Weeks after her murder trial ended in a mistrial, Karen Read will return to court on Monday for a status conference at 2 p.m., where a new trial date for Read could be set and attorneys are likely to argue the merits of a flurry of motions from defense attorneys to dismiss two of the three criminal charges against Read.
Read, 44, was charged with second-degree murder, manslaughter while operating a vehicle under the influence and leaving the scene of an accident causing injury or death in connection with the death of her Boston police officer boyfriend, John O’Keefe. O’Keefe was found dead and cold to the touch in the snow outside a Canton home on Jan. 29, 2022. Read’s attorneys argued she was the victim of a law enforcement cover-up and that others were responsible for her death.
In the moments after Judge Beverley Cannone declared a mistrial on July 1, Norfolk County prosecutors vowed to re-try Read. At Monday’s status conference, Cannone could set a date for a new trial of Read, David Traub, a spokesman for the district attorney’s office, told MassLive.
If a retrial is ordered, it must begin within a year of that date, Traub said, citing Rule 36D of the Rules of Criminal Procedure in Massachusetts. Traub also explained that in a new trial, there would be “no blanket exclusion of new or different evidence.”
Dan Conley, a former Suffolk district attorney who is now an attorney at Mintz, said he feels it would not be “unreasonable” for Norfolk District Attorney Michael Morrissey’s office to retry Read.
As for the exact timing of Read’s new trial, Conley said a number of factors would influence when it would begin, including whether Judge Beverly Cannone presses for a speedy retrial and if Read’s defense attorneys ask for an extension of time.
But in a case filled with twists and turns, the prospect of a retrial for Read was cast in doubt in a series of filings by her attorneys in the days following the mistrial. Read attorneys Alan Jackson and David Yanetti said in sworn affidavits and motions filed in Norfolk Superior Court that they had been contacted by jurors who reported the 12-person panel had found Read not guilty on the second-degree murder and leaving the scene charges.
Arguing that prosecuting Read on those charges a second time would constitute double jeopardy, Read’s attorneys have pushed for Cannone to drop both charges on account of the apparent agreement reached by jurors. A total of five jurors have reported the consensus to Read attorneys, according to their filings.
MassLive was unable to verify the attorneys’ claims that the jury unanimously agreed on any of the charges.
The jurors were confused by the judge’s instructions and they were not asked whether they reached an agreement on any of the three counts, according to affidavits submitted by the defense. Jackson and Yanetti have also argued Cannone erred by failing to give them a chance to argue the mistrial declaration before Cannone dismissed the jury.
Whether the jury reached a unanimous agreement on the two counts before Cannone declared a mistrial is being contested, setting up Monday’s status hearing to revolve around the constitutional issues raised by Read’s attorneys.
Norfolk prosecutors argued on July 12 that the defense’s arguments lacked “any merit of legal foundation.”
In their filing, prosecutors say a retrial would not constitute double jeopardy because the jurors “did not reach any verdicts, partial or otherwise.”
“The jury did not indicate agreement or acquittal on any of the charges,” they wrote.
The exact identities of the jurors in Read’s case are not known — and may not ever be, as Cannone impounded the jury list indefinitely last week, citing fears from one juror of their safety.
Monday’s status conference will be held at 2 p.m. in Norfolk Superior Court in Dedham.
