Legal Challenge Arises Over Buffer Zone Restricting Protesters at Karen Read Trial

Legal Challenge Arises Over Buffer Zone Restricting Protesters at Karen Read Trial

Four citizens are taking legal action against Judge Beverly Cannone regarding a buffer zone that they assert unlawfully limits their distance from the courthouse where Karen Read’s retrial for murder and other criminal charges is taking place in Massachusetts.

The plaintiffs, who include Massachusetts residents Jason Grant, Allyson Taggart, Lisa Peterson, and Samantha Lyons, claim that the judge has implemented this zone primarily to suppress criticism aimed at her. The lawsuit argues that the only protests that have occurred at the courthouse were conducted by these individuals, who held signs expressing their dissent.

In addition to Judge Cannone, the legal action names Geoffrey Noble, the superintendent of state police, and Michael d’Entremont, the chief of police in Dedham, the town where the courthouse is situated.

The plaintiffs are requesting that a federal court rule the buffer zone unconstitutional. They argue it amounts to a prior restraint on free speech and are seeking an injunction to remove the restrictions, alongside legal fees.

The court had previously established a 200-foot buffer zone surrounding the courthouse and an adjacent parking lot prior to Read’s initial trial last year. However, the current lawsuit contests the expansion of this zone, which now extends to include surrounding streets such as Bates Court, Bullard Street, Ames Street, and Court Street for her retrial.

Implications for Free Speech

Mark Trammell, representing the plaintiffs as well as serving as the executive director of the Center for American Liberty, stated that “buffer zones that excessively restrict all First Amendment activities are almost always unconstitutional. This one is no exception.” He emphasized the importance of allowing citizens to peacefully protest outside their own courthouse, especially during a trial that generates significant public interest.

Meanwhile, David Gelman, a defense attorney from Philadelphia who is closely monitoring the case, expressed skepticism about the lawsuit’s chances of success. He pointed out that Judge Cannone is not prohibiting protests entirely but is ensuring they do not occur in close proximity to the courthouse. Gelman noted that this measure is necessary to prevent potential jury influence as jurors enter and exit the courthouse during the trial process.

He further explained that similar orders barring protest activities in the vicinity of courthouses have gained legal support across the country, reinforcing the judge’s authority in this matter. Gelman added, “The judge is entirely within her rights to issue such an order, and I believe she will prevail in this situation.”

Read’s High-Profile Case

Protests both supporting and opposing Karen Read have been a frequent occurrence at her court hearings since she was charged with the murder of her boyfriend, John O’Keefe, a Boston police officer, in 2022. On January 29, 2022, O’Keefe was discovered deceased in conditions that a later autopsy attributed to head trauma and hypothermia, although the medical examiner did not determine the manner of death.

Read faces serious charges, including second-degree murder, manslaughter, and leaving the scene of a deadly accident. If convicted of the most serious charge, she could face a life sentence in prison. She has consistently denied the allegations and maintains her innocence, alleging that she is the target of a police cover-up.

In a recent directive to prospective jurors during jury selection, Judge Cannone cautioned them against being swayed by any external protests. She referenced founding principles, quoting John Adams in stating that “we are a government of laws, not of men.” The judge stressed that public opinion can change, yet the law must remain consistent and impartial.

The retrial follows a previous trial that ended in a mistrial due to a hung jury, and jury selection for the current proceedings began on Tuesday. Legal experts predict the retrial may take between six to eight weeks after the opening statements.

The Impact of Legal Decisions on Public Discourse

The ongoing discussions surrounding the buffer zone and its implications for First Amendment rights highlight the delicate balance between maintaining order in judicial proceedings and preserving the right to free expression. As individual citizens grapple with their rights to protest, legal interpretations of such buffer zones will likely continue to evolve.

This case not only underscores the importance of free speech but also raises questions about the boundaries of protest in the context of active legal proceedings. Both supporters and critics of Read’s case will continue to engage in passionate debates as the trial unfolds, illustrating the significant public interest in the case.