Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson denied Karen Read’s attempt to pause her murder trial, allowing jury selection to continue in the high-profile case involving the death of her ex-boyfriend.
At a Glance
- Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson declined Read’s emergency request to halt her second trial
- Read’s lawyers argued that retrying her would constitute double jeopardy
- The defense claims jurors unanimously agreed to acquit Read on two charges during the first trial, but the decision was never announced
- Jury selection will continue, with 15 of 16 needed jurors already selected
- Read faces potential life imprisonment if convicted of second-degree murder
Supreme Court Declines to Intervene
In a significant decision affecting a case that has garnered substantial public attention, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has denied Karen Read’s request to pause her ongoing murder trial. Jackson, who oversees emergency appeals from Massachusetts, rejected the application that sought to halt proceedings while the high court considered whether to review Read’s double jeopardy claims. The ruling allows jury selection to proceed uninterrupted as prosecutors prepare to try Read a second time for allegedly killing her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O’Keefe.
“A single justice of the U.S. Supreme Court declined to pause Karen Read’s state murder trial while the court considers whether to take up her double-jeopardy appeal.”, said Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
The Double Jeopardy Argument
Read’s legal team filed a writ of certiorari after Massachusetts courts refused to dismiss two of the three charges against her following her first trial, which ended with a hung jury. Her attorneys have made an unusual legal argument, claiming that jurors in the first trial had unanimously decided to acquit Read on charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene of a fatal accident, but that these decisions were never formally announced in court before a mistrial was declared. They contend this creates a Fifth Amendment double jeopardy issue.
In their petition to the Supreme Court, Read’s lawyers asked for a ruling on whether an “unanimous but unannounced” jury decision triggers constitutional protections against being tried twice for the same crime. This argument goes beyond typical mistrial situations, where retrials are generally permitted. Justice Jackson’s decision not to intervene suggests these arguments will need to be addressed through the normal appeals process if Read is convicted at her second trial.
The Case and Its Challenges
The prosecution alleges that Read struck O’Keefe with her SUV during a night of drinking in January 2022, leaving him to die in freezing temperatures. Read has maintained her innocence, suggesting others were responsible for O’Keefe’s death. The case has divided public opinion, with some questioning the strength of evidence against Read and others pointing to what prosecutors describe as damning proof of her guilt. Jury selection has progressed slowly, with 15 of the targeted 16 jurors selected after seven days.
Stakes Remain High for Read
Despite Justice Jackson’s refusal to pause proceedings, Read’s petition remains pending before the Supreme Court, which receives approximately 7,000 such requests annually but only accepts between 100 and 150 cases. The chances of the Court taking up Read’s case appear slim, especially given Jackson’s initial rejection. If convicted of second-degree murder in her retrial, Read faces a potential life sentence. Legal experts have suggested the serious nature of the charges might be designed to pressure Read into accepting a plea agreement.
The trial’s continuation represents a significant setback for Read’s defense strategy. While her attorneys continue to argue procedural and evidentiary issues, Justice Jackson’s decision reinforces the traditional legal understanding that mistrials typically allow prosecutors to retry defendants without constitutional concerns. For now, Read must face a second jury and renewed scrutiny of the events surrounding that fateful January night when O’Keefe died.
