BOSTON (WHDH) - Lawyers for Karen Read have submitted a lengthy filing to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court outlining their argument to throw out two of three charges against Read.
The 77-page document comes two weeks after lawyers initiated the process of filing an appeal.
As Read faces a new trial in her case, her lawyers argue Massachusetts’ highest court should dismiss charges of second degree murder and and leaving the scene of an accident causing death after purported jurors in Read’s first trial said they agreed Read was not guilty of those offenses. The defense says jurors were deadlocked on one remaining charge — manslaughter.
Jurors never delivered an official verdict on any of the charges against Read, leading Judge Beverly Cannone to declare a mistrial.
In a flurry of post-trial motions and arguments, though, Read’s lawyers said they heard from jurors who described their deliberations. Lawyers said jurors were confused by the series of events that led to the mistrial and said Cannone should have polled the jury before her declaration. If she took such action, the defense argued, Cannone would have learned the jury was in partial agreement.
To date, Read’s attorneys say they have heard from five jurors. Though seven jurors have not come forward to corroborate the claims, Read’s lawyers in their appeal filing noted ongoing media coverage of the case and said “no jurors disputed the facts represented by the attorneys in any matter.”
Lawyers have argued the Constitution’s double jeopardy clause prohibits Read from facing trial again on the same charges.
“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,” Read’s team wrote.
Read is accused of hitting her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O’Keefe, with her car and leaving him to die in a snowbank outside the home of a fellow Boston police officer in January 2022.
Her defense claims she is being framed, saying O’Keefe actually died after a fight inside the home.
Read’s case drew considerable attention before and after her more than two-month trial in Norfolk Superior Court earlier this year.
Still without a verdict in the case, both the prosecution and the defense are preparing to bring their arguments back before a jury for a second trial in January of next year.
Prosecutors have pushed back on the defense’s effort to quash the murder and leaving the scene of an accident charges, saying Read cannot be subject to double jeopardy since her first panel of jurors never delivered a verdict in open court.
Though Cannone sided with the prosecution in initially dismissing the defense’s motion, the defense moved within a matter of weeks to escalate the matter to the Supreme Judicial Court.
Defense team cites other high-profile cases
As they outlined their argument in this week’s filing, Read’s attorneys pointed to several other cases, including the high-profile trials of Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and convicted South Carolina murderer Alex Murdaugh.
Read’s team contends appellate courts compelled judges to investigate issues with juries in both cases.
“The fundamental point remains the same,” defense attorneys wrote. “A defendant who comes forward with credible evidence of a serious constitutional violation post-trial must be entitled to an opportunity to prove those claims.”
Speaking with 7NEWS, legal expert Tom Hoopes said Read has excellent lawyers. But he said their claims about the Tsarnaev and Murdaugh cases are not relevant.
“What happened there has no remote applicability to this case,” he said. “Those were verdicts. There’s no verdict here. It’s not even apples and oranges. It’s apples and watermelons.”
Legal expert says appeal unlikely to succeed
Ultimately, Hoopes said he does not think Massachusetts justices will rule in Read’s favor.
“Not a snowball’s chance of hell if you really pressed me on it,” he said.
Hoopes reviewed the defense team’s filing on Wednesday.
A defense attorney and a former prosecutor, Hoopes noted the defense never asked Cannone to question the jury the day she declared a mistrial.
“They knew this was coming,” Hoopes said. “The day before, they were asking for a mistrial, in case anybody has forgotten.”
“Then, they got their mistrial and they were happy to get out,” he continued. “If they weren’t happy, they could have stood up before the jury left the courtroom and asked that the judge inquire.”
Prosecutors now have until mid-October to respond to the defense team’s Supreme Judicial Court filing.
While both sides in the Read case await a decision from the court, a new prosecutor is preparing to lead the prosecution’s trial team following an announcement from the Norfolk District Attorney’s Office last week.
(Copyright (c) 2026 Sunbeam Television. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)