Commonwealth v. Read — Trial ArchiveProcedural — Motions
19 linesP R O C E E D I N G S May 16, 2024
(Court in session at 9:11 a.m.)
(Defendant present. Jury not present.)
COURT CLERK: 22-117, Commonwealth versus Karen Read. Counsel?
JUDGE CANNONE: Counsel wanted to see me at sidebar?
MR. YANNETTI: We don't need to be seen at sidebar, Your Honor, but I do need to be seen about an issue from yesterday.
JUDGE CANNONE: So you'd like to be heard?
MR. YANNETTI: Well, yes, I would.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. I'll hear you. What is it about?
MR. YANNETTI: Your Honor, we are not only renewing our objection to the alleged harassment evidence that came in yesterday but we are specifically moving to strike that testimony and specifically asking the Court before we get started today to instruct the jury that they are to disregard that evidence. And I wanted to point out to the Court that it is our view -- we didn't even come close to opening the door to that evidence. I have just asked the witness if she has turned over those text messages to the state police when she spoke to them on August 25th of 2023. I have asked every witness when was the first time that they spoke to the state police. That was the first time Alli McCabe spoke to the state police. None of that conversation had anything to do with harassment whatsoever. It was strictly related to the death of John O'Keefe and the investigation of John O'Keefe. I stayed completely clear of any discussion of harassment whatsoever. I only focused on the federal grand jury and the approach by the state police on August 25. I opened no door. I didn't even approach the door. And, yet, that evidence came in. It led to a moment where, you know, that Mr. Lally, I believe, has been waiting for, which is for a witness to break down on the stand and feel sorry for themselves to gain sympathy before this jury. It was prejudicial to our client. It's prejudicial to our defense. It is error, and we are asking the Court to correct it.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. What do you say, Commonwealth?
MR. LALLY: Your Honor, counsel absolutely opened the door as far as questioning was concerned. It was not just -- the characterization of the questioning is just simply inaccurate. As far as the questions that were posed to the witness, it was more geared towards why, implying that the witness only provided this after testifying at the other proceeding or being questioned about it in any environment, and that's the only reason that she had these messages and why hadn't she turned these messages over earlier. And that is in direct response to the harassment that that witness and the entire family as well as Mr. Albert had sustained as a result of actions by several different parties, including counsel. So for those reasons, it was proper. There was nothing -- I don't think it was more than five minutes of testimony concerning it and it was because counsel opened the door.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. So Mr. Yannetti, I remember clearly the lines of inquiry that you initiated. So I disagree with you in the strongest way possible. You've made your record. Your motion is denied.
MR. YANNETTI: Thank you, Your Honor.
JUDGE CANNONE: Okay. So let's bring in the jurors, please.
(Whereupon, the jury is escorted into the courtroom and seated in the jury box at 9:17 a.m.)
COURT CLERK: Judge, 22-117, the Commonwealth versus Karen Read.
JUDGE CANNONE: All right. Good morning, counsel. Good morning, Ms. Read. Good morning, jurors. So I have to ask you those same three questions. Were you all able to follow the instructions and refrain from discussing this case with anyone since we left yesterday?
JUDGE CANNONE: Everyone said "yes" or nodded affirmatively. Were you also able to follow the instructions and refrain from doing any independent research or investigation into this case? Everyone said "yes" or nodded affirmatively. Did anyone happen to see, hear or read anything about this case since we left the other day, yesterday? Thank you very much. Everyone said "no" or shook their heads. All right. May we have Mr. Albert, please?