The prosecutor in the Karen Read murder trial — which ended in mistrial at the beginning of the month — delivered a sharp opposition to the defense’s motion to dismiss two of the three indicted charges against the defendant, saying the argument lacks “merit or legal foundation.”
“Now comes the Commonwealth in opposition to the defendant’s post-trial motion to dismiss her indictments for second-degree murder and leaving the scene after causing death, as the defendant’s motion is premised on hearsay, conjecture, and legally inappropriate reliance as to the substance of jury deliberations,” Norfolk Assistant District Attorney Adam Lally wrote in the Friday filing.
“The defendant’s unsubstantiated but sensational post-trial claim that the ‘jury reached a unanimous decision to acquit’ lacks any merit or legal foundation,” he continued.
Read, 44, of Mansfield, was indicted June 9, 2022, on charges of second-degree murder, manslaughter while operating under the influence and leaving the scene of personal injury or death. She is accused of mowing down her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe, with her SUV in the early hours of Jan. 29, 2022, and leaving him to freeze and die on a Canton front lawn.
On Monday, defense attorneys filed a motion that the first and third charges be dropped because three jurors had independently reached out to them indicating that the jury was only hung on the manslaughter charge and were unanimous in a “not guilty” verdict for second-degree murder and leaving the scene of an accident causing death. The team followed up with a supporting affidavit indicating a fourth juror told them the same thing.
“The hearsay comments and juror statements about what happened are legally irrelevant as the jury failed to reach any verdicts,” Lally wrote in his 15-page opposition.
Over the jury’s five days of deliberation, the foreman had three notes indicating the body was at an impasse. On the fourth day, when the jury delivered its second note, Judge Beverly Cannone opted to read the “Tuey-Rodriguez” warning, which emphasizes the expensive and time a trial takes and that any future jury will be composed of people just like the current one and will likely hear the same evidence. It was meant as a final spur to deliberative action.
Then the following Monday, July 1, the jury sent a final note indicating it still could not reach a verdict.
“The jury’s notes were unambiguous that the jurors were ‘deeply divided by fundamental differences in our opinions and state of mind’ “that resulted in a ‘starkly divided’ jury as to the ‘charges’ (emphasis on plural),” Lally summarized in his opposition, with the parenthetical included. “The jury consistently indicated that their impasse was not due to a lack of understanding of the law or the charges, but a profound divergence in ‘deeply held convictions … ultimately leading to a point where consensus is unobtainable.’”
This is a developing story.
