DEDHAM, MASS. (WHDH) - Prosecutors fired back at Karen Read’s defense team Friday, responding to a recent motion from the defense to dismiss two of three charges against Read.
Read’s defense team filed its motion on Monday, exactly one week after Judge Beverly Cannone declared a mistrial in Read’s case. In their motion, Read’s attorneys said the hung jury wanted to acquit Read of her second degree murder and leaving the scene of a crash causing death charges.
As a result, the defense argued, Cannone should dismiss those charges.
In their response, though, lawyers for the Norfolk County District Attorney’s Office argued the defense motion “is premised upon hearsay, conjecture, and legally inappropriate reliance as to the substance of jury deliberations.”
Prosecutors said the defense motion should be denied, allowing Read’s charges to stand.
“The defendant’s unsubstantiated but sensational post-trial claim that the ‘jury reached a unanimous decision to acquit’ lacks any merit or legal foundation,” prosecutors said.
Read faced trial after prosecutors said she hit her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O’Keefe, with her SUV and left him to die in the snow outside the Canton home of a fellow Boston police officer in January 2022.
Read’s defense team said she was framed, saying O’Keefe actually died after a fight inside the home.
Both sides delivered opening statements in Read’s trial in late April and together called more than 70 witnesses before jury deliberations began in late June.
After five days of deliberations and multiple instructions from Cannone to continue meeting, jurors on July 1 said they remained deadlocked.
Cannone declared a mistrial and scheduled a status hearing to discuss next steps in the case.
Read’s defense team vowed to continue fighting allegations against Read. Moments later, Norfolk DA’s Office said it would re-try Read.
While the defense believes re-trying Read on second degree murder and leaving the scene charges would amount to double jeopardy, the Commonwealth disagrees.
“The representations made in counsels’ affidavits have no legal bearing on the mistrial, as the jury did not reach any verdicts, partial or otherwise,” prosecutors wrote.
Prosecutors argued any agreement during jury deliberations is irrelevant unless it ultimately becomes a formal verdict.
As they laid out their argument, prosecutors used the jury’s own words to try to dismantle the defense’s claims.
“The jury notes were unambiguous that the jurors were ‘deeply divided’ as to the ‘charges,’ with an emphasis on charges, plural.” prosecutors said.
The defense said Cannone was wrong not to poll the jury before declaring a mistrial.
In their response, prosecutors said Read’s lawyers could have asked for a jury poll but did not.
Prosecutors said conversations between attorney Alan Jackson and two jurors that the defense referenced in its motion were inappropriate.
Prosecutors also pushed back on a defense request that Cannone investigate their claims.
“It is improper for counsel to inquire with jurors or through intermediaries, the individual or collective thought processes of the jury, the reason for their decision, or the substance of their deliberations,” prosecutors said.
“Similarly, it would be improper for the court to inquire, through affidavits or an evidentiary hearing, the substance of the jury’s deliberations,” the prosecution added.
Cannone had not ruled on the defense motion as of Friday afternoon.
Read is due back in court for her status hearing on July 22, at which point Cannone could set a new trial date.
(Copyright (c) 2026 Sunbeam Television. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)