Prosecutors within the Karen Learn case mentioned that 4 jurors reached out to them for the reason that mistrial — with at the very least one backing up the protection’s declare that the jury was unanimous in acquitting Learn on two of the three expenses in opposition to her, together with second-degree homicide.
For the reason that first trial of Learn resulted in mistrial on July 1, Learn’s protection group has made a number of filings claiming a whole of 5 jurors got here ahead to say the jury was solely held on Depend 2: manslaughter whereas working a motorcar below the affect. The jurors mentioned that they had been unanimous in acquitting Learn on Counts 1 and three, second-degree homicide and leaving the scene of an accident leading to loss of life, respectively.
The protection argues that Learn ought to solely be tried on Depend 2 within the new trial scheduled for January, for the reason that jury has indicated post-trial that they might not convict on the opposite two. The prosecution fired again in a response saying, “The defendant’s unsubstantiated but sensational post-trial claim that the ‘jury reached a unanimous decision to acquit’ lacks any merit or legal foundation.”
The “Commonwealth’s Post-Trial Notice of Disclosure,” dated Thursday and docketed within the case Friday, states that prosecutor Adam Lally obtained a number of voicemails and emails from folks figuring out themselves as jurors stating the identical factor.
“It is true what has come out recently about the jury being unanimous on charges 1 and 3,” the primary juror mentioned in a voicemail left on July 21, in accordance with the submitting. The identical juror left one other voicemail 5 days later, stating “Can confirm unanimous on charges one and three, as not guilty and as of last vote 9–3 guilty on the manslaughter charges … on the lower-level manslaughter charges.”
Learn, 44, of Mansfield, is accused of hanging Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe, her boyfriend of two years, together with her automobile and leaving him to freeze and die on a Canton entrance garden on Jan. 29, 2022
Three extra jurors despatched emails stating that they might be prepared to talk anonymously. Prosecutors responded to the emails, in accordance with the submitting, by saying that request wasn’t doable.
The response acknowledged the Commonwealth would “welcome the opportunity to discuss the evidence of the Commonwealth’s case, however we are ethically prohibited from inquiring as to the substance of your jury deliberations. That would include your individual or the jury’s collective thought process, the content of your deliberations, or the reasons for your decisions.”
The submitting then summarizes the remainder of the response: “the Commonwealth could not promise confidentiality and that the substance of any communications may necessitate disclosure to the defendant in court.
“All three jurors declined to further communicate with the Commonwealth and provided no information about the jury’s purported votes,” the filings states.
It is a creating story.
