They are countering the defense’s assertions that jurors had reached a verdict on some of the charges prior to the judge declaring a mistrial.
Read faces allegations of colliding with O’Keefe using her SUV, leaving him to succumb in severe winter conditions in January 2022. Her legal team argues that she has been wronged, suggesting that other law enforcement personnel were responsible for O’Keefe’s untimely death.
The mistrial was declared in June after it was determined that jurors could not come to a consensus, and a retrial on the same accusations is slated to commence in January.
In a document submitted late Wednesday to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, the prosecution stated there is no justification for dropping the second-degree murder charges or the charge of leaving the scene of the accident. They emphasized that there was “no viable alternative to a mistrial,” highlighting that jurors had indicated three separate times that they were deadlocked before the mistrial was issued.
The prosecution contended that Read was given a fair opportunity to address any claimed alternative solutions, stating, “The defendant was not acquitted of any charge because the jury did not return, announce, and affirm any open and public verdicts of acquittal.”
This, they claimed, is essential to ensure that no juror’s stance is misinterpreted or coerced by their peers.
Conversely, Read’s defense team outlined in a brief filed in September that five of the twelve jurors came forward after the mistrial to indicate they were only split on a manslaughter charge, while they had reached a unanimous decision, without informing the judge, that she was not guilty of the other charges.
They argued that retrying her for the murder charges and leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death would be a violation of the double jeopardy clause.
Both parties are scheduled to present oral arguments on November 6.
In August, the judge overseeing the trial ruled that Read can indeed be retried on all three counts, asserting that since no verdict had been declared in open court, retrying her does not contravene principles of double jeopardy, according to Judge Beverly Cannone.
Read’s attorney, Martin Weinberg, contended that the reasoning provided by Cannone suggests that even if all twelve jurors submitted sworn statements confirming they reached a final unanimous decision to acquit, it would be deemed insufficient for a double jeopardy claim, declaring, “Surely, that cannot be the law. Indeed, it must not be the law.”
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) lent its support to the defense through an amicus brief. Should the court opt not to dismiss the charges, the ACLU recommended that the trial court at a minimum be directed to hold a hearing to ascertain whether jurors in Read’s initial trial had reached any unanimous decisions to acquit her on specific charges.
They pointed out, “The trial court had a clear path to avoid an erroneous mistrial: simply ask the jurors to confirm whether a verdict had been reached on any count.” This practice, according to the ACLU, should be actively encouraged within Massachusetts’s judicial procedures to ensure accurate communication of the jury’s views to the court and to protect defendants’ rights.
In the case, authorities claim that Read, who previously taught at Bentley College, and O’Keefe, a veteran member of the Boston police force, had been drinking heavily prior to her dropping him off at a party hosted by another Boston officer, Brian Albert. Prosecutors assert that Read hit O’Keefe with her vehicle and then departed the scene. An autopsy report indicated that O’Keefe’s death was due to hypothermia and blunt force trauma.
Read’s defense, on the other hand, characterized her as the victim, alleging that O’Keefe was actually killed inside Albert’s residence and later moved outdoors.
They insisted that investigators zeroed in on Read as a “convenient outsider,” thereby avoiding scrutiny of fellow law enforcement officials.
The lead investigator, State Trooper Michael Proctor, faced job termination following revelations that he had sent inappropriate texts to family and colleagues, referring to Read as a “whack job” and expressing a wish for her to “kill herself.” He later admitted to letting his emotions interfere with his professional conduct.