VOIR DIRE IN KAREN READ MURDER TRIAL
DIFFERENT PROCEDURES? DIFFERENT RESULTS?

The Karen Read murder trial in Massachusetts has been a closely watched crime drama capturing national interest. Read, 45, pleaded not guilty to charges of second-degree murder, vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, and leaving the scene of a collision resulting in death. The decedent, John O’Keefe, a Boston Police officer, was Read’s boyfriend. His body was found with signs of physical trauma in the snow, on January 29, 2022, outside the home of a fellow Boston Police officer in Canton. Prosecutors believe Read ran him over with her car after an argument after which O’Keefe got out of the car. Read is alleged to have been intoxicated, striking O’Keefe while driving in reverse, then fleeing the scene, leaving O’Keefe to die. The defense countered that Read was a victim of an extensive police cover-up and was framed. The trial which began in April lasted 11 weeks and ended in a mistrial.

Throughout the United States, the process of selecting a jury can vary significantly from state to state. During the high-profile prosecution against Karen Read, I was brought in to provide visual litigation support and experienced first-hand how the differences in jury selection in Massachusetts, as opposed to California, could potentially influence the outcome of this case.

The jury selection process, well known as voir dire, allows the judge and the attorneys from both sides to question potential jurors to ensure they can be fair and impartial. Attorneys are given a limited number of peremptory challenges, which allow them to dismiss a juror without cause or providing a reason. However, these challenges cannot be used to discriminate based on race, gender, or other protected groups.

In California, a pool of 12 to 18 prospective jurors are brought into a courtroom and seated in the jury box for open questioning from the attorneys representing each side.  During this exchange jurors are screened to better understand their life experience and to determine if they can be fair and impartial.

In both California and Massachusetts, once jurors are brought into the courtroom, they are asked by the judge a series of questions which relate to financial hardships, strong biases or opinions, and any familiarity with any parties or witnesses involved in the case; this questioning of the jurors is conducted in open court.

Massachusetts, however, has a different approach to the jury selection process.  In the Read case, the jurors were asked the initial questions by the judge in open court.  Following that, each juror, randomly selected by juror number, was asked to come to judge’s sidebar with the attorneys present. The judge then proceeded to further ask a series of questions about that person’s qualifications to sit as a juror.  Next, the attorneys were given the opportunity to question the potential juror, at sidebar, until a final decision was made to either excuse the juror for cause, excuse the juror with a peremptory challenge from the defense or prosecutor or seat the juror.

This process, although very time-consuming, gives prospective jurors a more private environment to be open and candid about their answers to the questions presented by the judge and attorneys.

Another notable difference occurs at the conclusion of the presentation of the evidence and after both sides rest. In Massachusetts, a process then occurs of drawing two random numbers out of a barrel, those jurors whose numbers are drawn become the alternates. The remaining 12 jurors become the final jurors, then the judge selects the jury foreperson and deliberations begin.

This is in stark contrast to California, whereby, upon completion of the evidence, the 12 selected jurors decide amongst themselves who will be the foreperson and the alternates are released from deliberating until and if called to replace any of the original 12 jurors.

These differences in jury selection between California and Massachusetts could have a significant impact on the outcome of a case. While both states’ goal is to select an impartial jury, the procedures they employ to achieve this goal have obvious differences in how potential jurors are required to disclose sensitive personal details, potentially leading to different outcomes in similar cases. What do you think? Does this process necessarily lead to the selection (or non-selection) of jurors who otherwise would have been excused or empaneled?