Karen Read case: ACLU backs appeal to investigate jurors’ acquittal claims

In their own response, prosecutors restated their claim that without a public verdict, Read was never acquitted on any charge.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts has sided with

in her bid to have two of her charges dropped, asserting the judge overseeing Read’s trial was “hasty” in declaring a mistrial and should have looked into reports that jurors agreed to acquit her on some counts.

Accused of killing her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe, Read has appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court to dismiss charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene of a fatal accident. The state’s highest court is set to hear arguments on the appeal Nov. 6.

Prosecutors allege Read, 44, drunkenly and deliberately struck O’Keefe with her SUV and left him to die outside a fellow Boston officer’s home in Canton on Jan. 29, 2022. Her lawyers, meanwhile, argue she was framed in a coverup and have suggested O’Keefe was actually beaten inside the home and attacked by the family’s dog.

More on Karen Read:

Read’s high-profile trial ended in a hung jury, and Judge Beverly Cannone declared a mistrial July 1. However, it wasn’t long before jurors began reaching out to lawyers on both sides to say they were actually only deadlocked on one of the three counts.

In an amicus brief filed Wednesday in Read’s SJC appeal, the ACLU characterized Cannone’s mistrial declaration as “hasty” and argued the lower court erred in denying a request from Read’s lawyers to conduct a post-trial hearing to see whether the jurors’ reports were true.

“The trial court had a clear path to avoid an erroneous mistrial: simply ask the jurors to confirm whether a verdict had been reached on any count,” the ACLU’s attorneys wrote.

Further, the ACLU argued, a post-trial hearing is necessary to safeguard Read’s double jeopardy rights.

“Given such overwhelming evidence of the jury’s agreement on Counts 1 and 3, a post-verdict evidentiary hearing must be ordered to determine whether the jury decided to acquit Appellant [Read] on any counts, such that the trial court did not have manifest necessity to declare a full mistrial,” the brief states.

But in their own response to Read’s appeal, prosecutors argued Cannone “soundly exercised her discretion” in declaring a mistrial, and that without a public verdict, Read was not acquitted on any charge.

“The jury repeatedly reported it was deadlocked and further stated that continuing to deliberate would be futile and only force the jurors to compromise their deeply held beliefs,” the Norfolk County District Attorney’s Office wrote in a brief Wednesday. “The jury gave no indication it had reached a unanimous verdict on any charge, and the defendant argued at the time against finding any such unanimity.”

Pointing to the public scrutiny and multiple witness intimidation charges linked to Read’s case, prosecutors also contended that if jurors were questioned about the trial outcome now, they “may feel pressured to provide responses that they believe will minimize their risk of being harmed or harassed.”

Prosecutors also suggested Read’s appeal could impact future juries.

“If jurors’ deliberations are allowed to become the subject of post-trial inquiry because of purported statements like those here, future jurors may be hesitant to express their views fully and honestly during deliberations,” they wrote. “It also may be more difficult to find jurors willing to serve, both in the retrial here and in other cases, when jurors know their service may not end when the trial ends but could instead subject them to further inconvenience, embarrassment, or harassment well into the future.”

If the case stays on schedule, Read’s retrial is due to begin Jan. 27.

Abby Patkin is a general assignment news reporter whose work touches on public transit, crime, health, and everything in between.