State orders Karen read to be on trial and rejects her move to record some charges according to the Mistrial

The latest headlines of our reporters in the USA sent directly to their inbox every weekday

Your briefing about the latest headlines from the USA

Your briefing about the latest headlines from the USA

The highest court in Massachusetts rejected Karen Read’s offer to fall charges in connection with the death of her police officer.

The court decided on Tuesday morning that the indictment due to the second degree murder would not reject and leave the scene-months after a judge had statements after eight weeks in July and declared five days of advice.

The judgment on Tuesday deletes the way for reading, which is reproduced from all three counts. The third indictment is homicide while working under the influence. Your second criminal proceedings are scheduled to begin on April 1st.

The 44-year-old is accused of being able to deal with her SUV in John O’keefe and die in a snowstorm in January 2022. Read’s lawyers argued that she was framed and that other law enforcement officers are responsible for O’keeefe’s death.

When their lawyers argue to drop two of the three charges, they said that some of the jurors had expressed them after the trial to expose them to the two charges in question.

However, the court of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts did not agree to this reasoning and wrote: “Overall, we conclude that the process judge acted at the discretion.” “

The Court continued: “In view of the length of the jury’s considerations, the judge’s earlier efforts to promote consensus, and the increasingly emphatic tone of the jury notes, which pointed to Deadlock, it was clear that the jury had reached a dead end . “

In addition, it did not seem that the jurors were fucked up because of a certain indictment but in all charges, the court said in his decision.

Read’s complaint was on the question: “Can the jury, according to the posttric reports, about private advice from the jury who do not match their public communications in court? “The judges wrote. They believed that it couldn’t.

“The jury clearly stated that they had not received a unanimous judgment on the charges and could not do so. Only after the dismissal did some individual jurors communicate another alleged result and contradict their earlier notes, ”the court wrote. “Such posttrial information cannot change the result of the experiment retrospectively – either for freedom or convicted.”

In July, Beverly Cannon, judge of the Supreme Court of Norfolk County, explained a Mistrial.

“Our perspectives on the evidence are strongly divided,” wrote the jury in a note on the cannon. “The deep division is not due to a lack of effort or diligence, but due to sincere compliance with our individual principles and moral beliefs. Would also be superior, it would be useless. “

Her defense lawyer swore at the time: “We won’t stop fighting.”