Karen Read defense team files motion to dismiss for 'Extraordinary Governmental Misconduct'

Flint McColgan, Boston Herald on Feb 26, 2025

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

BOSTON — The Karen Read defense team has delivered its motion to dismiss for “Extraordinary Governmental Misconduct,” just as promised late last month.

But just exactly what’s inside is not yet known, as the motion was filed Wednesday under seal. It will be open to the public once a redacted version is submitted, which was not available from the Norfolk Superior Court in Dedham’s clerk office by 3:30 p.m.

Read’s attorneys first announced the motion in a footnote demanding that the state pay for costs incurred by a defense expert who was sent on what defense attorney Alan Jackson referred to as a “wild goose chase,” allegedly under a false impression that Canton Police Department video footage was available. It was not.

Page 2 of that motion revealed the upcoming motion for dismissal: “A Motion to Dismiss for Extraordinary Governmental Misconduct based on the destruction of this, and other, exculpatory evidence is forthcoming,” the footnote reads. “This motion should not be deemed a waiver of any such claims or issues.”

Motions to dismiss are par for the course in this case that has captured headlines for years.

Read’s attorneys filed a 49-page motion to dismiss, which was also under seal, ahead of her first trial last year. This motion was based on alleged failures of the prosecutor’s presentation of the case to the grand jury, which they say was “predicated entirely on flimsy speculation and presumption,” and the victim of “questionable and biased investigation.”

Then came the mistrial, followed by a string of defense appeals, based particularly on the defense’s claims that a number of jurors had said the jury wasn’t actually hung on all three charges against Read, but just one of them — and hadn’t known they could deliver a partial verdict.

Read, 44, of Mansfield, is accused of striking Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe, her boyfriend of two years, with her car and leaving him to freeze and die on a Canton front lawn on Jan. 29, 2022. For that she was indicted on three charges: second-degree murder (Count 1), manslaughter while operating a motor vehicle under the influence (Count 2) and leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death (Count 3).

The jurors allegedly indicated it was only Count 2, OUI manslaughter, they couldn’t reach a decision on and that they were ready to acquit on the others.

Because of this, Read’s attorneys say, it would be “Double Jeopardy” to charge her with murder a second time. Norfolk Superior Court Judge Beverly J. Cannone denied that motion and the defense team appealed to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which upheld Cannone’s decision. Read’s defense earlier this month filed a double jeopardy claim with the federal court in Boston.

Read’s second trial is scheduled to begin on April 1.

_____