Photo: WBZ NewsRadio
DEDHAM, Mass. (WBZ NewsRadio) — Judge Beverly Cannone has denied Karen Read's request to dismiss two of the three charges against her.
Read's highly publicized case accuses her of killing her boyfriend John O'Keefe with her SUV after a night out in Canton in Jan. 2022.
Her first trial ended on July 1 when Judge Cannone declared a mistrial because of a hung jury. A retrial date is set for Jan. 27, 2025.
Read More: Early Voting For Mass. State Primary Election Begins Saturday
Following the mistrial, Read's defense team filed a motion to dismiss the charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene of personal injury and death.
Her new attorney, Martin Weinberg, argued in an Aug. 9 court hearing that several jurors had told them they had unanimously found Read not guilty of the two charges, and were only deadlocked on the third charge of manslaughter.
The defense further argued that a new trial with those two charges would violate double jeopardy and requested to dismiss the charges.
In a 21-page ruling issued Friday, Judge Cannone denied the request, writing, "After careful consideration, this Court concludes that because the defendant was not acquitted of any charges and defense counsel consented to the Court's declaration of a mistrial, double jeopardy is not implicated by retrial of the defendant. The motion is therefore DENIED."
Cannone also referenced the defense's complaint that the declaration of mistrial was "sudden" and "unexpected," and the jury was not given a chance to explain they were only deadlocked on the manslaughter charge.
Cannone wrote that Read's attorney David Yannetti argued twice for the jury to be given the Tuey-Rodriguez instruction—a last-ditch effort for a hung jury to deliberate before a mistrial is declared—and called the jury "hopelessly deadlocked."
"Defense counsel, in arguing twice that due and thorough deliberations had occurred and pushing for the instruction, presumably was aware of the legal implications if the jury returned deadlocked again," Cannone wrote. "Although the Court did not specifically ask defense counsel if they had any objection to the declaration of a mistrial, counsel had multiple opportunities to voice an objection if they in fact had one. While waiting for the jury to enter the courtroom after the Court announced the jury was again at an impasse on the afternoon of July 1, 2024, defense counsel could have asked to be heard on the issue. During the subsequent discussion about scheduling a status hearing right after the Court declared a mistrial, counsel had yet another opportunity to inform the Court of its dissatisfaction. Lastly, counsel could have communicated to the Court any objection or request to poll the jurors while the jury was still at the courthouse waiting in the deliberation room after the declaration of the mistrial. Instead, defense counsel said nothing to the Court about the mistrial and then proceeded to the courthouse steps where Attorney Jackson declared to the media and onlookers that the '[Commonwealth] failed miserably and will continue to fail' with its prosecution of the defendant. It strains credulity to believe that if defense counsel wanted to voice any objection to the Court, it would not have been heard."
"Because there was no open and public verdict affirmed in open court rendered in this case, the defendant was not acquitted of any of the charges," Cannone further wrote.
Read's legal team said in a statement, "We respectfully but strongly disagree with the cornerstones of today's rulings and fully intend a vigorous appeal to assert and uphold Ms Read's rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause."
"We believe that the judge’s decision is consistent with almost 200 years of case law," the Norfolk District Attorney's Office said. "We are moving forward to trying this case January 27."
Follow WBZ NewsRadio: Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | iHeartmedia App | TikTok