Prosecutors call on Massachusetts top court to allow retrial of Karen Read murder case

Prosecutors person asked Massachusetts’ highest tribunal to let them to retry Karen Read for the execution of her Boston constabulary serviceman boyfriend, arguing against a bid by the defence to person 2 of her 3 charges dropped.

Read is accused of deliberately moving implicit her boyfriend, 45-year-old John O’Keefe, with her SUV and past leaving him to dice extracurricular a chap officer’s location aft a nighttime of drinking during a blizzard successful January 2022.

The 44-year-old fiscal analyst, who has maintained her innocence, was initially charged with murder, vehicular manslaughter portion intoxicated, and leaving the country of an mishap resulting successful death.

However, aft a deadlocked jury failed to scope a unanimous determination earlier this year, the high-profile lawsuit ended successful a mistrial.

A new trial was scheduled for January 2025.

Last month, Read’s defence squad asked the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to drop charges of second-degree execution and leaving the country of an accident, arguing the assemblage was lone deadlocked connected the manslaughter complaint but recovered her not blameworthy connected the different 2 charges.

The Norfolk District Attorney’s Office had until Oct. 16 to record a response. In a little filed precocious Wednesday night, prosecutors pushed backmost against claims that jurors had reached a verdict earlier the mistrial was declared.

“The assemblage gave nary denotation it had reached a unanimous verdict connected immoderate charge, and the suspect argued astatine the clip against uncovering immoderate specified unanimity,” the Norfolk District Attorney’s Office wrote successful the 77-page brief.

“There was nary viable alternate to a mistrial,” prosecutors added, arguing Read “was not acquitted of immoderate complaint due to the fact that the assemblage did not return, denote and affirm immoderate unfastened and nationalist verdicts of acquittal.”

“That request is not a specified formalism, ministerial enactment oregon bare technicality,” they said. “It is simply a cardinal safeguard that ensures nary juror’s presumption is mistaken, misrepresented oregon coerced by different jurors.”

Oral arguments from some sides volition beryllium heard Nov. 6.