DEDHAM, Mass. (Court TV) — In an unusual turn of events, prosecutors in Karen Read‘s case have filed a document with the Court indicating that jurors are reaching out to them to say they agree with the defense.
Karen Read listens to testimony by witness Brian Higgins during her trial in Norfolk Superior Court, Friday, May 24, 2024, in Dedham, Mass. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa, Pool)
On July 1, after more than 24 hours of deliberation over five days, a jury reported it was deadlocked, and a mistrial was declared for Read, who was charged with the second-degree murder of her boyfriend, John O’Keefe.
Read’s defense almost immediately filed a motion saying jurors had reached out to them saying that the panel had actually been unanimous in agreeing that Read was not guilty of second-degree murder, but was split on lesser-included charges, including manslaughter while driving under the influence.
READ MORE | ACLU of Massachusetts intervenes in Karen Read appeal
In a filing reviewed by Court TV, Norfolk County District Attorney Michael Morrissey said that jurors have reached out to the prosecutor who tried the case, Adam Lally, to say similar things. Lally received the first unsolicited voicemail on July 21 from someone who identified themselves by their full name and seat number.
“This individual stated: ‘It is true what has come out recently about the jury being unanimous on charges 1 and 3.’
On July 26, Lally reported receiving another voicemail from the same number repeating that the jury had been unanimous on two charges. The same message noted that the jury voted 9-3 leaning towards guilt on the lesser manslaughter charge. In addition to the voicemails, Lally reported getting three emails from “individuals who identified themselves as jurors” but said they wanted to speak anonymously.
Morrissey noted in the filing that Lally did not engage with the jurors because ethical guidelines prevent attorneys from discussing jury deliberations.
RELATED | Karen Read defense cites Alex Murdaugh in arguments for dismissal
In a motion filed on July 15, prosecutors argued against dismissing any charges based on the jurors’ statements, saying they were “unsubstantiated but sensational” post-trial claims and were based on “hearsay, conjecture and legally inappropriate reliance as to the substance of jury deliberations.”
Judge Beverly Cannone will hear arguments on the motion on Aug. 9. Read’s retrial is currently scheduled for Jan. 27.
