BOSTON — The legal proceedings surrounding Karen Read have reached the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, where her legal team is advocating for the dismissal of charges linked to the death of her boyfriend, John O’Keefe, a Boston police officer.
Read faces allegations of striking O’Keefe with her SUV and leaving him in a snowstorm back in January 2022. Her lawyers contend that Read is being unjustly accused and claim that other law enforcement personnel bear responsibility for O’Keefe’s demise. A judge declared a mistrial in June, noting that the jury could not come to a consensus. A retrial is currently slated for January, although both parties filed requests on Monday to postpone it until April 1.
The defense is likely to emphasize points made in submissions to the state’s highest court, asserting that retrying Read for the charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene would violate the constitutional principle of double jeopardy.
Five jurors allegedly came forward following the mistrial to express that their deadlock was solely regarding the manslaughter charge, indicating a consensus on her innocence concerning the other accusations. However, this information was not communicated to the judge at the time.
The defense claims that statements from jurors illustrate a clear and unmistakable judgment of Read’s innocence, bolstering their request for an evidentiary hearing to investigate whether the jurors exonerated her on two specific charges.
Referencing the case of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the Boston Marathon bomber, the defense highlighted a ruling from earlier this year where a federal court mandated an investigation into potential juror bias and the standing of Tsarnaev’s death sentence.
“In line with the Commonwealth’s reasoning, a defendant asserting that the jury acquitted her yet did not formally declare that finding would receive no right to further examination, regardless of how well-supported her claim might be,” the defense indicated in their brief.
Additionally, the defense argued that the judge hastily pronounced the mistrial without first consulting each juror regarding their views on every charge.
“There was no indication that the court considered alternative options, particularly regarding partial verdicts,” they stated. “Counsel was not provided a complete chance to voice their opinions, and the court did not solicit counsel’s input nor mentioned the term mistrial during the proceedings.”
In August, a judge affirmed that Read could be retried on these charges, stating that since no verdict was formally announced in open court, retrial does not contravene double jeopardy principles.
Prosecutors, in their brief to the court, asserted there is no justification for dropping the charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene, emphasizing that the jury expressed being deadlocked on three separate occasions before the mistrial was declared. They contended that Read had ample opportunity to present her case regarding any alternatives.
“The defendant has not been acquitted of any charge, as the jury did not render, announce, or affirm any public verdicts of acquittal,” they wrote. “This requirement is not a trivial formality; it serves as a core protection to ensure no juror’s opinion is misrepresented or coerced by other members.”
Read, a former adjunct professor at Bentley College, and O’Keefe, who had a lengthy tenure with the Boston police, allegedly consumed significant amounts of alcohol prior to her dropping him off at a gathering hosted by another officer, Brian Albert. Prosecutors maintain that she struck O’Keefe with her vehicle and left the scene. An autopsy indicated that O’Keefe succumbed to hypothermia and blunt force trauma.
Conversely, the defense has framed Read as the victim in this situation, alleging that O’Keefe was killed inside Albert’s residence and later removed outside, contending that investigators unfairly targeted Read due to her status as a “convenient outsider,” thus avoiding the need to scrutinize fellow law enforcement officials as suspects.