Karen Read's defense presents arguments to get SJC to drop murder charges

Karen Read's lawyers said the judge made critical errors in her finding that the murder trial had failed and in her handling of the jury's post-trial statements that they were prepared to acquit Read on two of the charges against her.

“On the very day after the court declared the trial void, Ms. Read's counsel received unsolicited messages from five of the twelve deliberating jurors … indicating unequivocally and unconditionally that the jury, by a vote of 12-0, firmly and unwaveringly held that Ms. Read was not guilty of two of the three charges against her, including the charge of second-degree murder,” attorney Martin Weinberg wrote in a 55-page brief to the Massachusetts Supreme Court asking that those two charges be dropped in Read's next trial.

Weinberg had made the same argument to Norfolk Superior Court Judge Beverly Cannone, who heard Read's trial earlier this year, relying on affidavits from Read's trial lawyers detailing the jurors' testimony. Cannone was unconvinced and a month ago denied a motion to drop the second-degree murder and hit-and-run charges in Read's new trial, which is scheduled for January.

“The Court concludes that the defendant was not acquitted of all charges and that defense counsel agreed with the Court's finding that the trial was unsuccessful. Therefore, there is no case of double jeopardy in retrial of the defendant,” Cannone wrote at the time, adding that the arguments were “without merit,” echoing the response of prosecutor Adam Lally.

Read, 44, of Mansfield, faces those charges as well as manslaughter in connection with the Jan. 29, 2022, death of her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O'Keefe. Prosecutors say the financial analyst and Bentley University lecturer, drunk and angry over her relationship breakdown, drove her SUV into O'Keefe at high speed, causing him to freeze to death in a Canton front yard.

Weinberg filed an appeal with the Supreme Court earlier this month to overturn Cannone's ruling.

In the brief filed Tuesday, he argued that not only did defense attorneys not agree to a mistrial, but Cannone also failed to give them an opportunity to consult with Read or argue against the declaration. He further argues that Cannone misinterpreted case law when he denied his request to re-survey the original jury and question them about their verdicts on each count.

“The appropriate inquiry could be made by asking the jury a single yes or no question: Did you unanimously acquit Karen Read of counts 1 and 3?” Weinberg wrote in his brief.

“Of course, the results of a jury's deliberations are not secret. In fact, they are regularly announced in open court. Here, the defense learned after the trial that the jury had reached a verdict that was not announced. They were entitled to at least the opportunity to establish that fact to ensure that Ms. Read was not unconstitutionally compelled to stand trial for crimes of which she had already been acquitted,” he continued.