Karen Read Appeals to Supreme Court on Double Jeopardy in Murder Retrial

Karen Read appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that a unanimous jury decision, though unannounced, constitutes an acquittal barring a second trial for murder.

Forensic psychologist Dr. John Delatorre has shed light on the challenges of jury selection in Karen Read's murder retrial. With the retrial underway, Read's attorneys are appealing a lower court's ruling regarding double jeopardy to the U.S. Supreme Court. They argue that the jury's unanimous agreement of her innocence on two of the three charges in the first trial should preclude her retrial on those charges due to constitutional protections against double jeopardy.

Double Jeopardy Appeal

Read's lawyers are presenting two questions to the Supreme Court: whether a final and unanimous but unannounced jury decision constitutes an acquittal precluding retrial under the Double Jeopardy Clause, and whether a defendant is entitled to a post-trial hearing to substantiate such an acquittal. The appeal argues that Read is facing double jeopardy on the two charges that the jury agreed upon but did not announce, putting her under the threat of being tried twice for the same crime.

The Fifth Amendment guarantees protection from facing double jeopardy, and while retrials are typically allowed after a mistrial, Read's unique case raises questions about the principles of double jeopardy. The appeal focuses on the circumstances of her case, particularly the unanimous agreement of the jury on her innocence for two charges, which, if proven, would constitute an acquittal precluding retrial.

Stalled Deliberations and Mistrial

During the first trial, the jury faced stalled deliberations, repeatedly communicating their impasse to the court. The presiding judge, Judge Beverly Cannone, instructed the jury to continue their deliberations despite the deadlock. After days of deliberations, the judge ultimately declared a mistrial on July 1, 2024, due to the jury's inability to reach a unanimous verdict. Read's lawyers contend that the judge did not allow counsel for either side to address the jury's deadlock and did not inquire whether the jury was hung on all charges or any charges individually before declaring a mistrial.

Following the mistrial, a juror, referred to as Juror A, reportedly contacted Read's attorney, Alan Jackson, claiming that the panel had "unanimously agreed that Karen Read is not guilty of Count 1 (second-degree murder)." This information, along with similar assertions from other jurors, formed a significant part of Read's legal strategy in the appeal. The jurors, after the mistrial, expressed their unanimous agreement on Read's innocence regarding the second-degree murder charge, contradicting the outcome of the trial.

Contents of the Appeal

The appeal questions the legitimacy of the retrial based on a claimed unanimous but unannounced jury decision of innocence for the second-degree murder charge. It also addresses the denial of Read's request for a post-trial hearing to present evidence supporting the alleged unanimous agreement of innocence. The appeal seeks to have the lower court's decision reviewed and to substantiate the claimed innocence agreement, with the goal of preventing a retrial on the charges.

If successful, the appeal would result in Read facing only the manslaughter charge instead of the more severe second-degree murder charge. It seeks to challenge the denial of her request for a post-trial hearing, aiming to present the claimed unanimous agreement of innocence as a basis for preventing the retrial on the affected charges.

Potential Consequences and Read's Defense

The outcome of the appeal carries significant implications for Read, as a conviction on the second-degree murder charge could potentially lead to a sentence of life in prison. In light of these serious consequences, Read's defense team is vigorously pursuing the appeal to protect her from facing double jeopardy. Read maintains her innocence and has denied any involvement in the death of John O'Keefe. Her defense portrays her as a victim of being framed by the individuals responsible for the incident, seeking to shift the focus away from her under the circumstances.

Share news

Copyright ©2025 All rights reserved | PrimeAi News