BOSTON – The state’s Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that Karen Reed could recover all of the same charges in the death of a Boston police officer boyfriend.
Prosecutors tried to read this year with charges of second-degree murder, manslaughter and leaving the crime scene. They accused her of plunging into John O’Keefe in her SUV and entrusting him with dying in January 2022 in a snowstorm. Reed’s lawyers argue that she was framed to protect other law enforcement officials involved in O’Keefe’s death.
The judge declared the erroneous statement in June after discovering that the ju judge could not reach an agreement without voting the ju judge to confirm the conclusion. Reed’s lawyer Martin Weinberg said five ju judges were only stuck on manslaughter charges, and left the scene after committing a charge of second-degree murder at the Ju judge’s office. He claimed he unanimously agreed that he had not committed any crime. But they hadn’t told the judge.
The decision from the Massachusetts Supreme Court of Justice clears the path to new trials for all three charges.
“The judges clearly stated during deliberation that they had not reached a unanimous verdict in any of the charges and were unable to do so. Only after being discharged from the hospital would some ju appellants be We conveyed different outcomes that we assumed were inconsistent with previous notes,” the judge wrote. “This post-trial disclosure cannot retroactively alter the outcome of the trial.
The judge also found “no discretionary abuse” in Judge Beverly Canone’s decision to declare fraud.
Related Stories
“After a wide multi-day deliberation, the ju-degrees have submitted more and more emphasised memos on the inability to reach the unanimous verdict,” they wrote, with the judge’s previous record saying “the perfect I proposed a deadlock.”
Reed’s lawyers said they are considering their legal options.
“We have great respect for the federal Supreme Court, but double risk is a federal constitutional right,” Weinberg said in a statement. “We are strongly considering whether we would seek federal personal security.
Weinberg urged the court to allow an evidence hearing that could be asked if the ju judge had reached an innocent verdict on any of the charges.
Prosecutors dismissed the charges of second-degree murder and argued that there was no basis for leaving the scene. They argued that her lawyers would have felt that misconduct was “inevitable or inevitable” and that they had the opportunity to hear it in court.
The judges questioned Weinberg about the merits of holding the investigation. Associate Justice Frank Gagiano noted that such inquiries are usually reserved for “unrelated information.” Supreme Court Justice Kimberly Budd wondered about the limitations of allowing an investigation. She could open the door for other defendants to claim that they came to them to say, “It wasn’t really what happened.” I suggested that it could be done.
In August, Canon determined that reads could be retried for all three charges.
“If there is no verdict announced here in the public court, the defendant’s retrial is not in breach of the double risk principle,” Kanon said.
Prosecutors said Reed, a former auxiliary professor at Bentley College, and O’Keefe, a 16-year-old member of the Boston Police Department, were drinking heavily before he dropped him off at a party with fellow Boston Brian Albert. . . They said she hit him with her SUV before driving. An autopsy was found to have found O’Keefe died of hypothermia and blunt force trauma.
The defense was read as a victim, and O’Keefe said he was actually killed inside Albert’s house and then dragged outside. They allegedly focused on reading because she was a “convenient outsider” who saved them from having to consider law enforcement officers as suspects.
By Michael Casey
