Prosecutors are asking Massachusetts’ highest court to grant a new trial for Karen Read

BOSTON – Prosecutors have called on the state’s highest court to retry Karen Read for the murder of her Boston police officer boyfriend, pushing back against defense claims that jurors had returned verdicts on some of her charges before the trial. judge declared a mistrial.

Read is accused of ramming John O’Keefe with her SUV and abandoning him during a snowstorm in January 2022. Read’s attorneys claim she was framed and that other law enforcement officers are responsible for O’Keefe’s death. A judge declared a mistrial in June after finding that jurors could not reach an agreement. A new trial on the same charges will begin in January.

In a brief filed late Wednesday with the Massachusetts Supreme Court, prosecutors wrote that there is no basis to dismiss charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene of an accident.

There was “no viable alternative to a mistrial,” they argued in the letter, noting that the jury said the trial was deadlocked three times before declaring a mistrial. Prosecutors said the “defendant was given a meaningful opportunity to be heard on any purported alternative.”

“The defendant was not acquitted of any charges because the jury did not make, announce, and confirm any overt and public verdicts of acquittal,” they wrote. “That requirement is not a mere formalism, a ministerial act or an empty technical matter. It is a fundamental safeguard that ensures that no juror’s position is mistaken, misrepresented or coerced by other jurors.”

In the defense brief filed in September, Read’s attorneys said that five of the 12 jurors came forward after her mistrial and said they were only deadlocked on the manslaughter count, and that they unanimously agreed — without to tell the judge – that she was not guilty of the case. other counts. They argued that it would be unconstitutional double jeopardy to try her again for murder and leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death.

Oral arguments from both sides will be heard on November 6.

In August, the judge ruled that Read could be tried again on all three counts. “Absent a verdict announced in open court here, a new trial of the suspect would not violate the principle of double criminality,” Judge Beverly Cannone wrote.

Read’s attorney, Martin Weinberg, argued that under Cannone’s reasoning, even if all twelve jurors swore in affidavits that they had reached a final and unanimous decision of acquittal, this would not be sufficient for a double challenge. “Of course that cannot be the law. Indeed, it should not be the law,” Weinberg wrote.

The American Civil Liberties Union supported the defense in an amicus brief. If the justices don’t dismiss the charges, the ACLU says the court should at least “prevent the possibility of injustice by ordering the court to hold an evidentiary hearing and determine whether the jury in her first trial agreed to grounds for acquittal. .”

“The court had a clear path to avoid a mistrial: simply ask the jurors to confirm whether a verdict was reached on any issue,” the ACLU wrote in its brief. “Asking those questions before a mistrial is granted — and even encouraged — by Massachusetts rules. Such polls should ensure that a jury’s views are accurately conveyed to the court, the parties and the community – and that the related trial rights of the defendants are secure.”

Prosecutors said Read, a former adjunct professor at Bentley College, and O’Keefe, a 16-year member of the Boston Police Department, had been drinking heavily before dropping 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 revealed that O’Keefe died of hypothermia and blunt force trauma.

The defense portrayed Read as the victim, saying O’Keefe was actually murdered in Albert’s home and then dragged outside. They argued that investigators focused on Read because she was an “easy outsider” who kept them from considering law enforcement officers as suspects.

The lead investigator, state trooper Michael Proctor, was removed from his position after the trial found he sent vulgar text messages to coworkers and family, called Read a “whack job” and told his sister he wished Read would “kill himself” would commit. He said his emotions got the best of him.