No. 25-1257

KAREN READ,

Petitioner, Appellant,

v. NORFOLK COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT; ANDREA J. CAMPBELL, Massachusetts Attorney General,

Respondents, Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. F. Dennis Saylor, IV, U.S. District Judge]

Before

Gelpí, Montecalvo, and Aframe, Circuit Judges.

Martin G. Weinberg and Michael Pabian on brief for appellant.

Caleb J. Schillinger, Special Assistant Attorney General, Assistant Norfolk District Attorney, and Andrea Joy Campbell, Attorney General of Massachusetts, on brief for appellees.

March 27, 2025 MONTECALVO, Circuit Judge. On April 16, 2024, Karen Read's trial began in Norfolk County Superior Court in Massachusetts on charges of murder in the second degree, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 265, § 1 (Count One); manslaughter while operating under the influence of alcohol, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 265, § 13 1/2 (Count Two); and leaving the scene of personal injury resulting in death, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(2)(a 1/2)(2) (Count Three). After thirty-seven days of trial, the charges were submitted to the jury for deliberation. During approximately twenty-eight hours of deliberations, the jury sent three notes to the trial judge, informing the court that the jury was increasingly deadlocked. On July 1, 2024, after receiving the third note, the trial judge declared a mistrial. A retrial is scheduled to start on April 1, 2025.

After the mistrial, Read moved to dismiss Counts One and Three on the basis that the Double Jeopardy Clause barred retrial. The trial judge denied that motion, and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) affirmed.1 Read then filed a habeas petition

1 Read filed her petition to the SJC under chapter 211, section 3 of the Massachusetts General Laws, which confers upon the SJC a "general superintendence" power that permits, among other things, review of "interlocutory matters in criminal cases only when substantial claims of irremediable error are presented . . . and only in exceptional circumstances, . . . where it becomes necessary to protect substantive rights." Garcia v. Commonwealth, 158 N.E.3d 452, 458 (Mass. 2020) (alterations in original) (citations omitted).

- 2 - in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to prevent the state court from retrying her on those counts, arguing that a retrial would violate her constitutional double jeopardy rights. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied her habeas petition, and Read now appeals that decision. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

I. Background

We focus here only on those facts relevant to the issues before us.

Following the close of evidence, the trial court instructed the jury to consider each of the three charges against Read listed above as well as two lesser offenses that were included in Count Two: involuntary manslaughter and motor vehicle homicide.

The jury began its deliberations on Tuesday, June 25, 2024, the thirty-seventh day of trial. Three days later, on Friday, June 28, the jury sent a note to the trial judge stating that they were "unable to reach a unanimous verdict."2 The court discussed with the parties how to respond. Read's counsel argued that the court should give what is called a Tuey-Rodriquez instruction under Massachusetts law -- a standard instruction encour