Jury says they are deadlocked once again

“Despite our commitment to the duty entrusted to us, we find ourselves deeply divided by fundamental differences in our opinions and state of mind,’’ the foreman wrote. “The divergence in our views are not rooted in a lack of understanding or effort, but deeply held convictions that each of us carry ultimately leading to a point where consensus is unattainable. We recognize the weight of this admission and the implications it holds.”

From the bench in Norfolk Superior Court, Cannone described the jury as “extraordinary.”

“I’ve never seen a note like this reporting to be at an impasse,” she said. “I do find that … with the additional time that they went out without coming back Friday, saying that they were deadlocked is due to thorough deliberations.”

On Friday, the jury had asked Cannone if they could extend deliberations for another half-hour.

Cannone then gave the jurors a specific set of instructions that it is their civic duty to decide the case if they can do so conscientiously. The panel was sent to resume deliberations around 11:10 a.m.

The instructions, known as a Tuey-Rodriguez charge, are an effort to resolve a deadlock that often precedes a mistrial declaration.

In the instructions, Cannone told jurors that they were best positioned to reach a final judgment in the case.

“You should consider that it is desirable that this case be decided. You have been selected in the same manner and from the same sources any future jury would be selected,’’ she said. “There is no reason to suppose that this case will ever be submitted to 12 persons who are more intelligent, more impartial, or more competent to decide it than you are, or that more or clear evidence will be produced at another trial. With all this in mind, it is your duty to decide this case if you can do so conscientiously.”

Cannone emphasized that the burden of proof is on the prosecution, which must prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt and that Read must be found not guilty if jurors conclude that standard has not been met. She also urged jurors who are adamant that Read is not guilty, as well as those who support her conviction, should “seriously ask themselves” if their views are valid “if it is not shared by other members of the jury.”

Jurors “should ask themselves whether they should distrust the weight or sufficiency of the evidence if it has failed to convince the minds of their fellow jurors beyond a reasonable doubt,” Cannone said.

The jury listened quietly as Cannone issued the new instructions, either looking at her or eyes downcast. Legal analysts say those instructions risk putting undue pressure on jurors.

On Friday, Read lawyer David Yanetti urged Cannone to deliver those instructions, saying the jury had indicated it has “nowhere to turn,” and had “exhausted all manner of compromise, all manner of persuasion.”

Read, her attorneys, and her family and friends betrayed little emotion as they prepared to leave the courtroom after Cannone sent the jury back to continue deliberations. The jury has now been weighing Read’s fate for more than 22 hours.

At a judge’s discretion, a jury can reach a verdict on some charges and not others, said former Suffolk District Attorney Daniel Conley. But that seems unlikely in this case — the jury likely would have indicated any possible agreement in one of the notes to the judge, he said.

If the case does end in a mistrial, it’s important for each side to gauge how the jury was leaning as they ponder next steps, he said.

”The split matters,” said Conley, now is at the law firm Mintz.

Brian T. Kelly, a defense attorney and former federal prosecutor, said a mistrial would place “enormous pressure on the Commonwealth not to retry it, given all the resources that are necessary to do so.”

“Given the time and expense of doing a case like this, nobody wants to retry such a case again,” he said. “It’s like putting on a wet bathing suit.”

It would also be difficult for Read’s lawyers to “prepare for and to try another two-month trial,” he said.

Read, 44, is accused of killing her boyfriend, John O’Keefe, by backing into him with her SUV in Canton after a night of drinking in January 2022. She is charged with second-degree murder, manslaughter while operating under the influence of alcohol, and leaving a scene of personal injury and death.

Read’s lawyers say she is the victim of a police cover-up. They allege O’Keefe, a Boston police officer, was killed inside the home of a fellow Boston officer and dumped outside on the front lawn near the road.

The jury began deliberations Tuesday after a nearly two-month trial.

Read has maintained her innocence and has developed a strong following among people who embrace the defense’s claim that she is the victim of law enforcement corruption. Supporters, wearing pink, gathered outside the courthouse during the trial, and more have joined since deliberations began.

In another high-profile trial last July, Cannone ultimately declared a mistrial. Jurors in that case could not decide if Emanuel Lopes was mentally incapacitated when he fatally shot Michael Chesna, a Weymouth police sergeant, and resident Vera Adams, 77, in July 2018.

Cannone declared a mistrial after two weeks of deliberations. A second trial was held this year and a different jury also struggled to reach a conclusion, sending two notes in one day that they had reached an impasse.

Each time, Cannone sent them back to continue deliberating, and the jury ultimately worked through its disagreements and convicted Lopes on two counts of murder.

Cannone is scheduled to sentence Lopes July 31.

Shelley Murphy of the Globe staff contributed to this report.

---

Sean Cotter can be reached at [email protected]. Follow him @cotterreporter. John R. Ellement can be reached at [email protected]. Follow him @JREbosglobe.