In a startling development, another juror has stepped forward to reveal that the jury in the Karen Read case was prepared to acquit her on two out of the three charges she faced, including second-degree murder. This new information was disclosed in a recent defense filing, adding further complexity to the high-profile trial.

According to the filing by defense attorney Alan Jackson, "Juror D" expressed deep concern over the fact that the jury never had the opportunity to deliberate on each count individually. The juror reportedly informed Jackson that the jury was deadlocked only on Count 2, while having reached unanimous agreement on acquittal for Counts 1 and 3. However, there was uncertainty about whether they were allowed to communicate this to the judge.

This revelation follows a previous filing earlier this week, in which the defense claimed that three other jurors provided similar accounts. The filing, serving as a supplemental affidavit to support a motion to dismiss, argued that since the jury had unanimously agreed on not guilty verdicts for Counts 1 and 3, it should preclude re-prosecution and necessitate the dismissal of those charges.

Karen Read, a 44-year-old resident of Mansfield, stands accused of fatally striking her boyfriend, Boston Police officer John O'Keefe, with her Lexus SUV and subsequently leaving the scene during a severe snowstorm. She faces charges of 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).

Jackson's newest filing further detailed the concerns of Juror D, who expressed discomfort with the abrupt ending of the trial. The juror described the final day as a confusing whirlwind, with the jury being quickly escorted out of the courtroom after a mistrial was declared. Desiring to remain anonymous, Juror D indicated a willingness to testify about the unanimous not guilty verdicts reached for Counts 1 and 3.

The defense firmly argues that the jury's unanimous agreement on these charges should prohibit any future prosecution against Read and demand their dismissal. They assert that the significance of acquittals in the criminal justice system over many years supports their plea.

The latest disclosure from Juror D adds to the growing complexity surrounding the Karen Read trial. As the legal proceedings continue, the defense will likely press for the charges related to Counts 1 and 3 to be dismissed based on the unanimous agreement reached by the jury. The prosecution, on the other hand, may seek to address the concerns raised by Juror D and the other juror accounts during subsequent proceedings.

As the case unfolds, the justice system will have to grapple with the implications of these revelations and determine an appropriate course of action moving forward.