Karen Read case shocker: Defense claims jury 12-0 to not convict for murder 2, split on vehicular manslaughter (2024)

BOSTON — In a stunning motion, Karen Read’s attorneys claim jurors have told them they agreed 12-0 that the Mansfield woman was not guilty of second-degree murder — it was “off the table” — but they were split on OUI vehicular manslaughter.

That information was leaked to the attorneys, they claim, “the very day after” Judge Beverly J. Cannone declared a mistrial. That was on July 1.

“Undersigned counsel began receiving unsolicited communications from three of the twelve deliberating jurors indicating in no uncertain terms that the jury had a firm 12-0 agreement that Ms. Read was not guilty of two of the three charges against her,” the defense motion filed today states.

That included murder in the second degree, the harshest charge, the lawyers stated as they filed a motion to dismiss.

“Given the central importance that acquittals have held in our criminal justice system for hundreds of years,” the motion adds, “the jury’s unanimous agreement precludes re-prosecution of Ms. Read on Counts 1 and 3 and mandates dismissal of those charges.”

The defense is also seeking a post-verdict review to determine why, if what they say is true, the jury could not settle on a lesser charge.

The Norfolk DA’s office said they are “examining the motion in anticipation of filing a response. We look forward to picking a new trial date on July 22.”

Read is accused of killing her boyfriend of two years, 16-year Boston Police officer John O’Keefe, by backing her Lexus SUV into him at a high speed, leaving him to die in the cold during a major snowstorm.

She is charged with second-degree murder, manslaughter while operating a motor vehicle under the influence and leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death.

The defense has alleged a massive frame-up job to ensnare Read — arguing that O’Keefe was beaten to death inside 34 Fairview Road before his body was dragged to the front yard on Jan. 29, 2022.

According to the documents filed today with the court, Read’s lawyers Alan Jackson and David Yannetti argue they were never consulted over the deadlock among jurors — specifically, whether it was “in relation to one, two or all of the charges in the indictment,” they write.

“Once the jury was seated, the Court then read the jury note verbatim in court and, without providing any opportunity for defense counsel to be heard, the Court declared a mistrial and excused the jury,” the attorneys’ motion reads.

“Defense counsel was denied the opportunity to request that the Court inquire on which count or counts the jury may have been deadlocked (including lesser included offenses), and on which count or counts the jury may have arrived at a verdict,” the lawyers wrote.

Attorney Jackson was contacted “the following day” on July 2 by a juror who wished “to inform (him) of the ‘true results' of the jury’s deliberations.”

That juror, who is not identified in the court papers but is referred to as Juror A, said the jury unanimously agreed Read was “NOT GUILTY” of second-degree murder and that it was “off the table.”

The same was true for leaving the scene of injury or death, records state.

Yannetti, the motion continues, was then contacted by “two different informants” who “received information from two distinct jurors” that the jury was “split in half” for the second count of manslaughter while operating a motor vehicle under the influence.

“No one thought she hit (O’Keefe) on purpose,” those informants said in texts, the motion states.

It’s also alleged that a juror spoke of the Read case on a “Zoom meeting” at work — but after the mistrial and the jury was dismissed. That juror stated the initial vote for OUI vehicular manslaughter was 6-6, then changed to 8-4 guilty for OUI vehicular manslaughter.

Read’s attorneys stated it would be “double jeopardy” to force Read to go through a trial again, especially after the defense did not have an opportunity to challenge the mistrial.

“Had the Court so inquired, it appears clear that NOT GUILTY verdicts would have been recorded for Count 1 and Count 3,” the attorneys wrote. “Ms. Read was denied her right to receive those verdicts in her favor.”

A new attorney for Read helped file the motion to dismiss — Martin Weinberg, who was added on Monday as “limited appearance counsel” for Read. Weinberg has been known for many federal cases over the years, including when he represented Richard Vitale, who was a close associate of former Massachusetts Speaker of the House Salvatore DiMasi.

_____

(Rick Sobey contributed to this report.)

_____

©2024 MediaNews Group, Inc. Visit at bostonherald.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

&nbsp