BOSTON — Karen Read appeared in a Boston courtroom Monday, marking her first appearance since a mistrial was declared in her high-profile murder case involving her boyfriend, a Boston police officer. The trial, which spanned two months, ended abruptly when the jury could not reach a unanimous decision, leading the judge to declare a mistrial on the fifth day of deliberations.
In January 2022, Read was accused of fatally striking John O’Keefe with her SUV during a snowstorm and subsequently leaving the scene. O’Keefe, a 16-year veteran of the Boston police, was later found outside a colleague’s home in Canton, suffering from hypothermia and blunt force trauma, conditions that contributed to his death, according to autopsy reports.
The complexities of the trial hinge upon the events of that snowy night and subsequent jury deliberations. Detailed in several motions filed by the defense, there are claims that the jury had reached a not-guilty decision on two of the three charges Read faced – second-degree murder and leaving the scene of a deadly accident. The deadlock was reportedly only on the manslaughter charge, leading to the mistrial declaration.
The defense’s current legal strategy includes challenging the mistrial declaration itself. They argue that Judge Beverly Cannone prematurely ended the trial without proper inquiry into the jury’s stance on each charge. Furthermore, they are calling for a post-verdict inquiry to reassess the jury’s conclusions and are pushing to establish grounds that retrying Read on the acquitted charges would constitute double jeopardy.
Prosecutors, however, dismiss these assertions as based on hearsay and maintain that the completion of the trial process had been stymied by the defense’s own request for a mistrial. They noted that after a jury communication signaled a deadlock, the defense agreed to the declaration without objections.
Additionally, in a move to shield the jurors, Judge Cannone indefinitely sealed their identities following concerns raised over their safety. This decision came after a juror expressed fears regarding potential repercussions for themselves and their family members should their identities be disclosed publicly.
Compounding the legal drama, the defense presented a narrative suggesting that O’Keefe may have actually died inside the home where he was found, possibly at the hands of others present. They posited that Read, who had earlier been with O’Keefe at a local bar, was framed as a “convenient outsider.”
Karen Read, a former adjunct professor at Bentley College, thus remains at the center of a complicated legal battle that questions both her actions and the integrity of the legal process following her initial prosecution. As the case continues to unfold, the court’s decisions in the coming months will likely hinge on the nuanced interpretation of double jeopardy laws and the thorough examination of jury deliberations—a rare legal scenario that underscores the complexities of criminal jurisprudence.