Another juror has come forward to report that the Karen Read jury was ready to acquit on two of the three charges against her, including second-degree murder, according to a new defense filing.
“Juror D said that it was very troubling that the entire case ended without the jury being asked about each count, especially Count 1 and Count 3,” the latest filing from defense attorney Alan Jackson states, adding that the juror told him that the jury was only split on Count 2.
“Juror D said that the jury actually discussed telling the judge that they had agreed unanimously on NOT GUILTY verdicts for Counts 1 and 3, but they were not sure if they were allowed to say so,” the motion adds.
This latest “Juror D” — which Jackson wrote he has identified but is not revealing — is the in which defense attorneys say three other jurors told them the same information. This was filed as a supplemental affidavit in support of a motion to dismiss.
“Given the central importance that acquittals have held in our criminal justice system for hundreds of years, the defense respectfully submits that the jury’s unanimous agreement precludes re-prosecution of Ms. Read on Counts 1 and 3 and mandates dismissal of those charges,” defense attorneys wrote in that Monday motion to dismiss.
The Norfolk District Attorney’s office, which prosecuted the case, told the Herald through a spokesman that “We do not have comment at this time.”
Read, 44, of Mansfield, 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 and leaving him to die in the cold during a major snowstorm.
She is charged with second-degree murder (Count 1), manslaughter while operating a motor vehicle under the influence (Count 2), and leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death (Count 3).
Jackson wrote in the latest filing that Juror D indicated he or she wanted to reach out because “he/she was ‘uncomfortable’ with how the trial ended,” describing the last day as a “whirlwind.”
“He/she recounted that his/her perspective was that the jury was brought into the courtroom, the note was read, the mistrial was declared, and the jury was then rushed out of the courtroom,” Jackson wrote. “Following a brief meeting with the judge, the next thing they all knew, the jury was on the bus. He/she described the end of the trial as very confusing.”
The juror said he or she would be willing to testify that “the jury unanimously reached NOT GUILTY verdicts on Count 1 and Count 3, as long as his/her identity remained protected.”
The jury
Social media has been awash in speculation as to the split between the jurors since the nine-week trial ended in a mistrial, with some armchair commentators claiming their numbers are correct based on inside knowledge.
But observers should take all such statements with a quite a few grains of salt. No straw poll was conducted of the jury during their deliberations and since they did not reach a verdict and that “the safety of jurors is crucial to the fair functioning of the judicial system.”
“This case has garnered significant and divisive attention in Massachusetts and across the nation. The trial was livestreamed on local and national broadcasting channels. The proceedings continue to be the daily subject of commentary on various social media platforms,” Cannone wrote in her Monday order impounding the juror list for 10 days. “People associated with the case have been charged with intimidation.”
While Cannone said that Massachusetts law requires that such a list be maintained by the court and available to the public if it reaches a verdict, that is not the case here.
“The jury in this case did not render a verdict, however, the Court concludes that there is a real and present ‘risk of [personal] harm to the jurors [and] to the integrity of their service,’” she wrote in the order, citing case law. “Consequently, the Court finds that good cause exists to impound the list identifying the names of empanelled jurors in the trial of this case.”
