Karen Read's bid to toss murder charge is denied by Massachusetts federal judge: 'Any jury vote here was not final'

Rick Sobey, Boston Herald on Mar 13, 2025

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

BOSTON — Yet another judge has told Karen Read that she has to fight the murder charge in the Norfolk County courtroom.

A U.S. District Court judge on Thursday denied the murder defendant’s federal bid to toss the murder charge against her.

Read, 45, of Mansfield, is charged with second-degree murder, manslaughter while operating a motor vehicle under the influence, and leaving the scene of an accident causing death. She’s accused of killing Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe, her boyfriend of about two years at the time, in Canton on Jan. 29, 2022.

Last summer, Read’s first trial ended in a mistrial. Read’s attorneys have since argued that several jurors claimed they were only hung on the OUI manslaughter charge, and they were ready to acquit on the murder charge and the leaving the scene charge.

Read had recently filed a “writ of habeas corpus” in Massachusetts federal court after the state Supreme Judicial Court ruled that Read’s pending retrial on the charges did not violate her rights against double jeopardy.

“The issues presented by the petition are limited to those arising under the federal Constitution — specifically, whether a retrial would constitute double jeopardy in violation of petitioner’s rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments,” F. Dennis Saylor IV, chief judge of Massachusetts U.S. District Court, wrote in the ruling on Thursday.

“… The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED,” Saylor wrote.

In the federal filing, Read had asked the court to, “Issue a writ of habeas corpus and rule that Ms. Read’s re-prosecution on Counts 1 and 3 would violate her Double Jeopardy rights.”

“I am claiming that my April 2025 retrial violates my federal Double Jeopardy rights,” Read wrote in the federal petition.

Read had filed the petition against Norfolk County Superior Court and the Massachusetts Attorney General.

“Re-prosecution is barred because there was no manifest necessity to declare a mistrial on counts on which the jury was not deadlocked,” Read’s federal petition reads.

“The jury’s unanimous conclusion following trial that Ms. Read is not guilty on Counts 1 and 3 constitutes an acquittal and precludes re-prosecution,” the petition states.

Read has been arguing that Norfolk Superior Court Judge Beverly Cannone improperly declared a mistrial, and claims that she was “actually acquitted” on both counts.

Also, she was seeking an order for post-trial voir dire of the jurors to ask if they they did, in fact, vote to acquit her on both counts.

The federal judge, Saylor, in his ruling said there was a “manifest necessity” for the declaration of a mistrial based on jury deadlock.

“And the trial court did not abuse its broad discretion in reaching that conclusion,” Saylor added.

Once the jury reported a deadlock for the third time, Massachusetts law prohibited the judge from ordering the jury to continue deliberations without their consent, he wrote.

“This Court sees no basis to conclude that the trial judge’s decision to declare a mistrial was incorrect or improper,” the judge wrote.

Also, he ruled that the post-trial statements from jurors do not indicate whether they actually reflect a final, conclusive verdict of acquittal by all 12 jurors.

“Any jury vote here was not final,” Saylor added.

He also declined to order post-trial voir dire of the individual jurors.

“The Court concludes that a federal-court voir dire of the state-court jurors — a voir dire that would necessarily subject their private deliberations to intense public scrutiny — is probably unlawful and certainly ill-advised,” Saylor wrote.

“This is a highly sensationalized prosecution that has been the subject of exceptional public scrutiny, not only locally but nationally,” he added. “For a number of reasons, it has also proved to be unusually divisive. There is a strong likelihood that jurors would be subject to harassment, public pressure, and social coercion were the Court to order a post-trial voir dire that explores their viewpoints and votes at some length.”

Read can appeal the ruling.

The retrial is scheduled to start in Norfolk Superior Court on April 1.