Karen Read’s case is headed for “relatively unprecedented” territory after her lawyers claimed the jurors agreed to acquit her of murdering her cop-boyfriend before a mistrial was declared, according to legal experts.
A Massachusetts judge is set to rule on the issue Monday.
“What makes this unprecedented is the jury’s gone. The jury has been discharged,” lawyer Mike Thaler told The Post. “They never had a verdict, and the lawyers are essentially asking to rule that there should have been a verdict on those charges.”
Thaler’s firm is just blocks away from the Dedham courthouse where the blockbuster murder trial played out before ending in a mistrial July 1 — after the jury foreman told the judge that the panel was unable to reach a unanimous decision following days of deliberation.
Soon after, Read’s defense filed a motion alleging it had been contacted by three jurors claiming all 12 people on the panel had in fact reached a unanimous decision that Read, a 44-year-old financial analyst, was not guilty of second-degree murder and leaving the scene of a fatal crash, and were only at an impasse over her manslaughter charge.
A total of five jurors have since reached out with the same claims, according to Read’s lawyers, who are asking that the supposed not-guilty verdict on the two charges be honored and Reed acquitted of them.
Instead, with no official verdict on any of the charges and a hung jury, Read can be tried again on them all — and prosecutors have vowed to do just that.
“There is no verdict, and [Read’s lawyers are] essentially asking the judge to honor that there really was one on two of the three charges,” Thaler said, “But a verdict only happens in the courtroom, and there is no longer a case that is pending on trial.”
Thaler called the situation “bizarre” — especially given that the jury made no indication it had reached a partial verdict in the notes they gave the judge after their deliberation sessions during the trial
“Every note had suggested they were deadlocked,” Thaler said.
Read’s lawyers’ claimed the jurors were unaware whether partial verdicts were allowed and that they did not expect a mistrial to be declared so suddenly after their last note to Judge Beverly Cannone.
“It’s an extremely extraordinary circumstance where these people have come forward, and the defense has an obligation to raise this and to seek to have a remedy in their client’s favor,” Thaler said, adding that he couldn’t immediately recall a similar case where a verdict might be retroactively handed down.
Massachusetts criminal lawyer Michael DelSignore said he thinks that if the defense’s claims can be corroborated, then Judge Cannone should allow the dismissal of charges — especially given the claims of police conspiracy against Read, which dominated the court proceeding.
“There’s a lot of feelings from the community that there’s been a cover-up,” DelSignore told The Post.
“I think [the judge] should try to show that she’s above that, that if there actually was a ‘not guilty,’ [Read] should have been found not guilty,” he said.
Read was accused of running over her boyfriend, John O’Keefe, during a drunken jealous argument on a cold night in January 2022, then leaving him to die in a snowbank.
Her lawyers argued Read was the victim of a frame job and that O’Keefe’s cop-buddies had actually beaten him to death during a boozed-up fight that night and dumped him in the snow to pin it on her.
The sensational claims sparked a public frenzy around the case and were fueled by the questionable behavior of investigators and cops close to it.
DelSignore said the alleged cop antics have already jeopardized the strength of the prosecutors’ case, should they follow through on promises to retry the case.
“The government’s case is getting a lot more difficult. I think they need a way out of this,” DelSignore said, suggesting prosecutors may go along with the dismissal of the murder charge and seek only to retry Read on manslaughter.
“I think it would be a good use of their authority and power and considering the interest of justice, to just say ‘We agree that this, the jury was confused on this,’ ” the lawyer said.
