In a surprising turn of events, another juror in the highly publicized Karen Read murder case has come forward to reveal that the jury had unanimously voted to acquit Read of second-degree murder and another charge before a mistrial was declared. The revelation has prompted Read's defense attorney to file a motion to dismiss the charges, citing double jeopardy protections.

The mistrial was declared on July 1 by Judge Beverly Cannone after the jury, consisting of six women and six men, informed her that they were hopelessly deadlocked. Defense Attorney Alan Jackson has stated that a fourth juror, referred to as "Juror D," has now confirmed that the jury reached not guilty verdicts on Count 1 and Count 3, specifically second-degree murder and leaving the scene of an accident with injury/death.

According to Jackson's affidavit, Juror D contacted him because they were "uncomfortable" with how the trial concluded, describing the last day of the trial as a "whirlwind" and a confusing experience. The affidavit further states that the jury believed they were required to reach a resolution on all counts before reporting any verdicts.

Furthermore, the defense claims that discussions with other jurors and individuals familiar with the jury indicate that there was a unanimous agreement among the 12 members that Read was not guilty of the two charges. Defense attorney David Yannetti also received communication from two different sources, one of whom provided a text message stating, "It was not guilty of second degree. And split in half for the second charge...I thought the prosecution didn't prove the case. No one thought she hit him on purpose."

Responding to the defense's motion, the Norfolk County District Attorney's Office spokesperson stated that they are examining the motion and preparing a response. As of now, prosecutors remain determined to retry the case and are looking to set a new trial date on July 22.

The double jeopardy clause, which prohibits a person from being tried twice for the same offense, is invoked by the defense to argue that a retrial on the dismissed counts would violate Read's constitutional rights. The defense highlights that it was not given the opportunity to request clarification on which counts the jury was deadlocked before the mistrial was declared.

Former Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley weighed in on the situation, suggesting that the judge will have to carefully consider the motion. However, Coakley also noted that the motion is based on hearsay evidence, and the judge will need to determine if it raises sufficient questions to warrant further action.

The outcome of the defense's motion to dismiss the charges and the possibility of a retrial now lie in the hands of Judge Beverly Cannone. Check the video below to see former Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley's analysis of Read's motion to dismiss.

[Link to video analysis by former Attorney General Martha Coakley]