Karen Read Appeals Double Jeopardy Ruling to US Supreme Court

As jury selection kicks off for her second murder trial in the death of Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe, Karen Read's legal team has taken their fight to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that her retrial violates the Fifth Amendment's protection against double jeopardy.

Read's first trial ended in a mistrial last year. Her attorneys maintain that the jury had unanimously decided she was not guilty on two of the three charges, including the most severe charge of second-degree murder. However, this decision was never formally announced in court, and Read is now being retried on all charges—the very situation her lawyers claim amounts to double jeopardy.

According to a 149-page appeal filed with the Supreme Court, her legal team is asking the justices to consider whether these unique circumstances constitute unconstitutional double jeopardy. The defense argues that while retrials are generally allowed after a mistrial, this case is different because jurors had already reached decisions on specific charges, even if those verdicts were not publicly recorded.

During the deliberations in June 2024, jurors repeatedly reported being deadlocked, prompting Judge Beverly Cannone to instruct them to keep trying. By July 1, with no resolution in sight, the judge declared a mistrial without polling the jury or allowing the attorneys to voice their concerns. What followed was a series of revelations from individual jurors, who contacted Read's defense team to share that they had unanimously acquitted her of the most serious charges.

Text messages and voicemails from several jurors suggest they believed Read was not guilty of second-degree murder or leaving the scene of an accident. One juror, identified as Juror B, even texted that "no one thought she hit [O'Keefe] on purpose or even knew that she had hit him." Another juror reportedly left a voicemail for prosecutors stating that the murder charge was "off the table." These claims have become the backbone of Read's appeal to the Supreme Court.

Read's legal troubles stem from an incident in which she allegedly struck O'Keefe with her car outside a party, leaving him to die in a snowstorm. Initially charged with drunken driving, manslaughter, and leaving the scene, prosecutors later added a second-degree murder charge. Read has denied all allegations, claiming she is being framed by others involved in the tragic event.

If her appeal succeeds, Read would face only the manslaughter charge in her retrial. However, appellate courts in Massachusetts have already denied her requests, stating that no verdict was formally recorded in her first trial, meaning she was not formally acquitted of any charges. Now, Read's lawyers hope the nation's highest court will intervene and ensure a post-trial hearing on the matter.

As the second trial begins, the stakes couldn't be higher for Read. A conviction on the second-degree murder charge could result in a life sentence. Meanwhile, her defense continues to argue that she is a scapegoat for the alleged true perpetrators of O'Keefe's death. The legal drama surrounding this case is only intensifying, with the Supreme Court appeal adding yet another layer of intrigue.