Karen Read's attorneys say prosecutors hid video evidence for years in contentious hearing to dismiss case
The Karen Read case was the subject of two hearings in separate courthouses on Wednesday. First, Read appealed a recent decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court at federal court in South Boston. Once that was over, Read and her attorneys headed to Norfolk Superior Court in Dedham for another hearing.
Prosecutors accuse Read of hitting and killing Boston police officer John O'Keefe, who she was dating at the time, with her SUV and leaving him to die in the snow outside a Canton home in 2022. She has pleaded not guilty and argued that she is being framed by several people including law enforcement.
Read's first high-profile trial ended in a mistrial last summer with a "starkly divided" jury. Her second trial is scheduled to begin on April 1.
Federal court appeal
Read started the day in federal court in South Boston, where her attorney Martin Weinberg asked a federal judge to require the state court to bring back jurors from her first trial to poll them and determine if they had acquitted Read on two charges.
This federal court case seeks habeas relief, which is a legal doctrine that allows people to challenge their unlawful detention. It stems from Read's Supreme Judicial Court appeal, in which the highest state court denied her request to drop two charges against her. Read's lawyers make two arguments, that a mistrial declaration was not necessary and that jurors privately voted to acquit Read.
Norfolk County Assistant District Attorney Caleb Schillinger argued for the state, saying that jury verdicts in Massachusetts aren't final – and can be changed – until the moment they are read out loud in open court. Therefore, he said, there was no final verdict.
Chief District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV told lawyers the legal question was complicated, comparing it to a forest. He said he would make a decision as quickly as possible so that lawyers will have time to appeal, with Karen Read's upcoming April 1 trial in mind.
Jury tampering allegations
All parties then drove to Dedham for a hearing in Norfolk Superior Court – state court – for the defense to argue its recently filed Motion to Dismiss.
The hearing started with a heated exchange in which Judge Beverly Cannone scolded defense attorney Alan Jackson before he started his argument.
Cannone was referring to a part of the motion to dismiss – which was largely redacted – which apparently accused a Massachusetts State Trooper of jury tampering.
The defense alleges that Lieutenant John Fanning was in charge of the jury or oversaw the jury in some capacity. Fanning works for the Norfolk County District Attorney's office and was also in a group chat in which Trooper Michael Proctor said disparaging things about Karen Read.
"Lt. Fanning was on the text chain where Michael Proctor said he was going through my client's phone looking for nudes," Alan Jackson said.
Judge Cannone emphatically denied the allegations, however.
"What you state as fact, that Lt. Fanning had control and access to this jury is simply not true, Mr. Jackson," she said, referencing prior conversations regarding candor to the court. Cannone also said it's the court officers only who are tasked with overseeing the jury.
Jackson said his team, other than taking the word of the court, had no factual basis that the information that Lt. Fanning had no interaction with the jury was true.
Why does this matter?
The defense says that Lt. Fanning was the person who reported to the court alleged misconduct by a "potentially Karen Read friendly" juror, causing her to get dismissed from the case on the last day of trial.
Canton sallyport video release
The other major factor in Alan Jackson's argument was that prosecutors slowly released Canton Police sallyport and surveillance video to defense attorneys over the course of years, despite having access to it the day of the alleged crime.
Some of the videos were released to the defense as recently as last week. The defense says these videos are exculpatory because they have the possibility of showing the condition of the tail light on Karen Read's SUV in the hours following John O'Keefe's death.
"For the Commonwealth to have this video footage for three years, it makes one question what was going on with this evidence," Alan Jackson said. "That is bad faith."
Jackson also said at one point, possible evidence was transferred at Canton Police with a note on it from the police chief that ended in the term, "LOL."
In response, prosecutor Hank Brennan told the court that Trooper Michael Proctor had gathered the video and not passed it onto prosecutors.
Brennan also argued that the condition of Read's tail light didn't matter, showing various videos to the court where he says it is undisputed that parts of Read's tail light were already missing, to attempt to dispute the defense's allegation that Proctor damaged Read's tail light and planted evidence at the scene.
Another juror speaks out
Another juror has spoken out with their reaction to Wednesday's hearing. Victoria George, who is an attorney herself and was an alternate juror in Read's first trial, sent the following to WBZ-TV.
"I was a fair-minded juror who left this trial questioning the integrity of the system long before the defense filed a motion to dismiss with allegations of jury tampering. It is the Read case itself—and the fact that it is still being brought—that has left many in Massachusetts wary, distrustful, and scared of our system. As a lawyer, this reality saddens me even more because I remember how much faith I had in our system as an optimistic law student."
"Mr. Brennan made an impassioned argument today regarding his alleged concern that some might be questioning the 'fabric of our entire judicial system.' If he truly would like to address that problem, I have a few suggestions," she added.
"Perhaps the Norfolk County District Attorney's Office should be more focused on remedying the systemic issues plaguing it and affiliated police departments rather than continuing to spend millions of taxpayer dollars prosecuting a case with so many evidentiary issues that it calls into question whether they are even following their ethical obligations as prosecutors. The Commonwealth has a duty to protect the rights of defendants, and I, for one, would love to see them do so."
What's next?
There are still two more motions to argue in this case, plus motions in limine (or evidentiary motions) ahead of the trial. All parties will be back in court on March 18.
The judge could also make decisions on a number of outstanding motions at any point before then.
Who is Karen Read?
Read is a 45-year-old financial analyst who was living in Mansfield at the time of O'Keefe's death. She is charged with second-degree murder, manslaughter while operating under the influence of alcohol, and leaving the scene of personal injury and death.
Her second trial is scheduled to begin on April 1.
