unconstitutional undermining of a fair trial: the jury instructions and verdict form in the karen reed retrial

Introduction
In the retrial of Karen Read, the jury instructions and verdict form presented to jurors were constitutionally defective. These flaws—ambiguity in verdict options, coercive deadlock instructions, and absence of required unanimity safeguards—collectively undermined her due‑process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a unanimous verdict.

I. Ambiguous Verdict Form
Jurors were given a “Not Guilty” option only for the murder count (Count 1), while lesser included offenses (DUI manslaughter and leaving the scene) had only “Guilty” boxes. They lacked clear guidance on whether an acquittal of the greater offense encompassed all lesser charges. This structural deficiency mirrors the ambiguity condemned in ClearOne Communications, Inc. v. Biamp Systems, where a Tenth Circuit panel found it impossible to determine whether the jury meant to award a total sum or separate allocations—holding that verdict forms must unambiguously capture jury intent. 653 F.3d 1163, 1180–81 (10th Cir. 2011)cafc.uscourts.gov+10law.justia.com+10callidusai.com+10bostonglobe.com+4news.northeastern.edu+46abc.com+4. The Karen Read form raised the same concerns, risking a verdict that masked the jury’s actual collective intent—anathema to due process.

II. Coercive Deadlock Instructions (“Dynamite Charge”)
To address an impasse, the court issued a Tuey–Rodriguez “dynamite charge”—which urged deadlocked jurors to re-examine their views. Massachusetts sources note that the language used strayed beyond permissible bounds, warning jurors of the jury’s duty and possible inconvenience, rather than merely encouraging calm deliberation. Cyrus Medwed of Northeastern dubbed the language “very controversial” and said it was outlawed in many states for its coercive potential6abc.com+2news.northeastern.edu+2bostonglobe.com+2. Jurors told the court they were “deeply divided,” yet were nudged into compromising from strong positions—an approach invalidated in People v. LaValle, 3 N.Y.3d 88, 102 (2004), which found that death‑penalty or high‑stakes variants of such instructions can violate due process. Though not capital, this instruction risked unfairly tipping jurors toward a decision inconsistent with independent judgment.

III. Lack of Specific‑Unanimity Instruction
Karen Read faced multiple alternative theories and charges: DUI manslaughter, second‑degree murder, and leaving the scene. No instruction required jurors to unanimously select one cohesive theory of guilt. Federal guidance—such as Ninth Circuit Model Criminal Jury Instruction 6.27 (2006)—mandates a specific‑unanimity instruction when alternative theories are in play to avoid non‑unanimous or factional verdicts apnews.com. Supreme Court precedent echoes the importance of unanimity: Burch v. Louisiana, 441 U.S. 130, 136 (1979), and Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S. Ct. 1390, 1404–05 (2020), which reaffirm that criminal convictions must reflect a unanimous decision. Absent such guidance, the jury could have convicted Read on mixed theories, circumventing constitutional safeguards.

IV. Cumulative Constitutional Violations
First, the verdict form’s structure subverted the Fifth Amendment by muddying whether guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt for each offense. Secondly, coercive instructions during deliberations violated the Sixth Amendment by compromising juror independence, and the Fourteenth Amendment by eroding due-process standards. Finally, failure to provide specific‑unanimity instructions threatened the Sixth Amendment guarantee of a unanimous verdict.

V. Remedy and Conclusion
To rectify these constitutional shortcomings, the defense is entitled to a new trial with the following remedies:

1. A clear verdict form offering separate “Guilty” and “Not Guilty” options for each count, including a rule that acquittal on a greater offense automatically acquits lesser included offenses.
2. A specific‑unanimity jury charge, requiring jurors to unanimously agree on a single theory of guilt.
3. Use of only non‑coercive, Massachusetts-approved version of Tuey–Rodriguez language—stripped of any commentary on time, expense, or inconvenience.

In sum, the combined effect of ambiguous verdict documentation, coercive direction, and absent unanimity safeguards deeply compromised the fairness of the proceeding. Karen Read’s constitutional rights demand a retrial that adheres to clear, unbiased procedure—ensuring verdicts are fundamentally reliable and properly grounded in unanimous juror determination.