Crime

Prosecutors want a judge to block Karen Read’s lawyers from making certain comments outside the courtroom

The motion looks to restrict attorneys from making statements to the media that could be seen as prejudicial to court proceedings in Read's case.

Karen Read, center, in a gray suit, stands on the steps of the courthouse, flanked by two of her lawyers. They are surrounded by members of the media holding cameras and microphones.
Karen Read, a Mansfield woman charged with murdering her Boston police officer boyfriend, John O’Keefe, appeared in Norfolk County Superior Court for a pretrial hearing on May 3, 2023. John Tlumacki/Boston Globe Staff, File

By Abby Patkin

4 minutes to read

Prosecutors in Norfolk County are asking a judge to bar attorneys for Karen Read — the Mansfield woman accused of killing her Boston police officer boyfriend — from speaking about certain aspects of the case outside the courtroom.

In a motion filed Friday, Assistant District Attorneys Adam C. Lally and Laura A. McLaughlin argued that the defense team’s tactics have fueled an invasion of witnesses’ privacy.

“As part of their ‘trial by media’ strategy, the defendant has sought to target the witnesses’ credibility and character through the use of the media and has encouraged the unwarranted invasion of witnesses’ personal privacy,” the motion reads.

Advertisement:

The motion seeks to block Read’s lawyers — David Yannetti, Ian Henchy, Alan Jackson, and Elizabeth Little — from “making extrajudicial statements to the media that could be seen as prejudicial to the criminal proceedings,” a policy in line with the Massachusetts rules of professional conduct for attorneys.

More on Karen Read:

Lally and McLaughlin asserted that restraints on lawyers’ comments outside the courtroom may be warranted in certain cases to “protect the integrity and fairness of the judicial system.” Lawyers and law enforcement witnesses for the prosecution also agreed to follow the proposed order.

Yannetti told Boston.com in an email that the defense team plans to oppose the DA’s motion in court.

The background

Read is accused of striking John O’Keefe with her car on Jan. 29, 2022, while dropping him off at a fellow Boston police officer’s home in Canton following a night of drinking. She has pleaded not guilty to charges of second-degree murder, motor vehicle manslaughter while driving under the influence, and leaving the scene of a collision causing injury and death.

Advertisement:

In a defense strategy that has already drawn considerable news coverage and attention on social media, Read’s lawyers have argued that the 43-year-old was framed for killing O’Keefe, suggesting that guests at the afterparty were really to blame.

The lawyers have pointed to phone data they claim indicates not only that O’Keefe entered the home in Canton that night, but that the homeowner’s sister-in-law searched “ho[w] long to die in cold” at 2:27 a.m. — hours before Read found O’Keefe’s body outside in the snow. 

Prosecutors, meanwhile, have noted that O’Keefe’s phone data also shows him walking around hours after he’d been declared dead, further arguing that the defense team misinterpreted data and produced a faulty timestamp for the Google search.

What the new motion says

In Friday’s motion, Lally and McLaughlin argued that the defense team’s statements outside the courtroom “go further than zealous representation; they are unsubstantiated proclamations, supported only by self-serving speculation and conjecture, likely not to be admissible at trial and done with the intent of materially prejudicing the criminal proceedings by risking the impartiality of potential jurors.”

Advertisement:

Prosecutors also accused Read’s attorneys of encouraging media outlets to contact witnesses with “inflammatory” questions, and of filing motions that contained witnesses’ names, dates of birth, social security information, addresses, and phone numbers.

“In response to defense counsels’ call to action, witnesses have suffered unwarranted invasion of privacy as they have been receiving repeated and harassing phone calls, family members of witnesses have been contacted and harassed, and the victim’s family has suffered emotional harm due to the public dissemination of … [post-mortem] photographs,” the motion reads. 

Karen Read, a white woman with dark blonde hair, looks over her shoulder. She is wearing a dark-colored shirt.
Karen A. Read, girlfriend of the late Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe, was arraigned in Norfolk Superior Court on June 10, 2022, on a charge of second-degree murder in his death. She looked back at her family.

The proposed restrictions

Lally and McLaughlin proposed a set of restrictions that would apply to lawyers on both sides, as well as law enforcement witnesses. The motion notably does not seek to restrain Read, media outlets, or non-law enforcement witnesses.

The proposed order would bar attorneys on the case from sharing information that they know or should know will have “a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing potential trial jurors or witnesses or will have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused or law enforcement.” 

The suggested restrictions also look to block attorneys from making or releasing extrajudicial statements on certain subject matters related to the case, including: 

  • Testimony or expected testimony;
  • The existence or contents of any statements Read made to law enforcement personnel;
  • Forensic testing results; 
  • The substance of evidence a party expects to try to introduce at trial; 
  • Information that an attorney knows or should know is likely to be inadmissible as evidence at trial and that if disclosed would “create a substantial risk of prejudicing an impartial trial”; 
  • And the existence and subject matter of any ongoing grand jury or other criminal investigation of Read or of any prospective witnesses.

What’s next?

Read is due back in court on July 25. 

Advertisement:

Recent court hearings have been marked by heated debate over evidence, and prosecutors said in Friday’s motion that they’ve provided Read’s team with a “substantial” amount of discovery.

“This evidence establishes that the defendant, while intoxicated, in a snowstorm, operated her motor vehicle in reverse for a period of time, before striking the victim at a high rate of speed,” the motion asserts.

But Yannetti, one of Read’s lawyers, told Boston.com the defense attorneys “dispute the prosecution’s arguments about what they think might have happened.”

He added: “They are wrong.”

Profile image for Abby Patkin

Abby Patkin

Staff Writer

Abby Patkin is a general assignment news reporter whose work touches on public transit, crime, health, and everything in between.

To comment, please create a screen name in your profile

Conversation

This discussion has ended. Please join elsewhere on Boston.com