Karen Read’s case must be dismissed because prosecutors retained evidence, the lawyers say

Lawyers for Karen LeeIn a motion to dismiss the case of murder against their presented this week, they say the prosecutors intentionally paid the critical exculpatory evidence and, in doing so, they violated the constitutional right of Read to a fair trial.

They say that the only cure for the misconduct of reading lawyers is the dismissal of the case.

On Thursday there was a copy written from the motion of 36 pages along with an affidavit of more than 100 pages of the reading lawyer Alan Jackson. Read lawyers presented an unworthy copy of the motion on Wednesday afternoon.

The presentation is the Norfolk County District Prosecutor’s Office, and District Prosecutors Adam Lally and Laura McLaughlin, in particular, for making a “mockery of the right of Mrs. Read to due process.”

Read lawyers focus mainly on the failure of prosecutors to deliver all the surveillance images captured at the Canton police station immediately after the discovery of Read’s boyfriend, John O’Keefe, unconscious in snow out of a Canton house.

The READ SUV was towed to the Sallyport of the station, and his defense says that the surveillance videos of the station omit the critical period of 42 minutes after which he arrived. They say that these videos could be exculpatories because they can show the condition of Read the rear light When he got there.

Prosecutors say that reading intentionally hit their SUV in O’Keefe outside Canton’s house, destroying its rear light. But Read defense has affirmed that the rear light was cracked, not shattered, when it reached the station, and that it broke inside the station before pieces were planted in Canton’s house.

“The condition of the rear right light of the SUV Lexus at the time he entered the police custody is perhaps the most critical and highly expressed problem in this case,” says the presentation. “It is surprising, and convenient for the Commonwealth, that this seminal period is missing in the …

The presentation states that only three days after O’Kefe’s death, prosecutors were ordered to “preserve each and every one of the surveillance images in their possession, custody or control”, after reading, lawyer David Yannetti moved to preserve all the evidence in the case.

Instead, prosecutors have produced four incomplete lots separated from video evidence from the station on January 29, 2022, the first of which arrived during the first Read trial last year.

During the first Read trial, Lally, the main prosecutor, produced Video from inside the Sallyport On the night of 29. In the direct exam, the sergeant. Yuryik Bukhenik, one of Massachusetts state police investigators in O’Kefe’s death, testified that the video was a precise representation of what took place.

But later it was revealed in the interrogation that the video had been “inverted”, and in fact showed another researcher, Soldier Michael ProctorStanding near the right back light.

As a result, Bukhenik’s testimony was “exposed as deeply misleading in the best of cases and perjury in the worst,” the read lawyers wrote.

The fact that the video was invested “leads to the unavoidable conclusion that Ada Lally’s questions, the sergeant. Bukhenik’s answers and the deliberate introduction of inaccurate evidence were designed to perpetrate fraud in court, jury and Mrs. He read with respect to a critical issue in the case,” they wrote.

Then, after the first Read trial, on October 10, 2024, the prosecutors delivered an additional video, which showed a critical witness Brian Higgins, on the phone outside the station at 1:34 am, hours before O’Keefe was found.

Read defense also takes note of the fact that he hired an expert to review all surveillance images in the recording system of the police department last December, just so that the expert did not find such a footage did not exist when he arrived at the station.

Then, on January 28 of this year, the prosecutors delivered another round of videos, which their lawyers say that they show “an individual approach in the right rear light of the SUV of Mrs. Read, immediately after the vehicle takes to the Sallyport garage, and then comes little from then on.”

“At a certain point, it challenges the logic that all CPD video surveillance images are cut, unfold or become granules at the precise moment that the rear right rear light of the SUV Lexus should be framed upon arrival at the Sallyport,” wrote read lawyers.

The presentation also accuses prosecutors of retaining incorrect exculpatory statements made by another witness of the prosecution, Jennifer McCabe. McCabe’s sister, Nicole, is married to Brian Albert, a Boston police officer, whose O’Keefe home was found outside.

The relations between the McCabes, Alberts and the application of the law in the case are a critical component of the read defense.

While preparing for the first trial, Read lawyers discovered that McCabe had gone to the house of the first officer who responds to O’Kefe’s death the next day, on January 30, 2022. Read lawyers say that after doing so, prosecutors met McCabe and discussed the meeting with the Canton Police Sergeant. Michael Lank.

The motion argues that prosecutors violated not only the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Brady v. Maryland, which requires that all exculpatory evidence be delivered before trial, but also rule 14, which governs the discovery in Massachusetts.

Those violations, they say, has led to the loss of “critical exculpatory evidence, which cannot be cured below a dismissal of the case.”

“Given the extreme governmental behavior in this case, and the irreparable nature of damage to Mrs. Read as a result, the dismissal is appropriate and necessary,” says the presentation.

Read lawyers suggest that the result of their first judgment may have been different if the materials had been delivered, as necessary.

The missing evidence cannot be explained as an error or supervision by prosecutors; Rather, it represents a deliberate effort to unfairly condemn reading for a crime he did not commit, their lawyers argue.

“Repeated violations of the Commonwealth of its constitutional and legal discovery obligations were calculated and intentional, and were made in an effort to ensure a condemnation at all costs instead of pursuing the truth,” says the presentation.

“Allowing this case to proceed to trial would create a climate in which these types of constitutional and legal violations are considered permissible. Such a result cannot be tolerated by this court. “

The presentation also accuses prosecutors, and possibly the court itself, of manipulation of the jury, but much of the section is written. During a television interview, Jackson suggested that a state police supervisor who was one of the investigators in the case of reading supervised the jury during his first trial.

The spokesmen of the Court of First Instance, the State Police and the Office of the Norfolk District Prosecutor have said that there was no misconduct.

A state police spokesman said that state police detectives “collaborate” with the staff of the Court of First Instance and the Local Police to guarantee the safety of all cases in cases with “unique security considerations” such as Read’s. But, that does not involve any detectives “getting involved in a significant contact with any of the parts themselves,” said the spokesman.

Prosecutors have not responded to the motion of dismissal, although their deadline to do so is Thursday. The motion will be heard before Judge Beverly Cannone next week.