Michael Proctor, fired Karen Read investigator, argues termination was predetermined
An attorney for Michael Proctor, the disgraced lead investigator in the Karen Read case, argued before the Civil Service Commission in Boston that his firing from Massachusetts State Police was rushed and predetermined. The department, meanwhile, countered for a second straight day that Proctor should not be allowed to get his job back.
Proctor began challenging his firing Tuesday before the independent panel that reviews any disciplinary action in state and local government.
Daniel Moynihan, an attorney for Proctor, alleged during Wednesday's proceedings that Proctor's firing was predetermined and rushed. Moynihan pointed out that internal affairs investigator already had a draft of his recommendations ready before interviewing Proctor.
Tempers flared at times on the second day of questioning, with several objections and sidebars.
Massachusetts State Police Det. Lt. Kevin Dwyer was the only witness called by the department over the first two days. He concluded his questioning around 3 p.m. on Wednesday.
Proceedings will resume on October 21 when Proctor's attorney will begin presenting his case. If Proctor loses, he could appeal again to Superior Court.
Michael Proctor hearing
Dwyer, who handled the professional integrity investigation into Proctor, faced cross examination by Moynihan on Wednesday, followed by addition re-direct questions.
Dwyer was asked under cross-examination if it is fair to say that Proctor's termination was a predetermination.
"I can't say sir," Dwyer said.
Moynihan said the former trooper was blindsided in 2024 by the revelation that federal investigators had access to his personal private cellphone. Moynihan said Proctor had an expectation of privacy on his cellphone and that Read's attorneys convinced the U.S. Attorney's Office to investigate a theory of a grand conspiracy against Read.
State police lawyer Stephen Carley asked Dwyer on re-direct questioning Wednesday regarding department policy, "Is there any portion of the sections we just read, or any portion of Article 5 that says 'Members should perform the following way, except when on a personal cellphone?" Dwyer said no.
"Does it say 'Except when texting one's high school friends?" Carley asked, prompting Dwyer to answer no again. "Does it say, 'Except when you're stressed or angry at a suspect?' Carley asked, as Dwyer answered no a final time.
In the first session Tuesday, Carley said Proctor deserved to be fired because he admitted to his own wrongdoing. Proctor lost his job for telling friends and family details of the investigation into the death of Read's boyfriend, for crude text messages he sent about Read and for drinking and then driving his cruiser.
During Tuesday's session, Proctor watched as Carley read from the texts in court and then played video of Proctor reading them on the stand at Read's first trial.
Dwyer said under questioning Wednesday that the process was not rushed.
"Certain cases always take priority over other cases. It is no secret that there was heavy media attention on this case. Based on that, this would be a priority case, in addition to the allegations that were made," Dwyer said.
State police lawyers fought back, saying Proctor's actions deserved the punishment he received.
"It doesn't matter whether it occurs via email, or smoke signal, or personal cellphone. It doesn't matter," Carley said.
Michael Proctor fired by Massachusetts State Police
Moynihan claims Proctor was fired for political reasons, saying he was not suspended until after Read's first trial ended in a mistrial, even though his superiors knew about the text messages.
State Police put Proctor on leave in July 2024. He was fired after an internal trial process in March 2025. He's now appealing that termination in this civil service hearing.
When the commission reaches a decision, it will be posted online.