Karen Read’s team wants to look into Norfolk DA Michael Morrissey’s personal email and cell phone for any references to their client’s case, saying they have evidence he’s been making improper communications with the court and witnesses.

“As grounds for this motion, recent reporting, corroborated by documentary evidence, demonstrates that DA Morrissey used his personal email address to communicate ex parte with Stoughton District Court personnel and judges,” the motion filed by Read attorneys David Yannetti, Alan Jackson and Elizabeth Little states.

It was one of six total documents filed on Friday morning in the case that ended in mistrial earlier this year and in which the scope of the next trial is hotly contested. Read is also the target of a civil case by the family of her alleged murder victim, Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe, which was recently ordered to hold off until after the criminal trial is over.

The argument follows a filing last month by Mark Bederow for Holden-based blogger Aidan Kearney, who has extensively covered the Read case on his blogs and social media accounts under the “Turtleboy” name from an intensely pro-Read perspective and has been charged with intimidating witnesses in Read’s case for her benefit.

Bederow’s letter, the new filing states, claimed that Morrissey used his personal email address to chastise the Stoughton District Court for “leaking” information about a public proceeding against Kearney to the defendant and that his communications included screenshots of imessages from a pro-prosecution witness in Read’s case, as well as other information indicating more than one witness was in communication with the DA’s office.

“The Commonwealth has vis a vis DA Morrissey acknowledged that it is in receipt of statements from ‘a number of witnesses in this matter,’ which were apparently withheld from the defense,” the new filing states.

The rest of the nine-page filing, which was docketed in the case Friday morning, stresses that by law prosecutors, including the DA himself, are required to provide all discovery to the defense which includes, quoting relevant state law: “[m]aterial and relevant police reports, photographs, tangible objects, all intended exhibits, reports of physical examinations of any person or scientific tests or experiments, and statements of persons the party intends to call as witnesses.”

They further argue that such disclosures cannot be legally shielded by the use of personal communications as opposed to official ones, as they allege Morrissey has done here.

The Read case

Read, 44, of Mansfield, is charged with second-degree murder (Count 1), motor vehicle manslaughter while operating under the influence (Count 2), and leaving the scene of an accident causing death (Count 3) in the killing of her boyfriend of roughly two years, Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe, in the early morning of Jan. 29, 2022.

Prosecutors say that she struck O’Keefe with her SUV after yet another drunken bout of fighting in the troubled relationship and left him to freeze and die on the front yard of a Canton home where the pair were supposed to continue a night out after the bars closed.

Related Articles

Karen Read case update: Norfolk DA’s Office trying to get all audio, notes, messages from Boston Magazine reporter

Massachusetts’ top court questions Karen Read’s argument to dismiss murder charge

Canton hires national firm to audit police department following Karen Read, Sandra Birchmore cases

Karen Read’s lawyers and the Norfolk DA’s Office want her murder trial to be delayed

Karen Read wins delay of civil case until after her new murder trial [+ Read the document]

The defense counters that O’Keefe made it inside that home and was killed by others inside, including possibly then-homeowner Brian Albert, who was a fellow Boston Police officer. The well-connected police family then worked with local and state police investigators to cover up the crime and frame Read, the defense team says.

A trial held earlier this year ended with a hung jury. Not long after Norfolk Superior Court Judge Beverly J. Cannone declared a mistrial, Read’s defense team filed a motion to have Counts 1 and 3 tossed in the next trial because multiple jurors, they said, had come forward to say they were unanimously ready to acquit Read on those counts and were only hung on Count 2 but didn’t know how to indicate that.

Cannone denied the motion so the defense team took it to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court where both sides argued their cases and answered questions during oral arguments before all seven justices on Wednesday.

This is a developing story.