DEDHAM, Mass. (Court TV) — The judge overseeing Karen Read‘s trial dealt a blow to the prosecution as she denied their request to search through Read’s parents’ phone records.
Karen Read and her attorney sit in court during a hearing on Nov. 26, 2024. (Court TV)
Read’s first trial on charges she murdered her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O’Keefe, ended with a mistrial when jurors were unable to reach a unanimous verdict. She is scheduled to stand trial on the same charges of second-degree murder, manslaughter while intoxicated and leaving the scene of personal injury in January.
At a hearing on Nov. 26, Special Prosecutor Hank Brennan, who joined the case in September, asked Judge Beverly Cannone to grant the government access to Read’s parents’ phone records. “Ms. Read calls her father and her mother a little after 1 o’clock on the night she struck and killed John O’Keefe,” Brennan said. “She calls both of them and those calls were unanswered, according to the phone records. The inference that a 40-something-year-old woman is calling her parents at 1:30 in the morning after this tumultuous event, the inference is strong evidence that Ms. Read knew she had done something terrible. She knew she had struck John O’Keefe and she knew that she had left him behind.”
RELATED | Both sides ask to postpone Karen Read retrial
Elizabeth Little, representing Read, described the prosecution’s request as a “fishing expedition” and said that the Commonwealth already has Read’s cell phone records and shouldn’t need her parents’ records. “I would note that this court has repeatedly emphasized the importance of privacy concerns when it comes to an individual’s cell phones,” Little said. “Using that as a basis to deny the defendant’s motions to obtain cell phone records from parties who were present that night.” Ahead of her first trial, Read’s attorneys requested phone records from several people who they say are part of the alleged cover-up to protect those responsible for O’Keefe’s death.
Judge Cannone issued her ruling days later, finding that Brennan failed to meet the requirements for access to the records.
Read’s attorney, David Yanetti, raised a separate issue with the court regarding Norfolk County District Attorney Michael Morrissey, who is alleged to have had ex parte communications with court officers and judges in connection with Read. Read’s defense has asked for a search to be done of Morrissey’s business and personal accounts for not only “Read” but “Reed.” Yanetti noted Morrissey used the incorrect spelling in his communications, saying, “We don’t know if he did that for the purpose of avoiding a FOIA request or if he just misspelled my client’s name.” Yanetti also noted that Morrissey’s phone had been set to auto-delete messages after 30 days.
Read’s robust defense team, which was led by Yanetti and Alan Jackson at her first trial, continues to grow. The team added a new attorney at the outset of the hearing, asking Judge Cannone to approve Robert Alessi‘s presence. Alessi, who is a partner at DLA Piper LLP in New York, will need Judge Cannone’s permission to appear because he is licensed out of state. Jackson was admitted to Read’s team in the same fashion for her first trial. Alessi’s biography on his firm’s website notes, “Many of [Alessi’s] trials have turned on the direct examination and cross-examination of experts, where he applies his scientific and technical background.” Questioned as to why his presence was needed, Yanetti told Judge Cannone, “With his background, with his experience, he is going to add value to this team and protect my client’s constitutional rights.”
READ MORE | ACLU of Massachusetts intervenes in Karen Read appeal
Brennan alluded to a new expert who would be joining the prosecution’s case in the second trial, saying that he expects to call a witness who will testify that O’Keefe’s injuries were survivable had he received treatment within one to two hours.
Several motions filed by the Commonwealth seek unedited video and notes from several media interviews that Read conducted with both local and national media outlets. Read’s attorneys have not responded to the motions, which the media companies oppose.
