Karen Learn’s attorneys stated the trial decide made essential errors in her declaration of a mistrial within the homicide case and in coping with jurors’ post-trial disclosures that they had been able to acquit Learn on two of the fees in opposition to her.
“The very day after the trial court declared a mistrial, counsel for Ms. Read began receiving unsolicited communications from five of the twelve deliberating jurors … indicating, unequivocally and unconditionally, that the jury had a firm and unwavering 12–0 agreement that Ms. Read is not guilty of two of the three charges against her, including the charge of murder in the second degree,” lawyer Martin Weinberg wrote in a 55-page argument to Massachusetts’ prime courtroom that these two fees be dropped in Learn’s subsequent trial.
Weinberg had argued the identical factor to Norfolk Superior Courtroom Decide Beverly Cannone, who proceeded over Learn’s trial earlier this yr, utilizing affidavits from Learn’s trial attorneys detailing the juror disclosures. Cannone was not moved and a month in the past denied the movement to drop the second-degree homicide and leaving the scene of an accident inflicting demise fees in Learn’s new trial scheduled for January.
“This Court concludes that because the defendant was not acquitted of any charges and defense counsel consented to the court’s declaration of a mistrial, double jeopardy is not implicated by the retrial of the defendant,” Cannone wrote then, including that the arguments had been “without merit,” echoing prosecutor Adam Lally’s personal response.
Learn, 44, of Mansfield, faces these fees in addition to manslaughter whereas working a motorcar beneath the affect in relation to the demise of Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe, her boyfriend, on Jan. 29, 2022. Prosecutors say that the monetary analysts and Bentley College lecturer, drunk and indignant together with her troubled relationship, backed her SUV into O’Keefe at excessive velocity, leaving him to freeze and die on a Canton entrance yard.
Weinberg filed an enchantment to the Supreme Judicial Courtroom earlier this month to overturn Cannone’s ruling.
Within the temporary filed Tuesday, he argued that not solely had protection attorneys not consented to a mistrial, however that Cannone had not given them an opportunity to seek the advice of with Learn or to argue in opposition to the declaration. He additional argues that Cannone misinterpreted case legislation when denying his request that the unique jurors be introduced again in and questioned about what verdicts they’d give to every cost.
“The relevant inquiry could be accomplished by a single ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question posed to jurors: did you unanimously acquit Karen Read of the charges in Counts 1 and 3?” Weinberg wrote within the temporary.
“Of course, the results of a jury’s deliberations are not secret. They are, in fact, routinely announced in open court. Here, the defense has learned post-trial that the jury reached a verdict that was not so announced. It was at least entitled to the opportunity to substantiate that fact in order to ensure Ms. Read is not unconstitutionally forced to stand trial for criminal offenses of which she has already been acquitted,” he continued.
He says his argument is additional bolstered by neither Cannone or prosecutors disputing “the factual basis for the defense motion in any meaningful respect,” nor every other jurors contradicting the 5 jurors who did converse out, even with the intensive media protection.
In all, Weinberg’s temporary makes 5 arguments: that “the jury’s unanimous conclusion … that Ms. Read is not guilty on Counts 1 and 3 constitutes an acquittal”; that Learn is no less than entitled to a “judicial inquiry to determine whether the evidence supports the juror representations”; that re-prosecution of the 2 fees in query is “independently barred” as a result of the jury had reached a conclusion; and that even when the SJC finds, as Cannone did, that the protection did consent to a mistrial declaration, that Learn’s “personal consent was required.”
The Norfolk District Lawyer’s workplace, answerable for prosecuting the case, stated that it had no remark in the meanwhile and that prosecutors will file a response to the courtroom.
Learn is scheduled for retrial in Norfolk Superior Courtroom on Jan. 27.
Herald file photograph
Lawyer Martin Weinberg (Herald file photograph)
Initially Revealed:
