Judge Lifts Buffer Zone Outside Karen Read Trial
A ban on protests within a 200-foot 'buffer zone' outside a Massachusetts courtroom was lifted by the judge in Karen Read's trial Thursday, opening the door to quiet demonstrations in the public areas outside the building.'Quiet, offsite demonstrations on public property, in areas and at times that do not interfere with trial participants' entrance into or exit from the Courthouse, and that do not interfere with the orderly administration of justice, and that are not intended to influence any trial participants in the discharge of their duties are specifically outside the scope of the Buffer Zone restrictions,' Judge Beverly Cannone wrote in a decision released Thursday. Cannone had ordered the buffer zone, she said, to prevent protesters from intimidating jurors and witnesses and making so much noise as to disrupt the proceedings. A federal judge refused to issue a preliminary injunction against the buffer zone, finding that a group of protesters was unlikely to be able to show that its First Amendment rights outweighed the right to a fair trial.But the protesters' lawyer, Mark Randazza, told the First Circuit appellate court last week that his clients would agree to remain silent, protest only on streets and sidewalks off courthouse property and stay away when jurors entered and left the courthouse. 'The First Amendment is back from vacation in Massachusetts,' Randazza said in a statement. 'After treating courthouse sidewalks like North Korea with better landscaping, the First Circuit reminded everyone that free speech doesn't take vacations just because one judge or police department is offended.'
Cannone reversed herself after the First Circuit Court of Appeals issued a Per Curiam in which jurists urged a reconsideration. "Read's case has become something of a cultural phenomenon. It has drawn headlines, controversy, and, as relevant here, throngs of demonstrators near the Norfolk County Courthouse (the "Courthouse"). The prior behavior of some of those demonstrators - including loud protests and the display of materials directed toward trial participants - frames a potential conflict between the state court's effort to conduct a fair trial and demonstrators' right to express their views," the court wrote. Read, 45, is charged with hitting her Boston cop boyfriend John O'Keefe, with her SUV and leaving him to die in a snowbank after a night of drinking. Her Los Angeles defense attorney Alan Jackson insists that O'Keefe died after a fight with another cop inside the house of another officer where his body was found and then framed Read. The controversy swirling around the case intensified when text messages from the lead police investigator in the case, Massachusetts State Police Trooper Michael Proctor, wrote in a group text that included his supervisors that he had searched Read's phone for nude photos of her. He also called her 'whackjob cunt,' ridiculed her for having a chronic illness, made disparaging comments about her body and said that he hoped she would kill herself. He was fired in March. On Thursday, jurors heard evidence about whether it was possible that O'Keefe was punched in the face prior to his body being found in the snow. Dr. Irini Scordi-Bello, a Commonwealth of Massachusetts medical examiner, testified during cross-examination that she did not find any injuries on O'Keefe's body consistent with being struck by a vehicle.
'You did not include in your autopsy in any fashion, any discussion of whether Mr. O'Keefe's injuries were consistent with a motor vehicle accident, did you?' a member of Read's defense team Robert Alessi asked. 'I did not,' Scordi-Bello answered.'Did you evaluate it at all in your autopsy?' Alessi said. 'Whether Mr. O'Keefe had any injuries consistent with a motor vehicle accident?' 'Yes, I did examine his lower extremities,' Scordi-Bello said. 'That is protocol in any case of suspected impact with a motor vehicle. So I did examine his legs and I did not see any evidence of an impact site.' O'Keefe's manner of death was ultimately listed as undetermined after Scordi-Bello was unable to come to a homicide ruling based on available evidence at the time of the autopsy.Testimony in the case is in its fourth week. Jurors were sent home on Tuesday after Read fell ill.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Social media giants ask judge to block Georgia age verification law
Social media companies have filed a federal lawsuit challenging a new Georgia law that would create new online age restrictions for minors. A June 3 hearing was held in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Georgia in downtown Atlanta. Jill Nolin/Georgia Recorder A federal judge heard arguments this week on a Georgia law aimed at restricting social media use for minors and requiring Georgians to confirm their age before viewing adult websites. Judge Amy Totenberg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia announced at the Tuesday hearing that she will determine soon whether to hear more evidence regarding a lawsuit by a group called NetChoice to stop the law. NetChoice represents various internet-based services, including powerful businesses like Google and Meta, as well as smaller companies like online journal site Dreamwidth Studios. On the same day, a Florida judge blocked sections of a similar Florida law. Children under the age of 16 would need parental consent to open social media accounts under the new Georgia law, which is set to go into effect July 1. NetChoice filed a lawsuit in May seeking to prevent that from happening. The companies claim the rules violate young people's First Amendment rights, as well as place unnecessary burdens on social media companies. Attorneys also argued the revised rules strip away some of the flexibility of parents monitoring what online sites their children are accessing. Jeremy Maltz, an attorney representing NetChoice in the lawsuit, argued at Tuesday's court hearing that many people using online websites affected by the Georgia law would consider it an invasion of privacy if they had to use sensitive information to create an account. The plaintiffs argue that adults could face a burden if companies require them to potentially give companies driver licenses, banking or credit card information or use facial recognition software in order to access user-generated online sites. Data breaches and other cyber security threats could be increased by the new age guidelines, Maltz said. 'We know people are going to have to provide some sort of information to access protected speech,' he said. And despite the law exempting educational, public safety, and professional networking platforms, Martz said it would also create new verification hurdles even for innocuous sites such as college football and recipe message boards. 'This bill targets minors at the places where minors go to engage in free speech,' Maltz said. Republican state lawmakers push for Georgia law to require proof of adulthood to view adult websites Georgia lawmakers passed SB 351 in 2024 with bipartisan support. Logan Winkles, a state deputy attorney general, said that social media is designed to drive engagement and promote addiction, and the intent of legislators in passing the law was to protect children from adult bad actors online. 'Everyone agrees that social media poses some risk to children,' Winkles said. NetChoice successfully overturned similar laws in Arkansas and Ohio after arguing they unfairly censored free speech on online platforms. The bill requires social media companies to make commercially reasonable efforts to verify the age of their users, which can be done through methods including banking and credit card accounts, facial and fingerprint recognition software scanning. The Age Verification Providers Association, which supports third-party age verification businesses, reports that about a dozen states have passed laws restricting or requiring parents to consent to minors accessing social media. In several states, including Arkansas, California and Ohio, court orders have been issued to block the provisions of the law. As of May, the age verification group listed Georgia among the 24 states that have passed laws requiring age verification to access online pornography. Opponents say such laws could create privacy concerns and prevent people from accessing constitutionally protected speech. Winkles said at Tuesday's hearing that legislators and Gov. Brian Kemp backed the law to protect more kids and teens from social media sites that lead to higher rates of bullying and mental health problems such as depression and that technology can estimate a person's age without revealing their identity. 'What we know is there are many other ways to verify ID other than showing government ID,' Winkles said. But Totenberg questioned the verification processes. 'It doesn't seem very precise,' Totenberg said. 'It's a highly subjective standard and I'm not sure what it ultimately means.' The law allows parents and guardians to file complaints with the attorney general office if they believe a company isn't complying with age verification. Violations of the law may result in a fine of up to $2,500 per violation. On Tuesday, federal Judge Mark Walker of the northern district of Florida blocked sections of Florida's law banning children under 14 from having social media accounts and requiring parents' approval for teens as old as 16 while expressing concerns about social media's adverse effects on children. Georgia attorneys contend that the state's new social media rules stand up to legal scrutiny and differ from states like Florida, which limited companies' ability to control user-posted content. Right wing officials from several states have expressed concerns about social media companies blocking conservative viewpoints. John Acevedo, an Emory University constitutional law professor, pointed out that when it's pornography, there has been a legal history showing a legitimate interest in protecting children. 'Really, it's not controversial to put an age requirement in, but the controversy is the manner in which the age requirement is implemented,' he said Wednesday. 'Conversely, in social media there's a controversy over whether we should even limit social media at all to any age group.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Harvard wins reprieve from Trump's foreign student ban
(Bloomberg) — Harvard University won a temporary reprieve from President Donald Trump's ban on its international students entering the US, a legal setback for the administration in its high-profile fight with the school. Next Stop: Rancho Cucamonga! ICE Moves to DNA-Test Families Targeted for Deportation with New Contract Where Public Transit Systems Are Bouncing Back Around the World US Housing Agency Vulnerable to Fraud After DOGE Cuts, Documents Warn The Global Struggle to Build Safer Cars US District Judge Allison Burroughs ruled Thursday that the government can't enforce Trump's proclamation that escalates his feud with the university over foreign students. The judge ruled after Harvard amended a May 23 lawsuit over another US order to stop Harvard from enrolling international students. Burroughs had already blocked that effort. The Boston-based judge granted a temporary restraining order, saying Harvard would face 'immediate and irreparable injury' if the proclamation went into effect. She set a hearing for June 16. In issuing the proclamation Wednesday, Trump said that Harvard's refusal to provide records about international student misconduct poses a national security risk. His executive action blocked Harvard's foreign students and researchers from entering the country. Last month, the administration revoked the school's ability to sponsor their visas. Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, said Thursday's ruling 'delays justice and seeks to kneecap the President's constitutionally vested powers.' 'It is a privilege, not a right, for universities to enroll foreign students and benefit from their higher tuition payments to help pad their multibillion-dollar endowments; that fact hasn't changed,' she said in a statement. 'The Trump administration is committed to restoring common sense to our student visa system, and we expect a higher court to vindicate us in this.' Harvard President Alan Garber had urged the judge to act swiftly. 'While the court considers our request, contingency plans are being developed to ensure that international students and scholars can continue to pursue their work at Harvard this summer and through the coming academic year,' said in a statement just after the university amended its lawsuit in Boston federal court. Trump's proclamation intensifies his standoff with the oldest and richest US university, where foreign students make up 27% of the campus population. Harvard has also sued over the US freezing more than $2.6 billion in federal funding. Both lawsuits claim Trump is illegally retaliating against Harvard, violating the school's free speech rights because it failed to adhere to his wishes. Trump's actions are 'part of a concerted and escalating campaign of retaliation by the government in clear retribution for Harvard's exercising its First Amendment rights to reject the government's demands to control Harvard's governance, curriculum, and the 'ideology' of its faculty and students,' lawyers for the university said in the amended lawsuit. Trump's order claims Harvard is 'no longer a trustworthy steward of international student and exchange visitor programs,' accusing the school of failing to address conduct violations and an increase of 'violent crime rates' on campus. It also criticizes Harvard's researchers for partnering with Chinese colleagues in ways it says could advance Beijing's military modernization effort. The proclamation places a six-month suspension on international students and exchange visitors seeking to do research. It also directs Secretary of State Marco Rubio to review whether the visas of existing foreign nationals at Harvard should be revoked. The US would make an exception for 'any alien whose entry would be in the national interest,' according to the proclamation. The university has said that it has been in regular contact with DHS and supplied the legally required data and additional disciplinary information on international students. Burroughs had already temporarily barred the government from revoking Harvard's participation in its Student and Exchange Visitor Program, which is run by DHS. In Thursday's order, she extended that pause until June 20. Harvard's more than 7,000 students and researchers who hold visas 'have become pawns in the government's escalating campaign of retaliation,' lawyers for the university said in the lawsuit. 'The proclamation is a patent effort to end-run this court's order.' The new ruling by Burroughs increases the chances that the case could end up at the Supreme Court. In 2018, the high court ruled that the president has sweeping authority to restrict entry into the country. That 5-4 ruling upheld Trump's travel ban, which barred entry by people from a group of mostly Muslim countries. 'I Feel Unwelcome' Harvard's undergraduate student body president, Abdullah Shahid Sial, went home to Pakistan after the school year ended. Now, whether he comes back to campus for his junior year is 'totally in the hands of U.S. immigration offices.' 'I think the Trump administration has done a very good job of making international students feel unwelcome,' said Sial, 20. 'I feel unwelcome.' The president has sought to reshape Harvard's policies on a wide range of issues, including admissions and faculty hiring practices, citing the pro-Palestinian protests and incidents of antisemitism that rocked college campuses after Hamas' October 2023 attack on Israel started the war in Gaza. Trump has said he wants to cap Harvard's foreign student enrollment at 15%, revoke its tax-exempt status and cancel its remaining federal contracts. In another action Wednesday against universities, the Trump administration announced that it was asking an agency to revoke the accreditation of Columbia University. The case is Harvard v. US Department of Homeland Security, 25-cv-11472, US District Court, District of Massachusetts (Boston). —With assistance from Kate Sullivan. (Updates with judge setting hearing date in third paragraph.) Cavs Owner Dan Gilbert Wants to Donate His Billions—and Walk Again YouTube Is Swallowing TV Whole, and It's Coming for the Sitcom Millions of Americans Are Obsessed With This Japanese Barbecue Sauce Is Elon Musk's Political Capital Spent? Trump Considers Deporting Migrants to Rwanda After the UK Decides Not To ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Harvard sues over Trump's foreign student visa restrictions
Harvard University is suing the Trump administration over the president's recent proclamation that bars the Ivy League school from enrolling new international students, extending the legal battle between the federal government and the nation's oldest university. Harvard, in an amended lawsuit on Thursday, is asking the judge to pause Trump's Wednesday proclamation that prevents the school from having its new students, on either F, M, or J visas, come into the U.S., calling it unlawful. 'Both the President's proclamation and the DHS Secretary's revocation violate the First Amendment,' Harvard's legal team said in the Thursday filing. 'Each is part of a concerted and escalating campaign of retaliation by the government in clear retribution for Harvard's exercising its First Amendment rights to reject the government's demands to control Harvard's governance, curriculum, and the 'ideology' of its faculty and students.' 'This lawsuit seeks to kneecap the President's constitutionally vested powers under Article II,' assistant DHS secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement to The Hill. 'It is a privilege, not a right, for universities to enroll foreign students and benefit from their higher tuition payments to help pad their multibillion-dollar endowments. The Trump administration is committed to restoring common sense to our student visa system; no lawsuit, this or any other, is going to change that. We have the law, the facts, and common sense on our side.' The amended filing builds on the previous lawsuit the school filed last month after DHS moved to rescind Harvard's Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification, therefore preventing the institution from admitting foreign students. The U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs temporarily blocked the administration from revoking the school's SEVP certification. Trump's proclamation, which was issued Wednesday night, also directs Secretary of State Marco Rubio to consider 'revoking existing F, M, or J visas for current Harvard students who meet the Proclamation's criteria.' Harvard earlier this week also moved for a decisive decision from a federal judge to unfreeze the around $2.5 billion in federal funds. The Trump administration has accused Harvard of breaching federal law, claiming that the school has failed to address antisemitism on its campus and has not been combating the rising crime rate at the university. The White House also said that Harvard has not provided enough information about the 'foreign students' known illegal or dangerous activities, reporting deficient data on only three students.' Updated at 10:32 p.m. EDT. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
