logo
As second Karen Read trial begins, legal experts expect new approach from prosecutors

As second Karen Read trial begins, legal experts expect new approach from prosecutors

Boston Globe31-03-2025

Advertisement
Now, more than three years after O'Keefe's snow-covered body was found near the road outside a Canton home,
As a second trial gets underway with jury selection on Tuesday, legal experts say they expect the prosecution will bring a tighter and more direct presentation of the evidence, cutting through twists and turns the case took the first time.
'Sometimes if cases go on and on, jurors lose track of what the most important issues are, and they might think there's reasonable doubt just because there was so much evidence introduced,' said Michael Cassidy, a Boston College law professor. 'The shorter and leaner the case can be is sometimes the more persuasive.'
Related
:
Advertisement
Special prosecutor Hank Brennan,
'Mr. Lally, in my opinion, is an old-style 'just the facts' prosecutor, a la the old 'Dragnet'
police TV show,' said retired Superior Court judge Jack Lu. 'This is a style that is good because the prosecutor is a public official, unlike the defense lawyer. Mr. Brennan may take the battle to the defense more.'
Brennan has filed a flurry of motions in recent months and sought communications Read had with one of her lawyers and
A couple of new attorneys have also joined Read's defense team, including Victoria Brophey George, who
Another new addition is Robert Alessi, a New York-based litigator who in pretrial hearings has delivered lengthy arguments vouching for or disputing the credentials of proposed expert witnesses. He also spoke for the defense team during a tense hearing in February when
Norfolk Superior Court Judge Beverly Cannone listened during a pretrial hearing in the Karen Read case on Feb. 25 in Dedham.
Greg Derr/The Patriot Ledger
Last summer, after jurors said they were at an impasse after 30 hours of deliberations over whether Read was criminally responsible for O'Keefe's death, Cannone declared a mistrial. Norfolk District Attorney Michael Morrissey swiftly declared his office would retry Read.
Advertisement
Read, 45, a former financial analyst and professor from Mansfield, is accused of hitting O'Keefe with her car in January 2022 after a night of heavy drinking that led to an argument, and then leaving him in the cold to die.
Her defense team has sought to show that O'Keefe was actually beaten and possibly attacked by a dog before being left to die by people at a party at the Canton home of a fellow Boston police officer. Her lawyers allege she is being scapegoated in a massive law enforcement coverup.
A protester's shadow was cast on a Karen Read banner during a rally where the groups Free Karen Read, Justice for Sandra Birchmore, and Justice for Juston Root protested together outside of the Norfolk district attorney's office in Canton on Nov. 13.
Jessica Rinaldi/Globe Staff
In the days leading up to the second trial, attorneys for both sides have argued over whether a
'It will really depend on how she rules on' the third-party culprit defense, 'whether the prosecutor is able to eliminate some of the evidence that the defense wants to put on about relationships between people in that house and the victim,' Cassidy said.
Read's attorneys have made multiple attempts to stop the second trial. They've argued that a
Advertisement
The defense's arguments to nix a second trial stemmed from revelations made by jurors last summer after the first trial ended, when
Related
:
Read's attorneys argued that Cannone improperly declared a mistrial because jurors acquitted Read of the two counts. Thus, they said, she should not face a second trial on those charges.
But in his order dismissing their claims, US District Court Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV wrote that he saw 'no basis to conclude that the trial judge's decision to declare a mistrial was incorrect or improper.'
Developments outside the courtroom have also continued to affect the case.
Earlier this month, State Police fired Trooper Michael Proctor, the lead investigator on Read's case. Proctor had been
Massachusetts State Trooper Michael Proctor faced a tough cross examination by defense attorney Alan Jackson during Karen Read's first trial on June 12.
Greg Derr/Pool
Cassidy said he expects prosecutors will try to avoid putting Proctor back on the stand or limit the scope of their questions. Both defense attorneys and prosecutors listed Proctor as a prospective witness.
Advertisement
'I don't think there's any way to avoid the fact that Proctor's fingerprints were all over that case, and he was the lead agent, and he was fired,' he said. 'The question is how much the prosecutor relies on his testimony. If I were the prosecutor, I would try to prove the case without Proctor.'
Jack Carney (right) of Canton, waved to honking drivers in Dedham on July 14. With their signs and flags, Karen Read supporters continued their dedication to her on a sidewalk along Providence Highway in Dedham after her mistrial.
Pat Greenhouse/Globe Staff
Whether the second trial will draw the same public attention as the first remains to be seen, but Read's case continues to grab headlines daily both from local and national media outlets. The
'It may be that the public thirst for information on this case has kind of been satiated,' Cassidy said. 'They've seen it, they've done it, they've got the T-shirt. It might be that people don't stand outside the courtroom or stand in line to get in. ... It's possible, and there are so many things going on in our world right now that are commanding our attention.'
A Karen Read supporter wore a T-shirt featuring Read and her attorneys Alan Jackson (left) and David Yannetti on June 28.
John Tlumacki/Globe Staff
Nick Stoico can be reached at

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Federal appeals court to hear arguments in Trump's long-shot effort to fight hush money conviction
Federal appeals court to hear arguments in Trump's long-shot effort to fight hush money conviction

CNN

timean hour ago

  • CNN

Federal appeals court to hear arguments in Trump's long-shot effort to fight hush money conviction

Five months after President Donald Trump was sentenced without penalty in the New York hush money case, his attorneys will square off again with prosecutors Wednesday in one of the first major tests of the Supreme Court's landmark presidential immunity decision. Trump is relying heavily on the high court's divisive 6-3 immunity ruling from July in a long-shot bid to get his conviction reviewed – and ultimately overturned – by federal courts. After being convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records, Trump in January became the first felon to ascend to the presidency in US history. Even after Trump was reelected and federal courts became flooded with litigation tied to his second term, the appeals in the hush money case have chugged forward in multiple courts. A three-judge panel of the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals – all named to the bench by Democratic presidents – will hear arguments Wednesday in one of those cases. Trump will be represented on Wednesday by Jeffrey Wall, a private lawyer and Supreme Court litigator who served as acting solicitor general during Trump's first administration. Many of the lawyers who served on Trump's defense team in the hush money case have since taken top jobs within the Justice Department. The case stems from the 2023 indictment announced by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, who accused Trump of falsely categorizing payments he said were made to quash unflattering stories during the 2016 election. Trump was accused of falsifying a payment to his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, to cover up a $130,000 payment Cohen made to adult-film star Stormy Daniels to keep her from speaking out before the 2016 election about an alleged affair with Trump. (Trump has denied the affair.) Trump was ultimately convicted last year and was sentenced without penalty in January, days before he took office. The president is now attempting to move that case to federal court, where he is betting he'll have an easier shot at arguing that the Supreme Court's immunity decision in July will help him overturn the conviction. Trump's earlier attempts to move the case to federal court have been unsuccessful. US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, nominated by President Bill Clinton, denied the request in September – keeping Trump's case in New York courts instead. The 2nd Circuit will now hear arguments on Trump's appeal of that decision on Wednesday. 'He's lost already several times in the state courts,' said David Shapiro, a former prosecutor and now a lecturer at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. And Trump's long-running battle with New York Judge Juan Merchan, Shapiro said, has 'just simmered up through the system' in New York courts in a way that may have convinced Trump that federal courts will be more receptive. Trump, who frequently complained about Merchan, has said he wants his case heard in an 'unbiased federal forum.' Trump's argument hangs largely on a technical but hotly debated section of the Supreme Court's immunity decision last year. Broadly, that decision granted former presidents 'at least presumptive' immunity for official acts and 'absolute immunity' when presidents were exercising their constitutional powers. State prosecutors say the hush money payments were a private matter – not official acts of the president – and so they are not covered by immunity. But the Supreme Court's decision also barred prosecutors from attempting to show a jury evidence concerning a president's official acts, even if they are pursuing alleged crimes involving that president's private conduct. Without that prohibition, the Supreme Court reasoned, a prosecutor could 'eviscerate the immunity' the court recognized by allowing a jury to second-guess a president's official acts. Trump is arguing that is exactly what Bragg did when he called White House officials such as former communications director Hope Hicks and former executive assistant Madeleine Westerhout to testify at his trial. Hicks had testified that Trump felt it would 'have been bad to have that story come out before the election,' which prosecutors later described as the 'nail' in the coffin of the president's defense. Trump's attorneys are also pointing to social media posts the president sent in 2018 denying the Daniels hush money scheme as official statements that should not have been used in the trial. State prosecutors 'introduced into evidence and asked the jury to scrutinize President Trump's official presidential acts,' Trump's attorneys told the appeals court in a filing last month. 'One month after trial, the Supreme Court unequivocally recognized an immunity prohibiting the use of such acts as evidence at any trial of a former president.' A White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. If Trump's case is ultimately reviewed by federal courts, that would not change his state law conviction into a federal conviction. Trump would not be able to pardon himself just because a federal court reviews the case. Bragg's office countered that it's too late for federal courts to intervene. Federal officials facing prosecution in state courts may move their cases to federal court in many circumstances under a 19th century law designed to ensure states don't attempt to prosecute them for conduct performed 'under color' of a US office or agency. A federal government worker, for instance, might seek to have a case moved to federal court if they are sued after getting into a car accident while driving on the job. But in this case, Bragg's office argued, Trump has already been convicted and sentenced. That means, prosecutors said, there's really nothing left for federal courts to do. 'Because final judgment has been entered and the state criminal action has concluded, there is nothing to remove to federal district court,' prosecutors told the 2nd Circuit in January. Even if that's not true, they said, seeking testimony from a White House adviser about purely private acts doesn't conflict with the Supreme Court's ruling in last year's immunity case. Bragg's office has pointed to a Supreme Court ruling as well: the 5-4 decision in January that allowed Trump to be sentenced in the hush money case. The president raised many of the same concerns about evidence when he attempted to halt that sentencing before the inauguration. A majority of the Supreme Court balked at that argument in a single sentence that, effectively, said Trump could raise those concerns when he appeals his conviction. That appeal remains pending in state court. 'The alleged evidentiary violations at President-elect Trump's state-court trial,' the Supreme Court wrote, 'can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal.'

Federal appeals court to hear arguments in Trump's long-shot effort to fight hush money conviction
Federal appeals court to hear arguments in Trump's long-shot effort to fight hush money conviction

CNN

time2 hours ago

  • CNN

Federal appeals court to hear arguments in Trump's long-shot effort to fight hush money conviction

Five months after President Donald Trump was sentenced without penalty in the New York hush money case, his attorneys will square off again with prosecutors Wednesday in one of the first major tests of the Supreme Court's landmark presidential immunity decision. Trump is relying heavily on the high court's divisive 6-3 immunity ruling from July in a long-shot bid to get his conviction reviewed – and ultimately overturned – by federal courts. After being convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records, Trump in January became the first felon to ascend to the presidency in US history. Even after Trump was reelected and federal courts became flooded with litigation tied to his second term, the appeals in the hush money case have chugged forward in multiple courts. A three-judge panel of the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals – all named to the bench by Democratic presidents – will hear arguments Wednesday in one of those cases. Trump will be represented on Wednesday by Jeffrey Wall, a private lawyer and Supreme Court litigator who served as acting solicitor general during Trump's first administration. Many of the lawyers who served on Trump's defense team in the hush money case have since taken top jobs within the Justice Department. The case stems from the 2023 indictment announced by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, who accused Trump of falsely categorizing payments he said were made to quash unflattering stories during the 2016 election. Trump was accused of falsifying a payment to his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, to cover up a $130,000 payment Cohen made to adult-film star Stormy Daniels to keep her from speaking out before the 2016 election about an alleged affair with Trump. (Trump has denied the affair.) Trump was ultimately convicted last year and was sentenced without penalty in January, days before he took office. The president is now attempting to move that case to federal court, where he is betting he'll have an easier shot at arguing that the Supreme Court's immunity decision in July will help him overturn the conviction. Trump's earlier attempts to move the case to federal court have been unsuccessful. US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, nominated by President Bill Clinton, denied the request in September – keeping Trump's case in New York courts instead. The 2nd Circuit will now hear arguments on Trump's appeal of that decision on Wednesday. 'He's lost already several times in the state courts,' said David Shapiro, a former prosecutor and now a lecturer at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. And Trump's long-running battle with New York Judge Juan Merchan, Shapiro said, has 'just simmered up through the system' in New York courts in a way that may have convinced Trump that federal courts will be more receptive. Trump, who frequently complained about Merchan, has said he wants his case heard in an 'unbiased federal forum.' Trump's argument hangs largely on a technical but hotly debated section of the Supreme Court's immunity decision last year. Broadly, that decision granted former presidents 'at least presumptive' immunity for official acts and 'absolute immunity' when presidents were exercising their constitutional powers. State prosecutors say the hush money payments were a private matter – not official acts of the president – and so they are not covered by immunity. But the Supreme Court's decision also barred prosecutors from attempting to show a jury evidence concerning a president's official acts, even if they are pursuing alleged crimes involving that president's private conduct. Without that prohibition, the Supreme Court reasoned, a prosecutor could 'eviscerate the immunity' the court recognized by allowing a jury to second-guess a president's official acts. Trump is arguing that is exactly what Bragg did when he called White House officials such as former communications director Hope Hicks and former executive assistant Madeleine Westerhout to testify at his trial. Hicks had testified that Trump felt it would 'have been bad to have that story come out before the election,' which prosecutors later described as the 'nail' in the coffin of the president's defense. Trump's attorneys are also pointing to social media posts the president sent in 2018 denying the Daniels hush money scheme as official statements that should not have been used in the trial. State prosecutors 'introduced into evidence and asked the jury to scrutinize President Trump's official presidential acts,' Trump's attorneys told the appeals court in a filing last month. 'One month after trial, the Supreme Court unequivocally recognized an immunity prohibiting the use of such acts as evidence at any trial of a former president.' A White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. If Trump's case is ultimately reviewed by federal courts, that would not change his state law conviction into a federal conviction. Trump would not be able to pardon himself just because a federal court reviews the case. Bragg's office countered that it's too late for federal courts to intervene. Federal officials facing prosecution in state courts may move their cases to federal court in many circumstances under a 19th century law designed to ensure states don't attempt to prosecute them for conduct performed 'under color' of a US office or agency. A federal government worker, for instance, might seek to have a case moved to federal court if they are sued after getting into a car accident while driving on the job. But in this case, Bragg's office argued, Trump has already been convicted and sentenced. That means, prosecutors said, there's really nothing left for federal courts to do. 'Because final judgment has been entered and the state criminal action has concluded, there is nothing to remove to federal district court,' prosecutors told the 2nd Circuit in January. Even if that's not true, they said, seeking testimony from a White House adviser about purely private acts doesn't conflict with the Supreme Court's ruling in last year's immunity case. Bragg's office has pointed to a Supreme Court ruling as well: the 5-4 decision in January that allowed Trump to be sentenced in the hush money case. The president raised many of the same concerns about evidence when he attempted to halt that sentencing before the inauguration. A majority of the Supreme Court balked at that argument in a single sentence that, effectively, said Trump could raise those concerns when he appeals his conviction. That appeal remains pending in state court. 'The alleged evidentiary violations at President-elect Trump's state-court trial,' the Supreme Court wrote, 'can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal.'

Over 80 arrested during chaotic NYC anti-ICE protest as thousands flood the streets
Over 80 arrested during chaotic NYC anti-ICE protest as thousands flood the streets

Yahoo

time3 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Over 80 arrested during chaotic NYC anti-ICE protest as thousands flood the streets

Over 80 people were arrested as a massive anti-ICE protest in Lower Manhattan Tuesday devolved into chaos with shrieking, sign-holding demonstrators flooding the streets, clashing with cops and hurling objects at officers. Thousands of angry New Yorkers took to the streets near Foley Square in the shadow of City Hall to protest the Immigration and Customs Enforcement deportations ongoing in the city and throughout the country. As the sky grew dark, over 80 demonstrators were taken into custody by the NYPD at several locations across downtown in the area surrounding Federal Plaza, according to police sources. Many of the people cuffed were charged with disorderly conduct and the number of arrests is expected to grow as the department does a final tally, according to the sources. After multiple hours of vociferous protesting during the daylight, several chaotic scenes broke out across downtown after the sun set. Large groups of protesters, many wearing keffiyehs associated with pro-Palestine political movements, carried on in opposition to the NYPD, which ordered a level three mobilization to handle the mass of people. Some protesters threw water bottles and other objects at police officers, according to police sources and video. Others chanted 'Shame! Shame!' as the NYPD took masked demonstrators into custody, video showed. Several protesters were pepper-sprayed through the course of arrests — some of which were violent. A woman wearing a black-and-white keffiyeh was aggressively slammed to the ground by several NYPD officers, appearing to bang her head on the toppled barricades, a Post reporter witnessed. One NYPD officer appeared to twice use pepper spray during the course of that apprehension. Another wild apprehension was caught on camera with police corralling a masked man by his backpack — also appearing to take into custody his friend who attempted to intervene in the initial NYPD stop. As the night progressed, protesters became more emboldened. Aggressive demonstrators wrestled with barricades and hurled lewd insults at officers — one even blew vape smoke in a cop's face. Video taken by a journalist circulating online showed some masked protesters trying to breach a police barricade in an apparent attempt to stop an ICE van from leaving the back of a Federal Plaza building. One wild apprehension was caught on camera with police corralling a masked man by his backpack — also appearing to take into custody his friend who attempted to intervene in the initial NYPD stop. Earlier in the day, thousands of protesters took to Foley Square in a raucous demonstration against the ICE raids in the city. Picketers carried placards reading 'Abolish ICE' and 'ICE out of New York!' and chanted phrases such as, 'Brick by brick, wall by wall, this racist system has got to fall!' Notable speakers at the protest included Brooklyn Councilwoman Shahana Hanif and Public Advocate Jumaane Williams. 'In my community everyone is anxious,' Hanif told the frenzied crowd. 'Mayor Adams has made it clear he does not care about working class people… he is collaborating with Trump to use tactics bringing out the military. He's ok with ICE attacking our communities,' Hanif charged. Public Advocate Jumaane Williams also spoke across the street from the federal courthouse where he also took aim at Mayor Eric Adams. 'We're in a scary situation and I have to call out the fact that Mayor Eric Adams is nowhere to be found in a city full of immigrants,' Williams said Tuesday afternoon. Williams further called out the NYPD for allowing ICE to 'kidnap' people in the city. The well-attended anti-ICE protest in lower Manhattan comes as similar demonstrations took place in San Francisco, Seattle, and Chicago. The spreading protests come on the heels of four days of violent anti-ICE riots in Los Angeles County — which continued into its fifth night Tuesday. Additional reporting by Joe Marino.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store