Court TV Interviews Karen Read Juror
The Court TV interview with a juror from Karen Read’s first trial is highly significant. According to the juror, the panel unanimously reached “Not Guilty” verdicts on the first two, more serious charges—including second-degree murder—and was only deadlocked on the third, lesser charge. The juror also said the final poll on that charge was 9 for acquittal, 3 for guilty. If accurate, this raises serious concerns about how the court handled the mistrial and whether the state is exploiting a legal gray area.
Double jeopardy, protected by the Fifth Amendment, is meant to prevent someone from being retried after acquittal. But here’s the issue: unless a judge formally accepts a verdict—through polling or entry into the record—it isn’t legally binding. That procedural gap, whether accidental or deliberate, allowed the prosecution to retry Read even though the jury had apparently cleared her of the most serious allegations.
Has anything like this happened before? Cases involving partial verdicts and mistrials have occurred, but rarely with this level of public scrutiny and controversy. Typically, when a jury clearly reaches a unanimous not guilty verdict on any charge, the court accepts it and double jeopardy applies. In Read’s case, the failure to poll jurors before declaring a mistrial left that crucial confirmation off the record.
To many observers, this feels like the state is playing games—using procedure to override substance. If the prosecution knew the jury had leaned heavily toward acquittal, yet still pushed for a retrial, it suggests a strategic move to preserve a failing case by bypassing the protections of double jeopardy. That erodes public confidence in the system and raises valid questions about fairness, accountability, and the integrity of Massachusetts justice.
