Judge declares mistrial after jury deadlock

Cavallaro said the concern in this situation is that if prosecutors retry the case and it does not result in a conviction, “the defense will have a ready-made argument” to justify an appeal.

“The fact that they have a mistrial just gives them something to complain about,” she said. “Anytime you have a do-over scenario, it seems unfair to the defense.”

Cavallaro said the state quickly said prosecutors would take the case back to trial but “they may walk away from that” and begin private settlement talks because neither side was able to convince a jury.

If prosecutors continue with the case, “they will have to take a hard look at the evidence presented to the jury because it was insufficient and flawed in many respects,” Cavallaro said.

“The community needs to think, ‘What can we do to save this, right now?’” she said.

Cavallaro said Read’s defense attorneys likely “are satisfied with their ability to overcome the obstacles” in the case and are confident they will be able to get it retried.

But the challenge for Read will be whether she can afford to hire the high-profile pair for another round, Cavallaro said.

“No matter what happens, a mistrial or an appeal, it’s just a counter,” Cavallaro said. “I don’t know what her financial situation is, if she’s exhausted, but it’s pretty overwhelming.”

---

19:00 — Attorney says mistrial is “a loss for everyone”

Steven Sack, who was first admitted to the Massachusetts bar in 1978 and has devoted his career to defense work in Suffolk County, said he followed the Read case “like everybody else” and “had never seen a question like that or a comment like that from a jury.”

The jury’s note to the judge was not only “well-written,” “very thoughtful” and pointedly pointed out the impasse, Sack said, but it also failed to reveal how divided the jury was.

“It didn’t seem like one person was reluctant,” said Sack, 71, who runs a private practice in downtown Boston. “It seemed like a really even split, but again, I’m trying to read between the lines.”

Sack said the mistrial ruling is largely “a loss for everyone.” No one wants to repeat the two-month trial or spend the resources to retry it.

On the other hand, Sack said, “any time a person is not convicted and does not go to prison, it is a victory for the defense.”

Sack also serves as co-chair of Suffolk Lawyers for Justice, an organization of attorneys who serve indigent clients.

---

15:10 — Read that supporters celebrate news of trial being overturned

Rita Lombardi has been helping organize protests in front of the courthouse on behalf of Karen Read since June.

“This is gaslighting by the prosecution,” she said. “Karen Read could be any one of us,” she said.

“Even though it may seem like she doesn’t have a support system, we are her support system,” said Labelle Freeland, who had been standing outside the courthouse since about 9 a.m.

Supporters gathered outside the courthouse for a photo opportunity and shouted “We will be back,” referring to a retrial.

---

2:55 p.m. — The Norfolk District Attorney’s Office says it will reconsider the case against Karen Read

“First, we thank the O’Keefe family for their commitment and dedication to this lengthy trial. They have kept the true essence of this case — finding justice for John O’Keefe — visible,” prosecutors said in a statement released shortly after the mistrial was announced. “The commonwealth intends to remand this case.”

Judge Beverly Cannone set a hearing date for July 22 at 2 p.m. in Norfolk Superior Court.

---

14:50 — Read lawyer Alan Jackson’s speech outside the courthouse

“This is what happens when you make false accusations against an innocent person,” Jackson said during a brief news conference, with Read standing by his side.

“The Commonwealth did its job,” he said. “They brought the state’s case on a false charge, on a compromised investigation, on compromised investigators, on compromised witnesses. That’s what it looks like, and guess what, they failed.”

“They have failed miserably and they will continue to fail miserably, no matter how long it takes, no matter how long they try, we will not stop fighting,” he said.

Read was charged with second-degree murder, murder while intoxicated, leaving behind bodily injury and death.

---

14:45 — The statement of supporters of the invalidation of the trial was read

Outside the courthouse, in the pouring rain, Read supporters dressed in pink erupted in cheers.

---

Judge Beverly Cannone declared a mistrial Monday in the murder case of Karen Read after the jury found they were unable to reach an agreement after nearly a week of deliberations.

“Further deliberations would be futile,” the jury foreman wrote in a note to Cannone, which she read aloud.

“Despite our best efforts, we are still at an impasse,” she read. “Our perspectives on the evidence are sharply divided. Some members of the jury strongly believe that the evidence exceeds the burden of proof established in the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Others believe that the evidence does not meet that standard and does not sufficiently prove the necessary elements of the charges.”

“The deep division is not due to a lack of effort or urgency, but rather to a sincere commitment to our individual moral principles and beliefs,” the memo continues. “Further deliberation would be futile and would only serve to force us to compromise on these deeply held beliefs.”

After reading the note, Cannone said, “I’m not going to do this to you, your service is over.”

“I am declaring a mistrial in this case. I will come to you privately in a few minutes. Thank you very much for your service.”

---

In a memo Monday, the foreman wrote that the panel was “deeply divided.”

“Despite our commitment to our duty, we are deeply divided by fundamental differences in our opinions and state of mind,” the juror wrote. “The divergence in our views is not due to a lack of understanding or effort, but to the deeply held beliefs that each of us carries, which ultimately lead to a point where consensus is unattainable. We recognize the gravity of this admission and its implications.”

Cannone, hoping to break the deadlock, gave jurors specific instructions, telling them they were in the best position to reach a final verdict in the case.

“You should consider that it is desirable that this case be decided. You were selected in the same manner and from the same sources from which any future juror will be selected,” she said. “There is no reason to suppose that this case will ever be turned over to 12 persons who are more intelligent, more impartial, or more competent to decide it than you, or that more or clearer evidence will be presented at another trial. With all this in mind, it is your duty to decide this case if you can do so conscientiously.”

The mistrial came after eight weeks of testimony in the high-profile case, an event that captured regional attention and made front-page news.

Prosecutors said Read, 44, of Mansfield, struck her boyfriend, John O’Keefe, with her Lexus SUV after dropping him off outside their Canton home in the early morning hours of Jan. 29, 2022, following a night of bar-hopping and drinking heavily. She returned to the scene several hours later and found O’Keefe’s snow-covered body on the front lawn, repeatedly shouting, “I hit him,” as first responders watched, witnesses testified.

Read’s attorneys said she was framed and that O’Keefe entered the Canton home, where he was beaten to death in the basement and possibly attacked by the family dog ​​before his body was left on the lawn.

During the eight-week trial, prosecutors presented evidence that Read and O’Keefe had a strained relationship and that they had been arguing violently and sending text messages to each other on the day of his death.

Witnesses also testified that Read’s right rear light was damaged and that parts of it were found at the scene, including microscopic pieces in O’Keefe’s clothing. Some of the parts had O’Keefe’s DNA on them, witnesses said, and a hair taken from Read’s bumper matched his profile.

Witnesses say Read initially indicated she left O’Keefe at the bar before changing her story, and prosecutors say cell phone tower records show she returned to the Canton home at about 5:18 a.m., about 45 minutes before she allegedly discovered O’Keefe’s body on the lawn, when she returned with two other women. Both women testified that Read led them to O’Keefe’s snow-covered body through a predawn snowstorm, suggesting she knew where he was.

The defense suggested that the ATF agent, who exchanged flirtatious text messages with Read in the weeks before O’Keefe’s death, was trying to “talk” him into coming to the Canton home for an afterparty. The defense also focused on state trooper Michael Proctor, the lead investigator, who sent a text message to friends that police planned to bring “serious charges against the girl.”

Prosecutor Adam Lally, who said during closing arguments that Proctor’s writings, while unprofessional, “had no bearing whatsoever” on the integrity of the investigation. Nowhere in Proctor’s vulgar, misogynistic writings about Read was there any discussion of a cover-up, he said.

“Because it didn’t happen,” Lally said.

Read maintained her innocence but did not testify in court.

Globe staff writers Amanda Kaufman and Tonya Alanez and Globe correspondent Austin Byrdsell contributed to this report.

---

Sean Cotter can be reached at [email protected]. Follow him @cotterreporter. John R. Ellement can be reached at [email protected]. Follow him @JREbosglobe.