Crime

Prosecutors oppose Karen Read’s lawyers’ motion to dismiss 2 charges in new filing

"The defendant's motion is premised upon hearsay, conjecture, and legally inappropriate reliance as to the substance of jury deliberations," prosecutors wrote.

By John Waller

updated on July 12, 2024

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Email
• Email
• 201

At the beginning of this week, Karen Read’s defense team asked Judge Beverly Cannone to dismiss two of the three charges against their client, including second-degree murder.

According to the attorneys, three jurors — one directly and two indirectly — shared that the jury had actually reached a unanimous “not guilty” conclusion on the charges. The reported “impasse” that led Cannone to declare a mistrial the previous week was just on the OUI manslaughter charge, they said.

Later, on Wednesday, a fourth juror confirmed the same, attorney Alan Jackson said in a supplemental filing.

Not so fast, prosecutors responded Friday.

“The defendant’s motion is premised upon hearsay, conjecture, and legally
inappropriate reliance as to the substance of jury deliberations,” Norfolk District Attorney Michael Morrissey wrote in a filing opposing the motion to dismiss the two charges.

“Further, contrary to the defendant’s claims, throughout jury deliberations the defendant was given a full opportunity to be heard, the jury’s communications to the court explicitly indicated an impasse on all charges, and the court carefully considered alternatives before declaring a mistrial. The defendant’s unsubstantiated but sensational post-trial claim that the ‘jury reached a unanimous decision to acquit’ lacks any merit or legal foundation.”

After the mistrial was declared, prosecutors immediately said they were planning to retry Read. A court hearing is scheduled for July 22 to discuss next steps.

Read, a 44-year-old Mansfield woman, is accused of drunkenly and intentionally backing her SUV into Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe, her boyfriend of two years, after a night out with friends in January 2022. Prosecutors allege Read left O’Keefe to die in the snow outside a fellow Boston officer’s home in Canton, but Read’s lawyers say she was framed in a vast coverup.

In the new filing, prosecutors provide a rundown of the jury deliberations and intermittent court proceedings in an attempt to show that Read’s lawyers had ample opportunity to weigh in prior to the mistrial ruling. Jurors first indicated that they were deadlocked in a note to Cannone on Friday, June 28, and then again in a subsequent note the following Monday, which caused the judge to read them the Tuey-Rodriguez instructions, urging them to come to a verdict. Later that Monday, the jury sent a third and final note, which led Cannone to declare the mistrial.

The final note read:

Despite our rigorous efforts we continue to find ourselves at an impasse. Our perspectives on the evidence are starkly divided. Some members of the jury firmly believe that the evidence surpasses the burden of proof establishing the elements of the charges beyond reasonable doubt, conversely, others find the evidence fails to meet this standard and does not sufficiently establish the necessary elements of the charges. The deep division is not due to a lack of effort or diligence, but rather a sincere adherence to our individual principles and moral convictions. To continue to deliberate would be futile and only serve to force us to compromise these deeply held beliefs.

Prosecutors also reference a number of prior cases in the filing that they say support their position and argue Read’s team could have spoken up immediately after the mistrial was declared, too.

“Furthermore, following the discharge of the jury, the court engaged the Commonwealth and defendant in discussions about choosing a status date for scheduling a retrial,” prosecutors wrote. “At no time during that hearing did the defendant object or indicate displeasure with the mistrial.”

As for Read’s lawyers contact with the jurors, the district attorney writes the substance of the discussions is “expressly prohibited inquiry,” as it pertained to “the jury’s deliberative processes and the substance of the jury’s deliberations.”

Morrissey closed with the following paragraph:

For the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s motion should be DENIED as there was no verdict that acquits the defendant, no grounds for the court or counsel to inquire into the deliberative process of a discharged jury, the defendant consented to the mistrial, and the court properly declared a mistrial due to a deadlocked jury, who was at an impasse due to their “starkly divided” perspectives on the evidence and their “sincere adherence [to] individual principles and moral convictions”. As such, retrial is not barred by double jeopardy or constitutional principles, and the Commonwealth may retry the defendant on the three indictments and any appropriate lesser included offenses.

Read prosecutors’ full filing below: