Karen Read’s jury couldn’t reach an agreement

Karen Read watches as the jury enters the courtroom as the second day of proceedings begins in the Norfolk Superior Court in Dedham on Wednesday. (Greg Derr/The Patriot Ledger via AP)

The jury in Karen Read’s murder trial has found itself unable to reach a verdict for the third time. Judge Beverly Cannone has declared a mistrial.

“Despite our strenuous efforts, we remain at an impasse,” the jury foreman wrote in a note read by Cannone in court.

“Our perspectives on the evidence are polarized. Some members of the jury strongly believe that the evidence exceeds the burden of proof, establishing the elements of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Others believe that the evidence does not meet that standard and does not sufficiently establish the necessary elements of the charges.

“The deep division does not result from a lack of effort or urgency, but rather from a sincere commitment to our individual moral principles and beliefs. Further consideration would be futile and would only force us to compromise these deeply held beliefs.”

Cannone accepted their reasoning: “I am not going to do this to you. Your service is terminated and I am declaring a mistrial.

The case will resume on July 22 for a status hearing.

In a statement, the Norfolk District Attorney’s Office said it intends to retry Read.

“First, we thank the O’Keefe family for their commitment and dedication to this long process. They kept in mind the true heart of this case – finding justice for John O’Keefe,” the district attorney’s office said in a statement. “The Commonwealth intends to reconsider the matter.”

Earlier today

The jury in the murder trial of Karen Read began its fifth day of deliberations this morning. At 10:50 a.m., the jury sent another note saying it still had no agreement.

“I think it was an extraordinary jury. “I have never seen a note like this that indicated an impasse,” Justice Beverly Cannone said. “I now conclude that given the additional time they left without returning on Friday, the conclusion that they are stranded is reasonable and carefully considered, so I will give it to Tuey-Rodriguez.”

The “Tuey-Rodriguez” warning is the final legal warning to the jury before a mistrial is declared. The jury sent a similar note Friday indicating they were deadlocked, and Cannone sent them back to continue trying to reach a verdict.

The long and complex language of the warning emphasizes that “absolute certainty cannot be achieved or expected” in the cases and that the verdict must be based on “each juror’s own convictions and not merely on agreement with the conclusions of the other jurors.”

The document also indicates that in the future, the jury will be composed of people very similar to the current ones and that the burden of proof rests solely with the prosecution.

“With all this in mind, it is your responsibility to resolve this matter if you can do so conscientiously,” the warning reads.

Note

In a note submitted by jurors, which Judge Cannone read in court at approximately 11:00 a.m., it reads:

“Judge Cannone, despite our commitment to the duty entrusted to us, we are deeply divided by fundamental differences in our opinions and state of mind.

“The divergences in our views are not due to a lack of understanding or effort, but to deeply held beliefs that each of us carries, which ultimately lead to a point where consensus is unattainable.

“We realize the importance of this confession and the consequences it brings.”

Reaction

“Wow,” retired Supreme Court Justice Jack Lu told the Herald after reading the warning. “If they’re ‘hanging,’ it’s amazing they’re ‘hanging’ so quickly.”

Lu said Cannone “handles it flawlessly” and that “the memo is extraordinary, if not unprecedented, in the way the jury expresses its understanding of its sacred duty.”

“This memo actually supports Tuey-Rodriguez’s award because it shows that the jury is conscientious and committed to the integrity of the process,” Lu added.

Prosecutor Adam Lally argued against issuing a warning when the note was first provided.

“While I understand that (the jurors) have been on this for some time, I would like to conclude that they did not conduct” proper and thorough deliberation, “and I ask that the court not make such a ruling.”

“They really didn’t have even an hour of deliberation equivalent to each of the days of testimony they heard,” Lally continued, noting that they deliberated for 22 or 23 hours and heard 29 days of testimony. “I would emphasize that the evidence and witness statements and the complexity of the issues in this case, I would emphasize that they have not conducted in-depth deliberations to this point.”

Defenseman David Yannetti welcomed the warning.

“They’ve come back twice now, basically indicating that they’re at a hopeless impasse,” he said. “They’ve looked at all the evidence. … This time they’re saying they have ‘fundamental’ disagreements about the significance of the evidence. And that’s a matter of opinion, not a lack of understanding.

“When you sent out the jury and encouraged them not to vote bluntly, you encouraged them to look at all the evidence in a very methodical way, and by all indications, that’s what they did. That’s what Tuey-Rodriguez is for.”

After the verdict was read, Yannetti told reporters that jurors were “doing their job.” His co-lawyer Alan Jackson also expressed the same opinion: “They’re doing a great job.”

Lu added that it was also important to understand the burden placed on court staff.

“I hope the public understands how hard the staff of the District Court of Massachusetts works to bring justice to these emotional and controversial cases,” he said.

Herald reporter Lance Reynolds contributed.

This is an evolving story.

Background

Cannone opened the hearing just at 9 a.m. After jurors confirmed they had avoided reading, discussing and independently examining the case all weekend, she allowed them to continue deliberating.

Read, 44, of Mansfield, was also charged with manslaughter for operating a motor vehicle under the influence and leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death. The second charge includes two “lesser charge” options: manslaughter and motor vehicle homicide.

In a note sent to the judge at noon Friday, the justices indicated that they believed they were deadlocked and unable to reach a verdict. Cannone, who must make precise movements when the jury makes such an opinion, sent them back to continue trying to reach a verdict. Jurors began deliberating last Tuesday after making their closing arguments.

This is an evolving story.