Two new protection attorneys have entered the Karen Read homicide case — however explicitly not in Read’s protection.
Instead, attorneys Kevin Reddington and Gregory Henning every filed new motions asking Norfolk Superior Court Judge Beverly Cannone to quash Read protection requests for stay testimony from their very own purchasers for a motions listening to scheduled for Thursday.
It’s getting so sizzling that the court docket scheduled a further listening to for Wednesday — with solely a day’s discover — to make some sense of all of the conflicting pursuits at play.
Reddington and Henning symbolize Boston Police Officer Brian Albert and Jennifer McCabe respectively.
Albert owned 34 Fairview Road, the house the place the physique of Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe was discovered at round 6 a.m. on Jan. 29, 2022.
McCabe was a longtime buddy of O’Keefe’s who reportedly invited O’Keefe and his girlfriend Karen Read — who’s charged along with his homicide — to Albert’s house the night earlier than, because the Canton bar they had been all at had closed for the evening.
Karen Read’s protection has fingered each Albert and McCabe as those allegedly accountable for O’Keefe’s loss of life.
“The defendant is pursuing a third-party culprit defense, arguing that Albert and others were responsible for O’Keefe’s death,” Judge Cannone summarized in her personal submitting on Friday. “Part of her theory is that Albert beat O’Keefe in the home and that while he was doing so, his dog attacked O’Keefe.”
Cannone’s submitting was a ruling on motions Read’s protection attorneys David Yannetti and Alan Jackson argued earlier than her on the final listening to date of May 3 — a win for the protection staff.
The protection had argued that they wanted animal information for Albert’s German Shepherd, Chloe — particularly information from the city clerk’s workplace and the animal management workplace for the information “related to the licensure, ownership, quarantine, rehoming, and/or any ‘skin piercing incidents’” of any animals that had been on the house.
Cannone wasn’t able to rule on May 3, however in her Monday submitting she dominated in favor of the movement.
Her reasoning is fourfold: that “the records sought are both evidentiary and relevant,” “that the records are not otherwise procurable reasonably before trial,” that “it is undisputed that if the defendant does not obtain the records before trial, she would be unable to properly prepare her defense and the trial likely would be unreasonably delayed,” and, lastly, that the request was not one in all discovery, because the information already existed and simply required a court docket order to acquire them.
The protection additionally desires Albert’s mobile phone information, motions it had filed earlier than the May 3 listening to, however opted to not argue till Thursday’s listening to. But Reddington, Henning and Assistant District Attorney Adam Lally, the prosecutor of the case, have supplied robust objections to how the protection staff goes about it.
“The Commonwealth is under the impression that the defendant is seeking to expand (the applicable criminal code, Rule 17) and call witnesses, including their forensic examiner, who are neither record holder nor third-party subjects,” Lally wrote in a Friday submitting, including that he was “aware” that the protection had summonsed McCabe and State Police Troopers Michael Proctor and Nicholas Guarino, who had participated within the homicide investigation.
“The defendant’s motion is simply an improper attempt to burden and harass the witnesses in this case,” Lally later continued.
It’s the same story from Henning’s movement to quash, by which he writes his argument forcefully in his subheadings: “The defense is inventing court procedures to try to make up for the insufficiency of its Rule 17 Motions by unilaterally ordering live testimony of witnesses” and “Permitting the subpoena for live testimony would amount to a defense-ordered proposition,” below which he concludes “Depositions are not part of the criminal discovery process.”
And from Reddington: “The subpoena should be quashed as being vexatious and harassing and calculated to embarrass the government witness.”
Wednesday’s listening to may make some readability for Thursday’s motions listening to.
Just earlier than deadline, Read protection legal professional Yannetti started submitting his personal responses with the court docket. In the one by which he asks Cannone to disclaim Brian Albert’s movement to quash — the Henning movement — he writes that “the subpoena is not unreasonable or oppressive, nor is it being used to subvert the provisions” of Rule 17.
Source: www.bostonherald.com”