Karen Read appeals double jeopardy ruling to US Supreme Court
With jury selection underway for her second murder trial in the death of Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe, attorneys for Karen Read are appealing a lower court's ruling that she is not facing double jeopardy to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Read's first trial ended with a mistrial last year, but her lawyers have argued that the jury agreed unanimously that she was not guilty of two of the three charges, including the most serious of murder, and that keeping those on the books for her second trial is unconstitutionally placing her on trial twice for the same crime.
This agreement was unannounced at trial, however.
Probe Of Town Police In Karen Read Case Finds No Sign Of 'Conspiracy To Frame' Slain Officer's Girlfriend
According to the 149-page filing, Read's lawyers are presenting the high court with two questions:
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.
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.
Karen Read And John O'keefe: Inside Evolution Of Boston Murder Mystery Since July Mistrial
Read On The Fox News App
The Fifth Amendment guarantees constitutional protection from facing double jeopardy – trial or punishment for the same offense twice.
After a mistrial, a retrial can normally proceed – but Read's lawyers argue the unique circumstances in her case place her under double jeopardy on the two charges jurors agreed on but did not announce.
Go Here For Full Coverage Of The 2Nd Karen Read Trial
Over days of stalled deliberations, jurors repeatedly sent notes to the court explaining they were at an impasse, and Judge Beverly Cannone instructed them to keep trying. Deliberations began on June 25, 2024. By July 1, with jurors still deadlocked, the judge declared a mistrial.
In their appeal, Read's lawyers said the judge did not give counsel for either side the opportunity to speak and dismissed the jury without asking them if they were locked on all charges or any charges individually.
Karen Read Jury Selection: Dozens In Pool Already Have An Opinion On The Case
The next day, a juror identified as Juror A contacted Read's attorney, Alan Jackson, and told him that the panel had "unanimously agreed that Karen Read is not guilty of Count 1 (second-degree murder)," according to the lawsuit.
Text messages purportedly sent from Juror B expressed similar claims, according to the lawsuit. Jurors C and D also reached out to Read's team with similar versions of events, according to the filing.
Additionally, at least one juror said it in a voicemail for prosecutors.
Follow The Fox True Crime Team On X
"It was not guilty on second degree," Juror B wrote in a text shared with another Read attorney, David Yannetti. "And split in half for the second charge…I thought the prosecution didn't prove the case. No one thought she hit him on purpose or even thought she hit him on purpose."
In a phone conversation, Read's lawyers claim Juror B clarified the second sentence of that text, saying it should have read, "No one thought she hit him on purpose or even knew that she had hit him."
SIGN UP TO GET True Crime Newsletter
The murder charge was "off the table," according to the filing, and Juror A also said jurors agreed that Read was not guilty of leaving the scene.
Read was arrested on charges of drunken driving, manslaughter and leaving the scene of an accident, and later indicted for the additional charge of second-degree murder after she allegedly backed into O'Keefe outside a party and drove away, leaving him to die on the ground in a snowstorm.
If her appeal is successful, she would just face the manslaughter charge.
Appellate courts in Massachusetts have already denied her request, finding that because no verdict had been read in court, she was not acquitted of any charges and is not facing double jeopardy. Her legal team turned to the nation's highest court this week, asking them to review a lower court's decision and for a post-trial hearing on the matter.
Read could face life in prison if convicted of second-degree murder at her second trial, which began Tuesday. She has pleaded not guilty and denied involvement in O'Keefe's death, with her defense presenting her as a scapegoat being framed by the alleged true killers.Original article source: Karen Read appeals double jeopardy ruling to US Supreme Court
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Man found guilty in shooting death of New Jersey councilwoman
A New Jersey jury convicted Rashid Ali Bynum of murder on Monday in the gunning down of a Republican councilwoman earlier this year. The victim, Eunice Dwumfour, was serving as the first Black member of the Sayreville city council. Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Joseph Paone has set Bynum's sentencing date for Aug. 18. He faces 30 years to life in prison. Bynum was a member of Dwumfour's congregation years ago, according to Christian Onuoha, who was Dwumfour's colleague on the borough council and also a member of her church. "She was his pastor around 2018," he told Fox News Digital. "That was the last time any of us remember seeing him." Eunice Dwumfour Murder: New Jersey Police Arrest Man Months After Slaying Of Republican Councilwoman Bynum has a lengthy rap sheet, including allegations of fraud, forgery and theft stretching back to 2013, the records reveal. He faced firearms charges in Virginia in 2015 and again in Maryland in 2019. Read On The Fox News App In the 2015 case, he pleaded guilty to illegally carrying a concealed weapon, a misdemeanor, and received a sentence of three years' probation, court records show. Dwumfour's husband, Peter Akwue, also known as Eze Kings and a pastor in the church but based in Africa, told Fox News Digital last month that he did not know Bynum. Nj Councilwoman Shooting 911 Calls Reveal Eyewitness Account Of Male Suspect Wearing Black, Fleeing On Foot The 30-year-old Dwumfour was a former EMT, an IT consultant and active in her local church as well as in nonprofit groups and was on the Sayreville Borough Council's Human Relations Commission, serving at-risk communities. She won an upset election as a new candidate in November 2021 over the incumbent Democrat. Police found her riddled with gunshot wounds in her white Nissan SUV around 7:30 p.m. on Feb. 1, 2023. Bynum was originally arrested in late May in his home in Chesapeake City, Virginia. He was then transferred to New Jersey. Fox News' Michael Ruiz contributed to this article source: Man found guilty in shooting death of New Jersey councilwoman
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Abrego Garcia return to US prompts new questions for other immigrants deported by Trump
The Trump administration on Friday announced it had returned Kilmar Abrego Garcia – a Salvadoran migrant and alleged MS-13 member – to the U.S., months after he was deported to El Salvador in what officials later acknowledged was an administrative error. It is unclear whether Abrego Garcia's return signals a shift in policy or is merely a one-off. The administration paired the announcement with news of a new federal indictment charging him with crimes related to transporting undocumented immigrants in the U.S. Still, the case has sparked fresh questions about the administration's willingness to comply with other court orders requiring the return of deported migrants – whether individuals or entire classes – or mandating that certain individuals remain in U.S. custody long enough to challenge their removals to so-called "third countries." It also undercut the Trump administration's assertion earlier this year that it is powerless to order El Salvador to return a prisoner or facilitate the return of migrants sent to El Salvador – something judges have attempted somewhat unsuccessfully to square in various court proceedings this year. Here is what to know about those cases so far. 100 Days Of Injunctions, Trials And 'Teflon Don': Trump Second Term Meets Its Biggest Tests In Court Read On The Fox News App Daniel Lozano-Camargo, previously referred to in court documents as "Cristian," is a 20-year-old Venezuelan immigrant deported in March under the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 wartime law invoked by Trump to quickly remove hundreds of immigrants and send them to El Salvador to be detained in the country's maximum-security CECOT prison. U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher ruled in April that his deportation violated a settlement agreement that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) stuck last year with a group of young asylum seekers, including Lozano-Camargo, who had entered the country as an unaccompanied child and later sought asylum. Under that agreement, DHS agreed not to deport the immigrants until their asylum cases were fully adjudicated in court, which she said had not happened in Lozano-Camargo's case prior to his removal. Gallagher, a Trump appointee, ruled that his deportation was a breach of contract. In ordering his return to the U.S., she stressed that her ruling had nothing to do with the strength of his asylum request in question – a nod to the two apparent low-level drug offenses he had racked up prior to his removal – but simply his ability to have his asylum request adjudicated in court under the agreement with DHS. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld that decision late last month, clearing the way for Gallagher to set a formal timeline for the government to comply with facilitating the return. DHS officials told the court last week in a status update that Lozano-Camargo remains held at CECOT. Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court To Review El Salvador Deportation Flight Case The Trump administration returned a mistakenly deported Guatemalan native to U.S. soil last week, marking the first known instance of the Trump administration complying with a judge's orders to return an individual removed from the U.S. based on erroneous information. The immigrant, referred to in court documents only as "O.C.G.," was deported to Mexico in March without due process and despite his stated fears of persecution in the country, according to U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, who ordered his return. Murphy noted that O.C.G. had previously been held for ransom and raped in Mexico but was not afforded the chance to assert those fears prior to his removal – a right afforded to him by U.S. and international law. ICE officials told the court earlier this month that they were working to secure his return. Last week, attorneys for O.C.G. told Fox News he had been returned to the U.S. on Wednesday via commercial flight. Unlike the individuals deported to CECOT, however, O.C.G. had not been detained in Mexico after he was deported, which could have eased some of the hurdles for the administration in returning him. Murphy ordered the Trump administration to keep in U.S. custody a group of six immigrants who were deported to South Sudan without due process or notice until they have the opportunity to conduct so-called "reasonable fear interviews," or a chance to explain to U.S. officials any fear of persecution or torture, should they be released into South Sudanese custody. Currently, all six individuals remain detained at a U.S. military base in Djibouti – the only U.S. military base currently operational in all of Africa – and where ICE officials tasked with keeping them in custody cited recent health risks, including from malaria exposure, searing heat, nearby burn pits as well as the "imminent danger" of rocket attacks from terrorist groups in Yemen. In response, Murphy reiterated earlier this month that the individuals need not remain in South Sudan and that the U.S. is free to move them to another location, including back to the U.S., to more safely carry out these proceedings. It is unclear whether the government has plans to relocate the group. Who Is James Boasberg, The Us Judge At The Center Of Trump's Deportation Efforts? U.S. District Judge James Boasberg last week ordered the Trump administration to provide all non-citizens deported from the U.S. to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador to be afforded the opportunity to seek habeas relief in court and challenge their alleged gang status – the latest in a heated fight centered on Trump's use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport certain migrants. Boasberg reiterated in the 69-page ruling that due process includes providing migrants deported to CECOT prior notice of removal, as well as so-called habeas protections, or the right to challenge their removals in court. He gave the Trump administration until Wednesday to submit to the court plans for how it will go about providing the habeas relief to plaintiffs held at CECOT. "Defendants plainly deprived these individuals of their right to seek habeas relief before their summary removal from the United States — a right that need not itself be vindicated through a habeas petition," Boasberg said in his order. The order is almost certain to spark fierce backlash from the Trump administration, which has previously railed against Boasberg's earlier rulings and the temporary restraining order handed down in March. Boasberg later found probable cause to hold the administration in contempt of court, citing the government's "willful disregard" for his March 15 emergency order, which ordered the administration to halt its deportation under the Alien Enemies Act, and immediately return all planes to the U.S., which did not article source: Abrego Garcia return to US prompts new questions for other immigrants deported by Trump
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
WV women who experience miscarriage won't face criminal prosecution, prosecuting attorneys say
The West Virginia Prosecuting Attorneys Association clarified Monday that women who have a miscarriage are not required by law to notify law enforcement. () A group of prosecuting attorneys in West Virginia want to make it 'abundantly clear' that women who experience a miscarriage are not required under state law to notify law enforcement or face potential criminal prosecution. The statement from the West Virginia Prosecuting Attorneys Association on Monday comes after Raleigh County Prosecuting Attorney Tom Truman said in local and national interviews that West Virginia women who have miscarriage could face criminal charges under the state's current strict abortion ban. In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's Dobbs decision, women around the country have faced charges related to miscarriages. Pregnancy loss happens in about one in eight known pregnancies, often in the first trimester before 13 weeks. Truman suggested that women might want to contact local law enforcement to share if they'd experienced a miscarriage. He said criminal charges could be levied against a woman who flushes or disposes of fetal remains following a miscarriage. 'It's a different world now, and there's a lot of discretion that prosecutors have, and some of them have agendas where they would like to make you an example,' Truman told CNN. Luke Furbee, president of the WVPAA, said that the subject matter has not 'been widely discussed among West Virginia prosecutors, nor does it need to be.' He said Truman's comments do reflect the legal interpretation of the association. 'The WVPAA does not agree with or support the idea that experiencing a miscarriage could, or should, trigger criminal liability. Such a position is contrary to both the law and the values held by prosecutors across our state, who remain committed to justice, compassion and the appropriate application of criminal statutes,' the statement from association said. The statement also said that state law doesn't support the notion that a woman who experiences a miscarriage should notify law enforcement. 'We urge the public and media to rely on verified, accurate legal information and to contact the WVPAA with any questions about prosecutorial perspectives or the interpretation of West Virginia law,' the WVPAA said. In 2022, following the overturning of Roe v. Wade, West Virignia lawmakers passed a law banning abortion with narrow exceptions, including for medical emergencies and in cases of rape and incest. Adult victims are able to obtain abortions at up to eight weeks of pregnancy, but only if they report to law enforcement first. Earlier this year, a group of Republican lawmakers introduced legislation to remove the state's rape and incest exemption, but the bill was never taken up for consideraiton. Gov. Patrick Morrisey, a Republican who is fiercely anti-abortion, has previously said that the state's abortion ban should remain as it currently stands.
