The Karen Read retrial jury announced they had a verdict — and then changed their minds moments later.

“During the luncheon break I received word from a court officer that the jury had knocked on the door indicating that they had a verdict,” Judge Beverly J. Cannone announced just before 2:30 p.m. “But before I could even summons everybody into court, shortly thereafter they knocked again and said they didn’t have a verdict.”

But their almost-verdict was sealed in a manilla envelope, which Cannone then formally sealed, in the court process sense, to preserve for the record.

“So we do not have a verdict because as we all know there is no verdict until it is announced and recorded in open court. … I would ask everyone to remain in the building until the end of day.”

From media pundits to conversations overheard by devoted onlookers who came to wait at the courthouse, many believed a verdict would come today in the trial.

The theory was sparked by two notes the jury sent to Judge Cannone that appeared to indicate they were narrowing down their choice and could be nearing a decision. But that decision did not come on Tuesday and they were released, even a little early.

Then the morning hours passed today and jurors entered their lunch break without a peep.

“The length of today’s deliberations suggest that the judge was wise to release the jury a little early yesterday and not hold them late,” retired state Superior Court Judge Jack Lu told the Herald.

“Today, they have been deliberating for more than three hours, and the clock is ticking,” he added. “This suggests that trying to get a verdict yesterday would have been not only a bad idea, but futile.”

This is a breaking news update. The Boston Herald’s earlier story is below.

Tension is high as Karen Read murder retrial jurors continue deliberating after sending two notes Tuesday hinting they may be nearing a decision.

“If we find not guilty on two charges but can’t agree on one charge, is it a hung jury on all three charges or just one charge?” the jury asked in the late afternoon Tuesday.

Taken alongside an earlier note asking, in part, “Does a guilty on a sub-charge … convict on the overall charge?” the question suggests jurors are weighing a lesser-included offense.

Read, who has often talked to the media during the trial, was tight-lipped when court took its lunch break following the jury’s first question. Her attorneys are barred by a gag order from talking.

But her father, Bill Read, spoke briefly:

“I just want my daughter home. And free,” he told reporters.

The case

Read is charged with killing Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe, her boyfriend, by striking him with her car on Jan. 29, 2022.

The 45-year-old former financial analyst and college lecturer is indicted on three charges: second-degree murder, manslaughter while operating a motor vehicle under the influence, and leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death.

The manslaughter charge also comes with subordinate, or “lesser included,” charges jurors can consider if they determine her actions do not make her guilty of the primary offense: involuntary manslaughter, motor vehicle homicide and operating under the influence of liquor, or OUI.

Jurors began deliberating after closing arguments Friday afternoon and had been at it for more than 15 hours before they were released for the day Tuesday. The jury’s work is informed by 31 days of testimony spanning more than seven weeks.

Questions answered

The jury’s first note in full asked three easily answered questions: “What is the time frame for the OUI charge?” “Are video clips of Karen’s interviews evidence?” “Does a guilty on a sub-charge … convict on the overall charge?”

The answers Cannone provided are, in order: “You are the factfinders” to the timeframe, since no time is stated in the indictment; “Yes, the videos are evidence. You should weigh the defendant’s statements in the video as you would any other piece of evidence”; and for the third gave further instructions on the slip and issued a revised verdict slip.

As for the later note, on whether the jury would be hung if it agreed on two but not a third charge, Cannone declined to answer.

“This is a theoretical question, not one that I can answer,” she said.

She did so over defense objection.

But retired state Superior Court Judge Jack Lu said that her answer was “perfect” and suited to the goal of the jury. He backed up her stated reasoning that jurors are not to consider the implications of their decision, but instead to just make their best decision carefully.

“The goal is not to ‘get a verdict.’ The goal is for the jury to reach a careful, well-considered verdict,” Lu told the Herald on Wednesday. “We are asking the jury for the statement ‘Here is the truth.’ Not ‘Here is a result.’ The difference is critical to achieving justice.”

“Sometimes a jury that is in the throes of deliberations will flail about by asking questions. A jury will say, ‘Well, let’s ask the judge this question.’ Of course, the accommodating foreperson agrees. In this situation they are avoiding the real hard task: deliberating to a verdict.