In the Karen Read trial, the jury seeks clarification from the judge regarding the charges and evidence related to the murder of her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O’Keefe.

BOSTON — A jury asked questions Tuesday as they continue to deliberate in the Karen Read retrial.

Read, 45, is accused of striking John O’Keefe with her car outside a suburban Boston house party and leaving him to die in the snow in January 2022.

According to Read’s attorneys, they allege that O’Keefe, aged 46, was not only brutally attacked and mauled by a dog but subsequently abandoned outside a Canton residence. They claim this was part of a conspiracy by the police, who are accused of fabricating evidence against Read.

Jury deliberations commenced late last week, over a month after the trial initially began. This marked the second complete day of discussions, starting on Tuesday morning and concluding without a decision. Additional deliberations are slated for Wednesday.

The jury signaled their confusion about jury instructions, leaving many searching for clues in the questions they’re asking.

“We received an inquiry from the jurors: ‘If we find not guilty on two charges but cannot come to a consensus on one charge, does that mean a hung jury on all three charges or just on one?'” Judge Canone conveyed to the courtroom.

Read is facing three charges: 2nd degree murder, vehicular manslaughter while under the influence of alcohol, and leaving the scene of an accident causing death.

RELATED: Things to know about the retrial of Karen Read in the killing of her police officer boyfriend

“We don’t answer theoretical questions. I tell the jurors not to be concerned with the consequences of their verdict and that’s exactly what they’re doing here,” the judge said, trying to answer the jurors’ question.

The case against Read has gripped the nation and divided the Boston area, and launching a legion of supporters.

Hundreds of supporters dressed in pink outside the courtroom.

Earlier, the jury asked about the charge of operating under the influence and whether the video clips of Read’s television interviews — including with ABC’s 20/20 — can be used as evidence.

Daniel Medwed, a law professor at Northeastern University who is not involved in the case, said it’s “quite possible it is heading for a compromise or mercy verdict, a split verdict,” in light of the questions.

“My take is that the jury might be homing in the OUI charge, suggesting they might have doubts about whether she struck him at all,” Medwed said.

The defense has said several jurors from the first trial came forward and said the jury was set to acquit Read on two charges but deadlocked on a third, leading to the mistrial.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.