The prosecutor within the Karen Learn homicide trial — which led to mistrial at the start of the month — delivered a pointy opposition to the protection’s movement to dismiss two of the three indicted expenses towards the defendant, saying the argument lacks “merit or legal foundation.”
“Now comes the Commonwealth in opposition to the defendant’s post-trial motion to dismiss her indictments for second-degree murder and leaving the scene after causing death, as the defendant’s motion is premised on hearsay, conjecture, and legally inappropriate reliance as to the substance of jury deliberations,” the Friday submitting by Norfolk District Lawyer Michael Morrissey states. Assistant District Attorneys Adam Lally and Laura McLaughlin, the precise prosecutors within the trial, signed the doc.
“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 submitting continued.
Learn, 44, of Mansfield, was indicted June 9, 2022, on expenses of second-degree homicide, manslaughter whereas working below the affect and leaving the scene of private damage or dying. She is accused of mowing down her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe, along with her SUV within the early hours of Jan. 29, 2022, and leaving him to freeze and die on a Canton entrance garden.
On Monday, protection attorneys filed a movement that the primary and third expenses be dropped as a result of three jurors had independently reached out to them indicating that the jury was solely held on the manslaughter cost and have been unanimous in a “not guilty” verdict for second-degree homicide and leaving the scene of an accident inflicting dying. The workforce adopted up with a supporting affidavit indicating a fourth juror advised them the identical factor.
“The hearsay comments and juror statements about what happened are legally irrelevant as the jury failed to reach any verdicts,” the 15-page DA opposition states.
Over the jury’s 5 days of deliberation, the foreman had three notes indicating the physique was at an deadlock. On the fourth day, when the jury delivered its second notice, Decide Beverly Cannone opted to learn the “Tuey-Rodriguez” warning, which emphasizes the costly and time a trial takes and that any future jury shall be composed of individuals similar to the present one and can probably hear the identical proof. It was meant as a remaining spur to deliberative motion.
Then the next Monday, July 1, the jury despatched a remaining notice indicating it nonetheless couldn’t attain a verdict.
“The jury’s notes were unambiguous that the jurors were ‘deeply divided by fundamental differences in our opinions and state of mind’ “that resulted in a ‘starkly divided’ jury as to the ‘charges’ (emphasis on plural),” the opposition submitting summarizes, with the parenthetical included. “The jury consistently indicated that their impasse was not due to a lack of understanding of the law or the charges, but a profound divergence in ‘deeply held convictions … ultimately leading to a point where consensus is unobtainable.’”
The case is scheduled for a standing listening to on July 22. These points and a brand new trial date are more likely to be ironed out then.
Initially Printed:
