Newsletter Signup
Stay up to date on all the latest news from Boston.com
Karen Read case: Judge Beverly Cannone declines to step down as defense team alleges waning public confidence
“I want to make it very clear that I reject the notion that untrue and unsubstantiated rumors spread on the internet can force a judge to recuse herself from a case.”
The judge overseeing the court proceedings against Karen A. Read shot down a request from defense attorneys to recuse herself on Tuesday, disputing claims that she has ties to people involved in the case.
Alan Jackson, one of Read’s lawyers, argued that there has been an “undeniable erosion of public confidence” in Judge Beverly Cannone’s ability to be fair in the contentious case, which has drawn extensive news coverage and social media debate.
Read is charged in the Jan. 29, 2022 death of her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O’Keefe. Prosecutors say she struck O’Keefe with her SUV while dropping him off at the Canton home of a fellow Boston police officer, Brian Albert, following a night out.
Advertisement:
Read 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.
Lawyers for the Mansfield woman have pushed an alternative theory that O’Keefe was beaten, and that the homeowners and other guests conspired to frame Read for his death.
More on Karen Read:
Tuesday’s hearing was occasionally disrupted as unmuted spectators jockeyed to listen in remotely, marking the latest in a legal saga that has captured the public’s attention.
Karen Read judge pushes back on ‘untrue and unsubstantiated rumors’
Arguing in favor of Cannone’s recusal, Jackson emphasized that the defense was not stating that the judge couldn’t be fair or impartial.
Advertisement:
“Only the court knows the answer to that question,” he said. “But the facts we’ve presented unquestionably are such that the public might — and that’s the key word — the public might doubt the court’s fairness in some regard. And that’s all that’s required for this court to do the right thing and step aside from this case.”
Jackson alleged that Cannone had a “routine practice” of failing to act on defense motions in a timely manner. He also pointed to a message that a purported relative of Jennifer McCabe — Albert’s sister-in-law — allegedly sent to the blog Turtleboy, which has promoted theories that Read was framed.
Read’s lawyers held up a print-out of the exchange, which shows the blogger asking about a connection to Cannone. McCabe’s relative allegedly responded, “Auntie Bev??? Whose seaside cottage do you think we’re gonna bury your corpse under?”
Norfolk Assistant District Attorney Adam Lally argued that the messages were between two individuals “who have literally nothing to do with this case” and said they were “divorced from the context in which this communication arises,” referencing previous statements and blog posts.
Advertisement:
Jackson also cited a 2022 Venmo payment for a beach house rental that allegedly referenced Cannone, though the judge pointed out that the name “Beverley” in the payment description did not match her spelling. Moreover, she said she has never rented out her Cape Cod home.
“And doesn’t that underscore the fact that anybody can say or write anything and try to make it the basis of a motion to recuse? And I think it points out that this motion to recuse is not credible,” Cannone said.
She added: “I want to make it very clear that I reject the notion that untrue and unsubstantiated rumors spread on the internet can force a judge to recuse herself from a case.”
Cannone offered Read’s lawyers an opportunity to appeal the decision, but Jackson said the defense team is not considering an appeal at this time.
But what about the ‘media circus’?
The judge next considered a request from prosecutors to bar Read’s attorneys from speaking about certain aspects of the case outside the courtroom.
Lally noted that the proposed order doesn’t aim to stop Read or her lawyers from speaking to the media, but instead “seeks to prohibit counsel addressing the media or addressing the merits of the case within the media or using the media as a propagandist to advance its theory of the case.”
Advertisement:
He accused the defense team of “cherry-picking” certain pieces of evidence and releasing them to the media out of context, also claiming that witnesses in the case have faced harassment as a result.
Defense attorney David Yannetti argued that prosecutors didn’t see a need for restrictions until public discourse swayed in his client’s favor.
“They were quite happy with the press this case was getting when it was in their favor and their minions were out doing their work with the media,” he said, later adding, “We did not create this media circus; the prosecution did.”
Yannetti also questioned prosecutors’ intentions.
“Does the prosecution think that if they stuff a gag in the mouths of Karen Read’s attorneys, that these good reporters behind me are simply going to go away? Do they think that the general public’s gonna go away?” he asked. “If you gag us, your honor, the extrajudicial conversation will not end. If anything, it will only intensify.”
Cannone did not rule on the motion Tuesday and said she would take the matter under advisement. Read is due back in court on Sept. 15; a trial date has not been set.
To comment, please create a screen name in your profile
To comment, please verify your email address
Conversation
This discussion has ended. Please join elsewhere on Boston.com