All eyes are on Norfolk County, again.

On the eve of the Karen Read retrial, Judge Beverly Cannone handed down rulings related to jurors and a defense expert for the heavily scrutinized Canton murder case.

The Norfolk Superior Court judge in Dedham ordered that the Read juror list will be impounded, and reporters are banned from physically describing jurors to the public.

“This case has garnered significant and divisive attention in Massachusetts and across the country,” Cannone wrote in the order. “Individuals associated with this case have been charged with intimidation, which charges remain pending. At least one deliberating juror from the first trial submitted an affidavit to the court detailing reasonable fear for the safety of their family should the list of jurors be made available to the public.

“This court concludes that the fear expressed by that juror coupled with the inordinate amount of public attention to this trial and its outcome is good cause to impound the Clerk’s List of Jurors for Norfolk County Courthouse for the duration of empanelment,” the judge added.

Read, 45, is charged with second-degree murder, manslaughter while operating a motor vehicle under the influence, and leaving the scene of an accident causing death. She’s accused of killing Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe, her boyfriend of about two years at the time, on Jan. 29, 2022.

Prosecutors allege that Read struck O’Keefe, who she had dated for roughly two years, with her Lexus SUV after a night of heavy drinking and left him to freeze and die on a Canton front yard in the early morning.

Read’s defense attorneys have countered throughout the case that Read has been framed by corrupt and incompetent local and state cops and prosecutors working with the owner of the home whose lawn O’Keefe was found. Defense attorneys say that O’Keefe made it into the home that night and was beaten to death inside.

Read’s first trial ended in a mistrial last year. The retrial is set to start on Tuesday.

As jurors get called for the case, journalists will not be allowed to describe them.

“Spectators and media are prohibited from attempting to provide specific identifying information of jurors or potential jurors to the public including physical descriptions of the jurors,” the judge wrote on Monday.

Related Articles

What to know before Karen Read’s second murder trial

Who’s who in the Karen Read trial?

Howie Carr: Norfolk DA Michael Morrissey’s about to have a terrible few months

Karen Read prosecutor’s request for messages between defendant, Turtleboy, attorneys denied

Karen Read murder case: Federal appeal denied, retrial to proceed

Also, there are 150 names on the combined witness list for the case.

However, Read’s defense team has not included their three names, which were on the prosecutors’ prospective witness list: Alan Jackson, David Yannetti, and Elizabeth Little.

“Defendant objects to the inclusion of Ms. Read’s attorneys on the witness list,” reads a footnote for the witness list document. “This request is not made in good faith.

“If the Commonwealth subpoenaed defense counsel in this case, it would constitute a gross violation of Rules of Professional Conduct 3.8, which prohibits prosecutors from subpoenaing a lawyer in a criminal proceeding to present evidence about a past or present client absent exceptional circumstances,” the footnote adds.

In addition, prosecutors have been pushing to not allow defense expert Michael Easter, a retired FBI agent, from testifying about the police’s alleged failure to follow standard investigative policies and protocols.

Cannone is now allowing the prosecutors’ motion to ban Easter’s testimony. The expert testimony is “not needed” for the jury to determine whether the investigation was compromised, she ruled.

“The court cannot find nor has defense counsel cited one Massachusetts case where an expert was permitted
to opine on the general competency of a police investigation,” Cannone wrote in her order.

“Easter’s proposed testimony concerns basic aspects of a police investigation which are within the common knowledge of a layperson,” the judge added. “Through zealous cross-examination of police witnesses the defendant can cast doubt on the reliability of the investigation by demonstrating how it differed from standard practices and procedures and can raise the issue of potential bias by police action or inaction as counsel did effectively during the first trial.”