Mass SJC Karen Read Decision Shields Courts With Defendants Exposed to Endless Litigation
The Massachusetts court system, particularly in the high-profile case of Karen Read, has displayed a systemic failure to acknowledge its own culpability in violating constitutional protections—chief among them, the protection against double jeopardy. The decision to retry Read, despite juror statements indicating acquittals on the most serious charges, reveals a troubling willingness by the judiciary to hide behind procedural technicalities rather than uphold the spirit of the Constitution.
Karen Read’s first trial ended in a mistrial, declared by Judge Beverly Cannone after jurors deadlocked on a single lesser charge. However, one juror later stated in a Court TV interview that the panel had already acquitted Read on two of the three charges, including the most serious—second-degree murder. According to the juror, the vote was 9-3 in favor of acquittal on the remaining lesser charge of leaving the scene of a deadly accident. Under any common-sense reading, this would constitute a partial acquittal. Yet the Commonwealth, the trial judge, and even the state’s highest court have refused to acknowledge any acquittals because they were not announced in open court. That legal technicality forms the heart of the state’s justification to retry her on all counts.
This insistence on strict administrative procedure over evident facts and constitutional protections raises a serious question: when did the court system become more invested in protecting its process than the people it serves? The Fifth Amendment clearly prohibits placing a citizen in jeopardy twice for the same offense. But in Massachusetts, the letter of the law has been weaponized to dismiss the intent of that amendment. The fact that Read is facing the prospect of hard prison time—despite what appeared to be acquittals by a jury of her peers—should trouble anyone who still believes in a fair trial system.
By narrowly defining a verdict as something that only exists once announced publicly, the Massachusetts judiciary ignores the reality that verdicts are decided in deliberation, not declared into existence by a formality. This selective interpretation allows the system to avoid acknowledging that jurors did their job and found reasonable doubt. Worse, it allows prosecutors another shot at conviction—an advantage not afforded to Read’s defense, which now must relitigate a case they largely won.
Even more concerning is the posture of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC), which has rubber-stamped these procedural excuses. Rather than standing as a constitutional safeguard, the SJC has positioned itself as a gatekeeper for administrative order. Their rulings reflect a deeper institutional bias: the belief that maintaining the appearance of justice is more important than justice itself.
This mentality is dangerous because it grants the state unlimited power to re-prosecute until it achieves its desired outcome. Such judicial leniency toward prosecutorial persistence is especially galling in Read’s case, where the prosecution’s narrative has been heavily questioned and where allegations of police misconduct and withheld evidence have clouded the proceedings from the outset. The courts’ refusal to critically interrogate the state’s role in this debacle suggests a culture of mutual protectionism—one that shields judges, police, and prosecutors from accountability while leaving defendants exposed to endless litigation and incarceration.
Ultimately, the Read case has become a mirror reflecting the broader failures of the Massachusetts court system. It shows how a court, even one with immense institutional prestige, can fall prey to rigid formalism, bureaucratic arrogance, and a refusal to admit error. Instead of championing constitutional rights, the courts appear more interested in defending the reputation of the state apparatus—even when doing so places innocent lives at risk of unjust imprisonment.
In conclusion, the Karen Read retrial highlights not just a questionable legal decision, but a structural problem in how Massachusetts administers justice. The failure to acknowledge jury acquittals, the cold reliance on administrative technicalities, and the willingness to expose someone to hard time for the sake of order over fairness—is not justice. It’s institutional self-preservation at the expense of the very rights the system is supposed to defend.
