More than 3,000 readers voted. Here’s why they’re not surprised about the Karen Read mistrial

“With everything that was discovered, I'm not sure how any jury could rule either way,” one reader said.

After days of deliberations, Judge Beverly Cannone declared a mistrial in the high-profile

murder trial on Monday. The decision sent shockwaves throughout the state after intense coverage of the trial gripped followers of the case across social media and national news outlets.

The decision came after the jury was tasked with determining whether Read, 44, intentionally backed her car into her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe, leaving him to die in Canton two years ago. Lawyers for the Read had alleged she was framed in a coverup by law enforcement.

A unanimous jury is needed for any criminal conviction or acquittal, but the jurors ultimately failed to come to a consensus.

“Despite our rigorous efforts, we continue to find ourselves at an impasse. Our perspectives on the evidence are starkly divided,” the jury foreperson wrote in a note to Cannone around 2:30 p.m. Monday.

While some jurors believed prosecutors met their burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, others felt the evidence fell short, according to the note.

“The deep division is not due to a lack of effort or diligence, but rather a sincere adherence to our individual principles and moral convictions,” the foreperson wrote. “To continue to deliberate would be futile and only serve to force us to compromise these deeply held beliefs.”

The Norfolk County District Attorney’s Office said it intends to retry the case against Read and Cannone set a status hearing for 2 p.m. on July 22 to determine next steps.

We asked readers if they were surprised the jurors in the Karen Read trial couldn’t come to a unanimous decision. More than 3,000 Boston.com readers responded to the poll by Tuesday morning, with the majority (61%) saying they were not surprised jurors couldn’t reach a verdict. Thirty-nine percent said they were surprised.

Are you surprised the jurors couldn't reach a unanimous decision?

Yes, I'm surprised.

39%

1189

No, not surprised.

61%

1844

Prosecution "intends to re-try the case." Do you agree with the immediate decision?

Yes.

17%

515

No.

83%

2472

Readers, like the jurors, were also divided over whether prosecutors met their burden of proof.

Many who voted that they were not surprised the case was ruled a mistrial said the evidence presented in the case was simply too confusing for jurors to interpret and come to a unanimous decision. In addition, many called the investigation by the Massachusetts State Police “compromised” and “corrupt.”

“The evidence presented left more questions than answers,” reader D.J. from Dorchester said.

On the other hand, many readers who voted “yes, they were surprised” that the case resulted in a mistrial said they believed prosecutors failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Read killed O’Keefe. Therefore, many argued that jurors should have been able to come to a decision to acquit Read unanimously.

“I was surprised the jury was unable to reach a unanimous decision to acquit the defendant. In my mind there was enough reasonable doubt about what really happened that night,” reader Mark from Canton said.

Below, see what readers had to say about the mistrial and what should come next for the case.

Responses have been lightly edited for grammar and clarity.

were not surprised jurors couldn’t reach a decision

‘The state failed to meet their burden of proof’

Many readers who voted that they were not surprised by the mistrial declaration said they believe the state didn’t meet it’s required burden of proof in the case. The burden of proof is the obligation to prove a case using relevant evidence. It is a legal rule that helps judges and juries weigh the evidence of a particular case to determine the outcome of a trial.

In the Read case, prosecutors faced a heavy burden of proof as they pursued a second-degree murder conviction against Read. In Massachusetts, prosecutors trying a second-degree murder case must prove not only that a defendant caused the victim’s death, but that the defendant either intended to kill the victim, intended to cause the victim grievous bodily harm, or intended to commit an act that “a reasonable person would have known created a plain and strong likelihood that death would result,” per instructions listed on the court system’s website.

Readers argue that the state failed to meet their burden of proof, which in turn did not help the jury weigh the evidence of the case and come to a verdict.

“I believe any legitimate jury will also be split. Based on what I saw, there was just enough ‘reasonable doubt’ but not enough ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ to either convict or acquit.”

– Paul G., Westminster

“The state failed to meet their burden of proof – plain and simple. I would be shocked if on retrial there is again a mistrial. All it takes is one who believes the state has met its burden or one who believes they have not, and with gaps such as shown in the evidence there is no reason to believe the same outcome won’t occur at retrial. It’s a waste of taxpayer dollars and a shame for the O’Keefe family, but if she is guilty the investigation didn’t yield evidence that shows that beyond reasonable doubt.”

– Jen L., Longmeadow

“How could the jury possibly reach a verdict? I am surprised that there were some jurors who felt the Commonwealth met their burden of proof, but I do not see any chance that jurors could reach any type of consensus. It is sad and the people who lose are the O’Keefe family, Karen Read (presuming she is innocent), and the taxpayers as re-trying this cost will be extremely expensive.”

– Bridey, Boston

“It seemed to me that the evidence was insufficient to find her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Given this, I think she should have been found not guilty, but I’m not surprised to hear the jury’s statement given how the larger public feels about this case.”

– Cristina, Framingham

‘A lot of circumstantial evidence’

Read was accused of dropping O’Keefe off at another officer’s house party after a night of drinking, and then ramming him with her SUV and leaving him to die in a snowstorm. But her defense team argues she was framed, and that the evidence shows O’Keefe was beaten up by someone else inside the house, bitten by a dog and left outside.

Jurors were asked to consider whether the evidence — pieces of a broken tail light, a single human hair, lacerations on O’Keefe’s arm, a misspelled Google search, and others — point to Read’s guilt, or a cover-up by law enforcement officers to plant evidence and protect their own.

“This whole thing has been a circus. With everything that was discovered, I’m not sure how any jury could rule either way. A lot of circumstantial evidence and some definite misconduct within the State Police ranks. It’s really sad that, bottom line, a man lost his life and the person(s) who committed the crime may never be brought to justice.”

– Marilyn A., Whitman

“It’s obvious that if she was guilty, the shoddy investigation muddied the ability to issue a guilty verdict without doubt. That’s not going to change with a new trial.”

– Laurie, Lynnfield

“The evidence presented is not beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no doubt that the entire law enforcement apparatus in Massachusetts is in severe need of an overhaul that will never come.”

– Paul, Vermont

‘Too many conflicts of interest in this case’

The Massachusetts State Police case has come under fire for its investigation of the Read case, led by Massachusetts State Police Trooper Michael Proctor.

Proctor admitted he “dehumanized” Read in texts he sent to friends, family, and colleagues about the ongoing investigation into her boyfriend’s death. On the stand, Proctor confirmed he called the Read a “wack job c**t” and “retarded,” and made comments about her Crohn’s disease.

Proctor has been removed from his position and will no longer work cases, officials announced just hours after the murder case ended in a mistrial.

In a press release sent to Boston.com, the law enforcement watchdog Massachusetts Association for Professional Law Enforcement renewed its call for a “stem-to-stern” review of the MSP after the Read case ended in a mistrial.

“A principal concern raised by this criminal trial is the level of competence, integrity and professionalism of the Massachusetts State Police officers involved in the investigation of the death of Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe. The performance of some of the Troopers assigned to this investigation, taken with other recent instances of misconduct by the department as a whole, have created doubt and skepticism in the minds of many citizens of the Commonwealth as to the capability of this agency to discharge its vital functions,” the watchdog wrote. “It is imperative for the safety and security of this Commonwealth that this be addressed as soon as possible,” the group added.

“This case felt overcharged from the beginning and the very troubling facts regarding the police investigation made it feel inevitable that Ms. Read would either be acquitted or the case would result in a mistrial.”

– Scott, Brookline

“There’s just so much reasonable doubt. She could be guilty but the investigating team botched the investigation from the jump by who they chose to lead the investigation.”

– Brian D., Pelham, New Hampshire

“The texts of the Trooper were damning. In no way was he conducting an unbiased investigation. That evidence is not going away.”

– TJ S., Arlington

“There is plenty about this case that is rotten to the core, not the least of which is the investigation itself. No other potential causes or suspects were even considered and the behavior of the primary investigator was prejudicial and frankly, unacceptable and an embarrassment to law enforcement officers everywhere. All this served to create reasonable doubt. That won’t change at a retrial. The prosecution would do well to walk away before taking the risk of making it worse.”

– T.M., Wayland

“The evidence was mishandled. The investigation and the investigators involved were biased and did not conduct themselves professionally and failed to handle their responsibilities appropriately and botched the investigation entirely.”

– Jenna C., Marana, Arizona

“There were way too many conflicts of interest in this case from the start. Most of this case brought by the prosecution feels entirely circumstantial and the stories of those close to the victim continued to change. All in all there never seemed to be anywhere near enough proof against Read and if a jury had somehow convicted her it felt like it would be entirely against the creed of innocence until proven guilty.”

– Joshua D., Everett

were surprised jurors couldn’t reach a decision

‘Reasonable doubt permeated every aspect of this case’

In a criminal case, the prosecution has the burden of proving that the defendant is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. This means that the prosecution must convince the jury that there is no other reasonable explanation that can come from the evidence presented at trial, according to Cornell Law School.

In Massachusetts, judges provide clear jury instructions on reasonable doubt to help jurors evaluate evidence accurately. These instructions guide jurors to reach verdicts based solely on strong evidence and not assumptions or uncertainties.

A charge is proved beyond a reasonable doubt if, after jurors have compared and considered all of the evidence, they have in their minds an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, that the charge is true, according to criminal model jury instructions.

Many readers said the evidence presented by the Commonwealth failed to prove that Read was guilty of killing O’Keefe, beyond any reasonable doubt. Therefore, many readers were surprised jurors could not come to a unanimous “not guilty” decision.

“I’m extremely surprised the jury couldn’t definitively agree on a ‘not guilty verdict’. The Mass State Police completely botched the investigation of the case which is enough reasonable doubt to find Karen Read not guilty. The Commonwealth did a horrible job trying to prove Karen hit and killed John O’Keefe. With such a large following around this case, the state of MA, as well as the Mass. State Police should be completely and utterly embarrassed about their investigation and inept ability to make a solid case. What a disgrace.”

– Courtney, Boston

“The evidence presented by the defense was unimpeachable and they proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. O’Keefe was not struck by the vehicle. Quite simply the physical evidence of his injuries or lack thereof were not consistent with someone being struck by a vehicle. Conversely, the prosecution failed to prove their case by bringing in questionable witnesses and unqualified experts.”

– William S., Whitman

“After watching the trial in its entirety, I am incredulous that the jury did not reach a unanimous verdict of not guilty within the first few hours of deliberation. Reasonable doubt permeated every aspect of this case. I am at a loss as to how any reasonable person believes the Commonwealth proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, to a moral certainty. In my opinion, the testimony from the unbiased (not paid for by the defense or prosecution) forensic accident reconstructionists alone should have offered enough factual evidence to sway any jurors to a not guilty determination.”

– Eileen B., North Attleboro

“The prosecution failed to prove that Karen Read was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and in my opinion, a jury should have been able to come to that conclusion.”

– Jeff, Natick

“I am surprised by the outcome because I cannot fathom how anyone believes the Commonwealth proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The role of the jury is ultimately to stand between the state and the defendant, as a check on the state’s power. The bias, sloppiness, disorganization, indifference to the evidence, and lack of integrity displayed by law enforcement in this case was an abuse of power. The jury should have repudiated that abuse; there should have been consequences for the way the police and district attorney acted in this case, but unfortunately there were none.”

– Sarah, Revere

Prosecution ‘intends to re-try the case.’ Do you agree with the immediate decision?

No

“The evidence won’t change against Read and a different jury won’t find her guilty. It’s a complete waste of taxpayer money and court resources to retry her. Focus instead on looking into the possible corruption.”

– Migs, Walpole

“Evidence presented by the prosecution never met the burden of leaving ‘no doubt.’ Unless more information/evidence is uncovered, I believe re-trying this case to be an abusive waste of taxpayer dollars.”

– Nick S., Jamaica Plain

“I wasn’t privy to all the evidence the jury heard in court, but, from reporting on the defense’s experts, there appeared to be a serious question of whether the physical evidence was consistent with the prosecution’s account of what happened. If this is true, then there’s reasonable doubt and the case should not be retried.”

– Matt J., Melrose

“Without additional evidence to support the state’s charges I see no reason why another jury would not end up with the same result.”

– Ronald D., Stoughton

Yes

“I was at first stunned and had expected a ‘not guilty,’ mainly because of the botched job of the police investigation. But neither argument presented by the defense or prosecution seemed to add up. A retrial is justified and should be paid in full by the state of MA! The Commonwealth royally flubbed this from start to finish and owes the O’Keefe family closure and justice.”

– Erin, Nashua, New Hampshire

“I think a subsequent trial would be more successful if the prosecution pares the case down and presents the non suspect police work and forensics earlier in the case.”

– E.R., South Massachusetts

“This case was the perfect storm of unusual circumstances resulting in O’Keefe’s death; unusual defendant (an attractive, well-dressed white woman); allegations of police misconduct amid widespread distrust of police; an outrageous witness who drew attention away from the many other witnesses; conflicting expert testimony; conspiracy theories; and a massive social media campaign. Forgotten in all of this were the victims, O’Keefe and, I would argue the children he was caring for, who were used as pawns and then left alone after their parents had died. For the victims’ sake I think the case should be retried, possibly with different charges.”

– Jennifer D., Peabody

“The prosecution needs to organize their case better for the second trial. Be more concise! Change up the prosecution team a bit too. You need a new sharp mind and a new set of fresh eyes, and a specific argument. Confusing a jury panel is not the way to win it over!”

– Tony D., Medford

Boston.com occasionally interacts with readers by conducting informal polls and surveys. These results should be read as an unscientific gauge of readers’ opinion.