DEDHAM, Mass. — A judge ruled that Karen Read can be retried for murder and leaving the crime scene in the death of her Boston police officer boyfriend, dismissing arguments that jurors told lawyers after the mistrial that they had unanimously agreed she wasn’t guilty on the two charges.
Read, 44, is accused of ramming into John O’Keefe with her SUV and leaving him for dead in a January 2022 snowstorm. Her two-month trial ended in July when jurors declared they were hopelessly deadlocked and a judge declared a mistrial on the fifth day of deliberations.
Judge Beverly Cannone’s decision, released on Friday, means the case can move forward to a new trial set to begin Jan. 27.
Prosecutors said Read, a former adjunct professor at Bentley College, and O’Keefe, a 16-year member of the Boston police, had been drinking heavily before she dropped him off at a party at the home of Brian Albert, a fellow Boston officer. They said she hit him with her SUV before driving away. An autopsy found O’Keefe died of hypothermia and blunt force trauma.
The defense portrayed Read as the victim, saying O’Keefe was actually killed inside Albert’s home and then dragged outside. They argued that investigators focused on Read because she was a “convenient outsider” who saved them from having to consider law enforcement officers as suspects.
After the mistrial, Read’s lawyers presented evidence that four jurors had said they were actually deadlocked only on a third count of manslaughter, and that inside the jury room, they had unanimously agreed that Read was innocent of second-degree murder and leaving the scene of a deadly accident. One juror told them that “no one thought she hit him on purpose or even thought she hit him on purpose,” her lawyers argued.
The defense also said the judge abruptly announced the mistrial in court without first asking each juror to confirm their conclusions about each count. Read’s attorney Marty Weinberg had asked Cannone to consider summoning the jurors back to court for more questions.
But the judge said the jurors didn’t tell the court during their deliberations that they had reached a verdict on any of the counts. “Where there was no verdict announced in open court here, retrial of the defendant does not violate the principle of double jeopardy,” Cannone said in her ruling.
Prosecutors had urged the judge to dismiss what they called an “unsubstantiated but sensational post-trial claim” based on “hearsay, conjecture and legally inappropriate reliance as to the substance of jury deliberations.”
Assistant District Attorney Adam Lally argued that the jury never indicated they had reached a verdict on any of the charges, were given clear instructions on how to reach a verdict, and that the defense had ample opportunity to object to a mistrial declaration.
In a recent development in the high-profile murder case against Karen Read, the judge has decided not to dismiss the case following a mistrial in July. This decision comes after weeks of deliberation and legal arguments from both the prosecution and defense teams.
The mistrial in July was declared after it was revealed that crucial evidence had been mishandled by the prosecution, leading to concerns about the fairness of the trial. Despite this setback, the judge has now ruled that the case will proceed to a new trial rather than being dismissed altogether.
The decision to not dismiss the case has sparked mixed reactions from the public and legal experts. Some believe that Read should be given another chance to prove her innocence or guilt in a fair trial, while others argue that the mishandling of evidence has irreparably tainted the case and that it should be dismissed.
Karen Read, a well-known businesswoman in the community, has maintained her innocence throughout the proceedings. She has consistently denied any involvement in the murder of her husband, whose body was found in their home last year. The prosecution, however, claims to have strong evidence linking Read to the crime.
The upcoming trial is expected to be closely watched by the media and the public, as it will determine the fate of Karen Read and provide closure for the victim’s family. The judge’s decision to proceed with the case underscores the importance of upholding the integrity of the legal system and ensuring that justice is served.
As the case continues to unfold, it is crucial for all parties involved to adhere to the principles of fairness and due process. The new trial will offer an opportunity for both sides to present their arguments and evidence in a transparent and impartial manner, ultimately leading to a just resolution of this tragic and complex case.
