguments:
- “The Commonwealth did not satisfy its burden of establishing manifest necessity.”
- “The jury’s unanimous conclusion following trial that Ms. Read is not guilty on counts 1 and 3 constitutes an acquittal and precludes re-prosecution.”
- “The defense is entitled to a judicial inquiry to determine whether the evidence supports the juror representations as to having acquitted Ms. Read.”
“The Commonwealth’s argument that this court should defer to the trial judge regarding the necessity of a mistrial seeks to inappropriately bypass the clear prerequisites that have been in place for almost four decades,” Read’s attorneys stated in the filing. “Counsel must be given full opportunity to be heard and the trial judge must give careful consideration to alternatives to a mistrial.”
The defense added, “There is no indication that the court gave any consideration to alternatives, most notably inquiry regarding partial verdicts. And counsel was not given a full opportunity to be heard. The court never asked for counsel’s views, or even mentioned the word ‘mistrial,’ before declaring one in open court.”
“The Commonwealth’s contention that Ms. Read consented to the mistrial is based on the unsupported assertion that ‘defense counsel consistently sought a mistrial,’” the filing continued. “It bears repeating that neither Ms. Read nor her counsel ever requested a mistrial.”
Citing multiple filings following the mistrial, Read’s legal team argued, “The defense independently maintains that a jury’s final, unanimous agreement that Ms. Read is not guilty constitutes an acquittal for Double Jeopardy purposes and that the trustworthy and uncontradicted post-trial affidavits entitle her to a judicial inquiry on this issue.”
Prosecutors have alleged Read and O’Keefe had been drinking heavily before she dropped him off at a party at the home of Brian Albert, a fellow officer. They said she struck him with her SUV before driving away.
The defense has portrayed Read as a scapegoat, saying O’Keefe was actually killed inside Albert’s home and then dragged outside and left for dead.
Last month, Norfolk District Attorney Michael Morrissey announced that Special Assistant District Attorney Hank Brennan will lead the Commonwealth’s retrial of Read. He was one of Whitey Bulger’s defense attorneys during his 2013 mob trial.
Judge Cannone tentatively scheduled Read’s retrial for Jan. 27, 2025.
Read the latest case filing in its entirety below:
New Karen Read SJC Brief 10-24-24 by Fox Boston Staff on Scribd
Download the FREE Boston 25 News app for breaking news alerts.
Follow Boston 25 News on Facebook and Twitter. | Watch Boston 25 News NOW