The federal judge denies the “double danger” request of Karen Read

Crime

Read lawyers had argued that it was actually acquitted by two of the counts against it, citing statements after the jury trial. A federal judge did not agree this week.

A federal judge denied Karen LeeThe attempt that his position of state murder has appeared in the double danger land on Thursday.

The decision occurs after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court governed Read the appeal last month. Read lawyers said they would take their case to the Federal Court.

Then, the appeal ended before the Judge of the United States District Court, F. Dennis Saylor IV, who presented a 28 -page memorandum this week that denied the APPEAL OF READ.

Prosecutors claim that reading supported their SUV in John O’Keefe, a Boston police officer and her boyfriend, after a night of excessive alcohol consumption in January 2022. They say he let him die outside the house of another officer in Canton. Read lawyers have alleged a cover -up of the law, suggesting that O’Keefe really entered the house and was beaten, attacked by the family’s dog and finally left out.

The first Read trial ended with a jury hanging last July. She must be tried again in April.

But after the null trial, Read lawyers Listened to jurors Who said that the jury had firmly agreed that Read was not guilty of two of the three charges against him, including the second degree murder position.

The read team presented a motion to dismiss those positions, discussion That double danger prohibits prosecutors from trying to read about those positions. Judge Beverly Cannone, who supervised the case, denied the motion. That led to the decision of SJC and finally to the Saylor ruling this week.

The lawyers who represent Read said that a new trial should not take place in both positions, arguing that Cannone incorrectly declared a null trial. They also argued that the jury members really absolute the reading of the two counts.

The statements after the jury trial “do not really indicate when the relevant votes were taken, or if they really reflect a final and conclusive verdict of acquittal by the twelve jurors,” Saylor wrote.

“In short, any jury vote here was not final,” he wrote. “It was not a ‘real statement, receipt and registration of a verdict in an open court’, as required according to the Massachusetts law … There is no other base, in fact or law, conclude that it is a ‘decision’ capable of ending the danger. Consequently, and as a federal constitutional law, the petitioner was not acquitted of any of the relevant crimes.”

Read lawyers had pressed for a hearing after the trial to confirm the jury reports. Saylor wrote that this would be “illegal and certainly poorly advised”

Read Saylor’s complete memorandum below:

Read Federal Order by Ross Cristantiello In scribd