Karen Read’s lawyers tease evidence from federal probe in motions for dismissal, sanctions. What we learned.

Appearing in court Tuesday, lawyers for Karen Read came armed with explosive new evidence as they argued motions to dismiss the criminal charges and sanction prosecutors in the Mansfield woman’s sensational murder case. 

During the hourlong hearing, attorneys on both sides accused each other of using elaborate “card tricks” to obscure the facts, also teasing newly available information from a federal investigation into Read’s case.

Among the defense team’s supposed bombshells: Multiple investigators allegedly had undisclosed conflicts of interest, and an expert retained by federal officials reportedly concluded that murder victim John O’Keefe’s injuries were “inconsistent” with the damage to Read’s car.

Read, 44, is accused of killing O’Keefe, her Boston police officer boyfriend, on Jan. 29, 2022. Prosecutors allege she was driving drunk, struck O’Keefe with her SUV, and left him to die in the snow outside a fellow Boston officer’s home in Canton after a night out with friends.

Yet Read’s lawyers argue she is being framed, asserting that O’Keefe was actually beaten inside the home, then left outside in the snow. Read, they say, is the victim of a widespread coverup.

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.

Read’s trial was initially scheduled to begin on March 12, but Judge Beverly Cannone delayed the start date by several weeks after the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts turned over 3,074 pages of information from a federal probe into the case. Cannone tentatively postponed the trial to April 16, turning Tuesday’s court date into a regular motions hearing. 

Investigators had close ties with witnesses, defense claims

Up first was defense attorney Alan Jackson, who attempted to poke holes in the grand jury proceedings that resulted in Read’s indictment on murder charges. He argued in part that prosecutors failed to disclose investigators’ personal relationships with the family of Brian Albert, who owned the home where O’Keefe’s body was found.

Jackson alleged that Canton Police Sgt. Michael Lank — who arrived at the scene shortly after O’Keefe’s body was found — had a “personal, lifelong relationship” with Albert’s brother. Jackson further accused Lank of having “a history of using his position as a police officer to shield the Alberts from criminal liability,” citing a decades-old bar fight.

In rebuttal, Assistant District Attorney Adam Lally pointed out that the incident in question occurred roughly 20 years ago and didn’t involve anyone who was at Brian Albert’s home the night O’Keefe died. Further, he noted that Lank was one of several first responders who provided testimony to the grand jury.

Similarly, prosecutors have long denied that Massachusetts State Police Trooper Michael Proctor, a lead investigator on Read’s case, had close ties with the Alberts. However, Jackson alleged federal officials determined that Proctor texted about having Julie Albert — Brian Albert’s sister-in-law — babysit for him 10 days before O’Keefe was killed.

Then, three days after O’Keefe’s death, Jackson said Proctor’s sister texted Proctor that Julie Albert wanted to give Proctor a thank-you gift “when all this is over.” According to Jackson, Proctor also admitted before a federal grand jury that he knows the Alberts, socializes with them, drinks with them, and goes to pool parties with them.

Lally contended that while Julie Albert had provided child care “in a pinch” for Proctor’s sister, she never babysat for Proctor.

“Your honor, simply put, none of these issues or stated malfeasance actually occurred before this grand jury,” he told the court.

Why didn’t Brian Albert come outside?

According to Jackson, the alleged conflicts of interest explain why Brian Albert did not exit his house after O’Keefe’s body was discovered on his front lawn. 

“The answer is because … Brian Albert was waiting on a friendly,” he said.

Lally pushed back, pointing to the early hour, darkness, and blizzard conditions as reasons why Brian Albert stayed inside as emergency crews swarmed the neighborhood. In fact, Lally said, no one else in the neighborhood stepped outside, either. 

Did O’Keefe’s injuries come from a car?

But Jackson wasn’t finished; still citing information from the federal probe, he turned his focus to O’Keefe’s injuries. Prosecutors have said O’Keefe’s DNA links him to a shattered tail light on Read’s SUV. 

According to Jackson, federal investigators hired a “professional reconstructionist” to examine whether Read’s car had, in fact, made contact with O’Keefe.

“And their conclusion … was his injuries were inconsistent with the damage on the car. That the damage on the car was inconsistent with having made contact with John O’Keefe’s body” Jackson alleged. “In other words, the car didn’t hit him, and he wasn’t hit by the car. Period. Full stop.”

Another look at ‘ho[w] long to die in cold’ search

Jackson also accused prosecutors of withholding witness Jennifer McCabe’s Google search for “ho[w] long to die in cold” from the grand jury that indicted Read. He alleged a special agent with the FBI confirmed that McCabe made the Google search at 2:27 a.m. on Jan. 29, 2022 — hours before she, Read, and another woman found O’Keefe’s body. 

Lally, however, argued that the version of the software indicating the timestamp did not exist at the time the grand jury was convened. Further, he said a senior technical analyst with the software company found that McCabe made the search shortly after finding O’Keefe’s body after 6 a.m. 

Charges against Read should be dismissed, defense says

Prosecutors’ grand jury presentation “was packed with lies — known lies by the investigators — and the omissions and manipulations and deceit by the very people that are supposed to be the ones that we in the community can trust, the ones that are supposed to protect our interests,” Jackson argued. 

“The simple fact, your honor, is the presentation by the commonwealth before the grandy jury in the state court action, it just wasn’t fair. That’s the easiest way to say it,” he said. “It just didn’t give Ms. Read a fair shot.”

Meanwhile, Lally argued that Read’s lawyers haven’t met the legal burden for dismissal, pushing back on the defense team’s claim that prosecutors have glossed over the finer points of the case.

The defense “wants to say that the commonwealth is asking the court or everybody to sort of look the other way when it comes to these things,” Lally said. “What I would submit is that’s exactly what the defendant is doing — look the other way, defense by obfuscation. It’s essentially a three card monte trick.”

Additionally, he said the U.S. Attorney’s Office did not request any materials from the Norfolk County District Attorney’s Office or Massachusetts State Police for its federal probe; “every bit of discovery” provided to federal investigators came from the defense team, he said.

DA Morrissey under scrutiny

Read’s lawyers next turned their attention to Norfolk District Attorney Michael Morrissey, targeting a rare public statement he made last August about the case.

Arguing his motion to sanction prosecutors and disqualify the DA’s office from Read’s case, defense attorney David Yannetti said Morrissey “went off the rails” with his video statement.

“Never, in over 30 years of practice, have I ever witnessed an elected DA so blatantly violate the rules of professional responsibility,” Yannetti said, citing his own experience as a former prosecutor. “Never have I witnessed an elected DA trample on the constitutional rights of a criminal defendant who enjoys the presumption of innocence.”

Yet Lally said Morrissey was responding to “an extraordinary degree of relentless … harassment and intimidation of nearly every witness associated with this case.” He cited a July rolling rally that entailed nearly 100 people driving by witnesses’ homes and allegedly calling them murderers. 

Lally also noted a “precipitous” amount of text messages and calls between Read and Turtleboy blogger Aidan Kearney, who has been charged with intimidating witnesses in Read’s case. 

“The truth is in the phone,” Lally said. “The phone doesn’t lie…” 

Cannone did not rule on either of the defense team’s motions Tuesday. Read’s case is due back in court on March 20.

Watch the hearing:

Abby Patkin

Staff Writer

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

Want to leave a comment?

Create an Account Or sign in to your account

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