MA - Justice for Officer John O’Keefe * NO DISCUSSION * media, timelines, docs * NO DISCUSSION *

https://www.mass.gov/locations/norfolk-county-superior-court

2282CR00117 Commonwealth vs. Read, Karen



02/18/2025 Event Result:: Motion Hearing scheduled on:
02/18/2025 11:00 AM Has been: Held as Scheduled
Comments: courtroom 25 Hon. Beverly J Cannone, Presiding
02/19/2025 ORDER for Business Records for Karen Read from WFXT-TV Boston 25
02/20/2025 Commonwealth 's Notice of Discovery 59
02/20/2025 Notice to appear for Continued Hearing.
(Cannone,J) dated 2/20/25
 
"These experts did not arise from us," defense attorney David Yanetti told the court on June 10. "These experts were hired by the federal government and they provided a report to us, pursuant to the Tuohey request, and it was specifically outlined and ruled that they could not prep with us for trial."

"So, I am to believe that the defense is calling three witnesses that you've never spoken to, and putting them on the stand here?" Cannone asked that morning.

"That's essentially it," Yanetti said. "We've spoken to them only for the purposes of coordination of their testimony and their background. That's it. We have not been able to interview them regarding their findings, which are outlined in detail in their reports."



Feb 21, 2025
 
1:11:18 hi Allan subsequent to our conversation on Wednesday the US attorney's office asked we pause any further conversation till we received additional information from their office regarding how our involvement will move
forward

Now, it's not the opinion that troubles me it's the relationship and commonwealth would have an even playing field



Saturday June 22nd, Daniel Wolf writes -- Allan I spent some time this morning put putting


together a brief outline of my qualifications also attach my DNT list I obviously


won't say what the responses verbatim but I gave you a general sense of what my response would be again I thought


your questioning during the voir dire was fantastic so please feel free to make whatever changes you feel


necessary


Now this isn't information provided by the defense and reciprocal Discovery this is information provided


by the federal government after numerous requests two requests and and consistent

the best I can to get as much information as I can we then I provided an

outline an outline of questions and answers for a direct examination the Commonwealth did not

have the luxury to privilege did not even know that there was an outline that was being disseminated by this totally

independent witness who took no side other than that of the truth

what follows from this outline is then the outline with remarks from this independent expert who knows nobody


so we see in the margins in the notes this fair-minded objective witness says


So not being to not being able to inspect the vehicle is something

that's not uncommon in your line of work and he writes absolutely not and then he comments not sure if you want to put this somewhere in the direct examination

I have a feeling they the Commonwealth are going to argue I didn't personally

inspect the vehicle I had enough information from the material I review so it wasn't necessary need to show the

jury it doesn't matter in this case


Judge Cannone: what's the date of that?

Attorney Brennan: it's not dated it's not dated the Touhy request is a recent February response, but they send random documents there's no real accounting now


Attorney Brennan: I'm not saying that undermines the conclusions of ARCCA or not I'm not saying they're not qualified witnesses, but it certainly shows some bias


 
KR: "We know who did it, Steve. We know and we know who spearheaded this cover up. You all know."

5/24/2023


Murder suspect Karen Read: 'We know who spearheaded this cover up'​

"Me and my family and my attorneys and my team have marshaled every resource to get the truth," said Karen Read, who is accused of murder in the death of her boyfriend, a Boston police officer in Canton, Massachusetts, last year
 
“Did you know from the criminalistics reports that shards of that broken taillight were littered in his sweater?” prosecutor Hank Brennan asked during the hearing, which was livestreamed.

"I did not know that," Russell said.

“When’s the first time you learned of that?” Brennan asked

“Right now,” Russell said.

 
@scooperon7


7News sources have told me the federal investigation into the handling of the Karen Read case is over and no charges against law enforcement are forthcoming…details of these developments expected at tomorrows hearing in Dedham that came to an abrupt halt last week #7News

1740441813140.png

 
#KarenRead G'morning. A pre-trial hearing is about to resume after being adjourned last week by the judge. We expect defense attorneys to respond to the prosecutor's allegations that they misrepresented the independence of two expert witnesses at Rea'ds first trial.

We may also hear formal confirmation of yesterday's news, as reported by 5 Investigates, that the federal investigation into this case has ended with no police officer being charged.

Judge Beverly Cannone enters. Attorneys are introducing themselves.

Judge says she learned at last week's hearing of a "previously undisclosed relationship" between the defense and the ARCCA witnesses. She is listing the documents she has been reviewing since last week.

Judge says the $24k bill from ARCCA to the defense are not just for travel expenses but for testimony as well. Judge says she suspended the hearing last week because she didn't think it was fair to make the defense respond on the spot.


Judge says what the prosecutor said last week was inconsistent with what she remembered happening at trial. So she has been reviewing the transcripts.

Judge says what concerns her most is something said at sidebar at a hearing on Jan 6, 2025. She is now reading from a transcript from that sidebar.

Judge says Jackson told her that he had no additional discovery about the two ARCCA witnesses to share with the prosecutors. "That was concerning to me," says the judge.

"I don't know what will flow from this," the judge says before inviting defense attorneys to explain themselves. Defense attorney Robert Alessi rises to say he will speak for the defense on this topic.


Alessi hands the judge a notebook. She says she will take a five-minute recess to review it.


Correction: the sidebar at which the ARCCA witnesses were discussed happened on Feb 6, not Jan 6.

 
The recess is over. The judge returns to the bench. "I understand the moment," Alessi tells the judge. He says the notebook contains a chronology of the facts related to this issue. He says this will address "many, many" of the judge's concerns.


"My hope is that the facts will speak for themselves," Alessi says. He says he will go through nine pages in a methodic manner. The judge asks which nine pages he is referring to.


Alessi refers to a March 20, 2024 email from Alan Jackson to ARCCA witness Daniel Wolfe. He says ARCCA has produced its report for the federal government during the prior month.


Alessi says the report included about 3,000 pages, that the defense received it just before Read's first trial began, that the defense was busy preparing for the trial. He says the ARCCA findings were "set in cement" and never changed.



Alessi says prosecutors also had access to this report but chose not to make contact with the ARCCA witnesses. (The witnesses found that John O'Keefe's injuries were not from being hit by a car and the damage to the car was not from hitting a person.)



Alessi said the federal government placed restrictions on contacting the ARCCA witnesses. "The defense had zero input into the report and therefore had zero input into the findings," says Alessi.


Alessi said the federal government placed restrictions on contacting the ARCCA witnesses. "The defense had zero input into the report and therefore had zero input into the findings," says Alessi.


Alessi is reading the email from Jackson to Wolfe asking for an engagement letter and how much they expected to be paid.


The judge asks if the federal government's rule restricting witness prep was in effect at the time this email was set. Alessi says he does not know.


Alessi says defense attorney David Yannetti was not aware of these initial emails between the defense and the ARCCA witnesses.


The second email was from Wolfe to Jackson a few days later. Wolfe wrote that he and the other ARCCA witness needed to pause their involvement while waiting for further instruction from the feds.


Alessi says at the start of the trial, the defense did not know if the ARCCA witnesses would be testifying. He says there was no agreement yet for them to testify.


Alessi is now referring to a trial transcript from June 11, 2024. That's when the judge ordered a hearing to hear from the ARCCA witnesses.


At the time, the judge asked if the defense had ever spoken with the defense. Yannetti replied they'd only spoken with them for scheduling and bio purposes. "That statement of Mr Yannetti is, as best as I can tell, 100% accurate," says Alessi.


The judge stands briefly to reach for a large book on the bench, then sits back down.


There was no compensation as of June 18th, Alessi says. "There was no favoritism," he says because prosecutors had the chance to ask whatever questions they wanted at the voir-dire hearing (without the jury) of the ARCCA witness.


Alessi suggests the prosecutors missed a chance to ask probing questions of the witnesses at the voir-dire hearing.


Alessi is referencing a June 24, 2024 email from Wolfe to Jackson. He again emphasizes that Yannetti was not cc'd on this email, says that's because each lawyer had different tasks during the trial.


In the 6/24/24 email, Wolfe outlines his expert qualifications and asks if Jackson any suggestions for changes. Alessi emphasizes that Wolfe prepared the outline, not Jackson. The judge says she's aware of that.


In this email, Wolfe says he has experience investigating night-time crashes but offers not to say that if Jackson prefers. Alessi says Jackson later did ask about that experience during the trial. Alessi says this shows they were not trying to hide anything.


Alessi compliments the judge for having "an exacting eye" in reviewing these documents.


Alessi says the outline prepared by Wolfe does not closely resemble actual questions Jackson posed during his testimony one day later. Alessi says he "likes to believe" he would have shared the outline with the prosecution but says he probably wouldn't have thought to do so.


Alessi is reading from Wolfe's trial testimony. Wolfe testified that AT THE TIME HE PREPARED HIS REPORT, he did not know the defense attorneys or anything about the case. Alessi says that was 100% true.


Alessi says when Wolfe testified, he had not been paid by the defense. Alessi speculates Wolfe was nervous about testifying. Judge says no more speculating. Alessi says the prosecutor speculated a lot at last week's hearing.


The courtroom camera is focused on Alessi. But I can see the judge. She is repeatedly adjusting herself in her chair. She looks back and forth between Alessi and the documents in front of her. She takes off her glasses then puts them back on. In general, she seems impatient.


The other defense attorneys are seated at the table in front of Alessi. Elizabeth Little is flipping through notebook pages. Alan Jackson is sitting with his hands in his lap.


Alessi is now discussing the invoice that ARCCA submitted to the defense after the trial. "We don't run from one line submitted in this invoice," says Alessi.


Alessi says there was no pre-trial agreement about compensation for the witness. "It wouldn't have been a surprise" if that was the case, but he says the invoice "came out of the blue.”


Alessi says he can't reveal attorney-client communications, but suggests that Read was also surprised by the invoice and the amount.


Alessi says the defense called the feds and asked if they could pay the bill. Says the feds told them they could. The judge asks if the payment was made. Alessi says yes, it was but can't immediately say when.


Alessi says a check was sent to ARCCA on July 25. "So there's no doubt the invoice was paid," Alessi says. But he says payment was not agreed upon ahead of time.


The judge orders a 15-minute recess while she reviews a document.



Hearing resumes. Alessi summarizes the documents he's discussed so far the says what he'll do next. The judge says you don't have to tell me what you're going to do, just do it. She seems exasperated.


Alessi is now discussing what special prosecutor Hank Brennan said at last week's hearing when he initially brought up these documents and issues. Alessi denies that the prosecution did not know about these experts ahead of time or have time to ask them questions.


Alessi says Brennan's "buildup" last week was built on a falsehood that the feds had provided the documents. (Brennan later clarified that they had come from the defense.)


Alessi says the defense had sent the ARCCA documents to the prosecution on Feb 12, six days before Brennan claimed not to have received anything about the witnesses.


"We had given full discovery. We had given it," Alessi says about the ARCCA documents shared with the prosecution.


As Alessi reads back Brennan's words, Brennan twirls a pen on the notebook in front of him. He occasionally picks up a pencil and makes notes.


"That's a misdirection," Alessi says of Brennan's initial comments that the ARCCA documents came from the federal government.


Alessi says Brennan misquoted the initial email then says Brennan's remarks might have been poorly transcribed by the court reporter.


Alessi says Brennan misrepresented the outline as having been prepared by the defense.


The judge says it's time for lunch. Alessi says he needs another 45 minutes to complete his argument. Recess until 2pm.

 
The hearing resumes. Alessi thanks judge for giving him time. Judge says no need to thank me, just get started. Then she corrects herself to thank Alessi for his praise.

Alessi asks why did Brennan initially present the documents as being produced by the federal government when in fact they came from the defense.


Alessi is describing some documents. Judge asks if these were disclosed before the witnesses testified. Alessi says no. But he says that's a Rule 14 (discovery/disclosure) issue not a conduct issue.


Alessi says Brennan made at least five misstatements during his presentation at the last hearing.


"I don't think it's the defense that's creating ghosts, allusions and shields here," Alessi says using the same language as Brennan did at the last hearing.


"Your Honor listened to a completely counterfactual rendition" of what happened during the first trial, Alessi says of Brennan's statements at the last hearing.


Alessi says the judge was "subjected" to Brennan's statements. Seems to suggest that Brennan was fooling the judge. The judge has removed her glasses, leans back in her chair and stares at Alessi.


Alessi reminds the judge that at the end of the last hearing she asked Brennan to ask the feds to share the documents with her. Alessi says only then did Brennan correct himself about where the documents had come from.


Alessi says Brennan "buried" his correction in a chronology he presented at the end of hearing.


"I trust that the court is going to hold everyone to the same standard," Alessi says.


Alessi says Brennan made a total of 10 misstatements during his presentation at the last hearing.


Alessi says the court's "grave concern" comments have gone viral just as juror summons are being delivered ahead of the second trial. He says the witnesses reputations are being harmed. "And Your Honor, I don't know if this can be remedied," says Alessi.


Alessi says he doesn't see any way that the defense made false statements. "They were 100 percent true," he says.


Alessi is now referencing the conversation that occurred at sidebar earlier this month. This is the conversation that the judge referenced at the start of today's hearing.


"There is no knowing misstatement of fact," Alessi says on the part of the defense. Alessi is trying to explain why Jackson told the judge at sidebar that the prosecution had all the available documents, even though they had not yet turned over the March 2024 emials.


Alessi says the US Constitution's Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant's right to chose their own attorney except in the case of legal misconduct.


Alessi is referring to "pro hac vice". That's the term for when an out-of-state attorney is given temporary permission to work in another jurisdiction.


Alessi says if the judge plans to punish Read's attorneys, they should delay that until after the trial in order not to influence the defendant's right to a fair trial.


"There were some misstatements and they were cured," Alessi says about Jackson's statements at sidebar on Feb 6th. "My hope is we all understand we make mistakes," he says. Urges the judge to move beyond this so as not to delay the April 1st trial start.


Alessi concludes his argument. The judge calls a 10-minute recess before giving the prosecution a chance to respond.


 
Hearing resumes. Judge says she wants to ask the other defense attorneys a few questions. Yannetti says he has nothing to add. Jackson says when he spoke at sidebar on Feb 6 about having turned over everything, he was thinking about another set of documents.


Brennan begins. He says at the first trial, the defense misrepresented the ARCCA witnesses as independent and uncompensated. He says all of the info turned over this month was not provided before the first trial.


"Coming in at the last hour and providing information when the avalanche has already started is not enough," Brennan says.


"There is a murky relationship between the defense and the US Attorney's Office regarding these ARCCA witnesses," Brennan says.


Brennan says there are gaps in the information and suggests the defense and the ARCCA witnesses had more communications that have not been shared. Brennan says the ARCCA witnesses were biased and that their opinions changed.


Brennan says he corrected himself as soon as he learned about his mistake in saying where the ARCCA documents had come from.


"I did misspeak. I corrected it. But it's not the source of that information but the substance" that is important, Brennan says.


Brennan says the prosecution did not contact the ARCCA witnesses before the first trial because the feds had a protective order preventing them from doing so.


"We have witnesses that were portrayed as whole independent," Brennan says when in fact, he says, the witnesses did have a relation with the defense.


Brennan says three ARCCA experts produced the report but the defense called only two of them to testify. He says there must be more communications between the defense and ARCCA to explain why.


Brennan says it may be true that the experts were not paid at the time they testified but he says they expected to be paid.


Brennan says ironically that apparently everyone knew that the defense was paying for the ARCCA witnesses except the defense.


"These witnesses understand that they're going to be paid by the defense," Brennan says.


Brennan lists the details of the ARCCA invoice. Includes several hours of testimony preparation. Says it's hard to believe that the witnesses would do all this work without expecting to be paid.


"We know that we are getting a fraction of the story," Brennan says.


Brennan points out that Jackson told reporters after last week's hearing that he did not pay the ARCCA bill.


"There are number of incidents where ARCCA is clearly trying to accommodate the defense," Brennan says.


"I am not trying to overly critical of another attorney. I'm not," Brennan says. "You can laugh, but I'm not." (Not sure whose laugh he's referring to.) Brennan concludes.


 
Alessi returns. He says the experts may have expected to be paid by the federal government.


Alessi says Jackson told the reporter he didn't pay the witnesses "for their testimony" and suggests he meant that he did pay FOR THEIR TIME.


Alessi is speaking about the three ARCCA witnesses and says "We didn't retain" the third one. Brennan nearly jumps out of his seat. The judge says it's been a long day and Alessi probably wants to clarify what he just said. (Did he just admit they agreed to pay the other two?)


Alessi concludes. Brennan returns. Accuses the defense of "verbal gymnastics." Brennan concludes. The judge does not issue any immediate rulings. Next hearing, next Tuesday.

 
@KristinaRex

My 6 o'clock report from today.






Karen Read’s attorneys fight back against allegations they lied to judge​


Accusations flew between attorneys and the prosecution as the Karen Read case was back in court for a pre-trial hearing. WBZ-TV’s Kristina Rex reports.
 
"Hank is calm, he doesn't yell at people, he doesn't try to trick people," Carney said from his Back Bay office. "There's almost nothing he overlooks. In Whitey Bulger's case, he had file after file after file for witnesses."

Brennan has worked as a prosecutor before, and a defense attorney, excelling at both, Carney said, due to his integrity and work ethic.



2/25/2025
 
@KristinaRex



I asked Alan Jackson outside of court if he paid ARCCA experts to testify at trial #1. "No, of course not," he said. In court, Prosecutor Hank Brennan read documents including an alleged bill from ARCCA to the defense for $23,925. "That's getting duped," he told the judge.






@KristinaRex

Here's my exchange with Alan Jackson when leaving court today. Pardon the poor video quality -- some downloading issue on my end.


4:32 PM · Feb 18, 2025
 
Last edited:

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
164
Guests online
573
Total visitors
737

Forum statistics

Threads
626,027
Messages
18,515,885
Members
240,896
Latest member
jehunter
Back
Top