Massachusetts high court rejects jury deadlock challenge in murder trial
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has ruled against defendant Karen Read’s petition to dismiss charges following a mistrial in her homicide case. Read's high-profile trial centers on the death of her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe, with prosecutors alleging she struck him with her SUV and left him in the snow. The case has drawn significant media attention due to claims of police misconduct and a potential cover-up, fueling intense public scrutiny. The case, which spanned eight weeks and involved extensive evidence, ended when the jury declared itself deadlocked after five days of deliberation. The court held that the trial judge properly declared a mistrial, citing the jury’s multiple notes indicating they could not reach a unanimous verdict. The defense’s posttrial claims that jurors had agreed on not guilty verdicts for two of the three charges did not override the lack of a formal verdict in open court.
The ruling reaffirms that posttrial juror statements regarding deliberations cannot retroactively constitute an acquittal or undermine a mistrial declaration. The court emphasized that for a verdict to be legally binding, it must be announced and affirmed in open court. The decision also underscores the principle that trial judges must weigh the defendant’s right to a single trial against the necessity of ensuring fair and just proceedings.
Additionally, the court denied the defendant’s request for a posttrial juror inquiry, citing the importance of preserving the secrecy of jury deliberations and preventing undue influence on jurors after their discharge. The ruling sets a precedent reinforcing that a deadlocked jury is sufficient grounds for a mistrial and does not trigger double jeopardy protections.
For more details, the full opinion is available in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s official reports.
Jurors in the UK will be studied for trauma impact in abuse trials
Jurors who serve on child sexual abuse trials in the UK are the focus of a new study investigating the emotional toll of witnessing distressing testimony and evidence.
Research has indicated that jurors in such cases often experience symptoms of trauma, including intrusive thoughts and difficulty sleeping. The study, conducted by PhD student Stephen Hanvey at the University of Southampton, seeks to understand these effects through anonymized surveys and interviews with former jurors.
Hanvey’s research aligns with growing concerns about juror well-being. Previous studies have found that up to 50% of jurors may develop trauma-related symptoms, with those who have experienced past trauma being particularly vulnerable. Unlike judges, jurors in England and Wales do not typically receive counseling following difficult trials. However, a pilot program launched in October 2024 now offers jurors in 15 Crown Courts access to six free counseling sessions and a 24/7 support helpline.
The Ministry of Justice is expected to review the results of the pilot program before making further policy changes. Hanvey hopes his study will support a shift toward a more "trauma-informed approach" to juror support, helping to break the silence around the emotional impact of jury service in abuse trials.
Utah Supreme Court weighs key jury selection issues in high-profile murder trial
The Utah Supreme Court heard arguments on February 11 regarding critical jury selection procedures for the upcoming trial of Kouri Richins, a Summit County woman accused of murdering her husband with a lethal dose of fentanyl. The court is considering whether jury selection should take place in person or virtually and whether jurors may be drawn from multiple counties due to extensive media coverage.
The primary legal question centers on whether the Utah Constitution allows jurors from both Summit and Salt Lake counties to be considered, despite state law stating jurors must come from “the county” where the trial is held. Justices also examined whether in-person selection is necessary to evaluate potential juror bias or if it could expose jurors to additional media scrutiny.
Jury management teams will play a crucial role once the court issues its decision, expected by February 21. With jury questionnaires set to be distributed to 1,500 prospective jurors on Februar 25, the court's ruling will determine how officials proceed with screening and selection. The final jury will be seated by mid-April, with the trial beginning on April 28.
Upcoming webinar: “Jury Duty Matters: Why Public Education Is Key to Community Engagement”
On March 20, 2025 at 3 p.m., jury professionals and public engagement advocates are invited to join an important discussion on the role of public education in strengthening jury participation.
The New York State Unified Court System and Sandstorm, a leading digital strategy firm, will join NCSC when it hosts the webinar “Jury Duty Matters: Why Public Education is Key to Community Engagement.”
This webinar will explore innovative strategies to improve jury duty awareness, increase participation, and build trust in the justice system. Panelists will discuss how courts can effectively communicate the importance of jury service, address common misconceptions, and engage diverse communities to ensure fair and representative juries.
Whether you’re involved in jury management, court administration, or public outreach, this webinar will offer valuable insights on leveraging education and communication to enhance community involvement in the jury process.
Register today and join the conversation on how to make jury duty more accessible and meaningful for all.