Photo: Chaiel Schaffel/WBZ NewsRadio
BOSTON (WBZ NewsRadio) — The Karen Read murder case featured two separate hearings Wednesday.
Read was charged with second-degree murder in the January 2022 death of her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe. Prosecutors allege Read hit O’Keefe with her SUV and left him to die in the snow, while Read’s defense argues she was framed.
The first trial ended in a mistrial, and the second trial is set to begin on April 1. In a week filled with pretrial hearings, Wednesday began in federal court in Boston, as Read’s defense attempted to have two charges thrown out on the grounds of double jeopardy.
Federal Court Hearing
The charges in question are second-degree murder and leaving the scene of an accident, as the jury reportedly had unanimous verdicts on both. Defense Attorney Martin Wienberg argued that Judge Beverly Cannone “made a mistake” by not asking for more information from the jury before declaring a mistrial.
However, the prosecution argued that procedures surrounding a deadlocked jury differ from the state to federal level. Norfolk Assistant District Attorney Caleb Schillinger said, “a fact-finding process [compromises] the impartiality of the jury” if enacted at the state level.
The judge did not issue a ruling when the hearing came to a close.
Norfolk Superior Court Hearing
The hearing at Norfolk Superior Court was expected to begin at 11:00 a.m. but was delayed for about an hour as both sides made their way to Dedham. Defense attorney Alan Jackson began by outlining a motion to dismiss the case entirely due to “extraordinary governmental misconduct.”
Jackson first focused on State Police Lieutenant John Fanning, one of the investigators in the case, accusing him of being “directly in charge of the jurors.”
“We were told he was the commander. Not part of the security operation that was outside the court, not part of the security operation that helped parking cars or making sure that citizens got in and out of the court room appropriately,” said Jackson.
Judge Beverly Cannone pushed back on the claim, saying the defense signed an affidavit admitting they knew that Fanning “did not have any access to the jury.” The defense admitted they knew Fanning would be present for security during the trial. However, they claimed Fanning was the “source of information” that got a juror removed from the pool over their knowledge of the case.
Next up for Jackson was targeting the video evidence as it pertains to the defense's theory on the broken taillight on Read’s car. In the first trial, the defense argued it was damaged while in police custody, claiming the Canton Police Department and Massachusetts State Police withheld evidence.
Jackson pointed to missing footage from the sallyport garage, a slow roll of turning over evidence by investigators, and mirrored footage used during the trial.
“If the court, even in the face of all this overwhelming evidence of gross misconduct, declines to dismiss this case at this time, we would urge the court to grant us an evidentiary hearing so that we can make an actual, factual record of the myriad of issues brought up here,” said Jackson.
Once he finished, Judge Cannone asked the defense where to find testimony about the number of taillight pieces referenced in Jackson’s arguments. Special prosecutor Hank Brennan was then called to the stand for questioning.
Cannone asked about the sallyport video evidence and why the prosecution released the video in "drips and drabs."
Brennan said the prosecution did not know to save the videos before the start of the trial. He said lead investigator Michael Proctor requested and received video from the sallyport, but did not share it with prosecutors. Brennan said more video was uncovered later by the Canton Police Department and received by the prosecution after Brennan toured the department earlier this year.
Brennan conceded that Proctor should have shared the mirrored video with the prosecution, calling it an "oversight," but pushed back on the defense's claim that the prosecution tampered with evidence. He pointed to video footage of the SUV, saying it was "unequivocally clear that piece of the taillight is missing well before that car ever gets to Canton." Brennan also referenced Read's interview with reporter Gretchen Voss, in which Read noted the taillight was broken before police seized her car.
In regard to Lt. Fanning, Brennan said the defense had distorted the truth by claiming he had access to and control of the jury. Brennan said there was no evidence of jury tampering and that Fanning never set foot on the courthouse grounds during the first trial.
Brennan concluded that Cannone should throw out the defense's motion to dismiss the charges.
Jackson returned and said the Commonwealth was misrepresenting the defense's claims. Jackson said he did not know who originally reported the alleged juror misconduct. He asked how that person knew that juror was serving on this case and why did they record that juror. He also asked why that person then chose Fanning to report the conduct.
Jackson said he wanted to question the juror and Fanning, but Cannone never gave him a chance before deciding to dismiss the juror.
Jackson said the defense didn't contest that the taillight was never broken, but that the pieces purportedly found near O'Keefe's body showed more damage.
Finally, Jackson asked if Brennan recently interviewed Fanning regarding the jury tampering claim and if so, why that was not shared with the defense.
The hearing ended without a decision. Cannone said the defense's motion to exclude a prosecution witness will be postponed to the next hearing on March 18.
Updated: 5:15 p.m.