Karen Read's defense asks judge to dismiss entire case for "extraordinary governmental misconduct"
In a highly anticipated filing, Karen Read's defense team has asked Judge Beverly Cannone to dismiss Read's entire case for reasons of "extraordinary governmental misconduct."
Read's defense team had hinted at this filing last month. It was formally filed on Wednesday, but was impounded – meaning it was sealed and not accessible.
On Thursday, the court released a heavily redacted version of the document. Of the 147 pages, approximately half are completely redacted. The motion alleges intentional video manipulation, withholding of critical evidence, not disclosing meetings with witnesses and interfering with the jury.
Karen Read's motion to dismiss
Read's lawyers say her case should be thrown out entirely "with prejudice," meaning that she could not be charged or tried again if the judge grants this motion.
"Ms. Read has been permanently and irreversibly denied her constitutional right to a fair trial," the document reads.
Here are the reasons defense attorneys allege "extraordinary government misconduct."
Canton police surveillance video
A large theme of the motion surrounds issues with video surveillance at the Canton Police Department.
As you may remember, during Read's first trial, Mass. State Police Sergeant Yuriy Bukhenik testified about sallyport video showing Read's car inside the police station – video that was inverted. In the motion, defense attorneys say the inverted video was a "deliberate attempt to defraud the jury into believing that no one approached or touched the right rear tail light," because part of their defense involved allegations that Trooper Michael Proctor manipulated the tail light and planted evidence at the crime scene.
Defense attorneys also say the video footage was never disclosed to defense until April 4, 2024, shortly before the first trial, despite an order from the court for the Commonwealth to preserve evidence.
In addition, attorneys took issue with the fact that 42 minutes of the sallyport video is missing – the exact time they say Read's car would have been driven into the garage, showing the condition of her tail light, which they say would show "whether anyone removed tail light material from the SUV before the first piece of tail light evidence was recovered at 34 Fairview Rd."
On October 10, 2024, after the first trial, defense attorneys say they received new footage from Canton police that shows witness Brian Higgins in the parking lot of the Canton Police Department, making a phone call to an unknown individual at 1:34 a.m.
Watch: Analysis of Karen Read's motion to dismiss
"The Commonwealth failed to preserve video in the case which they were required to do under a February 2, 2022 preservation order," the motion said.
In addition, more Canton police video released to the defense in January 2025 shows "blurry and grainy" footage showing an unidentified individual approach the right tail light, they said. The defense did not have access to this video during the first trial.
"No tail light material was found at the crime scene until after the Massachusetts State Police took custody of Ms. Read's vehicle, and after it arrived at the CPD Sallyport," the motion reads. "It is not a coincidence that none of the many cameras in the CPD's Sallyport garage capture the condition of the right rear tail light upon its arrival at CPD."
Jen McCabe goes to Michael Lank's house
It was revealed at Ms. Read's first trial that witness Jennifer McCabe made a visit to Canton Police Officer Michael Lank's house the day after John O'Keefe's death. McCabe said she was dropping off a friend's daughter and didn't go into the house other than to use the bathroom — an allegation defense attorneys dispute.
Lank was the first officer to go inside 34 Fairview Road to speak with witnesses at the crime scene.
Defense attorneys, in their motion to dismiss, allege that prosecutors and State Police detectives were aware of this visit by McCabe on May 10, a full week before she testified in Read's case, but never informed the defense despite a legal and ethical obligation to do so.
Jury tampering allegations
In a new allegation never before heard by the public, defense attorneys allege jury tampering by prosecutors during Read's first trial.
Specifically, the motion implies that a juror was dismissed because of their "views."
Several jurors were dismissed over the course of the trial, including one dismissal the morning of closing arguments.
Despite the allegation of jury tampering, we cannot know the specific details of which juror is the center of the controversy or why, as the description of the allegation is redacted, with no public access.
"Ultimately, Ms. Read's Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury entitled her certain procedural protections when it comes to dismissal of jurors. Those procedural protections were not provided here," the motion reads.
More redactions – and the final word
The majority of exhibits – or pieces of evidence – attached to this motion to dismiss are redacted, showing fully inked out pages that are inaccessible by members of the media or public.
"The redaction of entire pages, sequential series of pages, or entire documents is usually questionable in terms of the free flow of information that the public and media are entitled to," retired Massachusetts Judge Jack Lu said. "It is entirely possible that the "wholesale" redactions are completely legitimate. It is equally possible that they are excessive."
For all of the reasons described above, defense attorneys allege Read's right to a fair trial and to exculpatory evidence have been violated, and they ask for her case to be dismissed entirely.
Read's second trial is currently scheduled to start on April 1. She has pleaded not guilty to charges of second-degree murder, manslaughter while operating under the influence of alcohol, and leaving the scene of personal injury and death.
What happens next in the Karen Read case?
Prosecutors will have the opportunity to file an opposition to this motion. It will likely be argued by both sides next week, as there are hearings in the case scheduled for Tuesday, Wednesday, and potentially Friday.
Judge Cannone will decide whether the motion is granted.
