Should The Judge Have Polled the Jurors?
The issue centers on the fact that the jury in Karen Read’s trial had reportedly answered “Not Guilty” to the first two questions on the verdict form, which concerned the most serious charges. However, a mistrial was declared after the jury deadlocked and could not reach a unanimous verdict on the remaining charges.
Critics argue that the judge should have formally polled the jurors before declaring a mistrial to determine whether those “Not Guilty” findings were unanimous and final. If they were, double jeopardy could have attached, preventing retrial on those charges. The judge, however, did not poll the jurors or accept a partial verdict before declaring the mistrial, likely believing the jury was still deliberating or that a consensus hadn’t been reached on any charge.
The Appeals Court typically defers to the trial judge’s discretion unless there’s a clear legal error. In this case, without a formal polling or accepted partial verdict, the Appeals Court may have found no procedural grounds to reverse or intervene. Essentially, because the jury’s “Not Guilty” answers were never confirmed in court as unanimous and final, they are not legally binding.
This procedural nuance—failing to poll or accept a partial verdict—left the earlier answers unofficial, allowing for a retrial without violating double jeopardy protections
