BOSTON — The state’s top court ruled Tuesday that Karen Read can be retried on all the same charges in the death of her Boston police officer boyfriend, the latest twist in the long-running case that transfixed true crime fans nationwide.
Prosecutors have sought to retry Read this year on charges of second-degree murder, manslaughter and leaving the scene of a crime. They accused her of ramming into John O’Keefe with her SUV and leaving him to die in a snowstorm in January 2022. Read’s attorneys argue she was framed to protect other law enforcement officers involved in O’Keefe’s death.
A judge declared a mistrial in June after finding jurors couldn’t reach an agreement, without polling the jurors to confirm their conclusions. Read’s attorney Martin Weinberg argued that five jurors later said they were deadlocked only on the manslaughter count, and had unanimously agreed in the jury room that she wasn’t guilty on the charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene. But they hadn’t told the judge.
The ruling from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court clears the way for a new trial on all three charges.
“The jury clearly stated during deliberations that they had not reached a unanimous verdict on any of the charges and could not do so. Only after being discharged did some individual jurors communicate a different supposed outcome, contradicting their prior notes,” the judges wrote. “Such posttrial disclosures cannot retroactively alter the trial’s outcome — either to acquit or to convict.”
The judges also found “no abuse of discretion” in Judge Beverly Cannone’s decision to declare a mistrial.
“After extensive, multiday deliberations, the jury submitted several increasingly emphatic notes about their inability to reach a unanimous verdict,” they wrote, adding that the record before the judge “suggested complete deadlock.”
Read’s lawyer said they’re considering their legal options.
“While we have great respect for the Commonwealth’s highest court, Double Jeopardy is a federal constitutional right,” Weinberg said in a statement. “We are strongly considering whether to seek federal habeas relief from what we continue to contend are violations of Ms. Read’s federally guaranteed constitutional rights.”
Weinberg had urged the court to allow an a evidentiary hearing where jurors could be asked whether they had reached final not guilty verdicts on any of the charges.
Prosecutors maintained there’s no basis for dismissing the charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene. They argued that her lawyers should have sensed a mistrial was “inevitable or unavoidable” and that they had every opportunity to be heard in the trial courtroom.
The judges questioned Weinberg over the the merits for holding an inquiry. Associate Justice Frank Gaziano noted that such inquiries are usually reserved for “extraneous information” such as “racisms in the jury room.” Chief Justice Kimberly Budd wondered about the limits of allowing an inquiry, which she suggested could open the door for other defendants to argue a juror came to them to say “that’s not really what happened.”
Cannone ruled in August that Read could be retried on all three charges.
“Where there was no verdict announced in open court here, retrial of the defendant does not violate the principle of double jeopardy,” Cannone said.
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.