Four observers of the Karen Read murder case have filed a strongly worded argument against the state’s request that Norfolk Superior Court enact a “buffer zone” around the courthouse for the upcoming trial, and the ACLU also has concerns.

“The Commonwealth seeks to unconstitutionally infringe upon the right of the people to enjoy their full and robust rights under the First Amendment and Art. 16 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights,” attorney Marc Randazza wrote in a motion filed in the case on Wednesday on behalf of four named petitioners.

“The Commonwealth seeks to bind and gag Lady Liberty and must not be permitted to do so without opposition,” Randazza continued. “Defendant Read should not be asked to defend herself and the rights of 7 million Massachusetts citizens at the same time.”

Related Articles

Judge declines Karen Read defense request to disqualify Norfolk DA in murder case

Trial for accused murderer Karen Read could take as long as 6 weeks

‘Butt dials’ and conspiracy allegations roil Karen Read murder case

Howie Carr: Karen Read case new trooper curveball

Trooper connected to Karen Read murder case under internal investigation

The trial is scheduled to begin April 16 and the case will return to court for a hearing tomorrow morning.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts said in their own memo obtained by the Herald that the commonwealth’s requests for the “whopping” 500-foot buffer zone and other restrictions during the trial “have an impact on free speech, expression and assembly and therefore require very close constitutional scrutiny by this court.”

ACLUM attorneys Ruth Bourquin and Rachel Davidson conclude that “There are serious reasons to doubt that (such orders) … can be justified consistent with free expression principles” and that the DA’s office “seems not to have met the government’s burden to show why narrower alternatives are not feasible.”

The ACLU attorneys cite previous caselaw in which state courts have deemed that even smaller buffer zones, like a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics, “were held to not meet the narrow tailoring argument.”

Background

Read, 44, of Mansfield, is charged with the second-degree murder of Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe, her boyfriend of two years at the time of his death on Jan. 29, 2022, at the age of 46. She is also charged with motor vehicle manslaughter and leaving the scene of a collision, as prosecutors say she struck O’Keefe with her car and then fled the scene, leaving him to die in the cold.

Read’s defense, however, has its own theory: that O’Keefe was killed by the then-owner of 34 Fairview Road in Canton, where O’Keefe’s body was found outside, and others inside the home and that police and prosecutors have waged a massive cover-up. Brian Albert, who owned the home, is a fellow Boston Police officer and the central figure in this theory.

Also fingered for culpability is his sister-in-law Jennifer McCabe, who the defense said evidence shows Googled “ho[w] long to die in cold” hours before O’Keefe’s body was found in the blizzard-like conditions at the time, as well as other figures in the Albert family, the local police and the Massachusetts State Police. Many of those accused in the theory have secured lawyers.

It’s a drama that has drawn crowds, not least of whom are readers and watchers of the work of Holden-based blogger Aidan “Turtleboy” Kearney, who picked up the defense theory last year and has run with and expanded upon it in hundreds of blog posts and YouTube videos.

Kearney himself is in some legal fire, as a special prosecutor has charged him with multiple counts of witness intimidation and accuses him of not only directly harassing state witnesses in the case but also directing his followers, called “Turtle Riders,” to do the same.

For months, Read hearings have taken place in a Norfolk Superior Court unrecognizable from regular days, as throngs of people ring the courthouse in protest. The majority of these are pro-Read protestors who wear clothing and carry signs saying “Free Karen Read” and often leave little room for people to enter or exit the courthouse.

Prosecutor Adam Lally requested late last month that Judge Beverly Cannone impose a 500-foot “buffer zone” around the courthouse and a prohibition on “signs or clothing in favor of either party or law enforcement” when the trial begins.

It is a similar request to the restrictions imposed at the same courthouse during the 2018 “Puppy Doe” trial, in which Polish national Radoslaw Czerkawski was ultimately convicted of and sentenced to prison for torturing a pit bull named Kiya to death in 2013.

Lally notes demonstrations on the courthouse stairs, the sidewalks on either side of High Street in Dedham where the courthouse sits, “and instances of individuals confronting and following potential witnesses to and from their vehicles for court appearances.” He further noted the statement clothing and that “individuals have also amplified their voices with bullhorns.”

“There is a substantial risk to both the defendant and Commonwealth’s rights to a fair trial that would be jeopardized if prospective jurors are exposed to the messages contained in the demonstrations,” he argues.

He also asks that notices be put up and that anyone “planning to picket, parade, or attempt to influence jurors, or otherwise impede, interfere, or obstruct the administration of justice have actual notice of the possibility of prosecution for such actions.”

Karen Read passes through a crowd of supporters following a court appearance last September. (Matt Stone/Boston Herald)

An extremely high-contrast platting map showing the proposed “buffer zone” around the Norfolk Superior Court, indicated as plat 650 on the map, and extending through the parking lot behind the county Registry of Deeds, plat number 649, across the street. (Courtesy / Norfolk Superior Court)