Judge Lifts Buffer Zone Outside Karen Read Trial
A ban on protests within a 200-foot 'buffer zone' outside a Massachusetts courtroom was lifted by the judge in Karen Read's trial Thursday, opening the door to quiet demonstrations in the public areas outside the building.'Quiet, offsite demonstrations on public property, in areas and at times that do not interfere with trial participants' entrance into or exit from the Courthouse, and that do not interfere with the orderly administration of justice, and that are not intended to influence any trial participants in the discharge of their duties are specifically outside the scope of the Buffer Zone restrictions,' Judge Beverly Cannone wrote in a decision released Thursday. Cannone had ordered the buffer zone, she said, to prevent protesters from intimidating jurors and witnesses and making so much noise as to disrupt the proceedings. A federal judge refused to issue a preliminary injunction against the buffer zone, finding that a group of protesters was unlikely to be able to show that its First Amendment rights outweighed the right to a fair trial.But the protesters' lawyer, Mark Randazza, told the First Circuit appellate court last week that his clients would agree to remain silent, protest only on streets and sidewalks off courthouse property and stay away when jurors entered and left the courthouse. 'The First Amendment is back from vacation in Massachusetts,' Randazza said in a statement. 'After treating courthouse sidewalks like North Korea with better landscaping, the First Circuit reminded everyone that free speech doesn't take vacations just because one judge or police department is offended.'
Cannone reversed herself after the First Circuit Court of Appeals issued a Per Curiam in which jurists urged a reconsideration. "Read's case has become something of a cultural phenomenon. It has drawn headlines, controversy, and, as relevant here, throngs of demonstrators near the Norfolk County Courthouse (the "Courthouse"). The prior behavior of some of those demonstrators - including loud protests and the display of materials directed toward trial participants - frames a potential conflict between the state court's effort to conduct a fair trial and demonstrators' right to express their views," the court wrote. Read, 45, is charged with hitting her Boston cop boyfriend John O'Keefe, with her SUV and leaving him to die in a snowbank after a night of drinking. Her Los Angeles defense attorney Alan Jackson insists that O'Keefe died after a fight with another cop inside the house of another officer where his body was found and then framed Read. The controversy swirling around the case intensified when text messages from the lead police investigator in the case, Massachusetts State Police Trooper Michael Proctor, wrote in a group text that included his supervisors that he had searched Read's phone for nude photos of her. He also called her 'whackjob cunt,' ridiculed her for having a chronic illness, made disparaging comments about her body and said that he hoped she would kill herself. He was fired in March. On Thursday, jurors heard evidence about whether it was possible that O'Keefe was punched in the face prior to his body being found in the snow. Dr. Irini Scordi-Bello, a Commonwealth of Massachusetts medical examiner, testified during cross-examination that she did not find any injuries on O'Keefe's body consistent with being struck by a vehicle.
'You did not include in your autopsy in any fashion, any discussion of whether Mr. O'Keefe's injuries were consistent with a motor vehicle accident, did you?' a member of Read's defense team Robert Alessi asked. 'I did not,' Scordi-Bello answered.'Did you evaluate it at all in your autopsy?' Alessi said. 'Whether Mr. O'Keefe had any injuries consistent with a motor vehicle accident?' 'Yes, I did examine his lower extremities,' Scordi-Bello said. 'That is protocol in any case of suspected impact with a motor vehicle. So I did examine his legs and I did not see any evidence of an impact site.' O'Keefe's manner of death was ultimately listed as undetermined after Scordi-Bello was unable to come to a homicide ruling based on available evidence at the time of the autopsy.Testimony in the case is in its fourth week. Jurors were sent home on Tuesday after Read fell ill.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Thanks, Supreme Court! It's now my right to prevent my kid from learning about Trump.
Any attempt to teach my children that Trump exists and is president might suggest such behavior is acceptable, and that would infringe on my right to raise my child under the moral tenets of my faith. I have a deeply held religious conviction that, by divine precept, lying, bullying and paying $130,000 in hush money to an adult film star are all immoral acts. So it is with great thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court and its recent ruling allowing Maryland parents to opt their children out of any lessons that involve LGBTQ+ material that I announce the following: Attempts to teach my children anything about Donald Trump, including the unfortunate fact that he is president of the United States, place an unconstitutional burden on my First Amendment right to freely exercise my religion. In its June 27 ruling, the high court cited Wisconsin v. Yoder and noted, 'The Court recognized that parents have a right 'to direct the religious upbringing of their children' and that this right can be infringed by laws that pose 'a very real threat of undermining' the religious beliefs and practices that parents wish to instill in their children.' Supreme Court shows I can fight to keep kids from learning about Trump Well, I wish to instill in my children the belief that suggesting some Americans are 'radical left thugs that live like vermin' and describing a female vice president of the United States as 'mentally impaired' and 'a weak and foolish woman' are bad things unworthy of anyone, much less a commander in chief. So any attempt to teach my children that Trump exists and is president might suggest such behavior is acceptable, and that would infringe on my right to raise my children under the moral tenets of my faith. (My faith, in this case, has a relatively simple core belief that being a complete jerk virtually all the time is bad.) Opinion: I can't wait to get a Trump Mobile gold phone to pay respect to my MAGA king Alito clearly doesn't want schools teaching kids that Trump exists As Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his opinion regarding the use of LGBTQ+ books in schools, some 'Americans wish to present a different moral message to their children. And their ability to present that message is undermined when the exact opposite message is positively reinforced in the public school classroom at a very young age.' Exactly. I wish to present a moral message to my children that when a man is found liable for sexual abuse and has been heard saying things like 'I moved on her like a bitch' and 'she's now got the big phony tits and everything' and 'Grab 'em by the pussy,' that man is deemed loathsome by civil society and not voted into the office of the presidency. That wish is undermined by any book or teacher exposing my student to the fact that Trump is president. Supreme Court is protecting children from the tyranny of love Alito cited several books that were at issue in Maryland schools, including one called 'Love Violet,' which 'follows a young girl named Violet who has a crush on her female classmate, Mira. Mira makes Violet's 'heart skip' and 'thunde[r] like a hundred galloping horses.' Although Violet is initially too afraid to interact with Mira, the two end up exchanging gifts on Valentine's Day. Afterwards, the two girls are seen holding hands and 'galloping over snowy drifts to see what they might find. Together.'' While my religion would define such a story as 'sweet' and 'loving,' Alito and his fellow conservatives on the Supreme Court find it 'hostile' to parents' religious beliefs. Tell us: Is America's billionaire boom good for government, democracy? | Opinion Forum As Alito wrote, 'Like many books targeted at young children, the books are unmistakably normative. They are clearly designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.' OK. By that same logic, any class discussion or history lesson involving Trump and his status as president has the potential to teach my children that it's normal to have a president who lies incessantly, demeans transgender people and routinely demonizes migrants. Any in-class acknowledgement of Trump as president would, in Alito's words, be "clearly designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.' I will now object to any book or classroom mention of Donald Trump I simply will not stand idly by while a taxpayer-funded school indoctrinates my children into believing a fundamentally dishonest and unkind person like Trump has the moral character to be president of the United States. My faith has led me to teach them otherwise, and any suggestion that Trump's behavior is acceptable would undermine that faith. Opinion: As a teacher, Supreme Court siding with parents' religious freedom concerns me Elly Brinkley, a staff attorney for U.S. Free Expression Programs at the free-speech advocacy group PEN America, said in a statement following the Supreme Court ruling in the Maryland case: 'The decision will allow any parents to object to any subject, with the potential to sow chaos in schools, and impact students, parents, educators, authors, and publishers.' Amen to that. I object to the subject of Donald Trump. Let the chaos ensue. Follow USA TODAY columnist Rex Huppke on Bluesky at @ and on Facebook at
CBS News
11 hours ago
- CBS News
U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Texas porn age verification law restarts fight with similar Florida legislation
In a ruling that has implications for a battle over a similar Florida law, the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday upheld the constitutionality of a Texas law requiring age verification for access to websites with pornographic content. The court, in a 6-3 decision, said the Texas law does not violate First Amendment rights and that at least 21 other states — including Florida — "have imposed materially similar age-verification requirements to access sexual material that is harmful to minors online." As the Supreme Court weighed the Texas case in January, Tallahassee-based U.S. District Judge Mark Walker issued a stay of a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Florida law. Walker on Friday quickly lifted the stay and gave directions to lawyers, including about filing "supplemental arguments now that the Supreme Court has provided additional guidance as to the applicable level of scrutiny that applies to plaintiffs' claims." What the Supreme Court decision says Friday's majority opinion, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, said age-verification laws "fall within states' authority to shield children from sexually explicit content." "The First Amendment leaves undisturbed states' traditional power to prevent minors from accessing speech that is obscene from their perspective," said the opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. "That power necessarily includes the power to require proof of age before an individual can access such speech. It follows that no person — adult or child — has a First Amendment right to access speech that is obscene to minors without first submitting proof of age." But Justice Elena Kagan, in a dissent joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, said the age-verification requirement would burden the First Amendment rights of adults who want to view websites with pornographic content. "Texas can of course take measures to prevent minors from viewing obscene-for-children speech," Kagan wrote. "But if a scheme other than H. B. 1181 (the Texas law) can just as well accomplish that objective and better protect adults' First Amendment freedoms, then Texas should have to adopt it (or at least demonstrate some good reason not to). A state may not care much about safeguarding adults' access to sexually explicit speech; a state may even prefer to curtail those materials for everyone. Many reasonable people, after all, view the speech at issue here as ugly and harmful for any audience. But the First Amendment protects those sexually explicit materials, for every adult. So a state cannot target that expression, as Texas has here, any more than is necessary to prevent it from reaching children." Where does Florida's law stand now after the ruling? Florida lawmakers passed the age-verification requirements in 2024 as part of a broader bill (HB 3) that also seeks to prevent children under age 16 from opening social-media accounts on some platforms. The social-media part of the bill drew a separate constitutional challenge, with Walker this month issuing a preliminary injunction to block it on First Amendment grounds. The Free Speech Coalition, an adult-entertainment industry group, and other plaintiffs filed the lawsuit challenging the pornography-related part of the law. The Free Speech Coalition also has been a plaintiff in the Texas case. The Florida lawsuit centers on part of the law that applies to any business that "knowingly and intentionally publishes or distributes material harmful to minors on a website or application, if the website or application contains a substantial portion of material harmful to minors." It defines "substantial portion" as more than 33.3 percent of total material on a website or app. In such situations, the law requires businesses to use methods to "verify that the age of a person attempting to access the material is 18 years of age or older and prevent access to the material by a person younger than 18 years of age." The lawsuit raises objections about how the law would apply to minors and adults, including saying it "demands that, as a condition of access to constitutionally protected content, an adult must provide a digital proof of identity to adult content websites that are doubtlessly capable of tracking specific searches and views of some of the most sensitive, personal, and private contents a human being might search for." The lawsuit also alleges that the law does not properly differentiate between older minors and younger children. In addition to alleging violations of First Amendment rights, the lawsuit contends that the law violates due-process rights, the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause and what is known as the Supremacy Clause — issues that were not addressed in Friday's opinion about the Texas law.
Bloomberg
13 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Weekend Law: Final SCOTUS Decisions & Dogs Are Family
Constitutional law expert David Super, a professor at Georgetown Law, discusses the Supreme Court limiting judge's use of nationwide injunctions. First Amendment law expert Caroline Mala Corbin, discusses the Supreme Court bolstering the rights of religious parents. Christopher Berry, the Executive Director of the Nonhuman Rights Project, discusses a New York judge ruling that dogs are part of the family. June Grasso hosts.
