BOSTON — The latest chapter in the Karen Read saga moves to the state’s highest court, where her lawyers hope Wednesday to convince judges that several charges related to the death of her Boston police officer boyfriend should be dropped .

Read is accused of hitting John O’Keefe with her SUV and leaving him to die in a snowstorm in January 2022. Read’s lawyers say she is framed and that other law enforcement officers are responsible for O’Keefe’s death. A judge declared a mistrial in June after finding that jurors could not reach an agreement. A new trial on the same charges is scheduled to begin in January, although both sides on Monday asked for it to be delayed until April. 1.

The defense is expected to reiterate arguments made in Massachusetts Supreme Court filings that retrying Read on second-degree murder and leaving the scene charges would constitute unconstitutional double jeopardy.

Defense attorneys said five jurors came forward after her mistrial to say they were deadlocked on only one count of involuntary manslaughter and agreed she was not guilty of the other charges. But they didn’t tell the judge.

The defense also argues that the jurors’ statements “reflect a clear and unambiguous decision that Ms. Read is not guilty” and support their request for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether jurors found her not guilty of the two charges.

Read’s defense attorneys cited a ruling in Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s case, in which a federal appeals court earlier this year ordered the judge overseeing his trial to investigate defense claims of juror bias and determine whether his death sentence should stand.

“Under the Commonwealth’s logic, no defendant who claims that the jury acquitted her but did not announce that verdict is entitled to further inquiry, however clear and well-supported her claim,” according to the defense brief.

The defense also argued that the judge suddenly announced a mistrial without first asking each juror to confirm their findings on each count.

“There is no indication that the court considered alternatives, particularly inquiry into partial verdicts,” according to the defense brief. “And the advice was not given a full opportunity to be heard. The court never asked for counsel’s opinions or even mentioned the word mistrial.”

In August, a judge ruled that Read could be retried on those charges. “Where no verdict has been announced in open court here, defendant’s retrial does not violate the principle of double jeopardy,” the judge, Beverly Cannone, said in her ruling.

In his court filing, prosecutors wrote there was no basis to dismiss the charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene of an accident.

They noted in the brief that the jury said it was deadlocked three times before a mistrial was declared. Prosecutors said “the defendant was afforded a meaningful opportunity to be heard on any alternative allegations.”

“The defendant was not acquitted of any charge because the jury did not return, announce or affirm any open and public verdict of acquittal,” they wrote. “This requirement is not a mere formality, a ministerial act or an empty technicality. It is a fundamental safeguard that ensures that no juror’s position is misrepresented, misrepresented, or coerced by other jurors.”

Prosecutors said Read, a former adjunct professor at Bentley College, and O’Keefe, a 16-year member of the Boston police, had been drinking heavily before dropping him off at a party at the home of Boston police officer Brian Albert . . They said she hit him with her SUV before driving off. An autopsy found O’Keefe died of hypothermia and blunt force trauma.

The defense presented Read as the victim, saying O’Keefe was actually killed in Albert’s home and then dragged outside. They argued that investigators focused on Read because she was a “convenient stranger” who kept them from having to consider law enforcement officers as suspects.