Jurors are at an impasse Monday morning for the second time in the murder trial of Karen Read.
However, unlike Friday — when Judge Beverly Cannone asked jurors to go back to deliberations after taking a lunch break — she read jurors Tuey-Rodriguez instructions.
Tuey-Rodriguez instructions are given when a jury isn’t able to come to a verdict as a “last-ditch effort” and is also usually a precursor to a hung jury, according to Northeastern law professor Daniel Medwed.
“When a judge feels as though a jury is genuinely deadlocked, Massachusetts allows the judge to issue a special instruction that sometimes is called a dynamite instruction. It’s designed to unlock the deadlock, and it basically urges the jury to go back, really listen to the other side, be mindful of the fact that you’re just as well positioned as any future jury would be to make this decision,” Medwed said.
If jurors aren’t able to come to a verdict after instructions are given, the instructions can be given again, Medwed said.
At a certain point, the judge determines whether to give the instruction or declare a mistrial.
- Read more: Jury is still divided on Karen Read murder trial. How likely is a mistrial?
According to Medwed, there isn’t a statute saying how many times instructions can be given. However, he said it can be seen as coercive to do it more than once.
“The controversy with this type of jury instruction is that some people think it’s coercive. That you’re basically pushing the jury to unlock. And that maybe some jurors will be swayed by the pressure to try to please the judge. So some states don’t even have this type of instruction,” Medwed said.
If a mistrial is declared, jurors must be dismissed and it is up to the prosecution to determine whether to retry the case — which would require a new jury.
Medwed said Tuey-Rodriguez-type instructions have been in Massachusetts since 1851 and it was amended in 1973.
The instructions increase the likelihood of a hung jury or mistrial, Medwed said.
“Because now we’ve had two moments where the jury has come back and said that they’re at an impasse. The language of this (second) note, ‘fundamental disagreement,’ suggests that people might be really entrenched in their views,” Medwed said.
- Read more: Karen Read verdict: Why the judge wouldn’t accept jury’s position Friday
The note on Monday from the jury said they have found themselves “deeply divided by fundamental differences in our opinions and our state of mind.”
“The divergence in our views are not rooted in our lack of understanding or effort, but deeply held convictions that each of us carry ultimately leading to a point where consensus is unattainable,” the note said.
Attorney David Yannetti, who is representing Read, said on Friday that jurors should be allowed to end their deliberations and be read the instructions.
He pointed to the word “exhaustive” in the jury’s note, which said that the jury hadn’t come to a unanimous verdict after their “exhaustive review of the evidence and our diligent consideration of all disputed evidence.”
“The word exhaustive is the word that’s prominent here. They’re communicating to the court that they exhausted all manner of compromise, all manner of persuasion and they’re at an impasse,” Yanetti said.
“They’ve only really asked one question — which was to try to get a report that they weren’t able to get. And I think the message has been received that the evidence is closed and they won’t be getting anything more. They’ve been working essentially non-stop over the last three, four days,” Yanetti later added.
Jurors have spent more than 20 hours discussing the case since closing arguments on Tuesday.
Read, 44, is charged with second-degree murder in the death of O’Keefe, who was found cold to the touch and unresponsive on Jan. 29, 2022, outside of a home in Canton.
Norfolk County prosecutors say Read struck O’Keefe with her SUV while driving intoxicated. Read’s attorney, Yannetti, said during the trial’s opening statements that her car never struck O’Keefe and that others are to blame for his death.
More about the case
Elaine Hadley is a dedicated journalist covering the ever-evolving landscape of U.S. news. With a keen interest in politics and a commitment to uncovering the truth, she provides insightful commentary and in-depth analysis on domestic issues. When not reporting, Elaine enjoys exploring the diverse cultures and landscapes of the United States.
