In a surprising ruling, the highest court in the state has decided that Karen Read can face a retrial on the same charges related to the death of her Boston police officer boyfriend. This development adds another layer of complexity to a case that has captured the attention of true crime enthusiasts across the country.
Prosecutors have pushed for a retrial this year on charges of second-degree murder, manslaughter, and leaving the scene of a crime. They allege that Read intentionally struck John O’Keefe with her SUV and abandoned him to perish in a snowstorm in January 2022. On the other hand, Read’s defense team contends that she was set up to shield other law enforcement officers linked to O’Keefe’s demise.
A mistrial was declared in June by a judge who found that the jurors were unable to reach a consensus without officially polling them to confirm their positions. According to Read’s attorney, Martin Weinberg, five jurors later revealed that they were deadlocked only on the manslaughter charge, and had unanimously agreed in the jury room that she was not guilty of second-degree murder and leaving the scene. However, this information was not conveyed to the judge at the time.
The ruling from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court paves the way for a fresh trial encompassing all three charges. The judges emphasized that the post-trial revelations from some jurors could not alter the trial’s outcome retroactively. They also upheld Judge Beverly Cannone’s decision to declare a mistrial, indicating that the jury’s notes and conduct pointed towards an impasse.
Weinberg stated that they are exploring their legal options, including the possibility of seeking federal habeas relief based on alleged violations of Read’s constitutional rights. Meanwhile, the Norfolk District Attorney’s Office declined to comment on the ruling.
In an interview with Boston 25 News, Read expressed readiness for a second trial and confidence in her defense team, stating, “I don’t care who I face. I have the truth. I have the best attorneys. Do your worst.” While she acknowledged the possibility of imprisonment, she noted that it no longer instills the fear it did three years ago.
Weinberg had advocated for an evidentiary hearing to ascertain the jurors’ final verdicts on the charges. Prosecutors argued against dismissing the charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene, maintaining that Read’s legal counsel had opportunities to address the prospect of a mistrial during the trial proceedings.
The judges raised doubts about the necessity of an inquiry, highlighting that such proceedings typically address external influences in the jury room. Justice Frank Gaziano observed that inquiries of this nature usually focus on factors like prejudice among jurors. Chief Justice Kimberly’s opinion on this matter remains undisclosed.
Budd pondered the potential ramifications of permitting an inquiry, positing that it could pave the way for other defendants to contend that a juror approached them to assert, “that’s not really what happened.” In August, Cannone ruled that Read could face a retrial on all three charges. “Given that no verdict was officially announced in open court, retrying the defendant does not contravene the tenet of double jeopardy,” stated Cannone. Prosecutors alleged that Read, a former adjunct professor at Bentley College, and O’Keefe, a veteran of the Boston police force for 16 years, had imbibed heavily before she left him at a party hosted by Brian Albert, a fellow Boston officer. According to them, she struck him with her SUV before departing the scene. An autopsy revealed that O’Keefe succumbed to hypothermia and blunt force trauma. The defense sought to portray Read as the victim, contending that O’Keefe met his demise inside Albert’s residence and was subsequently moved outside. They argued that the focus on Read was due to her being a “convenient outsider,” which conveniently absolved the investigators from considering law enforcement officials as potential suspects.
