Judge Beverly Cannone rejects Karen Read's motion to dismiss two charges

DEDHAM – Karen Read's attempt to dismiss two of the charges against her was denied by Norfolk Superior Court Judge Beverly Cannone. Read's lawyers plan to appeal.

Who is Karen Read?

Read, who is accused of killing her boyfriend, a Boston police officer John O’Keefe In January 2022had asked the court to drop two of the three charges against her – second-degree murder and fleeing the scene. Read's trial ended with a Mistrial due to a jury failure on July 1 and a new trial is scheduled for January 27, 2025.

Charges against Karen Read

Read's lawyers, including a new lawyer on their team, Marty Weinberg, had in a Hearing on 9 August that they had heard of a Number of jurors in the previous trial, who informed them that the twelve-member jury had voted to acquit Read on two counts.

Based on this information, they argued, the judge should dismiss the charges or call in the 12 jurors for questioning.

Read's lawyers argued that the principle of double jeopardy must apply – the legal theory that one cannot be tried again for a crime of which one has been acquitted.

Legal experts had said the argument was a “hard fight“because it is highly unusual to recall jurors after they have been discharged from service.

Judgment on Karen Read

In a decision early Friday morning, Judge Cannone denied the motion to dismiss the case, meaning the two counts in Read's indictment will remain unless prosecutors decide to drop them.

In her ruling, Judge Cannone wrote, “Because the defendant was not acquitted of all charges and defense counsel agreed with the court's finding that the trial did not take place, there is no suspicion of double jeopardy in reopening the defendant's case,” and the motion was denied.

Cannone also referred to discussions in the courtroom during the jury deliberations. When the jury returned to the court several times with a note that they were at an impasse, Read's attorney David Yannetti argued that they were being given a Tuey-Rodriguez Statementand said the jury had exhausted its deliberations and that it was not a matter of “lack of understanding” but of opinion. A Tuey-Rodriguez instruction in Massachusetts is known as a “dynamite” instruction, which is the final step that encourages a jury that has been unable to agree to reach an agreement before a mistrial is declared.

Because attorney Yannetti twice argued for such an order, Cannone wrote, he agreed to a mistrial.

“A remarkable turnaround”

“Yet, in a remarkable about-face, defense counsel now argues that the outcome he twice requested was 'sudden' and 'unexpected,'” Cannone wrote.

“Although the court did not specifically ask defense counsel whether he objected to the finding of a mistrial, defense counsel had multiple opportunities to express objections if he did,” Cannone wrote.

Cannone also wrote that Read was not acquitted on two counts because, under state law, an acquittal must be made publicly and in court.

“Grab the mistrial”

WBZ legal expert Jennifer Roman said the defense was “disingenuous.” “They knew that by asking for this instruction, they were implicitly saying that we accept a mistrial,” Roman said.

“He followed the well-founded conventional wisdom that if you are the defense and you find yourself in a situation where the jury cannot agree, then you resort to a mistrial,” said Jack Lu, a retired Massachusetts Superior Court judge.

“Energetic appeal”

Legal experts say an appeal could take months and delay the next trial.

“We respectfully but strongly disagree with the cornerstones of today's decisions and intend to vigorously appeal to assert and uphold Ms. Read's rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause,” Weinberg said in an email to WBZ-TV on Friday.

“We believe the judge's decision is consistent with nearly 200 years of case law. We will hear this case on January 27,” David Traub, a spokesman for the Norfolk County District Attorney's Office, told WBZ.

John O'Keefe's brother Paul said on Friday that this was “just another failed attempt by the defense to mislead the court, the media and the public.”

Lu said this was the result he expected.

“Any other decision, in my opinion, would probably result in the verdict being overturned. The judge didn't even hold an evidentiary hearing because this point, I'm afraid, didn't warrant it,” Lu told WBZ. “I'm sorry to say this, but it's a very weak appeal.”