Karen Read's attorneys maintain they have shared all relevant information with prosecutors, but prosecutors say they believe there's more.
www.courttv.com
3/4/25
“This is one of the most unusual situations I’ve seen in my practice of law: you have these experts, you have great exculpatory information, but there’s significant restraints in how you can use the information,” Alessi told Cannone. The issue with the expert witnesses in this case, Alessi explained, was that they had been hired by the U.S. Attorney’s Office pursuant to a federal investigation but had contributed reports that were exculpatory to the defense. Alessi emphasized that regardless of any communications between Read’s team and the witnesses, the reports were written well before the trial and no information within them was ever changed.
When it came to explaining the $23,000 invoice, Alessi said the defense team was shocked to receive it. “It came out of the blue! It came out of the blue!” Alessi exclaimed in court. “It gets sent to Mr. Jackson’s office in July. I can’t reveal attorney-client communications, but I can tell you there was one person that was more shocked than most about the invoice coming in and the amount.” Alessi emphasized that the invoice was dated July 12, which was one month after Read’s first trial ended in a mistrial.
Alessi confirmed that Read paid the invoice after Jackson consulted with the U.S. Attorney’s Office to confirm that paying the experts was legal and appropriate. That was news to Brennan, who said, “It wasn’t until your honor asked today that we even knew the defense paid this bill.”
After Alessi’s presentation, Judge Cannone addressed Yanetti, Jackson and Read’s attorney Elizabeth Little in turn to ask whether they disputed, and they each indicated that Alessi’s version of facts was correct.
Brennan fired back at Alessi, claiming that the defense has repeatedly violated the court’s rules, calling minor violations “a raindrop in a hurricane,” and emphasized that his intention is not to preclude the experts from testifying but rather to get the discovery evidence to which he is legally entitled. Brennan characterized the defense’s relationship wth the U.S. Attorney’s Office as “murky” and said the “enormous gaps in time” between emails suggest that there is an “unclear history of interaction” between the defense and its witnesses.
Judge Cannone adjourned after 4 pm, and said that the parties would reconvene to continue the hearing on Tuesday, March 4, and said that it could extend from there, if necessary.