The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has denied a defense motion to dismiss two charges against Karen Read in the death of her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe. The defense argued that jurors in the first trial indicated they were not guilty of second-degree murder and leaving the scene of a crash resulting in death, but the court ruled that post-trial juror accounts do not constitute an acquittal.
Karen Read is accused of killing her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe, with her SUV during a snowstorm in Canton in January 2022. The defense claims that several jurors revealed to them that the jury was in agreement that she was not guilty on the charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene of a crash resulting in death; they wanted those charges dismissed. Both sides appeared before the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in November to make their arguments.
Massachusetts' highest court has denied an effort by the defense to have two of the charges dropped in the controversial case. Read is accused of ramming into her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe, with her SUV and leaving him to die in a snowstorm in January 2022. Read’s attorneys argue she is being framed and that other law enforcement officers are responsible for O’Keefe’s death. A judge declared a mistrial in June after finding jurors couldn’t reach an agreement. A retrial on the same charges is set to begin in April. Prosecutors said Read, a former adjunct professor at Bentley College, and O’Keefe, a 16-year member of the Boston police, had been drinking heavily before she dropped him off at a party at the home of Brian Albert, a fellow Boston officer. They said she hit him with her SUV before driving away. An autopsy found O’Keefe had died of hypothermia and blunt force trauma. The defense portrayed Read as the victim, saying O’Keefe was actually killed inside Albert’s home and then dragged outside. They argued that investigators focused on Read because she was a “convenient outsider” who saved them from having to consider law enforcement officers as suspects. Karen Read was in Massachusetts' highest court Wednesday where her lawyers argued why two of the charges against her should be dropped or at least reexamined following outreach from jurors saying Read would have been acquitted. We asked legal expert Michael Coyne how the court might rule, and talked to Read's father outside of court. The defense claims several jurors in the first trial revealed to them that the jury was in agreement that she was not guilty on the charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene of a crash resulting in death. They want those charges dismissed, saying that trying her again on those charges would amount to double jeopardy. “Today’s appeal goes to the core issues regarding double jeopardy protection that safeguard defendants, in this case Ms. Read, from the risk of reprosecution for the very same offenses for which a prior jury was discharged,” Read’s attorney, Martin Weinberg, told judges at the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in November. Weinberg went onto to say four jurors and fifth indirectly came forward after her mistrial to say that they were deadlocked only on a manslaughter count and had agreed that she wasn’t guilty on the other charges of charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene. But they hadn’t told the judge. As a result of the the revelations about the jurors, Weinberg argued for the court to allow holding of an a evidentiary hearing where jurors could be asked whether they had reached final not guilty verdicts on any charges. The judges questioned Weinberg at the November hearing over the the merits for holding inquiry. Legal analyst Michael Coyne said he was not surprised by the ruling, which is consistent with centuries of Massachusetts law. “The court has a delicate balance and the Supreme Court made clear here that you don’t want to coerce jurors who have a good faith belief in a decision one way or another to change that deeply held belief because they feel intimidated or coerced by the judge,' Coyne said.'They always have an avenue to make some type of argument that the double jeopardy clause is impacted so they can go to federal court but their efforts would be better spent actually getting ready for a trial in April,' he said
Karen Read John O'keefe Massachusetts Supreme Court Mistrial Double Jeopardy Legal Case
United Kingdom Latest News, United Kingdom Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Massachusetts Implements Emergency Regulations for MBTA Communities Act After Court RulingA setback for Massachusetts' MBTA Communities Act, which seeks to increase housing production, is addressed with emergency regulations. The state's highest court deemed previous guidelines unconstitutional, prompting the Healey administration to act. The new regulations provide a 90-day window for compliance and emphasize collaboration with communities.
Read more »
WATCH LIVE: Karen Read case returns to court for motions hearingKaren Read is scheduled to return to court Thursday for a motions hearing.
Read more »
Supreme Court rules for female Oklahoma death row inmate over sex-shaming claimThe Supreme Court on Tuesday issued a rare ruling in favor of a death row inmate, finding that an Oklahoma woman convicted of murdering her estranged husband…
Read more »
Supreme Court Won't Hear Appeal From Oil Companies in Climate Change LawsuitsThe Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal from oil and gas companies seeking to block lawsuits alleging they caused billions of dollars in damage related to climate change. This decision allows a lawsuit filed by the city of Honolulu against major oil companies to proceed.
Read more »
TikTok's Fate Hangs in the Balance as US Supreme Court Weighs BanThe US Supreme Court is deliberating on a law that could force TikTok's Chinese owner, ByteDance, to sell or shut down the popular video app by January 19. The ban centers around concerns that China might use TikTok to manipulate US users. This potential outcome has significant implications for TikTok's future and the broader social media landscape, with competitors poised to benefit from a decline in TikTok's influence.
Read more »
The Supreme Court, Porn Laws, and the Future of Online RegulationThis article discusses the upcoming Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of online porn laws, arguing that the outcome will have significant implications for the future of online regulation. The author compares the current situation to historical precedents, such as the rise of fascism in the 1930s, warning that the erosion of free speech and privacy rights could be a slippery slope.
Read more »