Sign up for the Today newsletter
Get everything you need to know to start your day, delivered right to your inbox every morning.
Karen Read case: ‘Hos long’ search, reporter’s notes discussed in hearing
A motions hearing Friday focused in part on whether prosecutors should receive a reporter's off-the-record notes from an interview with Read.
Karen Read’s case returned to court Friday for a hearing on several matters, including a Boston magazine journalist’s off-the-record notes from an interview with Read and a defense expert’s testimony on the hotly debated “hos long to die in cold” search.
Judge Beverly Cannone previously granted prosecutors’ request for recordings, notes, and correspondence from Read’s interviews with reporter Gretchen Voss, who published a 2023 article delving into the high-profile murder case.
Earlier this month, however, Voss filed a motion asking Cannone to reconsider part of the order requiring her to turn over notes from an off-the-record conversation with Read. In her motion, Voss argued Cannone’s December order was too broad and mistakenly treated the handwritten notes the same as Voss’s on-the-record material.
Advertisement:
“The fact that Read sat for an off-the-record interview with a reporter does not automatically authorize the Court to order that the (unknown) contents of that interview be disclosed,” the motion reads. “To the contrary, courts have cautioned against efforts to make journalists the discovery agents for the government.”
More on Karen Read:
Voss also filed an accompanying affidavit and raised concerns that disclosing her confidential notes would harm her credibility and reputation as a journalist. She cast doubt on whether the content of the notes would even be of any value to prosecutors.
“The stakes for Gretchen Voss are considerable,” Robert Bertsche, a lawyer for Voss and the magazine, told Cannone Friday. “Her effectiveness as an investigative reporter depends upon her having the ability to use the tools to reliably assure her sources that certain information they provide to reporters will be off the record.”
Advertisement:
Read, 44, is accused of intentionally backing her SUV into her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe, while dropping him off at a house party in Canton on Jan. 29, 2022. Prosecutors allege she was driving drunk after a night of bar-hopping and left O’Keefe to die in a blizzard.
However, Read’s lawyers say she was framed in a law enforcement coverup, suggesting instead that O’Keefe walked into the party and was severely beaten, attacked by the homeowner’s dog, and dumped in the snow.
Defense expert made ‘forensically unsound’ claims, prosecutor says
Part of the defense team’s theory rests on witness Jennifer McCabe’s Google search for “hos long to die in cold.” McCabe said she made the search at Read’s insistence after she and Read found O’Keefe’s body in the snow shortly after 6 a.m. on Jan. 29, 2022. However, defense digital expert Richard Green testified the search happened hours earlier, at 2:27 a.m.
Read is due to stand trial again in April following a mistrial last summer, and prosecutors have asked Cannone to bar Green from making similar assertions during the second trial. They alleged Green’s claims lack evidentiary support, citing rival testimony from two prosecution experts who said the 2:27 a.m. timestamp actually indicates when McCabe first opened the browser tab.
Advertisement:
Addressing the court Friday, special prosecutor Hank Brennan criticized Green’s methodology and said the defense is trying to have Green “come in front of the jury, make these salacious comments, and then leave it to the government to knock it down.”
He continued, “That might be a common approach, reviewing the transcripts of this case, but the commonwealth does not intend to simply let evidence come in that’s not qualified, that’s not factually sound, and then go knock down glass houses.”
Accusing Green of making “scientifically and forensically unsound” claims, Brennan requested a hearing to determine the admissibility of Green’s expert testimony. He noted first responders previously testified that Read was asking them questions about hypothermia around the same time McCabe said she made her “hos long” search.
“It is hard to think that that just happened by happenstance,” Brennan added.
Green, he alleged, “is really just a vessel or an attempted vessel for the defense’s third-party culprit defense.”
Yet defense attorney Robert Alessi argued Green is “eminently qualified” to testify as an expert in the case. Green, he said, “had a more encompassing and comprehensive review” than the prosecution witnesses.
Advertisement:
Alessi urged Cannone to deny prosecutors’ request, arguing their motion boiled down to concerns about Green’s opinion, not his methodology.
Cannone said she would look more closely at prosecutors’ arguments and decide by Monday whether to schedule a hearing to determine if Green should be allowed to offer expert testimony.
Lawyers discuss ARCCA witnesses, motion to dismiss
Separately, prosecutors are also seeking supporting documentation for two crash reconstructionists who testified for the defense in Read’s first trial. Prosecutors have suggested Read’s lawyers may be unable to meet their pretrial discovery obligations for ARCCA Inc.’s Daniel Wolfe and Andrew Rentschler due to the “history and complexity” of ARCCA’s involvement in the case.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office previously launched a federal probe into Read’s case and turned over thousands of pages of records to attorneys on both sides. However, details of the federal investigation remain shrouded in mystery through a court order. Back in June, Wolfe told Cannone the Department of Justice and FBI tapped ARCCA to look into O’Keefe’s death.
Lawyers did not argue the motion regarding the ARCCA experts Friday, and Cannone challenged both sides to brainstorm some ways to address the discovery concerns without violating the confidentiality of the federal probe.
Later in the hearing, Brennan said prosecutors’ discovery process should be completed by Wednesday.
Cannone didn’t hear a motion from Read’s lawyers to have the state reimburse the defense for an expert who traveled to the Canton Police Department to analyze surveillance footage from Jan. 29, 2022, only to find that officials allegedly hadn’t preserved the original files.
Advertisement:
Read’s lawyers have indicated they intend to file a motion to dismiss the case in connection with the alleged incident. The reimbursement request and the potential motion to dismiss will be argued at a later date.
Read’s case is due back in court Feb. 6.
Part one of the hearing:
Part two of the hearing:
Livestream via NBC 10 WJAR.
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