BOSTON (WHDH) - The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) upheld its ruling on Tuesday, allowing Karen Read's retrial for the murder of her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O'Keefe, to proceed. The court denied the defense's motion to dismiss two of the charges against Read, setting her retrial to begin on April 1, 2025. This ruling followed Read's first trial, which ended with jurors deadlocked on all charges after nearly five days of deliberation.
Read, who is accused of hitting O'Keefe with her SUV and abandoning him to die outside the home of another officer following a night of drinking, has pleaded not guilty to charges including second-degree murder. According to the SJC, the trial judge, Beverly Cannone, appropriately denied the request for dismissal based on jurors’ post-trial claims of acquittal.
During the first trial, jurors had communicated three times to the judge about being unable to reach a unanimous verdict. After the mistrial was declared last July, some jurors reportedly contacted the defense stating they believed they had come to unanimous decisions of 'not guilty' on two counts. They claimed confusion about the deliberation process contributed to their inability to reach verdicts.
Despite these jurors' assertions, the SJC emphasized the importance of jury confidentiality, stating, "Only after being discharged did some individual jurors communicate a different supposed outcome, contradicting their prior notes. Such posttrial disclosures cannot retroactively alter the trial’s outcome — either to acquit or to convict." This perspective firmly aligns with protecting juror integrity and the legal system's sanctity.
The defense attorneys had argued before the court on the grounds of double jeopardy, claiming their client should not be prosecuted again based on unwritten provisions of the jury’s unofficial discussions. The justices determined, per court records, they were deadlocked on all charges, with no indication of partial verdicts reached during the proceedings.
Prosecutors have alleged Read acted with malice, carefully laying out their case by invoking key elements of witness accounts and presenting forensic evidence leading to O’Keefe's death on January 29, 2022, during inclement weather. Conversely, the defense continues to assert she is the victim of a cover-up and has vocally stated Read feels vengefully pursued by law enforcement.
At the heart of this case is the sensitive matter of how the jury's communication is managed and the ramifications surrounding claims made after deliberation. The SJC ruling showcases the court's stance on maintaining firm boundaries within juror conduct and the challenges presented by reconsiderations of outcomes based on retrospective statements.
Reading through the transcript of the SJC's decision highlights the complex nature of this case and the legal principle of double jeopardy's significant protective role for defendants. Judge Cannone cited legal precedent indicating the absence of acquittal can allow retrial as is pertinent to the jurisdiction.
Although the proceedings are shrouded with legal intricacies and the internal sensationalism from public scrutiny surrounding high-profile domestic cases, the facts remain center-stage as Karen Read's retrial approaches. O’Keefe's family, Boston police colleagues, and the community have been following every development closely, weighing the emotional toll and ethical concerns entwined with this case.
Defense attorney Martin Weinberg has been vocal about his determination to demonstrate accountability and rightful justice for Read during the retrial, insisting, “Several jurors communicated 'not guilty' positions after the trial's close.” With the trial date looming, both sides of the aisle are preparing for what could be another protracted and contentious battle.