Published at 3:02 PM, January 3, 2025
DEDHAM, Mass. (Court Television)– Prosecutors getting ready for Karen Read’s retrial on murder charges have actually asked a judge to omit statement from a defense skilled witness whose viewpoints, they state, have actually been “exposed.”
SUBMIT– Karen Read awaits her lawsuit to resume at Norfolk Superior Court in Dedham, Mass., on June 28, 2024. Read went back to court Monday, July 22, for the very first time because her murder case ended in a mistrial.(AP Photo/Charles Krupa, Pool, File )
Read is dealing with numerous charges, consisting of second-degree murder, in the death of her partner, Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe. O’Keefe was discovered dead in the snow following a night out drinking with Read and his buddies in January 2022. While district attorneys state Read struck O’Keefe with her automobile and left him to pass away in the snow, Read has actually argued that she is the victim of a comprehensive coverup. Read’s very first trial on the very same charges ended with a mistrial in July 2024 when the jury might not reach a consentaneous decision.
At her very first trial, Read’s defense implicated Jennifer McCabe of becoming part of the conspiracy to frame her and indicated searches done on her phone on the early morning that O’Keefe’s body was discovered. District attorneys have stated the searches–“the length of time tie pass away in cikd” or “hos long to pass away in cold”– were done by McCabe at Read’s demand after the body was discovered. To counter that claim, Read’s defense called Richard Green, who affirmed that McCabe had actually made the searches before 6:23 am which she had actually tried to erase them from her phone.
ASSOCIATED|Karen Read retrial postponed ahead of crucial evidentiary hearing
Richard Green affirms on behalf of Karen Read’s defense on June 21, 2024. (Court Television)
Now district attorneys are asking Judge Beverly Cannone to omit Green from the 2nd trial, arguing that his” claims do not have any evidentiary assistance and … can not be made in excellent faith. “In a movement submitted on Dec. 31, district attorneys stated that their professional, who works for Cellebrite, can “state with outright certainty that there is no proof” of the defense claims. Cellebrite is a business that offers innovation that extracts information from cellular phone for detectives. “The basis for Mr. Green’s objected to viewpoints has actually been refuted not just by the Commonwealth’s independent specialists,” district attorneys stated, “however by Cellebrite itself who (sic) has actually gotten rid of the kind of timestamp depended on by Mr. Green from Cellebrite’s Decoding Engine.”
While the jury is thought about the finder of truth at trial, district attorneys argue in their movement that permitting Green’s statement to be heard would just serve to puzzle the concern. “Richard Green’s unmasked viewpoints are not an example of a ‘fight of the specialists’ finest delegated be solved by the factfinder, however rather, an effort to contaminate the jury with an inadmissible viewpoint that is not postulated on reputable digital forensics.”
Read, and her lawyers will go back to court on Jan. 7 to continue a Daubert hearing that began in December. At problem because hearing is a different piece of professional testament district attorneys are looking for to omit from the trial, particularly the statement of Dr. Marie Russell, who states that O’Keefe’s injuries were the outcome of a canine attack instead of being struck by an automobile.
