One other juror has come ahead to report that the Karen Learn jury was able to acquit on two of the three expenses towards her, together with second-degree homicide, in response to a brand new protection submitting.
“Juror D said that it was very troubling that the entire case ended without the jury being asked about each count, especially Count 1 and Count 3,” the newest submitting from protection lawyer Alan Jackson states, including that the juror advised him that the jury was solely cut up on Rely 2. “Juror D said that the jury actually discussed telling the judge that they had agreed unanimously on NOT GUILTY verdicts for Counts 1 and 3, but they were not sure if they were allowed to say so.”
This newest “Juror D” — which Jackson wrote he has recognized however shouldn’t be figuring out within the submitting — is the sequel to a Monday submitting wherein protection attorneys say three different jurors advised them the identical info. This was filed as a supplemental affidavit in help of a movement to dismiss.
“Given the central importance that acquittals have held in our criminal justice system for hundreds of years, the defense respectfully submits that the jury’s unanimous agreement precludes re-prosecution of Ms. Read on Counts 1 and 3 and mandates dismissal of those charges,” protection attorneys wrote in that Monday movement to dismiss.
The Norfolk District Legal professional’s workplace, which prosecuted the case, advised the Herald by way of a spokesman that “We do not have comment at this time.”
Learn, 44, of Mansfield, is accused of killing her boyfriend of two years, 16-year Boston Police officer John O’Keefe, by backing her Lexus SUV into him at a excessive pace and leaving him to die within the chilly throughout a significant snowstorm.
She is charged with second-degree homicide (Rely 1), manslaughter whereas working a motorized vehicle beneath the affect (Rely 2), and leaving the scene of an accident leading to loss of life (Rely 3).
Jackson wrote within the newest submitting that Juror D indicated she or he wished to succeed in out as a result of “he/she was ‘uncomfortable’ with how the trial ended,” describing the final day as a “whirlwind.”
“He/she recounted that his/her perspective was that the jury was brought into the courtroom, the note was read, the mistrial was declared, and the jury was then rushed out of the courtroom,” Jackson wrote. “Following a brief meeting with the judge, the next thing they all knew, the jury was on the bus. He/she described the end of the trial as very confusing.”
The juror stated she or he can be keen to testify that “the jury unanimously reached NOT GUILTY verdicts on Count 1 and Count 3, as long as his/her identity remained protected.”
It is a creating story.
