MA: READ TRIAL: JUROR CLAIMS MURDER ACQUITTAL
<p></p>\n<p><b>--SUPERS</b>--</p>\n<p>Friday</p>\n<p>Dedham, MA</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>Martha Coakley </p>\n<p>Legal Analyst </p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--LEAD IN</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--REPORTER PKG-AS FOLLOWS</b>--</p>\n<p>THE NEW REVELATIONS ABOUT THE JURY IN THE KAREN READ MISTRIAL COMING FROM PROSECUTORS IN COURT DOCUMENTS.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>The impact is still unclear. </p>\n<p></p>\n<p>Martha Coakley, Legal Analyst "It's up to the judge right now. She won't have a hearing on this." </p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p>TRACK: </p>\n<p></p>\n<p>The court filing says in July, a juror left a message for the prosecutor saying it is true what has come out recently about the jury being unanimous on charges one and three, that's second degree murder and leaving the scene of an accident. </p>\n<p></p>\n<p>Five days later that same juror leaving another voice mail saying unanimous on charges one and three as not guilty and of last vote 9 to 3 guilty on the manslaughter charges on the lower level manslaughter charges. </p>\n<p></p>\n<p>News Center 5 Legal analyst Martha Coakley says there's something in this for both sides. </p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p>SOT (MARTHA COAKLEY/LEGAL ANALYST): </p>\n<p></p>\n<p>"If it is to be retried, where do we need to change our strategy? Train our order of witnesses, whatever we're going to do at trial." </p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p>TRACK: </p>\n<p></p>\n<p>Read's lawyer saying we now expect that the Da's office will do the right thing and dismiss at a minim indictments One and three. </p>\n<p></p>\n<p>Of course, our position remains that all three indictments should be dismissed because they have charged the wrong person. </p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p>SOT: </p>\n<p></p>\n<p>One of the things is the strategy of defense lawyers to put pressure on the prosecution to drop that murder charge. </p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p>TRACK: </p>\n<p></p>\n<p>The filing also says the D A received three emails from jurors who wanted to speak anonymously. Prosecutors couldn't promise they'd stay anonymous adding it would be unethical to talk about deliberations. </p>\n<p></p>\n<p>Prosecutors say they never heard back.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--TAG</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>-----END-----CNN.SCRIPT-----</b></p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--KEYWORD TAGS--</b></p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>Supers/Fonts: </b> Friday</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>Dedham, MA</p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p>Martha Coakley </p>\n<p></p>\n<p>Legal Analyst </p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>Story Location: </b> Dedham</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>State/Province: </b> Massachusetts</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>Shot Date: </b> 08/02/2024</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>URL: </b> https://www.wcvb.com/article/district-attorney-juror-voicemail-found-karen-read-not-guilty-of-murder/61775506</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>Notes and Restrictions: </b></p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>Newsource Notes: </b></p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>Story Description: </b></p>\n<p>Elements:</p>\n<p>VO file of Karen Read and court; VO excerpt of court filing; sound from legal analyst; dashcam video from trial; FS juror quotes from court filing; FS quote from Read's attorney</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>Wire/StoryDescription:</p>\n<p>The Norfolk County District Attorney in the Karen Read murder case said his office has received phone messages from a juror saying the panel unanimously voted to acquit her of second-degree murder and another charge in the death of her boyfriend, John O'Keefe, before a mistrial was declared last month in the high-profile case.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>According to court documents dated Aug. 1, Assistant District Attorney Adam Lally received two voicemails and three emails.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>On July 21, "Lally received an unsolicited voicemail on his office's phoneline from an individual, who identified their self as a juror by full name and seat number. This individual stated: 'it is true what has come out recently about the jury being unanimous on charges 1 and 3,'" according to a disclosure statement filed by District Attorney Michael Morrissey.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>Count 1 was a charge of second-degree murder; Count 2 was a charge of manslaughter; and Count 3 was a charge of leaving the scene of an accident with injury/death.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>On July 26, "Lally received another unsolicited voicemail on his office's phoneline from this same individual who stated: 'can confirm unanimous on charges one and three, as not guilty and as of last vote 9-3 guilty on the manslaughter charges ... on the lower-level manslaughter charges,'" according to Morrissey.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>Prosecutors also received emails from three individuals who identified themselves as jurors wishing to speak anonymously. The state said it responded to the emails by saying they "welcome the opportunity to discuss the evidence or the Commonwealth's case, however we are ethically prohibited from inquiring as to the substance of your jury deliberations. That would include your individual or the jury's collective thought process, the content of your deliberations, or the reasons for your decisions," and the state could not "promise confidentiality."</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>Morrissey said the three jurors have not been in communication since.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>The disclosure of the voicemails and emails comes after Read's defense team said in a motion to dismiss and affidavits that they had heard from one juror and two other informants who said the panel agreed Read was not guilty of two of the three charges. The defense did not identify the sources of their alleged information about the jury.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>Defense Attorney Alan Jackson said four deliberating jurors had reached out to his office after the mistrial, one, dubbed Juror D, saying they were uncomfortable with how the trial ended.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>"He/she said that the last day of the trail was a whirlwind and everything happened fast. He/she recounted that his/her perspective was that the jury was brought in the courtroom, the note was read, the mistrial was declared, and the jury was then rushed out of the courtroom," Jackson wrote in an affidavit in July. "He/she described the end of the trial as very confusing."</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>The jury believed that they were compelled to come to a resolution on all counts before they could or should report verdicts on any of the counts, Jackson wrote.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>Juror D reiterated that he/she believes that it would be unjust for Karen Read to be re-tried on either Count 1 (second-degree murder) or Count 3 (leaving the scene with injury/death) because the jury has already unanimously found her not guilty of those charges, Jackson wrote.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>Read, 44, of Mansfield, is accused of hitting O'Keefe with her black SUV outside of a home at 34 Fairview Road in Canton on Jan. 29, 2022, following a night of drinking. Her defense contended that OKeefe, a Boston police officer, was dragged outside after he was beaten up in the basement and bitten by a dog at fellow Boston officer Brian Alberts home in Canton.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>Read, a former adjunct professor at Bentley University, faced charges of second-degree murder, which carries a maximum penalty of life in prison, along with manslaughter while operating under the influence of alcohol and leaving a scene of personal injury and death.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>The Norfolk County District Attorney's Office said it planned to retry Read.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>Station Notes/Scripts:</p>\n<p>TRACK: </p>\n<p></p>