- Mistrial declared after jury deadlocked following 5 days of deliberations
- Four jurors claim unanimous vote to acquit on murder charge before mistrial
- Legal team argues double jeopardy bars retrial on two charges
- Case could set precedent for unannounced jury decisions in mistrials
The Karen Read murder retrial faces constitutional scrutiny as defense attorneys escalate their battle to the Supreme Court. At issue is whether Massachusetts prosecutors can retry Read on second-degree murder and accident charges after jurors allegedly reached—but never announced—a unanimous not-guilty verdict during her first trial. This legal maneuver centers on the Fifth Amendment’s double jeopardy protections, which prevent defendants from being tried twice for the same offense.
Read’s case gained national attention following the January 2022 death of Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe. Prosecutors contend Read struck O’Keefe with her SUV during a snowstorm, leaving him to die in freezing temperatures—a claim Read vehemently denies. The initial trial’s abrupt end after nearly a week of jury deliberations created immediate controversy. Judge Beverly Cannone declared a mistrial when jurors reported being severelydivided over personal convictions, despite acknowledging they’d thoroughly reviewed evidence.
Legal analysts note three critical developments reshaping this case:
- Post-trial juror affidavits claiming 12-0 acquittal votes on murder charge
- Massachusetts’ unique standard for considering unrecorded jury decisions
- Growing judicial debate about mistrial protocols in social media era
A regional precedent emerges from Massachusetts’ 2018 Commonwealth v. McCarthy case, where appeals courts barred retrials after confirmed jury deadlocks. However, Read’s situation differs because jurors allegedly reached consensus before the mistrial declaration—a nuance that could redefine when jeopardy attaches. Former state prosecutor Mara Dolan observes: This pushes constitutional boundaries. If jurors truly finalized acquittals pre-mistrial, retrying becomes constitutionally impermissible.
The Supreme Court’s response could impact 27% of federal mistrial cases where juries later claim resolved verdicts, according to National Center for State Courts data. For Read, the stakes include potential life imprisonment if convicted on the murder charge. Her legal team emphasizes that allowing a retrial would force her to defend against charges a jury already rejected—a scenario they argue violates core constitutional safeguards.
As jury selection progresses for the retrial, legal experts warn of cascading effects. A Supreme Court intervention might delay proceedings nationwide for 300+ defendants currently facing retrials after mistrials. Conversely, denying Read’s petition could empower prosecutors to retry cases whenever juries fail to deliver formal verdicts—a practice civil liberties groups call double jeopardy through procedural loopholes.
