Karen Read Seeks Dismissal of Murder Charge After Jury’s Alleged Unanimous Not Guilty Decision

CANTON, Mass. — Karen Read, who faces charges for the death of her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe, has requested the dismissal of two of the three charges against her. This motion comes after a mistrial was declared last week in a case that has captured widespread attention. The charges include murder in the second degree and manslaughter while operating a motor vehicle under the influence. The mistrial, declared by Judge Beverly Cannone, left lingering questions as to the jury’s stance, which was not publicly disclosed.

According to legal documents filed in Norfolk Superior Court on Monday, Read’s defense attorneys assert that following the mistrial, they were contacted by three jurors who unanimously believed Read was not guilty of murder and one other charge. These unsolicited juror communications indicated a clear 12-0 agreement absolving Read of these key charges. The motion to dismiss was bolstered by these claims, shedding new light on the perceived consensus among the jury at the time the mistrial was declared.

The filing was undertaken by Read’s long-standing lawyers, Alan Jackson and David Yannetti, along with Martin Weinberg, who recently joined the defense team. The introduction of Weinberg, recognized for his legal acumen, marks a strategic reinforcement for Read as her case continues to develop.

The prosecution has signaled intentions to review the defense’s submissions carefully and anticipates responding formally. Moreover, a hearing already scheduled for July 22 aims to set a new trial date, indicating the continuance of this legal battle.

During the trial, which stretched over two months, jurors were exposed to various testimonies and evidence before reaching an impasse that led to the mistrial. Details surrounding juror deliberations have surfaced through defense affidavits. Jackson noted direct communication from a juror who was motivated to clarify misconceptions about the jury’s disagreements following media coverage. Yannetti referenced information from intermediaries acquainted with two other jurors.

In contrast, the fate of the investigation’s lead officer, Massachusetts State Police Trooper Michael Proctor, was also under scrutiny Monday. A departmental hearing focused on his future conduct and role, indicating the broader logistical and personnel ramifications extending from the high-profile case.

Amid these developments, there looms a substantial backdrop of earlier legal proceedings in which attempts by Read’s defense to dismiss the case were unsuccessful. The escalation to a mistrial and subsequent juror revelations, however, underscore a potential shift in the ongoing narrative and legal strategies moving forward.

As the community and legal observers await the next steps in this unfolding story, the complexities of the case continue to raise discussions about the intersection of law enforcement, legal accountability, and media influence in high-profile legal proceedings. The outcome of the upcoming hearing and the prosecution’s forthcoming response will likely be pivotal in determining the trajectory of this case, which remains under intense scrutiny.