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
38 minutes ago
A federal appeals court is set to hear arguments in Trump's bid to erase his hush money conviction
NEW YORK -- President Donald Trump's quest to erase his criminal conviction heads to a federal appeals court Wednesday. It's one way he's trying to get last year's hush money verdict overturned. A three-judge panel is set to hear arguments in Trump's long-running fight to get the New York case moved from state court to federal court, where he could then try to have the verdict thrown out on presidential immunity grounds. The Republican is asking the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to intervene after a lower-court judge twice rejected the move. As part of the request, Trump wants the federal appeals court to seize control of the criminal case and then ultimately decide his appeal of the verdict, which is now pending in a state appellate court. The 2nd Circuit should 'determine once and for all that this unprecedented criminal prosecution of a former and current President of the United States belongs in federal court," Trump's lawyers wrote in a court filing. The Manhattan district attorney's office, which prosecuted Trump's case, wants it to stay in state court. Trump's Justice Department — now partly run by his former criminal defense lawyers — backs his bid to move the case to federal court. If Trump loses, he could go to the U.S. Supreme Court. Trump was convicted in May 2024 of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal a hush money payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels, whose affair allegations threatened to upend his 2016 presidential campaign. Trump denies her claim and said he did nothing wrong. It was the only one of his four criminal cases to go to trial. Trump's lawyers first sought to move the case to federal court following his March 2023 indictment, arguing that federal officers including former presidents have the right to be tried in federal court for charges arising from 'conduct performed while in office.' Part of the criminal case involved checks he wrote while he was president. They tried again after his conviction, arguing that Trump's historic prosecution violated his constitutional rights and ran afoul of the Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling, which was decided about a month after the hush money trial ended. The ruling reins in prosecutions of ex-presidents for official acts and restricts prosecutors in pointing to official acts as evidence that a president's unofficial actions were illegal. U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein denied both requests, ruling in part that Trump's conviction involved his personal life, not his work as president. In a four-page ruling, Hellerstein wrote that nothing about the high court's ruling affected his prior conclusion that hush money payments at issue in Trump's case 'were private, unofficial acts, outside the bounds of executive authority.' Trump's lawyers argue that prosecutors rushed to trial instead of waiting for the Supreme Court's presidential immunity decision, and that prosecutors erred by showing jurors evidence that should not have been allowed under the ruling, such as former White House staffers describing how Trump reacted to news coverage of the hush money deal and tweets he sent while president in 2018. Trump's former criminal defense lawyer Todd Blanche is now the deputy U.S. attorney general, the Justice Department's second-in-command. Another of his lawyers, Emil Bove, has a high-ranking Justice Department position. The trial judge, Juan M. Merchan, rejected Trump's requests to throw out the conviction on presidential immunity grounds and sentenced him on Jan. 10 to an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction intact but sparing him any punishment. Appearing by video at his sentencing, Trump called the case a 'political witch hunt,' 'a weaponization of government' and 'an embarrassment to New York.'
Bloomberg
2 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Argentina's Top Court Bans Kirchner From Office for Life
By Updated on Save Takeaways NEW Leer en español Argentina's Supreme Court upheld former President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner's fraud conviction, ratifying her sentence to six years in prison as well as a lifelong ban on holding public office, according to the court ruling reviewed by Bloomberg.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
What to know about Bolsonaro's trial now that he has testified over an alleged coup plot
SAO PAULO (AP) — Brazil's former president Jair Bolsonaro has finally testified before the country's Supreme Court over an alleged plot to remain in power and overturn the 2022 election result. After Bolsonaro and 33 allies were charged in February with five counts related to a plan to remain in power, a five-Justice panel of Brazil's top court opened a first trial for eight of them, including the former leader. Judges will hear from 26 other defendants in coming months. The former president has repeatedly denied the allegations and said he is the target of political persecution, but kept a soft tone in his testimony on Tuesday. The case stems from a Jan. 8, 2023 riot, when the Supreme Court, Congress and the Presidential Palace in Brasilia, the capital, were stormed by thousands of Bolsonaro supporters. Police say the uprising — which came after current President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva was sworn in — was an attempt to force military intervention and oust the new president. If convicted for the alleged coup, Bolsonaro could be sentenced to up to 12 years. When combined with the other charges, the accused might face decades behind bars. The case might not be over even after a conviction by the panel, which Bolsonaro can appeal before Brazil's Supreme Court full panel. Here's what is next in the trial: Testimonies The testimonies of the eight defendants is the final stage of the evidence collection phase, but their attorneys are allowed to request additional searches to help their case. Legal experts have said it is unlikely that Justice Alexandre de Moraes, the presiding judge and a member of the panel, will allow it. The evidence phase will be deemed complete once de Moraes decides on all requests. Final allegations Fifteen days after the collection phase is finished, Brazil's attorney-general will be allowed to present his final allegations. The attorneys of the defendants will get the same chance. Each of those allegations are expected to take several hours or even days. This needs to be completed before July, when Brazil's Supreme Court enters its recess until August. As soon as the final allegations stage is completed, the sentencing phase starts. Sentencing A Supreme Court panel of five judges will decide whether Bolsonaro and his allies are guilty or not. The judges who will decide the future of Brazil's former president are de Moraes, Cármen Lúcia, Cristiano Zanin, Flávio Dino and Luiz Fux. All of them had public battles with Bolsonaro. De Moraes was the primary judge in several cases against the far-right leader, while Zanin and Dino joined the court as Lula's appointees. Lúcia and Fux were also targets of Bolsonaro during their respective tenures chairing the electoral court and the Supreme Court. Should Bolsonaro be convicted, these judges will also decide his penalty. What if he's found guilty Bolsonaro would still be able to appeal to Brazil's Supreme Court full panel. Brazil's top prosecutor could do the same if the former president is not convicted on all counts. Before any potential jail time, Bolsonaro's lawyers could further delay the conclusion of the trial by asking for clarifications on the decisions of each judge. Legal experts have said all these steps are likely to be concluded by the end of the year. ___ Follow AP's coverage of Latin America and the Caribbean at Mauricio Savarese, The Associated Press
