Parties involved in the murder trial of Karen Read will return to a Dedham courtroom in Norfolk Superior Court on Friday to hear her attorneys argue for the dismissal of two of the five charges brought against her in connection with the death of her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O’Keefe, more than two years ago.
Read’s defense team’s motion is based on testimony from jurors that they unanimously voted not guilty to the counts of first-degree murder and leaving the scene of an accident during their pre-sentence deliberations on July 1, when the judge entered a not guilty verdict, according to documents filed in Norfolk Superior Court.
“The double jeopardy protections of the federal and state constitutions require that these charges not be retried,” Read’s lawyers wrote in documents filed earlier this week.
Immediately after Judge Beverly J. Cannone declared the murder trial void, Norfolk District Attorney Michael W. Morrissey announced that his office would retry Read.
A new trial date has been set for January 27.
On July 8, Read’s lawyers asked Cannone to dismiss the first-degree murder and hit-and-run charges, claiming that four jurors said they had unanimously agreed to acquit on those two counts, but disagreed on the manslaughter charge.
Prosecutors say Read, 44, of Mansfield, crashed her SUV into O’Keefe outside a Canton home early on the morning of Jan. 29, 2022, after a night of bar-hopping and heavy drinking. Read’s lawyers claim she is being framed for the crime and that O’Keefe entered the home, which was owned by another Boston police officer at the time, where he was fatally beaten in the basement before his body was dumped on the front lawn.
According to recent court records, Juror B made an unsolicited call to Read’s attorney, David R. Yannetti, on July 31 to confirm that the juror had been correctly quoted in previous court documents and to reiterate that “the only count on which the jury could not agree was Count 2 (manslaughter).”
The juror told Yannetti, “No one believed she hit him intentionally…or even knew she hit him,” the filing says.
The jury also told Yannetti that they were confident “that any member of the jury would affirm the acquittals if asked,” the documents say.
“Juror B believes that even jurors who were leaning toward conviction on one part of Count 2 will confirm that the other two counts were acquittals,” the documents state. “He/she believes that other jurors were hesitant to come forward because this case is attracting so much public and media attention.”
In court documents, Assistant District Attorney Adam Lally wrote that “neither double jeopardy nor constitutional principles bar a retrial.”
“There was no acquittal for the defendant, no reason for the court or counsel to investigate the deliberation process of a discharged jury, the defendant consented to the mistrial, and the court correctly declared the trial void because the jury was in a deadlock because of its ‘sharply divided’ views on the evidence and its ‘sincere adherence to … (individual principles and moral convictions,'” Lally wrote.
You can reach Tonya Alanez at [email protected]. Follow her @talanez.
