Karen Read hearing could have Alan Jackson in the hot seat. All the details we know so far.
A hearing in Karen's Read's case abruptly ended on Tuesday, when Judge Cannone called off the rest of the day in court amid allegations that defense attorneys may have made misrepresentations to the Court.
Judge has "grave concern"
"The Commonwealth just provided the court with information that causes me grave concern," Cannone said about 20 minutes after calling a recess."The implications of that information may have profound effects on this defense and defense counsel. So, for that reason I'm going to suspend today, so that when we meet again to address these issues, all affected will be appropriately prepared."
Immediately following the hearing, WBZ Legal Analyst Katherine Loftus said the Judge was likely considering whether to revoke Defense Attorney Alan Jackson's "pro hac vice" status, which gives the California attorney the right to practice in Massachusetts as Read's lawyer for this case. "[Judge Cannone] said not only for the defense, but for defense counsel. I took that as, Alan Jackson is going to be on the hot seat next Tuesday," Loftus said.
On Thursday, Cannone then put out a scheduling order confirming that lawyers should be prepared to argue about prior representations made to the court on the record.
What we know about the facts surrounding these allegations:
June 10, 2024: In the middle of Read's first trial, outside of the presence of the jury, Defense Attorney David Yannetti argues in front of Judge Cannone about certain upcoming expert witnesses, and allegations from the Commonwealth that defense did not comply with its discovery obligations. This argument, which was heated at times, involved conversations about so-called "ARCCA Experts," independent crash reconstructionists who had been hired as part of a federal investigation into the death of John O'Keefe.
"These experts did not arise from us," Yannetti said on June 10. "These experts were hired by the federal government, and they provided a report to us, pursuant to the Touhy request, and it was specifically outlined and ruled that they could not prep with us for trial."
"So, I'm to believe that the defense is calling three witnesses that you've never spoken to, and putting them on the stand here?" Judge Cannone replied. "That's essentially – we've only spoken to them for the purpose of coordination of their testimony, and their background, that's it," Yannetti said. "We have not been able to interview them regarding their findings, which are outlined in detail–"
After a bit more back and forth, Judge Cannone said, "You have not complied with your Rule 14 obligations," to which David Yannetti responded, "we can't, your Honor. We can't."
June 24, 2024: ARCCA experts testify at Read's first trial. In his direct examination of them, Defense Attorney Alan Jackson points out that he and the experts had never met, and that they were hired by an independent third-party agency. (Jurors were not allowed to know about the federal investigation, hence the mystery surrounding a "third party.") ARCCA Experts Dr. Andrew Rentschler and Dr. Daniel Wolfe testify that based on their testing, John O'Keefe's injuries were not consistent with having been hit by a car.
February 12, 2025: The Commonwealth moves to exclude ARCCA experts from Read's second trial, arguing that because of protective orders that prohibit access to the federal investigation details, the defense will not be able to meet its discovery obligations. Karen Read's team filed an opposition to this motion.
February 18, 2025: In a hearing to cover a number of motions, the Commonwealth argues its motion to exclude ARCCA experts. In doing so, Prosecutor Hank Brennan reads the transcript from June 10 to the Court, in which David Yannetti discussed an inability to prep with ARCCA experts as outlined above. Brennan then reads a series of emails between Defense Attorney Alan Jackson and one of the ARCCA experts, as described below:
March 22, 2024: Brennan alleges that Alan Jackson emailed the ARCCA expert and mentioned an engagement letter and retainer agreement.
June 22, 2024 and beyond (exact dates unclear): Brennan alleges Alan Jackson and an ARCCA Expert email to coordinate testimony, and reads a line from the email in which the ARCCA expert tells Jackson to "feel free to make whatever changes you feel necessary." Brennan alleges an outline of questions and answers for a direct examination from ARCCA was sent to the defense, saying the Commonwealth had no knowledge of an outline from this "totally independent witness who took no side other than that of the truth." Brennan alleges the margins of the outline include notes from the ARCCA witness like, "If you don't want me to say this, that's fine."
As a part of his argument, Brennan says the information he is reading was provided to him by the federal government, not the defense. "Now, this isn't information provided by the defense and reciprocal discovery, this is information provided by the federal government after numerous requests… And I insist to the best that I can to get as much information as I can," he said. After a recess, he then told the judge the information actually was provided to him by defense attorneys.
February 18, 2025: Brennan finishes his argument by reading a bill from ARCCA to the defense for $23,925. "That's not trial by ambush. That's getting duped," Brennan said. It's unclear if defense actually paid that bill. Judge Cannone takes a sudden recess, comes back after about 25 minutes, and suspends the hearing without further discussion, saying she has "grave concerns." WBZ's Kristina Rex asks Alan Jackson outside court what that was about, to which he says he has "no idea." When asked if he paid ARCCA experts to testify at Read's first trial," Jackson says, "No, of course not, no."
February 20, 2025: Judge Cannone issues a scheduling order that reads, in part, "Counsel should be prepared to address issues related to the Defendant's recent production pursuant to Rule 14, especially as the materials produced relate to prior representations made to the court on the record by defense counsel concerning the ARCCA witnesses."
Retired judge says "This is ominous"
Regarding Judge Cannone's order, retired Massachusetts Judge Jack Lu told WBZ, "This is ominous. Mr. Jackson needs a top-shelf professional responsibility lawyer asap."
The issue on Tuesday, Judge Lu says, will be about whether Alan Jackson and defense counsel made misrepresentations to the Court during the first trial about prepping with and paying ARCCA witnesses.
Alan Jackson is a California-licensed attorney who was given special status, known as pro hac vice, to be Karen Read's lawyer in Massachusetts.
"This is a complicated situation," Lu said. "It appears that California does not have a requirement that the defense disclose promises, rewards, and inducements to a witness. I am not a member of the California bar. If we assume Mr. Jackson doesn't not know about this Massachusetts requirement, it is immensely helpful to him. Technically, he is required to know Mass law, but we have to understand that these are fallible humans trying a homicide case."
"If Mr. Yannetti does not know about Mr. Jackson's invitation for an engagement letter, retainer request and possibly a bill, and Mr. Jackson' possibly small preparation of the witness(es) he cannot fairly be held responsible," Lu explained. "The same analysis holds true if the question is whether they violated a continuing duty to disclose any of this information and no disclosable information existed at the time of Mr. Yannetti's statement. We don't know the facts but as an attorney discipline matter it is unfair to penalize fallible lawyers acting in good faith for technical violations."
This issue will be argued at a hearing on Tuesday, February 25 at 11 a.m.
Who is Karen Read?
Karen Read is accused of hitting and killing her boyfriend, former Boston police officer John O'Keefe, with her SUV during a snowstorm in Canton in January 2022.
She says she is the victim of a cover-up by law enforcement and others and has pleaded not guilty to charges of second-degree murder, manslaughter while operating under the influence of alcohol, and leaving the scene of personal injury and death.
Read's first trial last year ended in a mistrial with a "starkly divided" hung jury. Read's second criminal trial is scheduled to start on April 1, 2025 in Norfolk Superior Court in Dedham.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Yahoo
"In sadness, I dissent": Sotomayor blasts conservative justices for upholding trans health care ban
The Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee law that bans gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors on Wednesday. The 6-3 decision in United States v. Skrmetti lets stand a Tennessee law that bans gender-affirming care for transgender minors. The law would still allow puberty blockers and other hormone care for cisgender minors, meaning someone assigned female at birth couldn't receive a prescription for testosterone, but someone assigned male at birth could. The three families and doctor who challenged the Tennessee law said that it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by discriminating based on sex. Tennessee argued that the law is based on age and medical purpose, not sex. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts left the issue to the states: 'We leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.' The decision sets a precedent for the 25 states that have bans on pediatric gender-affirming care. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the majority opinion, joined by Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan. 'By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims. In sadness, I dissent,' Sotomayor wrote. Tennessee argued that the ban protects children from 'experimental' medical treatment, despite major U.S. medical and mental health organizations supporting gender-affirming care, saying it's backed by science and even medically necessary care that improves transgender youth's health and well-being.'Gender-affirming care is medically necessary for treating gender dysphoria and is backed by decades of peer-reviewed research, clinical experience, and scientific consensus,' Dr. Susan J. Kressly, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said in a statement. Tyler Hack, founder of the Christopher Street Project, said: 'There aren't words strong enough to describe how shameful, cruel, and morally corrupt this ruling is. Access to gender-affirming care is life-or-death.' 'The Supreme Court should know: this domino effect of suffering and more suffering is on their hands,' Hack said. The Trump administration is also eliminating the option for LGBTQ+ individuals who call the 988 Suicide Hotline to press 3 and connect with someone who specializes in LGBTQ+ mental health. Montana state Rep. Zooey Zephyr, the first transgender legislator elected in her state, addressed the ruling and 988 changes on Bluesky: 'These bastards want us all dead.'
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Yahoo
Judge says it's too late to order recovery of Trump officials' Signal messages
A federal judge said Friday it's too late to order the recovery of already-deleted Signal messages from key members of President Trump's Cabinet, largely rejecting a request from an oversight group to get involved. But U.S. District Judge James Boasberg did order acting National Archivist and Secretary of State Marco Rubio to ask Attorney General Pam Bondi to take steps to preserve Signal chats across the government at risk of being deleted. 'At this juncture, the Court largely denies American Oversight's slew of requests and will instead grant only narrower relief,' the judge wrote. American Oversight, a group that regularly files records lawsuits against the federal government, sued five top Trump officials following revelations that they discussed a military strike in a group chat on the encrypted messaging app — and unintentionally included a journalist. They had asked the judge to order the officials to preserve all Signal communications and recover chats that had been deleted. However, Boasberg noted, American Oversight's own 'emphatically stated' representation to the court was that destroyed Signal messages cannot be recovered and to issue the directive would be fruitless. The challengers' 'hardline stance' that deleted Signal messages are gone for good overshadows their later efforts to suggest recovering the messages might be possible, especially if the nation's intelligence agencies were to try. 'Although Plaintiff tries to walk that stance back — claiming in its Reply that recovery is feasible '[r]egardless of Signal's statement of policy,' — that belated assertion wilts in the face of its repeated claims to the contrary in both its Amended Complaint and Motion,' Boasberg said. Though Boasberg ordered Rubio to ask Bondi to act on the messages 'not yet gone with the wind,' he also noted that the attorney general has the discretion to ignore that request. Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic's editor in chief, revealed the Signal group chat after he was unintentionally added to it by now-former national security adviser Mike Waltz. The Trump officials used the encrypted chat to discuss a strike on the Houthis in Yemen. More than a dozen top officials, like Vice President Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, were part of the chat. However, only five were sued: Hegseth, Rubio, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. Chioma Chukwu, executive director of American Oversight, said in a statement that the ruling affirms that Trump administration officials are not above the law and the records of their official actions belong to the American people. 'It should never have required court intervention to compel the acting Archivist and other agency heads to perform their basic legal duties, let alone to refer the matter to the Attorney General for enforcement,' she said. 'But because they failed to act, the court has now stepped in to order what the law already requires.' Chukwu added that the group expects 'immediate compliance.' 'And if they drag their feet or fail to act, we are fully prepared to pursue further legal action to ensure government records, which belong to the public, are preserved and protected.' Updated at 7:08 p.m. EDT Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
17 hours ago
- Yahoo
Judge sets $1M bond for Huntsville man charged in infant's death
HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (WHNT) — Court records show a Madison County Judge set bond at $1 million for a man charged with murder and aggravated child abuse in the death of an infant. Victavious Tarez Dennis, 24, was charged with aggravated child abuse on May 8 after officers responded to a local hospital following reports that an infant had been injured. The department told News 19 that the infant who suffered critical injuries and was being treated at the hospital later died from those injuries. Dennis was then charged with murder. Dennis appeared in court Tuesday for an Aniah's Law hearing and a preliminary hearing. Following that hearing, Madison County District Judge set Dennis's bond at $1 million. If he does post bond, Dennis will have to be electronically monitored by authorities and have no contact with the siblings of the victim. Court documents say Dennis was 'too aggressive with [the] child [and] dropped her on her head.' The document says the infant sustained serious physical injuries from the drop, causing 'trauma to her brain and brain bleed.' Police said the investigation determined that Dennis was alone with the infant in his home when the injuries occurred. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
