Karen Read Trial: Commonwealth Proposes Gag Order [Source Documents; audio] Part 1 (6.6.23)

hi and welcome back if you're new it's nice to meet you on this channel I mostly read legal documents out loud and I try to save the commentary for the professionals today's document is part of a series called Silence of the Lamb when the movie was released I was way too young to watch it by the time it reached the discount theater I was old enough to sneak in with friends I bet some of you may even remember the old Apple Valley movie theater in Smithfield Rhode Island I can't believe how far we used to drive for cheap tickets anyway I guess someone was old enough to drive and someone was naughty enough to suggest sneaking into our first R-rated film I couldn't have been more than 14 and as you've probably guessed I was not the naughty type after five minutes of that scary movie I sneaked right back out by myself and right into something more my tender-hearted self could handle probably Disney's Aladdin maybe Home Alone maybe Three Men and a Baby those were simpler times to this day I've never watched Silence of the Lambs but I could tell by the title that it was loaded with symbolism because Lambs often represent innocence that seemed really appropriate for a series of documents where the Commonwealth was attempting to establish a gag order with regard to communicating with the media today's document is the first of three videos regarding the proposed gag order it's called the Commonwealth's motion to prohibit prejudicial extrajudicial statements of Council in compliance with Massachusetts rules of professional conduct 3.6a it's 12 pages long and barely organized into two sections with an outline in the conclusion it's dated June 6th of 2023 just a heads up for efficiency sake we'll hop over some of the case citations are you ready let's get to it now comes the Commonwealth and respectfully moves this honorable Court issue in order prohibiting all councils of record attorney David yannetti attorney Ian henchy attorney Alan Jackson and attorney Elizabeth little from making extrajudicial statements to the media that could be seen as prejudicial to the criminal proceedings the Commonwealth and its law enforcement Witnesses agree to be bound by the same order Guided by Massachusetts rules of professional conduct 3.6a as well as the Massachusetts rules of professional conduct 3.8 special responsibility of the prosecutor the conduct of attorneys in Massachusetts is governed by the Massachusetts rules of professional conduct found in Supreme Judicial Court rule 307 under Massachusetts rules of professional conduct 3.6a a lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of Public Communication and will have a substantial lik likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter emphasis added under rule 3.6a extrajudicial statements regarding the character credibility reputation or identity of a witness opinions as to the guilt or innocence of a defendant the performance or results of forensic testing and information the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is likely to be inadmissible as evidence in a trial and that would if disclosed create a substantial risk of prejudicing an impartial trial are subjects likely to have a material and prejudicial effect on a criminal proceeding as stated by the United States Supreme Court Lawyers representing clients in pending cases are key participants in the criminal justice system and the state may demand some adherence to the precepts of that system in regulating their speech as well as their conduct Gentile versus State Bar of Nevada in a case from 1991 attorneys are subject to ethical restrictions on speech that an ordinary citizen would not be proof of a substantial likelihood of material Prejudice satisfies the First Amendment restraints on extrajudicial statements are warranted to protect the integrity and fairness of the judicial system and to ensure that the outcome of criminal trial be decided by impartial jurors based solely on the evidence admitted at trial it has long been recognized that adverse publicity has the potential to endanger a defendant's ability to receive a fair trial ganet company versus D Pasqual 1979 a trial judge has an affirmative constitutional duty to minimize the effects of prejudicial pre-trial publicity in order to safeguard the due process rights of the accused and the Integrity of the judicial system as a whole our criminal justice system is premised upon the principle that the outcome of a criminal trial must be decided by impartial jurors based only on evidence that is admitted at trial an outcome affected by extrajudicial statements would violate and eviscerate that basic tenant and then it references a couple of cases here Gentile and then United States versus flemy a case from 2000 improper disclosures by law enforcement or attorneys threaten the Integrity of judicial proceedings thus restraints on extrajudicial statements by Council may be warranted in a particular case to protect the integrity and fairness of the judicial system notably legal trials are not like elections to be won through the use of Meeting Hall the radio and the newspaper and that's from a case Bridges versus California in 1941 for the judicial system to operate fairly and impartially attorneys must conduct themselves in Conformity with their legal and ethical requirements defense Council may represent their client zealously within the bounds of the law but they are to treat all persons involved in the legal process with consideration and to uphold the integrity and honor of the legal profession see Commonwealth versus Michelle 1980 and also because attorneys have special access to information through Discovery their statements are especially authoritative and likely to be considered knowledgeable reliable and true to the general public as part of their trial by media strategy the defendant has sought to Target The witness's credibility and character through the use of the media and has encouraged the unwarranted invasion of witnesses personal privacy contrary with their o obligations under Massachusetts rule of criminal procedure 32f which necessitates the protection of personal identifying information in publicly accessible court documents and Supreme Judicial Court rule 1.24 defense Council failed to redact personal identifying information in their filings and strategically filed motions containing various Witnesses personal identifying information names dates of birth social security information addresses and phone numbers the statutory purpose of Massachusetts Rule 32f and Supreme Judicial Court rule 1.24 is to prevent the unnecessary inclusion of certain personal identifying information in order to reduce the pro possibility of using such documents for identity theft the unwarranted invasion of privacy or other improper purposes additionally defense Cil filed records that identified a juvenile by name and published numerous autopsy photos of the victim to the media Commonwealth versus bash 1980 admissibility of autopsy photos is left to the discretion of the trial judge see also Globe newspaper versus chief medical examiner a Massachusetts case from 1989 where autopsy reports are medical files or information EX exempt from public disclosure defense Council has failed to sustain its burden of proving their non-compliance with SJC rule 1.24 and Massachusetts rule of criminal procedure 32f was inadvertent rather from the courthouse stairs following the Court's corrective ruling to impound the witnesses identifying information defense Council directly encouraged media Outlets to continue to contact Witnesses and ask them inflammatory questions in step with the defendants theory of the case see Karen Reed postc court press conference at norfol County Superior Court available at and then they provide a YouTube address and it says beginning at minute marker 7:25 in response to defense council's call to action Witnesses have suffered unwarranted invasion of privacy as they have been receiving repeated and harassing phone calls family members of witnesses have been contacted and harassed and the victim's family has suffered emotional harm due to the public dissemination of autopsy photographs C SJC rule 1.24 as such this court may consider imposing an order to ensure future compliance with SJC rule 1.24 and the Massachusetts rule of criminal procedure 32f see Massachusetts rules of criminal procedure 40 8 this court May subject counsel to such sanctions as the court May deem appropriate including Citation for contempt or the imposition of costs or fine following a court hearing on May 24th 2023 again declared from the courthouse stairs defense Council took the opportunity to create a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing the proceedings by attacking both the Commonwealth and its Witnesses defense council's inflammatory and prejudicial extrajudicial statements alleged that the Commonwealth was incompetent and complicit in the defendant's self-serving and unfounded Proclamation that there is a cover up of evidence and went as far as describing the Commonwealth as hiding evidence and constantly trying to have their foot on Karen Reed's throat see and they provide a YouTube address the Commonwealth had has provided the defendant with a substantial amount of Discovery huh sorry just it's just oh I need to use all my self-discipline not to include commentary including the May 22nd 2023 findings of the Collision analysis and reconstruction section of the massachusett State Police oh was that Trooper Paul perhaps consistent with the evidence that was submitted to the grand jury the final Collision reconstruction report establishes that the defendant while intoxicated in a snowstorm operated her motor vehicle in Reverse for a period of time before striking the victim at a high rate of speed contrary to this compelling and corroborated evidence oh my God this is such BS okay the defense strategy has been to identify Witnesses and criticize their character credibility and reputation in the media by arguing that all Witnesses are involved in an alleged C cover up of evidence defense Council Alan Jackson stated certainly the massachusett state police is involved there are people that were in that house that are involved Brian Albert is involved Jennifer mccab is involved the rest of the folks that were in that house there's some level of involvement by every one of them every single one of them see Karen Reed denies killing Boston police officer John O'Keefe says we know who did it May 24th 23 and then they're giving a web address where the video is available uh and also they cite an article from the Boston Globe Karen Reed speaks publicly for first time judge rejects bid by her lawyers to question two witnesses in death of police officer from May 24th 2023 courts prejudicial or I'm sorry council's prejudicial extrajudicial statements were widely reported on local and National media Outlets these statements go further than zealous representation they are unsubstantiated proclamations supported only by self-serving speculation and conjecture likely not to be admissible at trial and done with the intent of materially prejudicing the criminal proceedings by risking the impartiality of potential jurors such action and intent is expressly prohibited by the Massachusetts rule rul of professional conduct see rules of professional conduct 3.6a 8.4 D the defendant is in is entitled to raise a third-party culprit defense however council is prohibited from making repeated extrajudicial statements that they know or reasonably should know have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing potential trial jurors or Witnesses furthermore during that May 3rd 2023 hearing defense Council first reported in open court during a live television broadcast that Federal authorities have now gotten involved in the circumstances surrounding this case and have impanel a grand jury a Federal grand jury to investigate some of these circumstances see Karen Reed accused of killing boyfriend in Canton in court for hearing available at and then they provide the YouTube address beginning at minute marker 2508 8 see also Karen Reed defense problematic investigation into Jon O'Keefe's death grabs Federal attention Boston Herald May 4th 2023 as found by The Honorable e Susan garsh retired under similar circumstances in Bristol Superior Court given the historical importance of grand jury secrecy the possible release of extrajudicial statements concerning what might be an ongoing grand jury investigation warrants action by this court through an order prohibiting Council from making extrajudicial statements to protect not only the fairness of the trial process but also the Integrity of the grand jury process see Commonwealth versus Aaron Hernandez huh okay skip over those citations although this one does say un precedented public interest and media coverage warranted core order requiring Council to comply with order restricting extrajudicial statements this case has received national attention including coverage on traditional news media as well as on blogs Tick Tock and other social media platforms the majority of the coverage is directly endorsed by the defendant C Karen Reed postc court press conference at norfol County Superior Court 53 2023 available at and then they give the YouTube address um beginning at minute marker 720 attorney Jackson encourages media blogger to continue attacking Witnesses a trial judge has an affirmative constitutional duty to minimize the effects of prejudicial pre-trial publicity in order to safeguard the due process rights of the accused and the Integrity of the judicial system as a whole notably the danger of publicity concerning pre-trial hearings is particularly acute because it may be difficult to measure with any degree of certainty the effects of such publicity on the fairness of the trial and unrestrained extrajudicial statements could influence public opinion and inform potential jurors of information that is factually incorrect or wholly admissible at trial conclusion whereas a failure to restrain prejudicial extrajudicial statements will have a substantial likelihood of materially of material they should have said materially prejudicing the criminal proceedings the Commonwealth respectfully moves for a narrowly drawn restriction on council's extrajudicial statements in Conformity with their professional and ethical obligations under Massachusetts rules of professional conduct 3.6a the Commonwealth and its law enforcement Witnesses agree to be bound by the same restrictions as well as those imposed by the rules professional conduct rule 3.8 special responsibility of prosecutor notably the Commonwealth's request for this order applies only to the Commonwealth its attorneys and law enforcement Witnesses and defense councils undoubtedly free and robust reporting criticism and debate can contribute to public understanding of the rule of law and comprehension of the functioning of the entire criminal justice system as well as improve the quality of that system by subjecting it to the cleansing effects of exposure and public accountability that comes to us from a case in 1976 therefore the Commonwealth's proposed order does not impinge upon free and robust reporting as it does not seek to restrain the media or public access to any courtroom proceeding or publicly available document see Commonwealth versus Aaron Hernandez order prohibiting let's see prejudicial extrajudicial statements by Council does not impinge on free and robust reporting the Commonwealth does not seek restraint against M Karen Reed herself potential non-law enforcement trial Witnesses nor does it seek attorney discipline for violations of the rules of professional conduct the Commonwealth's proposed order seeks only Mutual attorney compliance with the Massachusetts rules of professional conduct in support of its motion the Commonwealth proposes the following order one no attorney appearing in this case or any person with supervisory authority over them shall release or authorize the release of information about this proceeding that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by any means of Public Communication if the attorney knows or reasonably should know that it will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing potential trial jurors or Witnesses or will have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused or law enforcement number two no attorney appearing in this case shall make a release or authorize the release of any extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by any means of Public Communication concerning any of the following subject matters related to this case a the or the expected testimony of a party or prospective witness B the existence or contents of any statements made by the defendant to any law enforcement Personnel or the refusal or failure of the defendant to make a statement C the results of any forensic testing D the substance of any evidence a party anticipates seeking to introduce it trial e information that an attorney knows or reasonably should know is likely to be inadmissible as evidence in a trial and that if disclosed would create a substantial risk of prejudicing an impartial trial F the existence and subject matter of any ongoing grand jury or other Criminal investigation of the defendant or of any prospective Witnesses three this order shall not be construed to prevent any of the attorneys appearing in this case from a arguing forcefully impassionately or zealously during courtroom proceedings nor a restraint on the defendant's constitutional rights to defend herself and present a third-party culprit defense B quoting or referring without further comment to public court filings C announcing the scheduling or result of any step in the judicial process D stating an expectation or hope without further explanation or elaboration about the ultimate outcome of the proceedings number four the duty to refrain from prejudicial disclosures requires all attorneys in this case to prevent the release of any photographs reports or documents that are not in the public record and all attorneys shall take diligent effort to ensure compliance with massachusett rules of criminal procedure 32f and Supreme Judicial Court rule 1.24 to prevent the unnecessary inclusion of certain personal identifying information in publicly accessible court documents number five if either the Commonwealth or the defendant has a claim that this order was violated they shall first file notice with the Norfolk Superior Court and this court May conduct a hearing failure to abide by the rules of professional conduct May subject counsel to disciplinary actions ranging from admonition or disbarment and if egregious this court may consider disqualifying counsel or revoking prohawk V admission to the Massachusetts bar respectfully submitted for the Commonwealth Michael W morsy district attorney uh Adam C L assistant district attorney and then we have the electronic signature of Laura mlin assistant district attorney and again this document is dated June 6th of 2023 now I'm sure you're wondering like I am what the Commonwealth has to hide if they're seeking a gag order we know that they were dishonest in this motion when they claimed that they had provided Discovery heck they were still providing things right up until and including during the trial which sure sounds like a Brady violation to me what are your thoughts it'll be interesting to read how the defense replies won't it thank you for listening if you'd like me to continue making this type of content please like and comment below I value your feedback so much I hope that you'll sub subscribe so that you'll always be notified when the next video is released and goodness knows with this case there will always be a next one