Karen Read's case will not be reviewed by U.S. Supreme Court
The United States Supreme Court will not take up Karen Read's appeal of the verdict in her first trial on grounds of double jeopardy. Justices met in private to review Read's appeal on Friday, and their decision was announced Monday.
Testimony began last week in Norfolk Superior Court for Read's second trial on charges of second-degree murder, manslaughter while operating under the influence of alcohol, and leaving the scene of personal injury and death. Her first trial ended in 2024 with a mistrial due to a hung jury.
Supreme Court's Karen Read decision
The Supreme Court did not add any other comment other than saying it denied Read's request.
Read is accused of killing Boston police officer John O'Keefe, who she was dating at the time, with her SUV after a night of heavy drinking and leaving him to die in the cold outside a Canton home. Her defense says she is being framed by a group of people, including law enforcement.
Attorneys for Read have argued that the murder and leaving the scene charges should be dropped because jurors have said that behind closed doors, they unanimously agreed to acquit Read on those charges. Those discussions were never revealed in open court before the mistrial was declared.
After exhausting all lower level appeal efforts, Read's attorneys turned to the Supreme Court.
Why did Karen Read appeal to the Supreme Court?
Read was asking the Supreme Court specifically to decide two questions about her her case.
1. Whether a final and unanimous, but unannounced, decision by a jury following trial that the prosecution failed to prove a defendant guilty of a charged offense constitutes an acquittal precluding retrial under the Double Jeopardy Clause.
2. Whether a defendant who produces credible evidence of such a final, unanimous, and unannounced acquittal is entitled to a post-trial hearing to substantiate the fact of such acquittal.
Read's legal team previously asked the Supreme Court for a delay in her state trial until a decision was made on whether the appeal would be heard.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Tense scene at Weinstein trial as alleged perv appears to have medical episode after accuser's defiant gesture
Harvey Weinstein's Manhattan sex crimes retrial took a dramatic turn Tuesday when the accused serial perv apparently suffered a medical episode — sparking a frenzy of court officers to tend to him. The bizarre moment came after a former actress who accused Weinstein, 73, of raping her defiantly stared down the disgraced Hollywood producer after leaving the witness stand and pointed a finger at her eye, demanding that he look at her. The startling 'look at me' gesture by Jessica Mann, 38, prompted Weinstein's high-powered defense attorney Arthur Aidala to argue for a mistrial to Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Curtis Farber. As Aidala contended that the trial should be tossed, Weinstein bizarrely made gurgling sounds — and two court officers quickly surrounded him. The wheelchair-bound Weinstein took a sip of water, bringing the brief episode to an end. Asked later if Weinstein had a medical episode, Aidala told The Post that the Miramax founder's already-poor health has been getting worse. 'The short answer is yes, but it was alleviated,' the attorney said. 'He's not doing well. The last two weeks there has been a marked difference in his physical appearance and his stamina. I don't know if its the cancer kicking in, but he's definitely suffering.' Mann's daring gesture came after she wrenchingly detailed to jurors, between sobs, an alleged rape by Weinstein at a Beverly Hills hotel. But the convicted sex pest could only shake his head in response, before he descended into gurgling. 'That's absolutely inappropriate behavior by her,' Aidala wailed to the judge. Prosecutors argued Mann's reaction didn't even come close to grounds for a mistrial — and Farber agreed, denying Aidala's bid. Mann later returned to the stand and continued to recount the alleged California hotel rape, which took place around the beginning of 2014, recounting for jurors how she had taken an hours-long shower afterward. 'I'm going to bury this so deep and I'm going to forget about this and move on with my life,' she said she told herself. Mann testified that she decided to 'keep going' to pursue her Hollywood dreams – and continued to have contact with the powerful Weinstein, which led to a consensual sexual relationship. She recounted that she faked orgasms to end uncomfortable sexual encounters with Weinstein. 'I'm not saying I performed her performance but I made noises,' she said, comparing her fake orgasms to that of Meg Ryan's character in an infamous scene from the 1989 romantic comedy 'When Harry Met Sally.' 'It was definitely not the best I ever had,' she added when Aidala asked if it was a lie. Mann's first day of testimony Monday saw her tearfully detail another alleged rape by Weinstein in a Midtown hotel. She testified that after the attack, she found an erection-inducing drug needle apparently used by Weinstein in a hotel room's garbage can with a puzzling label. 'I found on Google that it basically meant 'dead penis,' and you inject it and it can only be used a certain amount of times back to back over a certain time,' she told jurors. Weinstein is only charged in the Midtown alleged rape. He has pleaded not guilty to charges in his sex crimes retrial. Weinstein in 2022 was found guilty of one count of rape and two counts of sexual assault at a Los Angeles trial. He has appealed the conviction.
Fox News
3 hours ago
- Fox News
Defense attorney's dramatic courtroom move has legal experts talking in Karen Read murder trial
Wearing two black gloves and slamming his palms on the podium Monday, Karen Read's defense attorney Robert Alessi moved for a mistrial for a second time in her retrial on murder charges in the death of her former boyfriend, Boston cop John O'Keefe. The exchange, based on special prosecutor Hank Brennan's questioning of a defense witness regarding holes in the back of O'Keefe's sweatshirt that were put there by a state crime lab employee, got Alessi trending among true crime followers on X Monday afternoon, but it also drew praise from defense attorneys who are not connected to the case. Read's defense denies the prosecution's allegation that she killed O'Keefe by backing into him with her Lexus SUV amid a drunken argument and fled the scene. They have maintained that the vehicle never struck him at all, and that something else caused his injuries. "If I'm Alessi, I'm throwing out those missiles every time," said Louis Gelormino, a New York City defense lawyer. During a motion hearing without jurors present, Brennan asked the judge to instruct jurors about his error rather than grant the motion for a mistrial. "It appears that I made a mistake," he said, conceding that a state criminologist made the holes and documented them in her records. Gelormino told Fox News Digital that the longer things play out, the better off Read will be – especially if this trial ends without a verdict like her first one. WATCH: Karen Read defense moves for a mistrial again "A third trial, the county might not wanna pay for," he said. "They might give her a plea at that point. The longer these things go out, the better it is for the defense. All the time." Read's first trial ended with a deadlocked jury last year, prompting Judge Beverly Cannone to declare a mistrial and the district attorney's office to bring in high-profile defense attorney Brennan as a special prosecutor. His rich and powerful clients have included the mobster James "Whitey" Bulger. The defense moved for a mistrial earlier in the second trial as well in another contentious exchange over O'Keefe's hoodie, arguing Brennan improperly brought up the absence of dog DNA evidence during cross-examination of a witness who claimed holes in O'Keefe's sweatshirt were consistent with dog bites. Cannone denied that motion as well as the new one Monday. A routine motion seeking to have her declared not guilty after the prosecution rested its case was also denied. Other legal experts raised doubts about whether the misstep was a mistake or a calculated move. "It is unfathomable that he didn't know that the holes were made by his own witness," said Mark Bederow, another New York City defense attorney who is representing Read ally Aidan Kearney, a Canton blogger. "And what about the two other prosecutors sitting next to him? Are we to believe they didn't know after handling this case for three years?" Unlike Brennan, they were working for the district attorney's office during her first trial, which assistant district attorney Adam Lally led. "There are many reasons why a large segment of the population believes the investigation and prosecution of Karen Read is unjust and lacks credibility," Bederow said. GET REAL-TIME UPDATES DIRECTLY ON THE TRUE CRIME HUB Canton police were cleared of Read's conspiracy allegations in an independent audit completed just before her second trial began – but they made a series of embarrassing missteps during the investigation, including storing DNA evidence in red Solo cups and a grocery bag. The lead homicide detective, Michael Proctor, lost his job with the Massachusetts State Police after another investigation found he improperly shared sensitive and confidential information in a group chat that included lewd and "inappropriate" messages about Read that were read in court. "The prosecution has a higher standard because they are supposed to be about fairness and justice – which is what Brennan said to the press when he took the case," said Grace Edwards, a Massachusetts trial attorney who is closely following the case. "This was not a mistake by a seasoned attorney." Brennan is tasked with overcoming the state's credibility issues and also clean-up after a witness for the commonwealth admitted she gave an incorrect statement to the grand jury and the defense grilled another whose resume showed inflated credentials. "He is good, but he can only play the cards he's dealt," said David Gelman, a Philadelphia-area defense lawyer and former prosecutor, who invoked OJ Simpson's high-drama 1990s trial after Alessi donned black gloves in court and then invoked his A-list defense again. "You can be Johnnie Cochran, and it won't matter." Jack Lu, a former Massachusetts judge and now a law professor at Boston College, was more forgiving of the special prosecutor. "To the aspiring trial lawyer-law student, it shows that even the greatest stumble," he told Fox News Digital. "What a grueling occupation." Dr. Elizabeth Laposata returns to the stand Tuesday for a second day of testimony as the defense nears an end to its case. She testified Monday that O'Keefe's skull fracture was consistent with a backward fall – but something else, possibly a fist, caused the cut above his right eye. Read could face up to life in prison if convicted of the top charge of second-degree murder. She is also accused of drunken driving manslaughter and leaving the scene.
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Washington's Supreme Court slashes public defender caseload limits
(Photo by) The state Supreme Court on Monday responded to a 'crisis' in Washington's public defense system by slashing caseloads for those providing counsel to poor defendants facing criminal prosecutions. Justices unanimously agreed to set the new statewide standards, which call for public defenders to handle a maximum of 47 felony cases or 120 misdemeanor cases in a year, depending on one's primary area of practice. The current thresholds are 150 felonies and 400 misdemeanors. The group that represents Washington counties says the new standards are unattainable with the level of funding now available and due to a shortage of lawyers. Under the court's interim order, the new caseload limits take effect Jan. 1, 2026 and should be achieved 'as soon as reasonably possible' and no later than 10 years, Chief Justice Debra Stephens wrote in the four-page order. 'The crisis in the provision of indigent criminal defense services throughout our state requires action now,' Stephens wrote for the majority. Monday's decision is a potential game-changer in the state's effort to shore up a beleaguered public defense system that struggles to provide timely, equitable and effective counsel. 'It's a bold move. I didn't expect justices to go this far,' said Larry Jefferson, director of the state's Office of Public Defense. Jefferson warned justices 18 months ago the system was on the 'verge of collapse' as cases piled up, trials backed up and over-stressed attorneys retired or resigned to work in higher-paying, less stressful jobs. He appealed to the justices for help. 'This is one of the first times that public defenders have been listened to,' Jefferson said. Some counties have had to release those accused of crimes due to the lack of available defense counsel. The ACLU of Washington sued Yakima County last year for failing to appoint attorneys for indigent people charged with crimes. Hiring more public defenders costs money. Cities and counties worry they also will need to amp up hiring of court staff and prosecutors to keep pace and that will be expensive. 'What they are describing here is impossible with our current budget constraints,' said Derek Young, executive director of the Washington State Association of Counties. 'There's not nearly enough workforce now. If we triple the demand for services, where will all these lawyers come from?' 'There is no timeline we can accommodate this absent the Legislature waking up' and providing greater financial support, he said. The new state budget provides $20 million for counties, he said, which is about 6% of their total public defense costs. Standards the state Supreme Court adopted in 2012 said a full-time public defense attorney or assigned counsel should have no more than 150 felony cases a year. In 2023, the American Bar Association, the National Center for State Courts and the RAND Justice Policy Program released the National Public Defense Workload Study. It concluded public defenders should handle far fewer cases. That year, Washington's high court asked the Washington State Bar Association to weigh in on whether the cap needed adjusting in light of the findings. The association responded in March 2024, recommending new maximums of 47 felony credits or 120 misdemeanor credits in a year, depending on the severity of the charges. The reduction would be phased in over three years. Under that approach, the cap for felony cases would be 120 in the first year, 90 in the second and 47 in the third. For misdemeanors, the limit would be 280 cases in the first year, dropping to 225 and then 120. As part of its proposal, the association assigned crimes credits based on seriousness and complexity of providing a legal defense. A motor vehicle theft was assigned one credit and a murder seven, for example. That means a lawyer could theoretically be assigned 47 vehicle theft or seven homicide cases in a year before hitting their limit. Such case weighting is 'permissible and encouraged' but not required, Stephens wrote for the court. If done, a local government should adopt and publish any policies and procedures underlying the use of such weighting, Stephens wrote. The Supreme Court started accepting public comment on the bar association's request to trim caseloads a year ago, while also holding public hearings and internal work sessions. In each hearing, prosecutors argued reducing caseloads would lead to filing of fewer cases to ensure no one's rights to counsel are violated. 'Without sufficient attorneys or without sufficient resources, it would lead to a de facto decriminalization and an increase in vigilantism,' Russell Brown, executive director of the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, said in September. He added that 'way too many' people have had their cases dismissed or not filed because of a lack of public defenders. Supporters of reducing caseloads said in the hearings that the change is needed to stabilize the system. They contend that large caseloads and low pay are driving people out of public defense and deterring new lawyers from entering this line of legal work. And they, too, pointed to the problem in some counties where those accused of crimes, but unable to afford a lawyer, can wait long periods of time before they receive counsel. 'Public defense is in a downward spiral. We can fix this,' said Jason Schwarz, director of the Snohomish County Office of Public Defense and chair of the Washington State Bar Association's Council on Public Defense in September. 'This will be expensive. Justice is not cheap.' The order issued Monday isn't the final word. New rules are needed to put the caseload figures in place. And the bar association made other recommendations on subjects like staffing and training that justices are still considering. But the justices wanted to put out caseload information because they knew local governments are putting together their budgets for next year, Stephens wrote in the order.
