Karen Read attorney Alan Jackson blasts special prosecutor in new statement
Karen Read attorney Alan Jackson issued a lengthy statement on Tuesday, blasting special prosecutor Hank Brennan over his 'egregious breach of prosecutorial ethics' after Read's acquittal in the 2022 death of John O'Keefe.
Jackson's critical comments come after Brennan on Monday said that a 'campaign of intimidation and abuse' by Read's camp led the jury in her second trial to find her not guilty of second-degree murder and manslaughter. She was convicted of drunk driving.
Jackson also fired a shot at 'disgraced' Norfolk District Attorney Michael Morrissey for 'having no interest' in seeking justice for O'Keefe.
The jury handed down its verdict last Wednesday after deliberating over four days.
Jackson first shared the statement with Boston 25's Ted Daniel.
Jackson's full statement is as follows:
'The jury has spoken, but Special Prosecutor Hank Brennan, in an egregious breach of prosecutorial ethics, has tried to publicly shame and discredit that very jury. For him to attempt to supplant his personal views for that of the jury is a desperate attempt to save face in the wake of a unanimous rejection of the prosecution's case.
The Rules of Professional Conduct are clear: A prosecutor should support the legitimacy of the justice system and promote public confidence in its operations. Openly attacking a jury's verdict because he disagrees with it undermines that centuries-old edict.
Mr. Brennan claims that his investigation was 'thorough.' If that were true, the Commonwealth would have uncovered what we, the defense, uncovered: hidden exculpatory evidence; lies and perjury by the Commonwealth's own witnesses; cops covering for other cops; a biased and corrupt lead investigator with personal ties to witnesses; and inculpatory and suspicious conduct by myriad witnesses.
The only job of an ethical prosecutor is to seek the truth in a just and fair manner. The Commonwealth fell wildly short of that responsibility. Theirs was not an effort to find justice for John O'Keefe. Rather, it was a personal vendetta against Karen Read by DA Michael Morrissey and his hand-picked prosecutors—and it cost the people of Norfolk County millions
The fact is, Karen Read is factually innocent, and this case never should have gone to trial in the first place. This case is a stark reminder that there has been a complete breakdown in what is supposed to be our justice system. Those in power are more interested in protecting themselves than the citizens that they are sworn to protect.
The Commonwealth's defamatory public comments ring hollow to the very constituents they are supposed to serve. It is now crystal clear that disgraced DA Michael Morrissey has no interest in actually seeking justice for John O'Keefe by identifying and prosecuting the real killer or killers. The Commonwealth would rather simply condemn the jury and its fair and lawful verdict.
We are thankful for the jury's commitment to truth and that they found their way to a just verdict. But make no mistake—if DA Michael Morrissey had his way, the truth never would have come out in this case. It would have been lost somewhere in private and deleted conversations that would never have seen the light of day. Corruption like this doesn't happen in isolation. How many innocent people have been railroaded because of failures in our judicial system? We, as citizens, must demand more of our institutions."
Assistant District Attorney Adam Lally spearheaded the prosecution's efforts in Read's first trial, which ended with a hung jury. Brennan, who replaced him in the retrial, said Monday that he is 'disappointed' in the verdict and the fact that he couldn't achieve justice for O'Keefe and his family.
Brennan said that the evidence in the murder case led to 'only one person.'
'After an independent and thorough review of all the evidence, I concluded that the evidence led to one person, and only one person. Neither the closed federal investigation nor my independent review led me to identify any other possible suspect or person responsible for the death of John O'Keefe,' Brennan added.
WATCH -- Jackson, Brennan deliver closing arguments:
Brennan continued, 'We cannot condone witness abuse, causing participants to worry for their own safety or that of their families. It is my hope that with the verdict, the witnesses and their families will be left alone. The harassment of these innocent victims and family members is deplorable and should never happen again in a case in this Commonwealth.'
Last week, Norfolk District Attorney Michael Morrissey issued a four-word statement in response to Read's verdict: 'The jury has spoken.'
Prosecutors said Read hit O'Keefe with her SUV, leaving him to die in a blizzard outside the home of fellow Boston officer Brian Albert, at 34 Fairview Road in Canton, following a night of drinking. Her lawyers successfully defended her, painting a sinister picture of police misconduct and theorizing that O'Keefe was, in fact, killed by colleagues, followed by a vast cover-up.
Boston 25 News has reached out to Brennan and Morrissey for comment on Jackson's statement.
RELATED:
State police union defends investigation into John O'Keefe's death after Karen Read verdict
Gov. Healey asked about verdict in Karen Read retrial, DA Morrissey's silence
Juror says Karen Read was 'innocent,' calls investigation into John O'Keefe's death 'sloppy'
'Feel like I'm floating': Karen Read's parents speak out after murder acquittal
Karen Read's murder retrial: Verdict recap with Ted Daniel, Peter Tragos
Download the FREE Boston 25 News app for breaking news alerts.
Follow Boston 25 News on Facebook and Twitter. | Watch Boston 25 News NOW
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
a day ago
Takeaways from the Supreme Court's term: largely good news for Trump
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court has been very good to President Donald Trump lately. Even before he won a new term in the White House, the court eliminated any doubt about whether Trump could appear on presidential ballots, then effectively spared him from having to stand trial before the 2024 election on criminal charges he tried to overturn the 2020 election. That same ruling spelled out a robust view of presidential power that may well have emboldened Trump's aggressive approach in his second term. In the five months since Trump's inauguration, the court has been largely deferential to presidential actions, culminating in Friday's decision to limit the authority of federal judges who have sought to block Trump initiatives through nationwide court orders. The decisions from a court that includes three justices Trump appointed during his first term have provoked a series of scathing dissents from liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. They accuse the conservative supermajority of kowtowing to the president and putting the American system of government 'in grave jeopardy,' as Jackson wrote Friday. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, author of the opinion limiting nationwide injunctions, responded to Jackson's 'startling line of attack' by noting that she 'decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary.' To be sure, the court has not ruled uniformly for Trump, including by indefinitely stopping deportations to a notorious prison in El Salvador without giving people a reasonable chance to object. But Trump's victories have dwarfed his losses. Here are some takeaways from the Supreme Court's term: That's where the court deals with cases that are still in their early stages, most often intervening to say whether a judge's order should be in effect while the case proceeds through the courts. While preliminary, the justices' decisions can signal where they eventually will come out in the end, months or years from now. Emergency orders are generally overshadowed by decisions the justices issued in the cases they heard arguments between last fall and the spring. Almost since the beginning of Trump's second term, the court's emergency docket has been packed with appeals from his administration. For a while, the justices were being asked to weigh in almost once a week as Trump pushed to lift lower court orders slowing his ambitious conservative agenda. Trump scored a series of wins on issues ranging from the revocation of temporary legal protections for immigrants to Elon Musk's dramatic cost cutting at the Department of Government Efficiency. And that was before Friday's decision on nationwide injunctions, court orders that prevent a policy from taking effect anywhere. Many of the recent orders are in line with the conservatives' robust view of executive power. The three liberal justices dissented from each of three cases involving transgender rights or LGBTQ issues more generally. Trump has moved aggressively to roll back the rights of transgender people and the court has rebuffed attempts to stop him. In another emergency appeal, the court's conservatives allowed a ban to take effect on transgender members of the military, even after lower courts had found the policy unconstitutional. In mid-June, Roberts wrote the opinion for a conservative majority that upheld Tennessee's ban on certain medical treatment for transgender youth, rejecting arguments that it amounted to unconstitutional discrimination. The decision probably will affect a range of other pending court cases on transgender issues, including those involving access to health care, participation on sports teams and gender markers on birth certificates. On the final day of decisions, the justices ruled in favor of Maryland parents with religious objections who don't want their children exposed to public school lessons using LGBTQ storybooks. The case was about religious freedom, Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority. Sotomayor wrote in dissent that the decision 'threatens the very essence of public education.' In 2008, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the court's decision in favor of Guantanamo Bay detainees 'will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.' That opinion was written in an era when conservatives were sometimes on the losing end of the term's biggest cases. Times have changed, as has the tilt of the court. 'It is important to recognize that the Executive's bid to vanquish so-called 'universal injunctions' is, at bottom, a request for this court's permission to engage in unlawful behavior,' Jackson wrote Friday. Objecting to the court's order in yet another emergency appeal to allow the resumption of quick deportations to third countries, Sotomayor wrote that her conservative colleagues were 'rewarding lawlessness.' Sotomayor also dissented from the transgender health care decision. 'It also authorizes, without second thought, untold harm to transgender children and the parents and families who love them,' she wrote. The court left for its long summer break without any retirements, despite talk that one of older conservative justices, 77-year-old Clarence Thomas or 75-year-old Samuel Alito, might step aside so that Trump could keep a conservative in their seats for the next few decades. But with Republicans in control of the Senate at least through the end of 2026, a justice could retire a year from now with sufficient time to have his replacement confirmed. Thomas, the longest-serving of the current justices, has just under three years to go until he would become the longest-serving justice in U.S. history. The record is held by William O. Douglas, whose 36-year tenure began during FDR's presidency in 1939 and ended when Gerald Ford was in the White House, in 1975.
Politico
a day ago
- Politico
Justices' nerves fray in Supreme Court's final stretch
The Supreme Court's nine justices often like to tout their camaraderie, hoping to dispel public perceptions that they are locked into warring ideological camps. But the final rulings of the current term — issued from the bench during a tense 90-minute court session Friday — revealed some acrimonious, even acidic, exchanges. Most of the rhetorical clashes pitted the court's conservative and liberal wings against each other in politically polarized cases. But not all of the spats fell squarely along ideological lines. On the whole, they paint a picture of nine people who are deeply divided over the law and the role of the courts — and who also may just not like each other very much. The most acerbic feud Friday came in the biggest ruling of the year: the justices' 6-3 decision granting the Trump administration's bid to rein in the power of individual district court judges to block federal government policies nationwide. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the court's entire conservative supermajority, responded sharply to a pair of dissents, one written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and the other written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. But Barrett reserved her most pointed barbs for Jackson. Barrett, a Trump appointee and the second-most-junior justice, accused Jackson, a Biden appointee and the court's most junior member, of mounting 'a startling line of attack' not 'tethered … to any doctrine whatsoever.' According to Barrett, Jackson was promoting 'a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush,' and she was skipping over legal issues she considers 'boring.' 'We will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself,' wrote Barrett. 'We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.' Well, maybe not 'only' that. While insisting she wouldn't 'dwell' on Jackson's arguments, Barrett wound up devoting nearly 900 words to them, capping the passage off with another zinger suggesting hypocrisy on Jackson's part. 'Justice Jackson would do well to heed her own admonition: 'Everyone, from the President on down, is bound by law,'' Barrett wrote. 'That goes for judges too.' For her part, Jackson accused Barrett and the other conservatives of an obsession with 'impotent English tribunals' and of blessing a 'zone of lawlessness.' 'What the majority has done is allow the Executive to nullify the statutory and constitutional rights of the uncounseled, the underresourced, and the unwary, by prohibiting the lower courts from ordering the Executive to follow the law across the board,' Jackson declared. Although 42 percent of the court's opinions this term were unanimous, this week's decisions continued the pattern of liberals often finding themselves on the losing end of 6-3 rulings in the hardest-fought and most impactful cases. So, perhaps it's no surprise that the liberal justices are the ones to often paint the court's decisions in grave, even apocalyptic, terms. The court's 6-3 decision that public-school parents must be allowed to pull their children out of lessons involving LGBTQ-themed books produced a fiery dissent from Sotomayor. She predicted a 'nightmare' for school as parents choose to pull their kids out of lessons they disapprove of on topics ranging from evolution to the role of women in society to vaccines. The ensuing 'chaos' and self-censorship by schools threatens to end American public education as we know it, she said. 'Today's ruling threatens the very essence of public education,' Sotomayor wrote. 'The reverberations of the Court's error will be felt, I fear, for generations.' While the liberal justices more often found themselves on the losing side than the conservatives, some members of the court's right flank also found occasion to voice grave concerns about select rulings. Consider a decision issued Friday involving an FCC fund that supports broadband access in rural areas. It's not exactly a hot culture-war issue. And a mixed coalition of three conservatives and three liberals joined together to uphold the fund. But Justice Neil Gorsuch, animated by the case's implications for the balance of power between Congress and federal agencies, filed a lengthy dissent that accused the majority of embarking on a judicial 'misadventure' and deploying 'ludicrously hypothetical' reasoning. The majority, he wrote, 'defies the Constitution's command' that power be divided among the branches. A day earlier, Gorsuch had exchanged sharp words with Jackson — but this time, he was in the majority. Jackson, in an opinion joined by the court's other two liberals, suggested the conservative majority's decision allowing South Carolina to exclude Planned Parenthood from the Medicaid program there amounted to a continuation of the long campaign by racists and segregationists in the South to resist federal civil rights laws enacted in the wake of the Civil War. 'A century and a half later, the project of stymying one of the country's great civil rights laws continues,' Jackson wrote. Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, dismissed the inflammatory claim out of hand, calling it 'extravagant.' Jackson has also used stark language in dissents from rulings on the court's emergency docket. In April, she predicted 'devastation' from the Trump administration suspension of education grants and called the court's decision to allow the cuts to proceed 'in equal parts unprincipled and unfortunate.' One of the major surprises Friday was the court's decision to pass up issuing any opinion in the term's big redistricting case. It involved the Louisiana legislature's creation of a second majority-Black congressional district after courts ordered the legislature to do so to comply with the Voting Rights Act. Although the justices heard the case in March, they ordered that the case be reargued, likely this fall. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing alone, scolded his colleagues for copping out despite a full round of legal briefing and 80 minutes of oral arguments on the issue. 'The Court today punts without explanation,' Thomas complained. The way to resolve the Louisiana case 'should be straightforward,' the court's longest-serving justice said. Then he stepped up his rhetoric another notch, declaring that the court had not only failed to explain its action but that it defied any logic whatsoever. 'The Court … inexplicably schedules these cases for reargument,' Thomas griped. The consternation displayed by the justices this week came as one of their former colleagues, retired Justice Anthony Kennedy, issued an impassioned warning that 'hostile, fractious discourse' was tearing at the fabric of American democracy. To be sure, there are no outward signs the acrimony at the high court has reached the levels it did in 2022, following POLITICO's publication of a draft of the court's not-yet-released opinion overturning the federal constitutional right to an abortion. Thomas, a George H.W. Bush appointee, said then that trust at the court was 'gone forever.' And after that bombshell ruling was officially published, Justice Elena Kagan accused the court of making political decisions. The Obama appointee said only 'time will tell' if the justices could again find 'common ground.' While the justices' disagreement in the major cases often seemed stark this week, there were occasional efforts to bridge the divide. Playing a role he often adopts, Justice Brett Kavanaugh seemed eager to downplay the practical significance of the court's ruling barring nationwide injunctions in most instances. Kavanaugh said the district court injunctions at issue are rarely 'the last word' in high-profile fights over executive power. Those battles ultimately end up at the Supreme Court, he argued, so whether a district court's injunction is enforced nationwide or not matters less than what the justices decide on the slew of emergency applications landing on their so-called shadow docket. 'When a stay or injunction application arrives here, this Court should not and cannot hide in the tall grass,' wrote Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee. During speaking appearances last month, Chief Justice John Roberts insisted the justices aren't at each other's throats, despite the tone of some of the opinions that come out as the court winds down its work for the term. 'I'm sure people listening to the news or reading our decisions, particularly decisions that come out in May and June, maybe think, 'Boy, those people really must hate each other. They must be at hammer and tong the whole time,'' the chief justice told an audience in Buffalo. However, Roberts, a George W. Bush appointee, also said the court's summer recess is a welcome respite not only from work, but from colleagues. 'That break is critical to maintaining a level of balance,' he said. Roberts, who traditionally teaches a legal course overseas during the summer and lounges at his vacation home in Maine, has one more official gig before he heads out. He's scheduled to speak Saturday morning to a judicial conference in North Carolina, where he'll have a chance to offer his latest thoughts on whether his colleagues are grating on each other or getting along.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Karen Read to Turn Trial Tribulations Into Film Adaptation
Fresh off her acquittal, Karen Read is turning her two-trial ordeal over the 2022 death of her then-boyfriend, Boston police officer John O'Keefe, into a feature film. Just last week, Read was acquitted of charges of second-degree murder, motor vehicle manslaughter under the influence, and leaving the scene of the crime in relation to O'Keefe's death; jurors did find her guilty of operating a car under the influence of alcohol. More from Rolling Stone Karen Read Found Not Guilty of Murder in Retrial Karen Read Lawyer Says Case Is 'Definition of Reasonable Doubt' as Second Trial Begins Officer in Karen Read Case Joked About Searching Her Phone for Nudes in 'Pivotal' Trial Moment Police believed that Read drunkenly backed into her then-boyfriend the night of Feb. 2, 2022, with her SUV, and fled the scene. She previously pleaded not guilty at the first trial, which ended in a mistrial after a hung jury. With her tribulations behind her, Read will now focus on telling her story in her own words, re-enlisting her lead trial attorney Alan Jackson to 'develop a scripted project chronicling the story behind the case that sparked a national firestorm and ignited conversations about justice, power, and truth in America.' 'I've lived in this town with John. I saw what it takes for a small group of powerful people to be 'above the law,'' Read said in a statement. 'I struggled for over three years to overcome this power and corruption, eliciting help from tens of private investigators, multiple attorneys, and eventually – the federal government. It was ultimately a groundswell of local residents and a grassroots campaign that afforded me the resources I needed to fight back.' LBI Entertainment, which partnered with Read and Jackson on the project, added, The story of Karen Read — recently found not guilty after a sensational trial that drew wall-to-wall media coverage and inspired a fierce public reckoning — is more than a courtroom drama. It is a story about a woman targeted, a defense mounted against overwhelming odds, and a system under scrutiny. With exclusive access to both Read and Jackson, the upcoming project will reveal the story behind the prosecution, the defense's counter-investigation, and the cultural explosion that surrounded the case. Drawing on their first-hand experience, the project will reflect Read's insight into the investigators' conduct and showcase Jackson's architecture of a murder defense built from the ground up in the war room.' In addition to the screen adaptation, Read and Jackson are also simultaneously shopping a book project based on the trials. Jackson added, 'This case revealed how fragile the pursuit of justice can be. Our hope is that telling this story, in all its complexity, will do what the courtroom couldn't — show the public what it really takes to confront corruption.' Best of Rolling Stone Every Super Bowl Halftime Show, Ranked From Worst to Best The United States of Weed Gaming Levels Up
