Karen Read loses double jeopardy appeal in Boston cop slaying case, will receive new trial

The case of Karen Read, a 45-year-old Massachusetts woman accused of killing her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe, has taken a significant turn after her appeal to the Massachusetts Supreme Court was denied. Read had sought to dismiss the charges against her on the grounds of double jeopardy following a chaotic murder trial that ended in a hung jury. However, the state’s highest court rejected her argument, ruling that the jurors had not reached a unanimous verdict on any of the charges, and that her case should proceed to a second trial as scheduled in April.

The tragic events unfolded during a January snowstorm in Canton, Massachusetts, just outside of Boston. Officer O’Keefe died from blunt force trauma to the head and hypothermia after being found unresponsive in the snow on the front lawn of a home belonging to another Boston Police Officer, Brian Albert. Prosecutors allege that Read, who had been in a relationship with O’Keefe, struck him with her SUV following a drunken argument and then fled the scene. Read, however, has maintained her innocence, claiming that she left the area before O’Keefe was injured and that his death was the result of an elaborate cover-up involving other members of law enforcement.

The first trial ended in a mistrial after jurors were unable to reach a consensus on Read’s guilt. The jurors were “deeply divided” on the charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene of a deadly accident. In a series of notes exchanged with the judge during deliberations, the jurors indicated that they could not agree on a verdict. Some jurors later suggested that they had leaned toward acquittal on certain charges, but these assertions came after the trial had already concluded. The court ruled that these post-trial statements could not retroactively alter the outcome of the case, as the jury had formally declared itself deadlocked during the trial.

In a 35-page decision, Justice Serge Georges Jr. of the Massachusetts Supreme Court emphasized that double jeopardy protections do not apply in this case because no verdict was ever reached. “Double jeopardy applies when you have a verdict,” explained Paul Mauro, a former NYPD inspector and attorney, in agreement with the court’s ruling. “It’s in the Constitution. Since the jury did not deliver a verdict, the case can move forward with a new trial.” The court also rejected Read’s request for a post-trial juror inquiry, stating that such disclosures from jurors after the fact could not change the trial’s outcome.

As Read prepares for her second trial, which is set to begin on April 1, the prosecution is gearing up with a new strategy. Special Assistant Prosecutor Hank Brennan, who once represented notorious mobster James “Whitey” Bulger, has taken on the case and is seeking to obtain unpublished records from Massachusetts journalists who have interviewed Read. Brennan’s involvement adds a high-profile dimension to the case, and his experience in handling complex and controversial cases may prove significant in the upcoming trial.

The case has also sparked intense public interest and debate, particularly within the law enforcement community. Read has claimed that O’Keefe’s death was orchestrated by other police officers with whom he had a confrontation after she dropped him off at Officer Brian Albert’s home. She has suggested that these individuals may have been involved in a cover-up to frame her for the crime. Her defense team has pointed to questionable actions by one of the key investigators, Massachusetts State Trooper Michael Proctor, whose text messages were revealed during the first trial. In these messages, Proctor referred to Read using derogatory language, expressed a wish for her to kill herself, and even joked about searching for nude selfies on her phone. These revelations were so damaging that jurors were seen shaking their heads in court as the messages were read aloud.

In addition to the criminal charges, Read is also facing a wrongful death lawsuit filed by O’Keefe’s family. The lawsuit accuses her of causing his death through her reckless and negligent actions. Read, however, continues to assert her innocence and has recently given interviews in which shemaintains that she was framed by the actual perpetrators, whom she believes are members of law enforcement. She claims that these individuals conspired against her as part of a broader effort to protect themselves and their colleagues from scrutiny.

The case raises significant legal and ethical questions, particularly regarding the conduct of law enforcement officials and the integrity of criminal investigations. While Read’s defense team has highlighted what they describe as bias and unprofessionalism on the part of Trooper Proctor, the prosecution has dismissed these claims as irrelevant to the core facts of the case. The court’s decision to allow the trial to proceed underscores the principle that the legal system must ensure a fair and impartial process, even in cases where jurors are unable to reach a verdict initially.

As the second trial approaches, the stakes are high for both sides. For Read, the outcome could mean the difference between freedom and a lengthy prison sentence. For the prosecution, securing a conviction would provide closure for O’Keefe’s family and uphold the integrity of the justice system. The case has also become a focal point for discussions about accountability within law enforcement and the challenges of ensuring justice in cases involving police officers. Regardless of the eventual outcome, the case of Karen Read and John O’Keefe serves as a stark reminder of the complexities and vulnerabilities inherent in the criminal justice system.

The public’s fascination with this case is not surprising, given its dramatic and tragic nature. The combination of Element of a snowstorm, the involvement of law enforcement, and the allegations of a potential cover-up have captured the attention of true crime enthusiasts and legal observers alike. As the case moves forward, it is likely to remain a subject of intense scrutiny, both in the courtroom and in the public eye. Ultimately, the second trial will provide an opportunity for the legal system to resolve the lingering questions surrounding John O’Keefe’s death and to deliver a measure of justice for all parties involved.