Journalists File First Amendment Lawsuit After Being Blocked at Karen Read’s Murder Trial

Journalists File First Amendment Lawsuit After Being Blocked at Karen Read’s Murder Trial

Two journalists from New England have initiated a legal battle against the Massachusetts State Police. This unprecedented lawsuit comes in the wake of their alleged obstruction while reporting outside the courthouse where Karen Read is currently on trial for the murder of John O’Keefe.

The core of the controversy stems from a court-ordered buffer zone intended to keep protesters away from the courthouse. However, the reporters contend that police officials harassed them within this zone, a space that they believe should not restrict journalists from conducting their work outside the legal proceedings.

Named in the lawsuit are Massachusetts State Police Superintendent Geoffrey Noble and Sergeant Michael Hardman. Additionally, the complaint includes two unnamed state troopers who allegedly enforced the buffer zone improperly.

The plaintiffs’ attorney, Marc Randazza, voiced his concerns on social media, describing the situation as a transformation of the designated buffer zone into what he characterized as a no journalism zone. Randazza is also representing several protesters who have filed a separate lawsuit against Judge Beverly Cannone regarding the dimensions of the no-protest area that restricts their rights.

The State Police have opted not to comment on the ongoing litigation, following their established policy to refrain from discussing matters that are currently in the courts.

Real Justice? The Heart of the Controversy

One plaintiff in the case, Michel Bryant, is a true crime producer from Connecticut with experience working with major networks such as A&E, Hulu, and Netflix. His attorneys assert that he was engaged in an interview with John Delgado within the buffer zone when the confrontation with police occurred.

Delgado, although not involved in active protests, was wearing a sticker proclaiming, “Real Justice for John O’Keefe FKR.” This sticker, which references a phrase used by supporters of Read, further complicated the situation. FKR stands for “Free Karen Read,” a mantra that has echoed in various protests outside the courthouse during previous hearings.

Details of the Police Encounter

During the incident, two state police officers allegedly informed Bryant that he needed to leave the designated buffer zone. They also instructed Delgado to remove his sticker, stating that it could not remain on his attire. An officer, identified only as John Doe 1, reportedly warned Delgado against returning to that area.

Bryant documented part of this encounter on his YouTube channel, where he co-hosts the podcast titled “Justice Served” alongside renowned criminal defense attorney Linda Kenney Baden. He explained during an interview that he was not affiliated with the Free Karen Read movement but was simply covering the trial as part of his professional duties as a journalist.

Despite not being physically subdued or arrested during the confrontation, Bryant expressed frustration. He questioned the legality of police actions, especially given that the court order did not explicitly restrict journalists’ movements on public sidewalks.

Voices from the Field

Additionally, podcaster Tom Derosier of “Seeking Justice with Tom and Mike” reported a troubling verbal interaction with Sergeant Hardman on the same day. Derosier alleges that Hardman insisted he lacked media credentials and warned him to stay behind the buffer zone under threat of arrest. The exchange raises important questions about who qualifies as media, as Derosier, a Massachusetts resident, challenged this characterization.

Both Bryant and Derosier recorded their exchanges with law enforcement and have submitted those recordings as evidence in their lawsuit, reinforcing their claims of impropriety on the part of the police.

Legal Perspectives on the First Amendment

Prominent attorney Andrew Stoltmann, who specializes in First Amendment law and teaches at Northwestern University’s School of Law, weighed in on the situation. He stated that the reporters have a solid legal argument. Stoltmann noted that while judges have the authority to maintain order in their courtrooms, restricting journalists from reporting outside the court’s doors raises significant constitutional concerns.

The implications of this legal row extend beyond the individual case of Read. Should the courts uphold the activists’ and journalists’ rights, it could set a significant precedent for the treatment of reporters covering contentious legal matters.

The Context of the Trial

As the media set their sights on the trial, jury selection is now underway for Read’s second trial. The first trial resulted in a mistrial back on July 1 due to a deadlocked jury that could not reach a unanimous verdict.

Facing serious charges, Read is accused of murder, manslaughter, and leaving the scene of a deadly hit-and-run incident after allegedly backing her vehicle into O’Keefe during a snowstorm in January 2022. She has steadfastly maintained her innocence and contends that she has been wrongfully accused.

A Narrative of Rights and Responsibilities

In tandem with the ongoing trial, the role of journalists in conveying the facts of the case is under sharp scrutiny. As media coverage intensifies, the balance between public interest and law enforcement authority is being tested. The outcome of this lawsuit may shape how police deal with journalists in the future.

The current events highlight the need for clear guidelines that respect the rights of reporters while maintaining court order. Ensuring that journalists can operate freely is essential in promoting transparency and accountability in the legal system, especially in high-profile cases like that of Karen Read.